That was a method the Department of Transportation used to try to balance out a lot of problems for the smaller airlines and a lot of complaints when this was being brought forward in negotiations over the regulations. For example, regarding what we heard before about crew and staffing shortages—and the airlines in the north do have fewer crew; it's true—the idea is that we still want them to follow these regulations, but we recognize that they might have some other challenges, and therefore they only have to pay half. They really only have to pay half. It's a very blunt instrument, but it's meant to cover a lot of categories and situations.
You could come up with a more fine-grained rule for various carriers and various areas of the country, but then it gets complicated. Or you could say that there's no difference. Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately, we have this very practical rule, which is little airlines pay half. That's a good way to split the difference between them and, say, an Air Canada. However, this is now being attacked in the Federal Court of Appeal. Some are saying we're creating a difference between airlines and that gets rid of our jurisdiction to have these regulations because the Chicago Convention says you treat all airlines the same. It's a no-win situation. I don't know where to go with it.