Transport committee  I'm happy to answer. I don't see any circumstances whereby Bill C-49 by itself would reduce prices. In terms of what we would have liked to see, again, the number one focus was costs. First of all, we're on record saying that we want an elimination of airport rent, but even a phase-out of airport rent would be useful.

Transport committee  I am concerned that it won't improve the customer experience because it will take away competition at the service level by harmonizing across as to the standards. I also feel that unintended consequences are very dangerous across that and it will increase prices. The only place that airlines can go with those increased costs is to pass them on to passengers.

Transport committee  I guess I'm hesitant to second guess whether Bill C-49 could accommodate that. I think that's more your business than mine. All I can say is that the rents in particular have been a concern of the airline industry. For any airline that flies here, rents have been a significant barrier to, for example, Toronto or Vancouver becoming the global hubs that they would like to be.

Transport committee  Certainly, the rent is a big issue. The air traveller security charge is one of the highest in the world. The fact that you have user-pay plus, plus, plus here, whereby the government itself is not making the investment that it needs on security, and in fact puts it on the back of the passengers, even exceeding the services that are provided.

Transport committee  Our experience in Australia, China, and other places, is lower ticket prices, lower delays, and lower cancellations by this approach. If I can have just one minute I think it's important to recognize here that Canadians have passenger rights now. First of all, Canada is a signatory to the Montreal Convention, which put a maximum in terms of how much they are compensated for lost baggage and for cancellations.

Transport committee  You've raised a number of issues. First of all, I'll say I don't envy the job of a politician and don't pretend to be one. I understand that you get hit on these issues. I think it's important to stress that these are very irregular operations, and they're called irregular operations for a reason, because there are fewer delays, there are fewer cancellations.

Transport committee  Any airline that's a competitive airline does its best to accommodate passengers in those situations.

Transport committee  They accommodate passengers by putting them on a later flight. They accommodate passengers by giving them hotel accommodations when appropriate. There are all different things airlines do to accommodate their passengers, and again, their track records show that. I'm not familiar with the exact situations.

Transport committee  I'm not sure if you can, and that's the challenge I have with, for example, a three-hour tarmac delay. I think it's important to recognize the experience of the U.S., for example, in implementing three-hour tarmac delays. If you say that after three hours it's a delay, that means that really it's a two-hour tarmac delay, because the airline will be turning back to the gate within two hours.

Transport committee  The U.S. isn't open to it yet. The EU has provided for, in the U.S.-EU agreement, relaxation on ownership.

Transport committee  Yes, that is correct. I'm not sure in terms of others. I'm just familiar with the U.S.-EU one. IATA generally is in favour of airlines being treated just like any other companies. On this issue in particular, and I'm sure you've had this expression in your Parliament, we have friends on both sides on this issue, and we are voting with our friends.

Transport committee  The language itself is not a concern, but as Mr. McKenna said, it's in the details of what the regulation will say. Let me give you an example of the concern. What is meant by “control”? We talked about such things as there being a snowstorm, or maybe no gates because of a snowstorm.

Transport committee  Thank you for that question. In terms of privatization—and I know that's not the subject of Bill C-49, but I know it's being considered—we are strongly concerned about privatization. There are easier ways to deal with rent than privatization. The government has collected so much rent that it is way beyond the price of the land that was turned over.

Transport committee  I apologize. I didn't catch your question. I'm having difficulty hearing. Could you restate it?

Transport committee  Thank you. Certainly Europe is a very good example of the dangers associated with compensating beyond the loss of time or property. In Europe, with the high fines for even minimal delays, we've seen businesses crop up to help passengers collect fines above and beyond what their damages were.