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

[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.

[the_professor]

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

As it would/does to anyone who doesn't have bottomless pockets. (Booze excepted, of course)

[the_professor]

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.

You're right, we have been through this before: More bodies in an ACC speciality does not necessarily equate to more control positions opened/created, in the same way that more bodies in a tower does not mean you'll split a single control zone into pieces. It means you are better able to staff the existing areas to which they were transferred. Areas, in WG's case, that see far higher volumes consistently throughout the day than any of the tri areas ever would or will see.

And even I am not fool enough to fully defend the tri initiative. It has obviously not worked out according to plan, no thanks to quite a few obstinate controllers who would do anything to try and foil the company's objectives, regardless of the validity of the plan.

[the_professor]

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.

How about you educate yourself about what's going at WG ACC as we speak in order to do just what you suggest?

[justplanecrazy]

And even I am not fool enough to fully defend the tri initiative. It has obviously not worked out according to plan, no thanks to quite a few obstinate controllers who would do anything to try and foil the company's objectives, regardless of the validity of the plan.

Well I think you just attempted to. You sure you're not management??? Blaming it on the poor guy stuck with the shit show would be the classic response!

Shuffling seats is one thing, permanently eliminating positions is quite another. Do you really believe for a second that these spots will be recreated once the staffing problem is solved?

[the_professor]

And even I am not fool enough to fully defend the tri initiative. It has obviously not worked out according to plan, no thanks to quite a few obstinate controllers who would do anything to try and foil the company's objectives, regardless of the validity of the plan.

Well I think you just attempted to. You sure you're not management??? Blaming it on the poor guy stuck with the @#$! show would be the classic response!

Shuffling seats is one thing, permanently eliminating positions is quite another. Do you really believe for a second that these spots will be recreated once the staffing problem is solved?

They probably won't be recreated. Nor should they be. It's like the Sudbury example. Why staff something 24/7 when it's only busy enough to require that level of service during 3% of the day?

Especially something like YQR, where providing terminal service was overkill in the extreme, almost to the point of being laughable. Wanna know how I know YQR didn't require a terminal? Because one controller ran YXE and YQR terminals simulataneously most of the time. That's ridiculous.

[justplanecrazy]

Actually jackass, if you knew what you were talking about you would know that during the busy rushes they were almost always split up. The fact that they were run combined during the non-busy times helped reduce staffing while not reducing efficiency. Now it's just a mess all the time. Did you not see the survey or the sep losses shortly after instituting the new system??? Does anyone in your center know who you are cause it might be worth some digging so you stop spewing all this bullshit as though it were all of NC talking through you.

[FamilyGuy]

This entire thread is totally facked.

Which moron said I'd get his house for free if they cut staff at an ACC??? The first is coming up soon, PM me the details so my lawyer can look over it - jackass! RAP me baby....

FSS vs. TWR - give yur heads a shake. Ignore the rantings of controller wannebes - FSS isn't ATC - PERIOD! 60 large is a number - ask any actual controller and there is alot more to it than that. What do the users want? Bunch of BS namby pamby "advisory" or actual control of traffic? FSS types are just salivating at the prospect of being important - albeit at a substantial reduced $$$$ - you get what you pay for.

Honestly, I am Birddog, you've done a good thing here - just put your BS filter on stun - cause stunned is all I've heard so far (well - a few good posts).

[the_professor]

Blah blah blah.

Why aren't you geniuses running the place then, if you've got everything figured out?

[the_professor]

Does anyone in your center know who you are cause it might be worth some digging so you stop spewing all this bullshit as though it were all of NC talking through you.

Are you retarded? Why would you or anyone on here think that I am representing everyone at NC? I present one viewpoint, period. And I will voice that viewpoint as I see fit. You are not the Thought Police, and I can say whatever the hell I please.

[the_professor]

Actually jackass, if you knew what you were talking about you would know that during the busy rushes they were almost valways split up. The fact that they were run combined during the non-busy times helped reduce staffing while not reducing efficiency.

Congrats for pointing out the bleeding obvious. That's why I stated they were combined "most of the time". I did not state they were combined 100% of the time. Anything you can run combined 97% of the time, like YQR was, does not deserve full-time staffing from 6am to 11pm. It's that simple.

Now it's just a mess all the time.

Yes, it sure is. "Pure chaos". "Utter lunacy". It's making headlines every day, right? Just take a look around this board. It's all people are talking about, right?

[grimey]

What do the users want? Bunch of BS namby pamby "advisory" or actual control of traffic? FSS types are just salivating at the prospect of being important - albeit at a substantial reduced $$$$ - you get what you pay for.

Well the thread was civil...

[sigmet77]

I dunno Grimey, this thread really shines the light on reality for me. The big problem is, which reality is correct? Since the last couple pages are just bitching at each other I am going to have to agree with none of them. I had a big rant to add to this thread but in the end, no one will listen, everyone will tear it apart, and in a week 99% of people reading this won't give a shit. Happy New Year Fuckers

[grimey]

I dunno Grimey, this thread really shines the light on reality for me.

What's that, that there are whiny babies on all sides?

Come on, rant...

[justplanecrazy]

Congrats for pointing out the bleeding obvious. That's why I stated they were combined "most of the time". I did not state they were combined 100% of the time. Anything you can run combined 97% of the time, like YQR was, does not deserve full-time staffing from 6am to 11pm. It's that simple.

Now it's just a mess all the time.

Yes, it sure is. "Pure chaos". "Utter lunacy". It's making headlines every day, right? Just take a look around this board. It's all people are talking about, right?

Actually if you worked tri-term you'd know that they ran combined 60-70% of the time only. So having both guys working for a period and then combining up so you can take breaks is inefficient how? I think good logic would tell you to staff a position to handle all of the traffic all of the time, not all of it 70% of the time. Especially with the numbers at an all time high in all three airports and a huge boom going on in SK. The reality is that in the near distant future both Saskatoon and Regina could require a full time dedicated terminal service. To split the tri-term up is a pretty easy change, but to switch from enroute to terminal... not so easy.

Also if you talked to the pilots that fly out of there you would realize that they are just as pissed as when the proposal was brought forward. They've just come to the realization that no-one cares if their service has been flushed down the drain, so they've sucked it up and got on with life. You've had lots of complaints from pilots voiced on here but you always give them the same thoughtfull response... "suck it up sweetheart." Hardly the response of a company that is a not for profit run by the users organization.

sigmet, sorry if this appears to be two of us bitching at each other but the professor loves to spew BS and I'm just trying to set the record straight.