Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Nourse, I would like to go back to the insightful comments you made with respect to the 1:40 versus 1:50 flight attendant ratio.
As I understand it now, if you're flying one of the major 705 carriers, and you want, for example, to sit in an emergency exit, you get the privilege of paying an additional sum of money so you can be of service to the airline should there be a problem. We've all been on different flights. Sometimes you get a thorough briefing; sometimes you get a cursory briefing; sometimes you get no briefing. I don't know how that all shakes down in terms of consistency.
What are Canadians to make of this? We're told it's an ICAO standard. I'm sure your member companies will abide by whatever the standard might be. On the other hand, Canada has filed dozens of exceptions, I think is the right word, to ICAO standards.
What are Canadians to make of this move, this pressure for moving from 1:40 to 1:50 flight attendant ratio? Keep in mind that we've asked the major 705 carriers to give us the financial implications of this move. This committee has not yet received from those witnesses, those companies, the pecuniary consequences and how much cheaper it's going to be. Will there be savings or no savings?
Keeping that in mind yourself in terms of your 107 member companies, can you address that?