Sudbury to shut down tower and become FSS...WTF

[...]

Dearest the_professor,

...I don't care...

No, you obviously think you care, because you're railing about suits being crooks and a dying airport losing its tower.

But after being presented with counterpoints, your juvenille and baseless arguments are exposed. So you give up? Well done. Does wonders for your credibility on this issue.

...
...
...
...

...
...
...
...are you retarded?
...seriously.

If I stop to throw a rock at every barking dog...I'd never reach my destination.

Why not be normal tonight and have a drink like the rest of us...you of all people sound like you could use one.

Happy New Year angel face...and turn it down a notch...you're waking up the voices in my head

[...]

Ok...back to work for me and back to school for you.

Maybe VFR should be given the option of paying for service then. Why should VFR fly for free? It'll certainly cost less than $100 for flight following through YYZ terminal, so you'd be better off. And what prices are you talking about? ("Prices go up...")

(sigh) You're efforts and skills of a counter argument are juvenile, and hold no real life experience substance.

What exactly are the suits "stealing", in that they have decided to close a tower at an airport that has seen its movements drop by 50% in 4 years? Why isn't someone applauding the company for acting responsibly, as opposed to throwing money at a tower that is not required?

So instead they are building a brand new FFS tower when the existing one will suffice?...wow...good allocation of monies. You're efforts and skills of a counter argument are juvenile, and hold no real life experience substance.

It's not brainless, it's called being accountable to the bottom line. Sounds like you'd rather have Transport back in charge, where there was zero reason to operate efficiently. I don't know about you, but the less we have government involved in any aspect of our lives, the better. Governments are not good at operating efficiently.

Where have I ever indicated in this thread...or any other thread that I want the Government back involved?
(sigh) You're efforts and skills of a counter argument are juvenile, and hold no real life experience substance.


When I simply wrote the following to you;

"...I don't care..."

What I should have added the following...

"...I don't care...what YOU have to say...because......everything you know in life is wrong....everything you do in life....is wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------

Why does FSS hate the ATC group??? You all hate each other! What gives!?!?!

[lilfssister]

Why does FSS hate the ATC group??? You all hate each other! What gives!?!?!

I am not sure why you think that. We work well together every day all over this country. I think some FSS who have posted here may be trying to refute any perception that FSS served airports are unsafe (which is, I am sure, NOT what any ATC may have been trying to infer). And the ATC want to protect jobs for their fellow ATC. As someone pointed out, certainly you could have ATC at all airports with 30K plus movements, if the customers would bear the increased costs at about 25-30 more airports around the country. TC and NC have decided that advisory versus control service is safe within a range of annual aircraft movements. Are there times when it would be great to have control versus advisory at some of those 25-30 airports? Sure. But you don't staff a place 24/7/365 based on an hour or two out of every day when things might run more efficiently using the other service, unless you're the government, which we no longer are.

[lilfssister]

So instead they are building a brand new FFS tower when the existing one will suffice?...wow...good allocation of monies.

I say again, if this facility had not been due (or due within the next year or two)for replacement, it is unlikely NC would be replacing it. FSS, and the extra equipment needed to do weather, etc., have been stuffed into many a cramped old ATC tower over the years.

[lilfssister]

I will stand and start a petition if Navcanada wants to close your FSS tower and your place of work. ...For once...support the people you work with and stand up and sign the petition...because the next one WILL be for you. I guarantee it.

IABD[/size]

Thanks IABD (I am being sincere, here), but I think you're too late

A quick look through NC's website shows 10 FSS closures between 2002-2006. (I may have missed some...it really was a quick look). With the exception of one in Newfoundland (CYAY) due to close this year, I think most of the FSS closures have already happened.

[2milefinal]

lilfssister
See my post above.
If NC is horned up about saving money and its safe to operate without a tower then do the remote thing.
I bet alot of you FSS people would rather not be stuck in front of a computer with a head-set on AND NO windows to look out of, but if it saves money....

I have never felt FSS does an unsafe job.
But when I am trying to get airborne after my company has just spent 300+ bucks on getting my a/c deiced, the twr works better. Its just that simple.

Happy 2008

[lilfssister]

Those FSS folks on Navcanada's payrole that seem to think this is securing more jobs and options for you to live...

Well it is, though most of us are under no illusions about the motivations behind it. 9-10 more FSS postings is a side effect of the decision, not the intent. Dawson Creek BC was closed down a year or two ago, a few other stations in BC that are co-located with towers closed as well.

I love being right...but hate saying it. However...thank you.
I'm not saying you folks are cheering when one of your colleagues loses his/her job...but I'm sure you're not offering to help move their furniture when they are leaving town.

The 7 or 8 ATC plus UOS will be replaced by 6 (or 7? can't remember which number the job posting said) FSS plus a Supervisor, for the 24 hour versus 16 hour service.

We certainly aren't cheering from the sidelines...with the 10 closures and hour reductions, duty reductions/relocations, FIC openings in the last few years, you'll find a lot of FSS will be feeling sympathy for the controllers, because we have been there, done that. As grimey said...the new FSS site is a side effect, and not one that any FSS had any influence in creating.

edited to add: NC pays for moving their furniture

[lilfssister]

lilfssister
See my post above.
If NC is horned up about saving money and its safe to operate without a tower then do the remote thing.
I bet alot of you FSS people would rather not be stuck in front of a computer with a head-set on AND NO windows to look out of, but if it saves money....

I have never felt FSS does an unsafe job.
But when I am trying to get airborne after my company has just spent 300+ bucks on getting my a/c deiced, the twr works better. Its just that simple.

Happy 2008

You'll find that RAAS is being taken away from the FIC group and given to the AAS sites, because with 30-40 or so people in an FIC, it was difficult for people to remain "current" due to their infrequency of working the RAAS sites. 24 hour live weather observations, included in the price of your 24 hour AAS. Vehicle control versus vehicle advisory.

Re: deicing delays: we have this thing called coordination that goes on for far less serious things than deicing. So a smart pilot before he/she deices in this situation, calls and asks when can we expect to get airborne re: your traffic. We then call the ACC and say, 2milefinal wants to know when he can expect to be airborne, and has told me his deice will take aprx 15 minutes (because you know I need some timeframe to pass on to ATC). The ACC says, well he will have to wait until the second aircraft is on of the four you have estimates on, but I can make a hole for him between number two and number three. So I call you back and say the ACC says they can get you off between aircraft number two and aircaft number three, and aircraft number two's estimate is 1234Z. Works like a charm.

This stuff has been working at FSS sites with as much or more traffic than YSB has, for years. Sure in crap weather it takes more coordination and the delays are inevitable to some degree, but it can be done safely and as efficiently as possible if everybody helps everybody out with as much information as possible.

A happy new year to you too!

[2milefinal]

Sorry to get you so upset lilfssister.
My post was somewhat sarcastic.
My example of the deice delays is only a small example and one of many that I have come across.
Please do not think I go around hating what FSS does. Most of the time I think we are all in this together.
But I still think closing the twr is the wrong thing to do.
I have been watching NC cut things for along time.
Talking on AVcanada will not change this...

[the_professor]

The company is not hurting for $$, they keep saving the airlines more and more money every year at the expense of the "little guys" by closing FSS's and towers around the country, reducing staffing in the ACC etc....

I just about choked on my beer. Name me one ACC where the company has cut staff deliberately and I will hand you the title to my house. The company has been busting their ass trying to train new people for ACCs. Retirements have happened, yes. But a deliberate reduction in staffing? May I live to see the day when the ACCs are overstaffed...

[the_professor]

I understand that Crichton has a company to run but sometimes I think he's a little too worried about the million dollar bonus he's slated to make next year which depends on the Borad of Directors which is driven by the major airlines......

The airlines are a convenient punching bag for those who do not understand or accept the reality of how Nav Canada is funded and governed.

The airlines hold 4 of 10 seats on the board. (For any of you troubled by grade 2-level math, that's a minority of the seats.)

They collect ANS fees to cover the charges imposed by Nav Canada. Any reduction in charges results in reduced fees charges to passengers.

[the_professor]

Ok...back to work for me and back to school for you.

Maybe VFR should be given the option of paying for service then. Why should VFR fly for free? It'll certainly cost less than $100 for flight following through YYZ terminal, so you'd be better off. And what prices are you talking about? ("Prices go up...")

(sigh) You're efforts and skills of a counter argument are juvenile, and hold no real life experience substance.

If the (hypothetical) option is a $100 re-route around terminal airspace vs. a nominal charge to fly through, which would you prefer? That simple question only requires the life experience of a four-year-old. Sorry if it was over your head.

What exactly are the suits "stealing", in that they have decided to close a tower at an airport that has seen its movements drop by 50% in 4 years? Why isn't someone applauding the company for acting responsibly, as opposed to throwing money at a tower that is not required?

So instead they are building a brand new FFS tower when the existing one will suffice?...wow...good allocation of monies. You're efforts and skills of a counter argument are juvenile, and hold no real life experience substance.

I ask again: What are they "stealing"?

It's not brainless, it's called being accountable to the bottom line. Sounds like you'd rather have Transport back in charge, where there was zero reason to operate efficiently. I don't know about you, but the less we have government involved in any aspect of our lives, the better. Governments are not good at operating efficiently.

Where have I ever indicated in this thread...or any other thread that I want the Government back involved?

Because you seem to suggest that NC is the source of all evil. I am reminding you of what the alternative is (or was).

Why does FSS hate the ATC group??? You all hate each other! What gives!?!?!

Both groups rely on each other to get the job done: Providing a safe and efficient service to aircraft. I deal with extremely competent FSS people on a daily basis, and I am thankful for that.

[the_professor]

Why does FSS hate the ATC group??? You all hate each other! What gives!?!?!

I am not sure why you think that. We work well together every day all over this country. I think some FSS who have posted here may be trying to refute any perception that FSS served airports are unsafe (which is, I am sure, NOT what any ATC may have been trying to infer). And the ATC want to protect jobs for their fellow ATC. As someone pointed out, certainly you could have ATC at all airports with 30K plus movements, if the customers would bear the increased costs at about 25-30 more airports around the country. TC and NC have decided that advisory versus control service is safe within a range of annual aircraft movements. Are there times when it would be great to have control versus advisory at some of those 25-30 airports? Sure. But you don't staff a place 24/7/365 based on an hour or two out of every day when things might run more efficiently using the other service, unless you're the government, which we no longer are.

VERY well put.

[the_professor]

But when I am trying to get airborne after my company has just spent 300+ bucks on getting my a/c deiced, the twr works better. Its just that simple.

Happy 2008

Did you not read lilfssister's post? It stated agreement with the fact that while a tower might be the ideal, it is not cost-effective at airports with the traffic levels now present at Sudbury.

[pokaroo]

The company is not hurting for $$, they keep saving the airlines more and more money every year at the expense of the "little guys" by closing FSS's and towers around the country, reducing staffing in the ACC etc....

I just about choked on my beer. Name me one ACC where the company has cut staff deliberately and I will hand you the title to my house. The company has been busting their ass trying to train new people for ACCs. Retirements have happened, yes. But a deliberate reduction in staffing? May I live to see the day when the ACCs are overstaffed...

Sweet! Where's my new house??? In my specialty staffing has been cut to 3 on days one swing and 2 evenings. We've clawed our way back to an extra swing on wed and thurs but it's still not enough and planes sit on the ground because of it. In the specialty behind me they are constantly fighting to keep their staff, they just lost a day and an evening body. The specialty next to me went through a big battle last summer or fall to keep staffing that management cut then eventually gave back. They are constantly trying to claim sectors can be run with one person when they can't. There's 3 cases in one building! I'm sure you can come up with a few more from around the country, I liked the over dramatization of the choking on beer and giving up your house though.

[pokaroo]

They collect ANS fees to cover the charges imposed by Nav Canada. Any reduction in charges results in reduced fees charges to passengers.

Is that why ACA never paid a Navcanada bill for something like 9 months yet still kept collecting ANS surcharge fees?? Have the fees collected by the airlines actually gone down at all in the last 4 or 5 years because Navcanada's fees have dropped big time.

For a return flight to yvr from yyz in a 67 ACA charges 46 in navcanada fees. That's roughly 9200 collected. Navcanada charges roughly 7200.

On a return flight from ysb to yyz in a Dash 8 JZA charges 24 in Navcanada fees, for 1200 in fees. Navcanada charges a little under 500.

WJA yhm to yvr collects 7600 and navcanada charges 3600. wow that one shocked me...

[the_professor]

Sweet! Where's my new house??? In my specialty staffing has been cut to 3 on days one swing and 2 evenings. We've clawed our way back to an extra swing on wed and thurs but it's still not enough and planes sit on the ground because of it. In the specialty behind me they are constantly fighting to keep their staff, they just lost a day and an evening body. The specialty next to me went through a big battle last summer or fall to keep staffing that management cut then eventually gave back. They are constantly trying to claim sectors can be run with one person when they can't. There's 3 cases in one building! I'm sure you can come up with a few more from around the country, I liked the over dramatization of the choking on beer and giving up your house though.

Those reading this should be aware that when you say "lost a body", you mean a shift is no longer being filled using overtime. And reallocation of bodies within the building does not constitute a staffing cut -- not in the sense of the company cutting bodies to save money, which is what this thread is about, and you know that.

Nav Canada has not laid off an ACC controller since its inception.

[the_professor]

They collect ANS fees to cover the charges imposed by Nav Canada. Any reduction in charges results in reduced fees charges to passengers.

Is that why ACA never paid a Navcanada bill for something like 9 months yet still kept collecting ANS surcharge fees?? Have the fees collected by the airlines actually gone down at all in the last 4 or 5 years because Navcanada's fees have dropped big time.

For a return flight to yvr from yyz in a 67 ACA charges 46 in navcanada fees. That's roughly 9200 collected. Navcanada charges roughly 7200.

On a return flight from ysb to yyz in a Dash 8 JZA charges 24 in Navcanada fees, for 1200 in fees. Navcanada charges a little under 500.

WJA yhm to yvr collects 7600 and navcanada charges 3600. wow that one shocked me...

That is based on every seat occupied? Is that used to average the cost of flights that do not fly full? The airlines are charged based on the gross weight of the aircraft transiting the airspace, not the number of people on board. Nice try.

Air Canada's finances were frozen by the receiver(s). The surcharges were not going into Milton's pocket during that time frame, and their bill owing to NC was $45M (approx).

You could probably get a job writing for The Province with the way you distort reality.

[pokaroo]

Sweet! Where's my new house??? In my specialty staffing has been cut to 3 on days one swing and 2 evenings. We've clawed our way back to an extra swing on wed and thurs but it's still not enough and planes sit on the ground because of it. In the specialty behind me they are constantly fighting to keep their staff, they just lost a day and an evening body. The specialty next to me went through a big battle last summer or fall to keep staffing that management cut then eventually gave back. They are constantly trying to claim sectors can be run with one person when they can't. There's 3 cases in one building! I'm sure you can come up with a few more from around the country, I liked the over dramatization of the choking on beer and giving up your house though.

Those reading this should be aware that when you say "lost a body", you mean a shift is no longer being filled using overtime. And reallocation of bodies within the building does not constitute a staffing cut -- not in the sense of the company cutting bodies to save money, which is what this thread is about, and you know that.

Nav Canada has not laid off an ACC controller since its inception.

'

I never once said or implied a layoff. I said cutting staff which is exactly what they are doing..... cutting staff. They are reducing staffing to save money. How many different ways can I put this.

[pokaroo]

Yes I calculated the aircraft as being full in terms of bringing money in and I just took whatever the fee calculator told me when i plugged in the airports and aircraft type for the Navcanada fees. Either way though I took 3 examples and on all three the airlines were turning a profit. If you would like to do a more detailed report or audit into this feel free. From where i'm standing it looks like they are bringing in more than is going out.

Why did they start charging this surcharge in the first place?? Is it actually a surcharge or are we just actually seeing it more because they are breaking down the "extra, hidden" taxes and fees. I can understand a fuel surcharge because of how much the price of fuel has risen lately but the fees paid by the airlines for ATC has gone down consistently over the last 10 years.

[the_professor]

Yes I calculated the aircraft as being full in terms of bringing money in and I just took whatever the fee calculator told me when i plugged in the airports and aircraft type for the Navcanada fees. Either way though I took 3 examples and on all three the airlines were turning a profit. If you would like to do a more detailed report or audit into this feel free. From where i'm standing it looks like they are bringing in more than is going out.

It is impossible to make that determination without knowing the exact number of seats filled across the entire fleet. Early morning/late night flights that run with 40% of the seats unsold need to be evened out somehow, because the individual aircraft still gets the same charge. Do you really think that ANS fees are being used as a profit generator in today's cut-throat environment?

Why did they start charging this surcharge in the first place?? Is it actually a surcharge or are we just actually seeing it more because they are breaking down the "extra, hidden" taxes and fees. I can understand a fuel surcharge because of how much the price of fuel has risen lately but the fees paid by the airlines for ATC has gone down consistently over the last 10 years.

The ANS fee replaced the hidden 13.5% Air Transportation Tax that was charged under Transport Canada. The ATT was repealed once NC was up and running on its own. Airlines break out those costs specifically to allow consumers to compare the actual fare vs. the total cost of the ticket. If the airlines are screwing people on the surcharge, it will be evident to an astute consumer.

[pokaroo]

Do you really think that ANS fees are being used as a profit generator in today's cut-throat environment?

wouldn't that be when they would resort to something like this....as opposed to when business is booming?

The ANS fee replaced the hidden 13.5% Air Transportation Tax that was charged under Transport Canada. The ATT was repealed once NC was up and running on its own. Airlines break out those costs specifically to allow consumers to compare the actual fare vs. the total cost of the ticket. If the airlines are screwing people on the surcharge, it will be evident to an astute consumer.

Consider me an astute comsumer then cause I think I'm getting screwed.



I do think we've gotten a little off track though..... it was a pleasant little exchange though. We both made points. Nobody called anybody stupid, retarted, moronic, high, drunk etc.. and at the end of the day I'm up a house

Go Canada Juniors!!

[the_professor]

Do you really think that ANS fees are being used as a profit generator in today's cut-throat environment?

wouldn't that be when they would resort to something like this....as opposed to when business is booming?

Business is booming and the environment is cut-throat. Airlines are taking tiny steps towards improving their competitiveness like taxiing on one engine, and removing blankets and pillows in order to improve efficiency, which translates into lower fares. You think they'll throw those gains in efficiency away by blatantly charging more for a fee that is published right in front of everyone's eyes?

In any case, it's a free market. If you think you're being screwed then you'll search out the best deal (see above: efficiency and fares) and favour that carrier. Overcharging is self-defeating for any airline that engages in the practices you are suggesting, because at the end of the day it is the total cost of the ticket (fare+fees+taxes) that matters to the consumer.

[pokaroo]

You bet it's a free market and that's why 95% of the travel I pay for is out of KBUF. controllers are notoriously cheap when it comes to anything but booze and consistently saving over 50% on flights appeals to me

[justplanecrazy]

Sweet! Where's my new house??? In my specialty staffing has been cut to 3 on days one swing and 2 evenings. We've clawed our way back to an extra swing on wed and thurs but it's still not enough and planes sit on the ground because of it. In the specialty behind me they are constantly fighting to keep their staff, they just lost a day and an evening body. The specialty next to me went through a big battle last summer or fall to keep staffing that management cut then eventually gave back. They are constantly trying to claim sectors can be run with one person when they can't. There's 3 cases in one building! I'm sure you can come up with a few more from around the country, I liked the over dramatization of the choking on beer and giving up your house though.

Those reading this should be aware that when you say "lost a body", you mean a shift is no longer being filled using overtime. And reallocation of bodies within the building does not constitute a staffing cut -- not in the sense of the company cutting bodies to save money, which is what this thread is about, and you know that.

Nav Canada has not laid off an ACC controller since its inception.

Pokaroo it's hopeless!!! I've been through this with him a million times detailing many closures including those in the ACC (tri-term for example) and 0 new positions being opened to accomodate increases in traffic. Somehow he is incapable of understanding reality.

Take this for example. The company is constantly searching for airspace that could somehow function at a reduced capacity with less staff and permanently remove a position from that sector, tower, etc. Somehow the Professor manages to twist these permanent reductions into a positive proactive approach by the company, that isn't taking place in order to save money??? I mean, I would think that if they're not looking for a quick cost cutting measure then they'd simply bump up the training budget and fill the empty seats with new controllers, wouldn't you?

Really Professor you have upper management written all over you. Keep up the good work.