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.