Guest V1 Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Thought we had a bonus the other morning, assigned 24R for departure only to find we were #5 in the bay with 4 more on final approach. Waited 13 minutes to depart which was really not too bad. I wonder , and I really am just wondering, why 24L is not being used. I noticed that it was in use by noon but by then 24R was closed. I don't know how much was spent to build that runway but it has now been open 1 year and it just seems strange that it does not get used. It would be like an airline buying a fleet of airplanes then not using then, Like we have never seen that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Repost of an answer from last December:That answer is simple-- Time and man power. There are only a few tower controllers who are qualified to operate the south complex. It's their responsibilty to train the other controllers to qualification standard. This won't happen overnight, because these guys don't just work every day. It's going to be a slow process, but a worthwhile one in the end. To compare, the FAA average "break in" period for a new runway (that is, from the day the runway opens, to the day all staff are qualified and are the using the runway to projected capacity) is one year. 06R/24L has been open for two months, and already [people] on the AEF are [complaining] about it. Too bad, really. The upshot of the whole thing is that the tower remains 12 bodies short of the requirement to run a three runway operation.It would be interesting to hear how the manpower situation has changed, if at all, since then? I'd think if it's only manpower and training issues, airlines should be getting upset about not getting the level of service they're paying for, and should be available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mars Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Not sure of the particular situation in YYZ Tower, but most ATC units remain short staffed, some chronically. Even the units that are 'full staff' by NavCan numbers often run on a significant amount of O/T and with frustrated contollers who have little or no backup. Compounding this is a training program that is not keeping up with current needs, let alone a fast approaching retirement wave. For example, word is that the ATC school in Cornwall (NCTI) is starting an IFR course later this month; next one after that is currently not till the end of January! Transport Canada, pre NavCan days, started a course every three weeks late 80's to mid 90's. It took years at that level of student training to have a positive, yet modest, growth in staffing levels. NavCan, against the advice of controllers and other staff, shut down the school for a year shortly after they took over. The repercussions of that are still be felt and probably will be for some time. Let me reassure you that controllers always attempt to provide the best service possible; despite staffing, training, airport layout(not to mention airport authorities), noise abatement, cumbersome, rules and many others. Please don't blame the guys (and gals) moving the metal for the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest George Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Yep, samething happened last week to us, initially assigned 23 but then changed to a 24R departure, taxi with only one aircraft ahead, waited 10 minutes for one departure and 3 arrivals...meanwhile a multi million dollar sits there, empty, waiting. And the runway has been open for one year. If I was the GTAA, I think I would something to say about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest George Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Yep, samething happened last week to us, initially assigned 23 but then changed to a 24R departure, taxi with only one aircraft ahead, waited 10 minutes for one departure and 3 arrivals...meanwhile a multi million dollar runway sits there, empty, waiting. And the runway has been open for one year. If I was the GTAA, I think I would something to say about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rj200 Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Hey guys ! You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this one out... The guys controlling the manpower shortage are the guys that are in the training dept. in Cornwall, hense the artificial manpower shortage which makes up for all that juicy overtime! Is this not correct??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSkyGuy Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Couldn't be farther off the mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest V1 Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 I hear ya! and i know that you guys are doing the best you can with limited resources and with the odd bad apple like the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pager Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 No! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mars Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 There are some who will work all the overtime they can get, but they are the exception. In the long term chronically short staffed units O/T is mandatory and scheduled. That means many controllers work at least 46 days out of a 56 day 8 week rotation, often with many 9 on 1 off stints. So the allure of O/T becomes stale very quickly, especially over the years and years it has gone on. Let me put to rest the old "I'll call sick so you get an overtime" myth. Sure, it may have occurred once or twice in the past (heck I'll even admit it still could), but only in Towers with a small staff. O/T is assigned on the basis of O/T hours already worked: the guy with the least hours get offered/assigned the shift first. So for one guy to conspire with another would be complicated by the call out list, and downright impossible in a larger Tower and the ACC's (an ACC could have 150-300+ controllers). Beyond the above, I find your insinuation that staffing problems are the result of controller scheming (staffing is at the SOLE determination of MANAGEMENT - that is in the contract) to be laughable at best and downright insulting at worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Do most folks here now realize that the ATC course in Cornwall is treated like university or college - you apply to get in then pay your tuition and gawd-only-knows what other costs previously borne by the taxpayer? At least under the old system, theoretically at least, only the best candidates were selected regardless of their ability to pay. Seems to me (but in honesty much like so many other careers), those who have the $$$ can take the course, those without don't. Which brings up the subject of taxes - just exactly what are we getting now for our tax dollars? Governments nation wide have embraced the user-pay concept for more and more things over the years. At the same time, we hear the annual reports of missing-billions (not millions) on an ever increasing pace. The cost of governing in Canada is one of the highest in the world. Must be a Canadian thing... Grrrrrrrrrr... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.