Guest q650 Posted September 7, 2003 Share Posted September 7, 2003 Not trying to stir the pot, just a question and looking for facts. Does anyone have any financial data, i.e: how much of the yearly Nav Canada Budget is allocated for travel expenses by their employees? Who at Nav Canada decides whether a VP or manager can blow $$$$ on a business trip? Any parameters? Non-essential, essential etc?? q650 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Say Altitude Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 Not trying to stir the pot eh? Right........just like last time when you spouted off about layoffs/closures at NavCanada and how the management were going to be out sipping scotch and smokin' Cubans.....whatever. You won't find anyone on here that believes you..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest q650 Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 Say Altitude...did I hit a nerve with another pointed NavCan question? You reveal more about who you are simply by your emotional level. My post only contained a few questions, if you don't have the answer that's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roadie Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 I would hazard a guess that any bussiness trip by a Nav Canada employee is governed by the same set of rules as any one employed by the Federal gov't. Travel is very specifically governed by the treasury board for any one in the public service commission. Having said that travel expenses are very tightly controlled and no "extravagant" expenditures are allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest q650 Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 Fair enough, sounds like generic type corporate policy. Since NavCan is not-for-profit and the public pays through user fees/taxes is that kind of financial data avilable or is it kept internal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BillyBigToe Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 "Not trying to stir the pot"... "Who at Nav Canada decides whether a VP or manager can blow $$$$ on a business trip?" Ya right,,, Not trying to stir the pot. Then what are you trying to do, write a story for the Toronto Star? If you want to throw mud in someone's face just do, don't start with such a lame and transparent disclamer. It just makes you look stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest q650 Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 Let me get a few lawyers to draft up a disclaimer then....geez. seriously, dDidn't think this would be sooo touchy. Guess I'll have go through the Access to Information system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest q650 Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 Let me get a few lawyers to draft up a disclaimer then....geez. Seriously, didn't think this would be such an irritating subject. Guess I'll have go through the Access to Information system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest YVR Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 Contact John Morris, Director of Communications, 613-563-7032, he will be able to answer all your questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roadie Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 That's a good question , not sure about Nav Canada but if it is similar to the rest of the government , requests can be made as per the access to information act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Say Altitude Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 The subject isn't irritating. It's the "Who at Nav Canada decides whether a VP or manager can blow $$$$ on a business trip?" comment that was the source. Just like the last time......you know the one I'm talking about - the cigar/scotch one? Looks like I'm not the only one who thought so.... And to answer your question, I don't work for NavCanada and I'm not in management - just a regular ole' line driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest q650 Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 ya right. You are so consumed with anger as soon as Navcan is criticized you can't come close to sticking with the subject matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikePapaKilo Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 Navcan is not a crown corp, so I don't believe the access to information act applies to it as a private company. Curious as to why one needs/wants to know this. It seems somewhat like asking Canadian Utilities/ATCO gas in Alberta how their employees and execs are supported expense wise. Navcan may tell you that it's none of your business - so good luck ! However, you will probably find that when the ATC system left government, the general travel / expense rules - a per deim of about $55.00 for breakfast lunch dinner and incidentals - would have been adopted. The question we all have is: what is it that's got your goat ? MPKurious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest q650 Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Fair question MPK. Apparantly there is an excessively high travel occurence and consequently high expense cost, in general, for a large number of NC managers, supervisors across Canada. Was just curious, once again, just to get that $ number in the annual budget that's all. No mud slinging, no witch hunt - just want to see if it was budgeted and if so: how much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikePapaKIlo Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Q Public does not pay through "user fees". The airline or aircraft operator, is directly charged for ANS use per flight. The airline may then "recover" this cost through the addition of a fee to the ticket. It may be said that on some routes the "fee" that the airline charges the pax may generate a small amount in excess of the actual ANS charge, thus making some degree of profit PER TRIP. On a typical YYZ-YOW -320 flight that is full, ACA's fee charged to the passenger results in an amount collected that is at least 20% higher than the cost of ANS for the individual flight. Ka-ching !$$! Go figure. Glad to be paying by the day... MPK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrick Bergen Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 I think the idea of thinking of government charges as a source of additional profit for the airline is ridiculous. The lower the overall cost of a ticket the more people will fly. The government has been jacking costs to try to offset the reduction in airline travel. Clearly there is no interest by the government in a healthy industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innuendo Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 "The government has been jacking costs to try to offset the reduction in airline travel." Reductio ad absurdem. I wonder if, when the last person who can afford to fly in Canada, (Gerry Schwartz in his Gulfstream 101), goes from coast to coast, from Newf to Lotus land, the fees charged will be such as to cover the cost for the entire air traffic control system still in existence for this one remaining flight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pull Up Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 MPK, It's a little hard to use the Tomato/Tomatoe analogy in print, but it's basically the same. Do you really think that in the last three years Air Canada, or any other carrier has made money off the Nav Canada fees? The fewer flights we have, due to lower pax loads and demand always end up with a Nav Canada increase. I think I'd like to start a not-for-profit buisness if you are allowed to charge whatever you want carte blanche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.