Navcan Hikes the Rent

[Guest mars]

Aaahhhh floatr, I was impressed with your kind response to my post and am now dismayed to see your reply to my colleague Keven.

You admit that the ANS is a requirement in your post to me and now say no passengers=no controllers. First of all I don't think anyone believes absoulutely everyone will stop flying. A reduction, yes; but, no passengers at all? Maybe Kevin was right about being curious to what you've been smoking. By the way, for controllers, Traffic = Aircraft; and Aircraft = Airlines + Military + Cargo + Business + General Aviation. Therefore, less passengers (not 'no passengers') does not equal no traffic and controllers are still required.

Can't let you get away with the statement "ATC understaffed in the past". We are STILL understaffed, maybe not as much, but short none the less. I work in one of the better staffed ACC's and management is wringing it's hands at the forecast cost of O/T required this summer and the wave of coming retirements that will exacerbate it. If you don't believe my assertion about staffing: Why has NAVCAN exempted operational positions from it's current hiring freeze? Why is NAVCAN actively hiring qualified foreign controllers to train and fill vacancies here?

Yes the AIRLINE INDUSTRY is changing, but NAVCAN IS NOT AN AIRLINE. Do we as a service provider have to respond to those changes? Of course, and a lot of that has already been done, the cost of Canada's ANS is a bargain compared to other western nations. But, those changes will not mirror the airlines in scale nor should they. In fact maybe the airlines are finally following the example set by NAVCAN.(in no way construe that statement as support for NAVCAN business and labour relation practices that make it one of Canada's worse employers in the eyes of it's employees)

[Guest M. McRae]

http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~rsexty/business8107/navcanA.htm

[Guest floatrr]

Thanks for all the info Mars. I guess you really will be OK with alot less passenger traffic. Hoisting a brew here!