I'm wondering whether Mr. Reinhardt would just clarify something for me. I appreciate Mr. Laframboise's line of questioning. Maybe Mr. Laframboise will want to put me in my place in a moment, but I detect a sincere desire on his part to accept what Mr. Reinhardt said regarding G-3.1 revised, and that is that it has adequate protections, as I read it, in the location where we put it last week.
The confusion that's emerging, from my perspective, and again, I say that Mr. Laframboise may want to correct me, is that the protections inherent in that G-3.1 revised are so laudable that they should apply to those who are not captured by the SMS system but may be working in an environment where.... One moment. I thought it was for all employees.
My understanding, Mr. Reinhardt, is that under an SMS system--and this we have not gone into in great detail--all the operations that are captured by employees, subcontractors, contractors, and actual operators have an obligation under the SMS. So anybody who works for an airport--let's say the machinists, the baggage handlers, those who pump fuel, those who prepare the plane--is part of this.
So G-3.1 revised, as we accepted it last week, covers the entire spectrum of anyone who's associated in any way with that SMS system. So the protections are applicable as well to those who are not the direct dependants of a document holder or a certificate holder, because you might have multiple document holders and certificate holders under “one operation”. Is my understanding a little too generous, or am I completely off the wall?