Transport Committee on Dec. 4th, 2018

[Darren Buss]

Okay.

Training for oneself is always done in the context of the company you're working for, and it is paid for by that company. If I work for Sunwing and I fly a 737, Sunwing is going to pay for my 737-type training annually. That's the only thing that's applicable to that pilot at that time.

In terms of incentives for pilots to come back and become flight instructors after they've already been in the industry, that's something that we're working on. We're trying to determine the best and most effective way of doing that.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Great. Thank you.

Mr. Fuhr can continue.

[Stephen Fuhr, Kelowna—Lake Country, Lib.]

Thank you very much.

I want to quickly talk a little bit more about the airport capital assistance program, because it is part of the infrastructure.

I remember Trail came to see the Pacific caucus in Kelowna. They ended up getting a pretty nice-sized grant from the federal government to resurface their runway, which they were very happy about.

Can you tell us what you think that program needs to be boosted to? Do you know what the need is, Mr. Gooch?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

I know we're in the process of compiling some numbers on that now. I know it's $38 million, and it's been pretty much stalled at that for about 18 years.

I know we put a paper in to the Emerson review, and I believe it put the figure at about $75 million a year as being more appropriate for the need. I think it's probably between $75 million and $100 million. I know we are trying to get our arms around that, because construction costs are just continuing to go up. In certain parts of the country, the cost of making basic maintenance repairs is quite astronomical.

I think the need is around $75 million to $100 million.

[Stephen Fuhr]

Does that include airports across the country? Is there a different need in the north? I know that doing anything in the north takes longer and costs more. Does that include northern communities as well, or is that across the lower 49th?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

I'll let my colleague speak to the north, but ACAP has under 200 airports that are eligible for that program. There's a minimum requirement in terms of commercial service, and there's also a maximum in terms of passenger counts.

In the context of this discussion, you'll have airports that may have flight schools that are not eligible for ACAP because they have too much commercial traffic. On the lower end, the airports that only have general aviation, which would be many of the hosts of flight schools, are not eligible for ACAP at all. The program is really important to those airports that are eligible, but that eligible group of airports is not everyone, and the money is not quite there to support the demand for those that are eligible today.

[Stephen Fuhr]

Increased funding and maybe a revamp of eligibility would probably be warmly welcomed, I would imagine.

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

Both of those certainly would be worth a review.

Now, when we gave you that number of $75 million to $100 million, that was based on the airports that are currently eligible, right? If you start looking at general aviation, that's another matter altogether.

[Stephen Fuhr]

Mr. Priestley, I would like you to weigh in on this really quickly, because the north is really important.

[Glenn Priestley]

I really like a program called the Medallion program. It's out of Alaska. It was formed after 9/11 when there was no insurance available and they had the highest accident ratio in the world.

It's based on skills development. They provide FAA and industry money together, collaboratively, and remember, it's not simulators—it's flight training devices. What we use doesn't move; a simulator moves.

They put in flight training devices at airports across Alaska. They use something like the ACAP funding, of which, by the way, the north gets about 10%, which is what Mr. Gooch saying correctly. It's about $38 million for the entire country. It's ridiculously low.

I think there's a better opportunity to use that money to work with outfits such as Alkan Air, the number one provider of medevac services for the Yukon, and with other medevac service providers. This is where we can put our medevac pilots in, and this is where we can use funding to have simulators—flight training devices—in airports, so that they can keep themselves current.

That's the Medallion program in Alaska. You get a medallion on your airplane, and if you don't belong to the Medallion program, you don't get government charters and you don't get government business.

I share that with you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to our witnesses for some very valuable information on this study.

We will suspend to switch our witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm calling the meeting back to order.

We have with us now Dan Adamus from ALPA Canada, the Air Line Pilots Association, International; Mark Laurence, the national chair of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association; and Suzanne Kearns, associate professor, geography and aviation, University of Waterloo. Welcome to you all.

Mr. Adamus, would you like to start for five minutes, please?

[Captain Dan Adamus, President, Canada Board, Air Line Pilots Association International]

Certainly. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I am Dan Adamus. I'm the ALPA Canada president for the Air Line Pilots Association, International, and I've been a commercial pilot for 35 years.

ALPA represents 61,000 professional pilots in Canada and the United States. I appreciate the opportunity to provide comment for the committee's study of the challenges facing flight schools in Canada.

ALPA is the largest non-governmental aviation safety and security organization in the world. In Canada, ALPA represents 5,500 pilots who fly for 12 airlines. Our pilots fly aircraft that carry both passengers and cargo.

I would like to offer you some insight today from the perspective of a professional pilot and as someone who has first-hand experience in a profession and industry that has changed considerably in the last number of decades, especially since deregulation of the airline industry in the late 1980s.

Since deregulation, pilot salaries have declined, and that is the primary reason we are now facing a pilot shortage. Make no mistake about it: this is Economics 101. If you pay them, they will come.

Being a pilot was once considered a lucrative job, but that has fallen by the wayside. Today, Canadian pilots, on average, are lagging behind their U.S. counterparts in pay by at least 20%. In addition, foreign carriers are attracting Canadian pilots with generous compensation packages. We estimate that well over 1,000 Canadian pilots are overseas flying with foreign airlines.

Furthermore, becoming a commercial pilot no longer has the same appeal that it had in the 1970s and 1980s, and we therefore need to start thinking outside the box. Recruiting young aviators is important, but equally important is ensuring a steady supply of flight instructors, as you have heard from other presenters.

Being a flight instructor is considered an entry-level job. As such, there is little incentive to remain teaching any longer than necessary, thus creating an issue for flight schools and, moreover, the industry.

Why is this? It's tied to the way pilots are paid: the bigger the plane, the bigger the pay. Seniority dictates who gets to fly the bigger airplanes, and seniority is not transferable among airlines.

For these reasons, flight instructors choose to leave at the first opportunity, to establish their position on a seniority list to progress to the larger aircraft.

To entice flight instructors to stay longer, we would suggest that the aviation industry align itself with other industries and recognize years of service and experience for pay purposes. Doing this would mean that flight instructor time would count toward their pay level if or when they decide to go to the airlines. This could also work in reverse, whereby a pilot late in their career may wish to finish their last few years as a flight instructor.

While I recognize this is a significant departure from the current practice and would require all stakeholders to buy in, it would help create a more stable and predictable career path for pilots and maintain Canada as a world leader in aviation.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Laurence.

[Mark Laurence, National Chair, Canadian Federal Pilots Association]

Good morning, Madam Chair and committee members. Thank you very much for the invitation to appear.

The pilot shortage, as we've heard, affects flight schools and the industry as a whole. It also even affects Transport Canada, as it has difficulties attracting pilots to become inspectors.

When someone considers a career in aviation, they have to look at the investment of time and money to become qualified and then at what the return on that investment is going to be. Simply put, an investment in aviation is seen as a risky investment. There are other careers to chose from that may require a similar investment, but the return on that investment is much more certain.

I would say the pinnacle of the industry would be to become a captain flying the largest airplane at the biggest airline, and of course making the most money. For a person entering the industry, the chances of getting to that pinnacle of the industry are virtually nil. A very small percentage of people get there.

You have to look at what the next best-case scenario would be for someone joining the industry. That would be flying at a major airline, but that also comes with some downsides, which are significant. The first one is that your career hinges on your medical condition. If you get sick or have a problem, then you're done, and you have to find a new career.

The other parts are more lifestyle-related. As Captain Adamus mentioned, your schedule is based on seniority. If you do have seniority, you get to bid on the work you'd like and the time off you'd like. If you do not have seniority, you don't; you get the leftovers from the schedule. That adds to the challenge of planning your life outside of your work.

I'm not talking about safety here, but the hours of work are long and include early starts, late nights, flying through the night and crossing multiple time zones. It's not a healthy lifestyle. It's challenging enough to exercise regularly, eat well on the road and get the good sleep you need. Throwing in multiple nights away from home adds to the challenge of your life at home. When you're single and young, it doesn't matter, because you don't have the commitments and that's a little bit easier to take, but as you become older and start a family, those responsibilities make that even more difficult.

As we heard, starting out in the industry and getting training can cost a lot of money, up to $100,000. Your first job is either as a flight instructor or at a small airline to build hours and get experience so you can get that next job. One of my members laughed at me when I said the starting salary of a flight instructor is something near minimum wage, which is $30,000 a year. He didn't think it was that much, from his experience.

You're not working a 40-hour workweek in these starting jobs. You're paid by the hours you fly, generally, and the regulations allow you to work up to 72 hours a week, or up to 98, depending on which subpart you're working in. Again, putting safety aside, working those sorts of hours doesn't leave any time for life other than working and sleeping.

When you start out in the business, you're very vulnerable. You can't complain about anything with your employer. Financially you're vulnerable, as you need this job to pay the bills you've incurred. Your career is vulnerable, because you need to build these hours so you can carry on with your career. Your lack of experience makes you vulnerable to pressures to fly when you probably really shouldn't fly. Without that experience and confidence, you may not be able to say no and may not realize exactly how dangerous what you're being asked to do is.

Once you've accumulated that experience after a couple of years, you move up to your next job, the bigger airplane. It's not necessarily a step up in pay. You'll be going in at the bottom of that company's pay structure, so again, you may be going down to go up.

Then there's the traditional instability of the industry. Air operators come and go. When an air operator goes out of business and you've been there a few years, whatever seniority you've built up is gone, and when you go to the next operator, you're at the bottom of the list again.

There are some significant downsides to having a career as a pilot. There are upsides as well, but it seems that young people are weighing their options and choosing different careers that offer a similar economic reward but a better lifestyle. A couple of members of my association, who have a lot more experience in the industry than I do, summed it up like this to me: “The kids are smarter now than we were.”

Thank you very much for the invitation. I'm happy to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Ms. Kearns is next.

[Professor Suzanne Kearns, Associate Professor, University of Waterloo, Geography and Aviation, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to sincerely thank the committee members for the opportunity to speak to you all today and for your efforts on this important issue. Canada's air transport sector is vital to our economy and way of life, and yet the projected doubling of aircraft and flights internationally by 2036 creates a variety of both opportunities and challenges that can threaten to make the sector unsustainable.

Today I'll briefly introduce my background, and as my colleagues have stated much of the important background information already, I'll limit my comments to five key recommendations, which are outlined in more detail in the brief I've provided.

As a teenager, I was proud to be a Canadian air cadet in a program that provides free aviation education and flight training scholarships. The cadets program has provided a pathway for many young Canadians into aviation careers and is an important program for you to consider in your review.

I went on to earn my commercial pilot licence and multi-engine instrument ratings in both airplanes and helicopters, a college diploma in helicopter piloting, and my bachelor's and master's degrees in aviation disciplines. I then began working full time as an aviation university professor at the age of 24 and completed my Ph.D. while I was working full time. My Ph.D. is in education.

As an aviation professor, I teach undergraduate and graduate students in academic aviation topics, meaning not how to fly a plane but things like international aviation, safety management and aviation sustainability.

I conduct research. I've written four aviation books, including a book on competency-based education, and I hold leadership roles in several international aviation associations, primarily on issues associated with outreach and education.

My first recommendation is access to student loans for flight training costs.

Student loans do not cover flight expenses in most provinces. In a 2017 survey, aviation students reported that finances were the single most difficult part of pilot training programs, more than any of the knowledge or skill requirements. I know of many troubling stories: families mortgaging their home to support their child's education, students working full-time overnight shifts and sleeping in their cars to earn and save money, students dropping out only months before completion because they simply ran out of funds. In my opinion, affordable student loans for pilots would have the single greatest impact on the pilot supply issue.

My second recommendation is loan forgiveness for time served as a flight instructor or in northern and remote communities.

My colleagues have outlined the background of this issue, but if student pilots and northern communities cannot shoulder the expense of increasing the salaries for these positions, a loan forgiveness program could incentivize these professions without making them prohibitively expensive.

My third recommendation is that as only five to seven per cent of pilots are women and there is very little ethnic diversity in the field, pathways and incentives to support women and minorities in aviation careers would be very helpful. As a point of reference, the International Civil Aviation Organization held a global gender summit in August of this year, with a goal of reaching a fifty-fifty gender ratio in aviation by the year 2030. Equalizing the gender imbalance would have an immediate effect at ameliorating the supply issues.

My fourth recommendation is holistic and STEM-connected aviation education, beginning at the primary and secondary school levels.

Pilots are only one of several critical aviation professional groups that are experiencing a shortage. Maintenance professionals, air traffic controllers, airport managers, flight attendants and many others are in very high demand. I am the vice-chair of ICAO's Next Generation of Aviation Professionals program, which seeks to attract, educate and retain young professionals within aviation careers. We emphasize a holistic approach, meaning that we consider the entire range of professional groups that are experiencing shortages, rather than a profession-specific approach that looks at only pilots.

My final recommendation is exploration of competency-based training methodologies, which can improve the efficiency of ab initio or early pilot training, and regulatory credit for hours conducted in a flight simulation device toward the licensing criteria.

I just want to emphasize that the balance of resources within aviation has historically always been tipped toward the end of the pilot career pipeline. We haven't put the time, emphasis and research into investigating the challenges at the beginning of the pipeline.

Although meeting the needs of today is a challenge, it's also important to recognize that Canada has an opportunity to capitalize on the growth of the aviation sector and position itself as an international leader in this field. Canada is home to universities, manufacturers, operators and training organizations that are among the best in the world. Uniting these strengths under a national aviation innovation strategy could cement our standing as a country of chief importance in global aviation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, and congratulations, by the way, for your successes already. Who knows where that's going to take you?

We'll go on to Mr. Liepert.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Gentlemen, when I heard your presentation this morning, I could only conclude that this sounds like the worst job in the world, the way you described it. If that's how the association sells itself, it's no wonder you have a shortage of pilots. I didn't hear one real recommendation, other than a bunch of complaints about how bad it is in industry.

What are you suggesting? Are you suggesting the government get back into the airline business? We already have some of the highest air fares for consumers in the country, and taxes all across the board that consumers have to pay. What's your suggestion as to solving this problem?

[Capt Dan Adamus]

I'll start off.

As somebody who represents the pilots you're talking about, there are some good days. I would submit to you that there's no better office in the world than the flight deck of an aircraft, but that's once you're up in the air and you're going. It's all the other stuff, and Mark outlined a good chunk of it. I didn't get into that; I knew that other witnesses were going to talk about it.

However, there are some challenges. It is not the profession that the general public likes to think it is, this glamorous job where you're making all kinds of money and laying over for 24 hours in an exotic city. That is not the case. It may have been in the seventies, but it's not like that anymore.

When young people are looking at a career choice, they look at the whole picture—the compensation package, the hours of work. When they compare it to other jobs out there, no longer is the pilot profession up there. It's down here, like everything else.

What I was submitting as an industry—and perhaps the government could help point the industry in this direction—is to change our pay models. The pay model we have right now is based on a seniority system, and Mark outlined this as well. If your company happens to go out of business and you have to start all over again and you have 20 years in the business, you're going back to year-one pay. There's no other industry that does that.

There's no predictability in our industry. There's no stability. We liken parents spending $100,000 for their child to take flight training as buying a $100,000 lottery ticket. They have no idea if there's going to be a return on the investment.

These are some of the things we wanted to outline to make sure that everybody is fully aware that this industry, the pilot profession, is not what it used to be.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

You're suggesting that the government get in the middle of it and start putting regulations in place.

I think, for the consumers, deregulation has probably worked better than having a regulated industry, so what would be the outcome for consumers if the government did what you're suggesting?

[Capt Dan Adamus]

I'm not asking the government to re-regulate the industry, not even maybe. I agree that deregulation is best for consumers. What I'm asking is that the government may want to encourage all the parties in the industry—all the stakeholders—to get together to see if there's a different model.

As I mentioned, salaries in Canada compared to the United States are lagging by at least 20%, and 30% to 40% in some cases. The airline industry in the United States is as robust now as it has ever been, with record profits.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Well, okay, there are probably other reasons for that as well. One of the reasons that's always been stated is that in the United States you have 10 times the population. This is an expensive country to cover with airlines.

I don't want to sound like I'm defending the airlines; I want to make sure that anything we're considering is not going to significantly impact the consumer. As I say, today, with the combination of our taxes on fuel, the pending carbon tax and what seems to be increasing fees on an annual basis for airport authorities, I'm not sure how you can do some of the things you're suggesting and still maintain a system that doesn't have consumers paying exorbitant amounts to fly across this country.

[Mark Laurence]

I don't think I have an answer for you. However, I remember that in 1983 I went up to the military's aircrew selection in Toronto from Nova Scotia, and my ticket was either a $500 ticket or an $800 ticket on Air Canada. That was 35 years ago, and you can do it for less now.

I have a hard time with how that's possible. Things get more expensive as time goes by in general.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Okay.