With all due respect, I'm a little puzzled that our analyst is giving us the advice. I've never seen that in eight years on how we're going to run our study. I think it's up to us to decide, having talked to various people who have asked me to bring these issues forward. I appreciate Mr. Hardie's support for what I'm saying.
I think maybe (A) and (B) could go together. We're asking more broadly, what issues are that were identified in that 2008 study and since then. I would hope that we update since then because there are all kinds of reviews that have been done by the Transportation Safety Board, and so forth. I don't want to just talk about 2008. I think those potentially, with deference to Ms. Watts, could be combined.
I don't even understand how you come up with three meetings if they're all jumbled together. I think that in respect for those who want to raise the thing about remote-control devices, or those who want to talk about fatigue management, I know for sure there are different union people who specialize in that. There are probably different people in the department who are dealing with those issues and different Transportation Safety Board inspectors who have looked at those issues. I think we give them clear direction and say, “On this day please send us the person in your agency or entity who has specifically dealt with this and can help us to come up with some recommendations”. It's fine if we say three days, but that's what I would see dividing up. Potentially (A) and (B) could be together or on a separate day. Then it's four days, but I don't see that, Ms. Watts, has anything to do with the remote control and fatigue, so it doesn't make sense to lump it all in together.
I suggest we at least have one panel on fatigue and one panel on remote control, but to lump them all in together is just completely nonsensical.