Transport Committee on June 20th, 2006

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Did you conduct a risk assessment following the introduction of the mitigation measures?

[Marc Grégoire]

No. That's what I just said. It has not been done.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

So it hasn't been done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you very, Mr. Chairman.

If I was worried before the presentation, I'm even more worried now after the presentation.

According to your own figures, Mr. Grégoire, what you're saying is that for a WestJet B737-700 with four exits, you'd be looking at three flight attendants. So for the fourth exit, for a stroke victim or a person in a wheelchair, they're basically going to have to figure their own way out. By your own figures, what you're saying is that there's an exit uncovered.

We know that flight attendants play an important role in evacuation procedures, so you're in the process of telling us, even though it's buried in the back pages of your report, that for dozens of aircraft flying in Canadian skies, if there is an evacuation, there will be exits uncovered in those cases. I find that appalling. The figures are right there. This is what you've provided to us: 44 aircraft, B737-700s, with four exits but three flight attendants.

You mentioned risk assessment. You mentioned a whole variety of groups that I know are opposed to this plan and yet you mention them. So I would like you to table that risk assessment that was done with the stakeholders, including disability groups from across the country and including flight attendants, because we need to know what they actually said. You're actually trying to use the names of those organizations to suggest that in some way they approve this change, and they don't.

My comments are more specific to what's happening internationally. We know Australia has just done a review, and Australia chose to maintain the same flight ratio. In fact, Australia sees a competitive advantage in having a safer airline industry. I think that's the public policy issue here: having a safer airline industry. That provides a competitive advantage, not a cup of coffee per passenger for a flight, which is what WestJet would save by leaving exits uncovered.

So Australia has chosen to maintain the same flight ratio. Why is that?

As to other evidence internationally, in the U.S., in the inquiry into the accident involving TWA flight 843, the National Transportation Safety Board said the evacuation of the airplane occurred within two minutes, and the speed in evacuating 292 passengers and crew from the airplane was complemented by TWA's requirement for nine flight attendants, which is actually higher than the FAA minimum.

So how many other airlines around the world with better safety records actually choose to maintain stronger standards?

Then I come back to the question I asked a few weeks ago--since you're back here. In the Air France accident, we know the flight attendants played a crucial role in ensuring that all those passengers got off safely. You mentioned that the government had no intention of waiting for the results of that TSB investigation--which is beyond me. You have an investigation that is tied clearly to flight attendant ratio. So I need to ask, is that Transport Canada's normal procedure, to ignore the results of a TSB safety audit, a safety report, in an incident that has a very clear link to where the government intends to go?

[Marc Grégoire]

I will attempt to answer your five questions.

First, on the WestJet table, as you can see, we're not hiding anything. We're showing you the figures for each and every aircraft used in Canada. So we're playing extremely transparent here.

If you look at the WestJet B737-700 that you mentioned, it has four exits. The basic requirement for the certification of the aircraft is two flight attendants. You can find this in the middle column. If you look at all similar aircraft, which are not considered large aircraft, aircraft with only one aisle, there is no requirement anywhere in the world to add one flight attendant per exit. We're only adding this requirement as a mitigation measure for large aircraft with two aisles. So what you pointed out is correct.

If we look at the figures all along this line and at the occupation or the load factor of airlines in Canada, on average it is around 80%. These figures are published regularly in various papers. So you can see that in comparing the 80% ratio, you would have three, whether you were at 1:40 or 1:50, and the same goes below. It's only when you're above the 80%--say the aircraft is full--that you would have one flight attendant fewer than you have now.

On your second question, the risk analysis, we have tabled this before. It is published on our website. But it would be our pleasure to give a copy to the clerk or to you personally--I don't know, Mr. Chair, what is appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Give it to the chair, and we'll see that they get distributed.

[Marc Grégoire]

Actually, your clerk may already have a copy from the last time we gave it. But we'll check with him and re-table.

In terms of what Australia does, to my knowledge Australian authorities were convinced that the 1:50 ratio was the way to go. But they decided to stop the change of the regulatory process because of diverging views in Australia.

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

Which is what we have here in Canada.

[Marc Grégoire]

Yes, well, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities still has the option of moving ahead or stopping. That's his decision.

But we think from a technical point of view it is perfectly safe to go with the regime of one to fifty. So if that process is stopped, it will not be for safety reasons but for other considerations.

In the TWA accident you mentioned, there were more flight attendants. This is often the case, as I mentioned in my opening remarks. Airlines very often have more flight attendants than the basic regulatory requirement. The basic regulatory requirement is a safety regulation. Whatever the airlines want to add to this is for service and other reasons. It's not purely a safety reason. Otherwise, they would have opposed the change in the regulation.

On the Air France accident we discussed at length last week as well as a few weeks ago, we don't have any information. We have an observer on the accident investigation. We do not have any information either from TSB or from anywhere else that shows that the 1:50 ratio was a factor there. The requirement for the Air France flight was to have six flight attendants. They were fortunate; they had more people. But that doesn't mean that if they'd had six, all the people wouldn't have evacuated. We can't replicate this accident and say, “Well, if they'd had six like the Air France regulations require, all of those people would have exited the aircraft”. Everything worked as it was supposed to, but there were too many flight attendants from a safety perspective. Now, did that create a problem, the fact that there were too many? I don't know. But we don't see any reasons to--

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

My point is, why not wait?

[Marc Grégoire]

Because the TSB often takes two, three, or four years for a major investigation like this. And we've been at this so many years. If we had heard any safety concerns from the board, we would stop it immediately. We haven't.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Blaney.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for being here this morning, Mr. Gregoire. We're happy to have you. As you can see, the members of this committee are interested in passenger safety and they are concerned about it, and that's perfectly legitimate.

You prepared a document that clearly demonstrated the impact of the proposal for each scenario. Earlier, we spoke about risk assessments. Could you tell us more about the consultations you've conducted to come to your recommendations? I see you consulted a rather large group of people. Some of these groups may want to contact us to voice some of their concerns. What comments were made during your consultations? You briefly spoke to the issue. On the whole, how did industry, workers and passengers feel about the proposed changes?

[Marc Grégoire]

Some passenger groups expressed concern, namely passengers with disabilities. We reassured them by explaining the additional measures, much as we are doing here today. Some groups expressed concerns with regard to safety. There again, the measures we have implemented in Canada, namely a closed cockpit policy and an enhanced passenger screening process, have led us to believe that the flight attendant to passenger ratio has no impact on the level of safety onboard our aircraft.

The airlines are very supportive of this measure but would like it to go farther. They would prefer a 1:50 passenger seat ratio or a 1:40 passenger ratio on every flight. Unless they have changed their mind, they would like to have the opportunity to adapt to every flight. That was their initial position. They wanted as much flexibility as possible.

The in-flight crew, namely the representatives of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, with whom you will meet later on, are vehemently opposed to any change of the ratio. Perhaps they fear job cuts but we don't believe that's a likely outcome. In fact, if airlines are more competitive, they will penetrate new markets and create more jobs.

For every company, it will be a matter of reviewing its own fleet to decide which regime better suits its operation. It's not obvious that a company using a number of different aircraft types will want to change regimes, because there are costs associated to the certification of aircraft.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

You also mentioned that you had conducted a general review of the current situation worldwide and, but for a few exceptions, all countries seem to be headed in the same direction you are.

Why have you chosen a combined system,1:50 and 1:40? Is this a transition?

[Marc Grégoire]

There's no other reason but to offer as much flexibility as possible to our airlines. Many of us would have preferred harmonizing the regime across-the-board to have only one ratio,1:50, to simplify things, but airline companies, namely, preferred having more flexibility. As far as we're concerned, as long as the level of safety is the same under both regimes, we have no objection to maintaining a dual system.

The 1:40 regime we are proposing today is identical to the current one. The 1:50 regime has been supplemented by the mitigation measures we have already spoken to.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Blaney.

I would like to thank our guests. We have more people coming into your chairs now, so I appreciate your time today.

[Marc Grégoire]

Mr. Chair, it was a pleasure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You're welcome. Thank you.

We'll be calling the Air Transport Association of Canada, if they'd like to move into the hot seats, as they are.

Joining us at the table will be Fred Gaspar, the vice-president of policy and strategic planning, and Andy Vasarins, the vice-president of flight operations.

I want to welcome you today, and I would assume that you have a short presentation.

Very short? That's good. It will get us caught back up on our time allotments.

Whenever you're ready, I would ask you to begin, please.

[Fred Gaspar, Vice-President, Policy and Strategic Planning, Air Transport Association of Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and good morning.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we did not have time to translate our presentation. I apologize for that.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Air Transport Association of Canada to speak to the issue of modernizing Canada's flight attendant-passenger ratios. Before I do so, however, I do want to make one thing perfectly clear for the benefit of committee members, in response to some of the characterizations about our industry's position in this debate in the press over the last few weeks and months. Neither ATAC nor any of our members would ever propose a regulatory change that we believe would endanger passengers, period—not to cut costs, not for any reason whatsoever. It simply wouldn't make sense. In fact, safety and innovation have been the hallmarks of our association from the beginning.

ATAC was founded in 1934 as the national service organization for Canada's commercial air service providers, and it currently represents over 200 members, comprising 95% of Canada's commercial aviation revenues. Our membership is diverse, ranging from Canada's largest airlines to flight schools throughout the country. ATAC works on behalf of the industry to promote a world-leading commercial aviation sector based on safety, efficiency, and innovation.

On this issue in particular, ATAC, and more specifically my colleague Andy Vasarins, has been working through the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council, or CARAC, process to advance this change—Andy, specifically, for over two years now, ATAC for much longer. Indeed, this issue has been studied thoroughly at CARAC, which is an open, inclusive body, where organized labour has been a robust participant in the process. It has also been debated before this committee in each of the last two Parliaments.

While we have no interest in revisiting old ground on this debate, we would like to take the opportunity you have graciously given us here today to provide some context on the issue, to speak to the integrity of the process of amending aviation regulations in Canada, and to set the record straight on some misperceptions that have been perpetuated by those who have waged a very public campaign against modernization.

As you all know, Mr. Chairman, the issue we're referring to is a request by our industry to bring Canadian flight attendant ratio regulations in line with those of the U.S. and most EU countries. The current regulation requires one flight attendant for every forty passengers, whereas most regulatory regimes throughout the world require one flight attendant for every fifty seats. Opponents of this proposal have suggested, unfortunately—and we would suggest irresponsibly—that this would compromise safety. In fact, a detailed review of this proposal, conducted by an independent consultant for CARAC, concluded that no such case could be made. The data wasn't there.

Moreover, it should be noted that during the three years this proposal has taken to work its way through the CARAC and CARC processes, significant amendments and caveats have been added to ensure that this proposal does not in fact compromise safety.

First, air carriers will not be allowed to rotate back and forth between one to forty and one to fifty. We are now going to be required to declare which one we're operating under, and stick with it, to avoid potential confusion amongst staff. For similar reasons, flight attendants will only be allowed to be certified on up to three aircraft types.

Also, notwithstanding the ratio, all wide-bodied jets will have to have as many flight attendants on board as there are emergency exit doors on each passenger level. Moreover, carriers that choose to operate under the new standard will be required to demonstrate equal capability to evacuate their aircraft in case of emergency to the same standard that applies under the existing ratio, commonly known as the 90-second standard.

The result, Mr. Chairman, is that even after this change is implemented, it is highly likely that many flights will still carry more than the minimum crew complement assumed by those doing the simple one-to-fifty math calculation.

In short, the process has worked. Detailed data-driven studies concluded that there would be no reduction in safety by adopting this proposal, and consultative dialogue with all stakeholders resulted in a further set of restrictions to ensure that all possible concerns were addressed.

We respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this committee should and would want to support the work of a CARAC process. It is one that ensures that civil aviation regulations are debated in a non-politicized, data-driven environment to seek to achieve the best result for Canadians.

Unfortunately, opponents of this proposal have chosen to use fear in their attempt to achieve politically what they have failed to achieve at CARAC. Again, the facts are our best ally in rebuffing these claims. The one-to-fifty ratio has been in use for a little over 30 years in the United States and for slightly less time in the EU. In that period of time, not one aviation incident report has cited this ratio as the contributing factor in cases of serious harm to passengers from aviation incidents. In fact, since air carriers are regulated according to the regime of their home countries, there are literally dozens of large commercial flights from U.S. and European airlines that operate into Canada every day, carrying thousands of passengers quite safely under the one-to-fifty ratio. This standard is so common and universally accepted as a safe one that the modern aircraft are actually designed and built assuming the one-to-fifty ratio. It's working today in Canada and throughout the world.

Similarly, it's been working for some Canadian certified aircraft as well, which are operating under special provisions, allowing them to staff according to one to fifty. Specifically, each of the Bombardier CRJ200 aircraft, the Dash 8-300, and the ATR 42-300 aircraft have been operating safely using the standard for some time now.

Mr. Chairman, it's time to allow Canadians and Canadian carriers to compete fairly with their U.S. and European counterparts. Yes, this is largely a cost issue for our members, but as I stated at the outset, we would never allow cost concerns to supersede safety concerns. The simple reality is, however, that there is no data to suggest there are any outstanding safety issues associated with this proposal. Let's recall that there was a time when every aircraft had a flight engineer on the flight deck. There was a time when every flight attendant had to be a registered nurse. Clearly, those regulations have all been in response to the times. So, too, the flight attendant-passenger ratios in Canada must evolve to meet safe and proven international standards, which allow Canadian operators to compete and thrive with their international counterparts on a level playing field.

Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman. With that, we look forward to your and the committee members' questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

I'm against this regulation. I think the airlines are overregulated in general.

Mr. Scarpaleggia asked a question about the safest airline in the world. Do you have any data on that?

[Fred Gaspar]

Unfortunately, we don't, and one of the reasons is that it's very hard because not everybody uses the same benchmarks and the same standards. All international, integrated, full-service passenger carriers generally ascribe to and meet the same safety standards; there's very little variation.