Evidence of meeting #11 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was aircraft.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
The flight attendant is being limited to work on three aircraft types. Is that a new regulation?
June 20th, 2006 / 11:50 a.m.
Andy Vasarins Vice-President, Flight Operations, Air Transport Association of Canada
The regulation as it exists right now in the 1:40 scenario does not limit the flight attendants to the number of types they can work on in Canada. To have companies embrace the 1:50 standard would require them to limit themselves to no more than three types of aircraft. The types are dependent on where portable emergency equipment is--if it's in similar locations, if the chutes operate in a similar fashion; those kinds of things determine the types.
11:50 a.m.
Vice-President, Policy and Strategic Planning, Air Transport Association of Canada
In short, it's a mitigating measure to the proposed regulations.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Are pilots limited to the number of planes they can be certified to fly?
11:50 a.m.
Vice-President, Flight Operations, Air Transport Association of Canada
Pilots are limited to the number of types their licences are endorsed for.
11:50 a.m.
Vice-President, Flight Operations, Air Transport Association of Canada
For quite a few types.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Why would we limit flight attendants? They're no less intelligent than pilots. Why would we limit them to three types?
11:50 a.m.
Vice-President, Policy and Strategic Planning, Air Transport Association of Canada
That's a good point. The best way to answer that is that this is just another attempt to bend over backwards to make this measure acceptable to the critics. You're right, there's really no evidence for it, but we're doing it in an attempt to make it palatable.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
My last question is, how would this affect the ability of people with disabilities to have assistance to get out if there's one fewer flight attendant, as in some of the scenarios?
11:55 a.m.
Vice-President, Policy and Strategic Planning, Air Transport Association of Canada
That's a very fair point. As Mr. Grégoire spoke to quite accurately, it is true that in cases of emergency evacuations, carriers do rely on able-bodied passengers to assist. One of the primary reasons is that in the case of an emergency, where time is of the essence, a flight attendant isn't going to obstruct the aisles to get to the disabled passenger first. People evacuate as quickly and in as orderly a fashion as possible, and people who remain in their seats are then aided by the flight attendants. If there are three disabled passengers left on a 100-seat aircraft, whether you've got three, four, or five flight attendants, that is going to have minimal impact on your ability to evacuate those couple of disabled passengers. Ideally, the able-bodied passengers around them provide assistance in those instances, as they are requested to do.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
Good day.
I would like to know what you think of the department's proposal.
Does it imply that you will have a choice to make for every aircraft, whatever the passenger load? In the tables we were provided with, we can see that according to the passenger load, the flight attendant ratio is sometimes lower. When the flight is full, in some instances, fewer flight attendants are required.
Is a choice made according to the type of aircraft or the passenger load?
11:55 a.m.
Vice-President, Flight Operations, Air Transport Association of Canada
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I didn't get the translation on that for some reason. It didn't appear to be working.
11:55 a.m.
Vice-President, Policy and Strategic Planning, Air Transport Association of Canada
That's okay. I can answer it.
As Mr. Grégoire pointed out, the proposal as it's currently drafted, I believe, is that you have to make a fleet-wide determination of the ratio you're going to operate under.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
Is the ratio decided for every flight or according to the type of aircraft?
11:55 a.m.
Vice-President, Policy and Strategic Planning, Air Transport Association of Canada
Yes, it's by the type, not by flight; you can't go back and forth.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
Every aircraft will have to abide by the 1:40 or the 1:50 ratio, in accordance with the new regulations.
11:55 a.m.
Vice-President, Policy and Strategic Planning, Air Transport Association of Canada
My understanding, as Mr. Grégoire pointed out, is that each company would have to make a determination fleet-wide as to the ratio they would be operating under.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
From what I understand, the 1:40 ratio could be more interesting to you because it requires fewer flight attendants in many instances. That being the case, I'd like to hear your appreciation. According to you, how often will the 1:40 ratio be selected? Do you believe airlines will mainly choose to operate under the 1:50 ratio?
11:55 a.m.
Vice-President, Flight Operations, Air Transport Association of Canada
The percentage of flights that would be maintained on a 1:40, 1:50, again, would be company-wide. For example, if WestJet chose to go to 1:50, they would have to invoke their whole fleet to transfer to 1:50. In other words, all their flights would be operated on 1:50.
If Air Canada chose to stay on the 1:40, then their flights would be operating, all their flights...except for the ones that are currently exempt under the 1:50 rule, which are the RJ and the Dash 8, which are exempt.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
From what you know, which ratio will most airlines choose? Will they decide to maintain the 1:40 ratio in most cases or will they choose the 1:50 ratio?
11:55 a.m.
Vice-President, Policy and Strategic Planning, Air Transport Association of Canada
There really are so many different factors at play that it's very hard to say. In the interest of trying to be as clear and open with you as possible, I will make some guesses--and let the record show these are pure guesses.
My expectation would be that carriers that have many different fleet types, many different levels of service requirements, and essentially many different manifestations of the service they're offering on any given day are less likely, probably, to go to 1:50.
Let me just give you a very pointed example, to be as concrete as possible. Air Canada, for instance, has a business class. That is always going to have to be taken into account for the purposes of their providing service. Their flight attendants are fully professionally trained as well, so someone who is on board for the purposes of service is actually also a fully qualified safety professional as well. I would stress that they need to speak for themselves, but I would suspect that they will not be at the 1:50 ratio level very often, even if they choose to apply it.
Noon
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
Consequently, the new regulations will not mean much change for you. You will maintain the 1:40 ratio.
Noon
Vice-President, Policy and Strategic Planning, Air Transport Association of Canada
Insofar as we're speaking in the academic sense, and I've shared with you one potential guess, I suppose that's a reasonable conclusion to draw. But I think the only absolute conclusion we can draw about our industry is that it is absolutely improper and impossible to foresee the future. I think anybody who can guess the aviation industry's future would be a millionaire today by having shorted lots and lots of stock positions.
All this to say that really what this is about is modernizing and harmonizing the industry to put it into a position where it can respond effectively to competitive challenges, and to respond to the marketplace such as demand actually exists.
