I understand how exceptional it was, but we didn't get complaints from those other aircraft, not that I'm aware of.
Again, if you become aware that you have people in your custody, in your plane.... It's kind of a rhetorical question at this point, and I understand that. But you could save yourself a world of pain and a world of grief from a government that is asked to do something about the problem that's created when people don't think, when they don't use their head, and they don't ask the simple question, “What are we going to do for our passengers?”
Johnson and Johnson set the bar pretty well in the Tylenol tampering. They said they didn't care what the problem was; they would just fix it. Lloyd's of London did exactly the same thing following the San Francisco earthquake. It just dealt with it and paid the claims.
That's the value statement that needs to be nailed to the wall in every airline, every business, in fact. Number one is the customer, and we failed, and that's why government is doing what it's doing right now.
Mr. Bergamini, I'm going to talk about the balance between user-pay and everybody pays. It was interesting that one of our earlier witnesses mentioned that we're first in the world when it comes to our airports. They're great facilities, great everything, but we're 61st when it comes to the cost. He didn't really seem to get the connection between the two: the fact that we do pay a lot is the reason we have really good facilities.
What is the appropriate balance between user-pay, through all of the fees, etc., that we talk about, and everybody pays, which turns into a government subsidy? What's the proper balance here?