That's a completely valid question. Please don't take this as a glib answer, but we provided that feedback at least six or seven times to our regulator.
In a nutshell, we provided areas that were causing.... Let me give you an example. A pilot comes back from a duty mission, and because he or she is free from duty one minute after this hour, it requires a complete four-hour extra reset the following day. The regulations are rife with details like that.
We just proposed alternative means to kind of achieve fatigue balance and measure, and a lot of them were summarily ignored. We were kind of branded as not wanting change and as being worried about the bottom line of our airline. That wasn't the case. We embraced wholeheartedly the requirement for change.
I do want to say that there have been some things on the TSB watch list for the better part of a decade that have still not been actioned. As far as the timeline of items on the watch list, fatigue has a relatively short one if you look at when it actually first got added to the watch list, which was, incidentally, based on a solitary event perpetrated by Air Canada in San Francisco, it seems. There isn't a long history of this being an issue.
However, I don't want to get into that. What we want to say here about these regulations is that this ship has sailed. As an association and as operators, we are eager to make sure that this same box-checking exercise of consultation and the lack of understanding of the impact on the north does not occur with future regulatory changes.