The proposal looked at in 2001 was not declared not safe, per se, it was declared not as safe as the 1:40 regime. Some people claim it was not safe, but let's not play with words: it was declared not as safe as 1:40. And we rejected it; we said it was not good, and we rejected it outright.
The proposal we have on the table today, after consultation and after a risk analysis, is quite different. It has a ratio of 1:50 plus a series of mitigation measures, as I explained. We feel that those mitigation measures, along with a ratio that is harmonized with what's being used in the world, will offer a level of safety equivalent to the 1:40 regime. It's not changed.
The proposal is to keep the regime we have now and to offer the airlines, as an alternative for their whole fleet, the possibility of using the other regime. But in order to benefit from this, they would have to make an application to Transport Canada. This would be part of their operating certificate. They would have to demonstrate that all of the mitigation measures would be put in place.
With those measures, we are very confident that it does offer an equivalent level of safety.