That's a multi-part question. We will see if we can work through that.
For starters, the impact is about 13% to our flight crew roster. That's pretty significant. Also, the turnover rate is the highest we've experienced in the 10-plus years we have been in operation. So it's two things coming at you at one time.
From Porter's perspective, and I think I'd have to say this would probably be an industry objective, it's to make the system safer. I don't think we should just focus narrowly on crew fatigue as an item in itself. Rather, how do you make the entire system safer? The notice of intent and the proposed regulations, in our view, will not make it safer. They will make it necessary for companies to re-examine some of their hiring standards and their training, and/or in fact go the other way and just start to eliminate flights.
In our particular case, if we were to take the opposite view that somehow we could not, because of our circumstances, adjust either our standards or our training or anything else to accommodate the hiring requirement in terms of crewing, and at the same time find ourselves with the shorter supply both now and for several years to come—before that pendulum swings—then we would have to eliminate, based on the present schedule, about 650 flights. That's fairly significant.
I think there was a third part to that. How do we deal with crew fatigue as it exists today? Primarily we do it through our own system of fatigue risk management, using largely the safety management system. We've really had two instances that I am aware of that were freely reported by crew members. And let me tell you; they're not bashful about reporting anything either as an incident or as a hazard. Everything goes into our SMS system.
We've had two reports. Those reports were dealt with through proper investigation and a remediation and mitigation against further occurrences, a full audit, and the implementation of procedures that would deal with those things that were brought forward as potentially being of concern to crew members in terms of potential fatigue as a result of the way schedules were deployed or anything else.
That's our way of dealing with it. It could be formalized in some manner. I do entirely buy into the risk management system, but I don't think just changing things unilaterally and creating one set of rules, right from long-haul international, to freight, to regional short-haul, to small charter operators, to those who deal in remote cities, is a good thing to do. Empirically, I think it will actually drive our joint objective of a safer system in the other direction.