I'll also give you an opportunity to.... Oh, he has left the room at the moment. Mr. Sullivan had a question and I didn't get a chance to rebut. I wouldn't mind taking that opportunity, as well.
First and foremost, if you look at an international standard, one in 50 very much is an equivalent standard to one in 40.
To the discussion around the doors, in particular, I'll use the Boeing 737-600 as an example. It holds only 119 guests, or passengers—guests is a WestJet vernacular. Whether it was one in 40 or one in 50, it's still required to carry three flight attendants. Of course, there would still be a door without a flight attendant; however, being a narrow-body aircraft, it has been proven time and time again that's not an issue.
In a lot of ways we find that we actually have better staffing on board the aircraft, because one in 40 allowed it a flexibility piece. You could have an aircraft with four doors, and if you wanted only 80 passengers on board, you'd only be required, under one in 40, to have two attendants. One in 50 takes that operating flexibility away, and it always requires that an aircraft dispatch appropriately, with the correct number of flight attendants at all times. One fewer flight attendant has no means for that aircraft to move. That's why we basically are very comfortable saying it's an equivalent level of safety.
It looks slightly different, but there's no reduction in safety barriers or margins, or else WestJet would not have entertained it whatsoever. On behalf of our 2,600 hard-working flight attendants, I strongly suggest they would have a stake in that game, too, and that's our comfort from that, sir.
I'm sorry, but I got a little off topic. If that did not answer the question and you'd like me to restate something, I'd be happy to put that framework back into it.