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--