Transport Committee on June 20th, 2006

[Richard Balnis]

We believe Parliament, you as MPs, are the ones at the end of the day who go back to your constituents and say, “Here's what my....”

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I understand.

[Richard Balnis]

That's what I mean. So we're suggesting that you need to take that action.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

That's it, Mr. Chair. You can go to the next questioner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Good day. I'm very pleased to meet you.

Earlier, Mr. Gregoire said that the average passenger load on airplanes was 80%. By looking at the table that he's given us, I noticed that the ratio change would have no negative impact because it would increase the number of flight attendants at this passenger load.

Are you in agreement with his statement, generally, that passenger loads hover around the 80% mark?

[Richard Balnis]

We have no disagreement with that figure, but it is, in our view, fun with numbers. The slides we put up there show the safety impact when the planes are full. I think that is what the department is trying to avoid.

I think someone indicated that almost half those aircraft would suffer a reduction, when we believe a flight attendant is more needed when that aircraft is full.

For example, if you use an 80% load factor, it's only a 60% load factor on Air Canada's South American routes. If you average that in, that means that somewhere else in the system it's 100%.

We tried to do some little estimates. We believe six million to seven million passengers would be exposed to this reduced ratio, based on calculations provided by a Sypher:Mueller study commissioned by ATAC. That, we think, is a great exposure of risk. So the 80% factor hides the reality of what happens at full loads, and that's where I think you should focus your attention.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Representatives of other airline companies said that each company would have to choose its ratio, either 1:40 or 1:50. It seems most airlines will want to maintain the 1:40 ratio.

In your opinion, which of the two will the airlines pick?

[Richard Balnis]

I would like to disagree with Mr. Gaspar. I would think if anybody is going to go to a 1:50 ratio, it's Air Canada.

The A320 accounts for 51 aircraft of their 200 aircraft fleet. Who knows what other little mitigating factors may disappear in the wash?

My own gut instinct is that the floor-level coverage for the wide-body will disappear. If when we met with the minister on June 6 and told him, “Mr. Minister, don't do it, this is aircraft type by aircraft type,” and now it's gone to a fleet-wide election, I bet you the minimum floor coverage on wide-body will also disappear.

It's also for you to know that it's not a regulation; it's a standard. It's not consulted through the Canada Gazette; it's actually consulted within the department. After we dissent to it, that rule could disappear in short order.

Air Canada, if anything, will take the 1:50 ratio, because that's the minimum level they would allow them to reduce it in a wide range of aircraft, including some of their wide-bodies. So I respectfully disagree with the ATAC position.

As to who has advanced it in the past, I do have the letter buried in my papers here in terms of who advocated this. It included Air Canada and WestJet and I believe Skyservice and First Air. Air Transat has not elected to support this issue. That was in their letter of October 2002, and I believe that was tabled with the committee back in April 2004--for you to check my memory.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Was the increased number of flight attendants onboard an aircraft considered in terms of passenger safety?

[Richard Balnis]

On the slide you saw three or four flight attendants. The reality is that in a crash, some of those flight attendants will die or be incapacitated. That's what the U.S. NTSB said for a study of redundancy, that there may not be all the flight attendants when that plane finally comes to rest; then you do with what is left over.

It is factored in, then, in the sense that it provides a margin of error in the event of incapacitation or death. I believe that is why Transport Canada staff decided to go with one flight attendant per floor-level exit on the wide-body plane. They realized that coverage was needed for the A340--to go back to that slide--rather than the A320, as you can see. That's why Transport Canada said that one flight attendant per floor-level exit was needed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll take the first minute to raise a notice of motion for Thursday's meeting:

(1) That this committee demands that the Minister of Transport do a risk assessment of the proposed “mixed option” flight attendant ratios and release it to the Transport Committee prior to further moves to change the existing flight attendant ratio requirements.

(2) That this committee demands that the Minister of Transport conduct the 8 actions required by Cabin Safety Standards in their November 23, 2004 recommendations prior to any further move to lower flight attendant ratios, and that the results be released to the committee.

(3) That this committee demands that all documents related to changes in flight attendant ratios be made public by the minister prior to any further moves to change flight attendant ratios.

(4) That this committee insists that the minister await the Transportation Safety Board investigation of Air France Flight 358 prior to any further moves to reduce flight attendant ratios.

Again, that's my notice of motion for Thursday's meeting. I'll provide a written copy after this meeting, but I wanted to satisfy the 48-hour requirement.

Thank you very much for your presentation. It was extremely detailed--certainly the best presentation we've seen on this issue.

[Richard Balnis]

And on 72 hours' notice, too.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Yes, even more so.

I was not aware, and had not understood, that there hasn't been a risk assessment done on this combined option.

[Richard Balnis]

And it was surprising...until we managed to pull out this November 2004 document. Finding Transport Canada documents is like digging, but eventually this popped out. We kept asking and asking. This staff report was phenomenal; they said they didn't examine the implications or the enforceability of this rule.

We're hoping that perhaps the new minister may sit back and say, yes, we'd better do our homework.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

So at this point we don't know what the weighted score would be. We certainly know that the European rule actually scores almost half of the weighted score of the current ratio.

I have two questions coming out of that. First, are you aware of any work that's been done to compare the Australian ratio with risk assessments from other jurisdictions? And second, what is your best guess? Would this be below or around the U.S. rule or below or around the European rule?

[Richard Balnis]

On the Australian rule, back in June 2003 we learned that the.... In fact, in this document here, dated June 2, 2003, we submitted this evidence to the risk assessment that Transport Canada was conducting at the time. We were told, “You're too late, we've made our recommendation to management”. So I don't believe they included a full assessment of the Australian model. It's not in their five scores there.

In terms of the risk assessment score, I think you need to do the risk assessment, but I wouldn't want to prejudge that process; it does involve looking at the issue on seven different scales, and it does involve people considering the evidence.

So I would not want to make up a number without going through the process. I wouldn't want to prejudge the outcome.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

I'd like to move on to consultation. Both of the previous presenters made great issue of the broad consultation, though I think it's fair to say that our understanding is that most of the organizations mentioned are actually opposed to these changes. For instance, it was a surprise to me that particularly the disabilities groups were mentioned as part of the consultation process when they're opposed to the changes.

Were your views taken seriously into consideration? Did you feel that the issues raised about this change, the concerns of the first-line responders, the flight attendants, were taken into consideration by either the Air Transport Association or the ministry?

[Richard Balnis]

Just to go to page 5 of Transport Canada's slide, CUPE, ACPA, ALPA, the teamsters, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind all expressed their opposition in principle to the proposal. We expressed opposition to the risk assessment. We were ruled out of order. The only people who spoke in favour of this were from ATAC, WestJet, and Air Canada, who from my recollection were in the room in April 2004.

Were our views taken seriously? We submitted a 100-page dissent; we got a 90-page response. Some of our criticisms were acknowledged with the cryptic “noted”, so I don't believe they were taken into account at all.

The proposal that is going forward is pretty well what was proposed back in April 2004. ATAC got its golden victory here, where they redefined “aircraft type” to make sure that rule would pretty well not apply to anyone in Canada. Even at Air Canada, which goes from Embraers all the way to A340s, will be covered under the airline types of five—not three, but five—and will not have to put on those additional restrictions. That was the biggest victory for ATAC there.

For the in-charge training, the only mitigating factor is half a day, and it should have been done for years.

So no, sir, our concerns were not addressed seriously. It's basically the 1:50 rule that WestJet wanted back in 1999, dressed up with a lot of mitigating factors that people are going to flip out of. You don't have to do it; you don't have to do the floor level. You just say, “Thanks, we'll go to 1:40.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Quite frankly, I don't know where to start, because there's so much contradictory information before us. I should add, it's not only this particular delegation that has been informative; the previous two delegations, in my mind, were quite articulate and provided an excellent review of the process that has led up to this point.

My question to you has to do with the amount of evidence out there to support your position. What I have before me right now is a risk assessment conducted by Transport Canada, a study from CARAC that addressed a similar issue, and you've submitted a poll that was conducted. I've just had a brief chance to look at it, but I think you would agree with me that the methodology used in preparing a poll question is key to ensuring that we receive the proper information to help us make decisions.

Would you agree with me?

[Richard Balnis]

Of course, sir.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

All right. Let's address the poll, then.

[Richard Balnis]

Could I answer your comment on the risk assessment? On slide 8 of our presentation, the scores we gave you are the scores in the risk assessment. They score 1:40 passengers at 404 and the U.S. rule at 256. Those are TC's own numbers. There's a margin of safety there. That one, sir, we did not.... That's them.