Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 14 - Evidence, December 4, 2012
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 4, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 9:31 a.m. for its study on emerging issues related to the Canadian airline industry.
Senator Dennis Dawson (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.
[English]
This morning we are returning to our study on the Canadian airline industry with a special focus on northern and regional issues.
Appearing before us today from the Air Line Pilots Association, International is Captain Dan Adamus, President, Canada Board and Captain Peter Black, Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Remote Operations.
Welcome back. You have the floor.
Captain Dan Adamus, President, Canada Board, Air Line Pilots Association, International: Thank you and good morning to all.
The Air Line Pilots Association, International, appreciates this opportunity to appear before you today to provide an overview of our interests in Northern Canada. We represent 51,000 pilots flying for 35 airlines in Canada and the United States, including 2,800 professional pilots that fly for nine airlines here in Canada.
Aside from being the world's largest professional pilot association, we are also the world's largest non-governmental aviation safety organization. We appeared before this committee a year ago and are pleased that your review continues, now focusing on northern and regional issues.
Today, I will give you an insight into the challenges faced by professional airline pilots when flying in remote areas. I will also discuss ways that ALPA believes the government could improve the safety of airline operations and service to those remote communities.
Earlier presenters to your committee have established that the North is of growing interest to a broad range of players and stakeholders due to rapid expansion of mining and other activities, and we agree. As such, in June of this year, ALPA formed a Committee for Remote Operations — Mr. Black is the chair of this committee — to address the unique and challenging issues facing professional pilots flying domestically in High Arctic airspace. As air traffic in this region is bound to see a steady increase, it becomes even more critical to ensure safe operations.
ALPA has identified areas of interest to ensure that air safety does not lag as northern airfields expand in the coming years: the requirement for the design and certification of more GPS-based instrument approach procedures; expansion of current airport infrastructure; improving the critical radio transmitter and communications infrastructure; and increased government financial support programs, such as ACAP, ahead of the coming boom rather than catching up afterwards.
For many years, ALPA advocated "one level of safety" for all airline operations regardless of the type of aircraft, the payload or nature the operation. Much of our association's safety work is grounded in that single important principle and we have worked to publish that single high level of safety throughout the industry.
In addition, the rapid growth in the transcontinental routes over Canada's northern airspace — particularly when we speak of over-the-pole flights which are now routine — brings additional safety considerations that must be addressed and resolved by regulatory solutions, improved policies and procedures and legislation in some cases.
Many remote airfields and aerodromes used routinely by commercial aircraft have either ground-based instrument approaches or instrument approaches that are coupled with GPS overlays that add a safety benefit. There are, however, a number of issues with this present approach system. First, the ground-based systems are expensive to maintain and the GPS overlays generally do not provide any significant operational improvement compared to the ground-based procedures. This is because the aerodromes do not have adequate surveys and infrastructure that would allow development of additional procedures with lower cloud-base ceilings and visibility limits. Second, under the present GPS-related regulations enacted more than 20 years ago, crews are not allowed to identify an airport as an alternate in the event that the primary airport becomes unusable. If that airport does not have a ground-based approach system, under present regulations airports that have only GPS approaches cannot be used as an alternate to the primary airport at which the aircraft intends to land.
Third, as you are well aware, weather conditions in the North change rapidly with respect to the cloud base and visibility. In view of the distances between airfields and the rapidly changing weather conditions, commercial aircraft serving those communities are required to carry much more fuel than their counterparts in the south in order to guarantee the safe flight to the alternate. I would like to explain why that is important. Transport Canada regulations are such that before you depart on a flight, you need enough fuel to go from point A to point B and then to an alternate airport, and then another 35 to 40 minutes of reserve fuel depending on the type of aircraft. The closer the alternate, the less fuel you have to bring. This means that you can put more payload on your aircraft.
The latest generation of GPS approaches, not the GPS overlays I just talked about, provide crews with information that allow them to conduct a constant stabilized descent to the runway. These stabilized approaches are safer because crews can minimize control input changes during the final phase of an approach and landing.
The added advantage is that the landing minima — the minimum altitude above ground that the aircraft may descend to during the final approach before the pilot actually sees the runway — are also generally lower than traditional ground-based approach systems, such as NDB and VOR type of approaches.
The GPS approach allows the aircraft to effect a safe landing in lower cloud-base conditions. However, simply replacing land-based approach systems with GPS-based procedures is not a cure-all. For this technology to be really effective in improving services to a community, better airport infrastructure must be developed concurrently. At the present time, many smaller northern airports would derive full benefit from improved GPS approaches only if they can install adequate runway lighting and an appropriate aerodrome survey that includes the approach and departure areas of all runways.
Very precise survey tools currently exist that would all allow for the design and certification of the latest GPS instrument approaches to which I just made reference. These approaches would provide capability to safety operate in lower ceilings or cloud levels and reduce visibility with the concurrent safety and expanded service capability benefits to these communities, which often depend solely on air for resupply, medevac and other essential services.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, the territories and communities owning these airports do not have the financial capability to undertake these surveys, lighting and other infrastructure developments.
This said, simply conducting an appropriate survey and improving the aerodrome lighting would make the design of GPS-based approaches with lower limits economically worthwhile.
An added benefit to the preservation of our planet will be a significant reduction in the amount of greenhouse gas emissions released in the atmosphere as a result of the reduced fuel consumption of the aircraft. Much has been said about the decrease in the stratospheric ozone over earth's polar regions. Greenhouse gas emissions in the upper atmosphere are on the increase and we need to reverse this trend before the damage becomes irreversible.
Continuing on the subject of airport infrastructure, it is a fact that the North is about to go through an expansion. This expansion will soon overtax the present capabilities of the airports. I am talking not only about the aforementioned surveys needed to support better instrument approach capability, but also about the length of the runways to accommodate larger aircraft, safer undershoot and overrun areas and large turnaround facilities and taxiways, expanded apron areas, hangar space for overnight air craft and airport-based helicopters that will be supporting operations, maintenance facilities and cargo storage, snow ice removal capability and larger fuel storage tanks just to name a few.
Added to this will be the requirement to house and feed large numbers of men and women who will be working in areas near these airports. These people will need to be supported mainly by aircraft. Medevac capabilities will have to be put in place to deal with serious accidents and health emergencies. With a population of less than 200,000 people supporting 52 airports and aerodromes, it is clear that the northern provinces and territories cannot bear the financial burden of upgrading the airports' infrastructure on their own. They need help, and they need it now.
Obviously, everything cannot be done at once as the costs associated with any infrastructure improvement in the North are astronomical in comparison to work in developed areas. Although we know that industry can and will provide financial support to any development it intends to conduct, airport infrastructure must be, at a minimum, able to accept an increased amount of air traffic on a routine basis in all kinds of weather. Presently, northern airports cannot provide this capability. Furthermore, many northern aerodromes do not currently have continuous communications with the rest of the Canadian aviation infrastructure, especially those that do not have a 24-hour control tower or Flight Service Station, FSS. When the tower or Flight Service Station is closed, crews often do not have any means to verify the en route and destination weather to file a flight plan, unless they have on-board satellite telephone capability.
I would like to talk about ACAP funding. Transport Canada states that there are currently 45 northern airports eligible for funding under the ACAP — 3 in the Yukon, 18 in the Northwest Territories and 24 in Nunavut.
ACAP funding is budgeted at about $42 million a year. ALPA believes that although this program has provided and continues to provide many financial benefits to eligible airports, the eligibility criteria and the amount of funding available need to be adjusted.
I will repeat that because that is really why we are here. The eligibility criteria and the amount of funding of ACAP need to be adjusted.
First, with respect to funding, we all know that everything costs a lot more in the North, and construction and survey work certainly fits that statement. In view of the coming expansion of the North to tap its resources, coupled with the limited financial capabilities of the region to support improved infrastructure, we believe that this program's budgetary limit needs to be increased by a significant amount.
Also, the current eligibility criteria are limited to projects that meet an airport's required level of safety. I believe you are aware of those limits, so I will not dwell on them. This said, we have been told that an airport survey does not meet these eligibility criteria. ALPA believes that any improvement to an airport infrastructure that would allow for the design and certification of lower and safer instrument approaches should meet the safety criteria. The added benefit would be increased air support to the communities in bad weather conditions and lower fuel costs as crews would most likely be able to use closer alternates during their day-to-day operations.
ALPA has been in the vanguard of aviation safety for many years, and we are convinced that the current thorough certification process of NAV CANADA, joined with those of Transport Canada, needs to continue to safely develop critical air navigation, communication and airport infrastructure, now and in the future, to safely serve the communities about the 60th parallel and other remote regions.
I would again like to thank the chair and committee members for providing ALPA the opportunity to appear before you today. We will be happy to answer any questions, especially due to the technical nature of some of our comments.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much for being here this morning. Thank you for your brief: it was very clear and really seemed to focus on safety.
My first question: you advocate one level of safety; later on, you say that you do not want to dwell on it because you feel that we are aware of it.
How many levels of safety exist at present, and why do you advocate just one?
[English]
Mr. Adamus: First of all, the present regulations with Transport Canada are such that there are different criteria for smaller operations in Canadian aviation. I think it is based on the risk analysis of the past. Transport Canada, I am sure, would be the best to answer the question as to why they chose that direction, but as far as pilots are concerned, whether you fly a large aircraft or a smaller aircraft, safety is paramount. Why should the rules be different? We have advocated that for years because we represent the pilots who fly from the smallest aircraft up to the largest aircraft, and the passengers on these aircraft expect to have a level of safety to ensure their safe journey.
Senator Boisvenu: If we have just one level of security, does that mean that what we have as landing instruments in airports will be the same in all airports? Is there a link between equipment and the number of levels?
Mr. Adamus: I think that what you are referring to is the different equipment for the actual landing and instrument procedures. That is the same for most aircraft depending on the type of equipment on board that aircraft. Normally, the larger aircraft have a little bit more equipment, but not always. Some of the new generation aircraft have a lot of advanced technology.
We are talking about having the approaches in Northern Canada similar to those in Southern Canada because, right now, they are considered non-precision approaches, which does not necessarily mean they are unsafe. It means that there is a higher limit for landing. You cannot get in in as bad weather in the North as you can in the South.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: If there are different levels of safety, does that mean that pilots can take a different level of risk for landings and takeoffs?
[English]
Mr. Adamus: I would say no. Pilots knows their limits, and depending on the type of operation, they will fly to those limits. Pilots will not take risks.
Senator Mercer: Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. We appreciate it.
Mr. Adamus, welcome back. To go back to the question of Senator Boisvenu on the one safety system, some of us travelled north in the last little while. There was concern expressed to us by airport operators — not by pilots — about their ability to comply with the single set of rules that seem to be applied. The standards are set by Transport Canada and others. Their difficulty is complying with that from a cost point of view, due to the cost of the infrastructure that is needed to comply plus the fact that they are in a unique situation because of the remoteness of their airports or aerodromes. Can you comment on that? That is what I recall hearing from the people in the North.
Mr. Adamus: We read some of the transcripts from previous witnesses, so I believe you are talking about a proposal to extend the overrun and undershoot areas of runways and the costs involved. We want airports to be as safe as possible. If you have the extra overrun area or the undershoot area, then when you are calculating your landing distance, you can most likely land at a heavier weight or on a shorter runway if you have that extra room at the end or before the button of the runway. If you do not, then you have to use the calculations that we have now, and you need to bring in smaller aircraft. You simply cannot get the larger aircraft in.
I do not know if Mr. Black has anything to add.
Captain Peter Black, Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Remote Operations, Air Line Pilots Association, International: Yes, the airport operators in the North have a very difficult set of circumstances that they have to try to maintain. When we talk about the same level of safety and the same level of expectation that you as a passenger have when you get on an aircraft in Ottawa and are going to Iqaluit and then on to a place like Clyde River, we want to ensure that you, as a travelling passenger, and the flight crews are subject to a continuous process. It is one set of expectations, one level where they know that certain criteria will be met so that they can get themselves and their passengers a payload from A to B and on to C as safely as possible.
That is not to say that it is unsafe right now, but we would like to enhance the safety. In other words, we like the fact that if you were travelling to Clyde River, you would be going there with the same sense of awareness as you would be landing or travelling into Ottawa or Toronto. Our goal is trying to maintain that level throughout.
Senator Mercer: I think we all have the same goal here of airports being as safe as possible. It is the uniqueness of the geography, of the terrain in the North that makes it very difficult for certain airports to provide that extra. I think of the airport in Iqaluit where, if it were to expand much further, it would be in the water.
I want you to explain in a little more detail. Again, talking about the costs in the North, $42 million has been set aside in ACAP funding, and you talk about 45 northern airports that are eligible for ACAP funding.
When we visited the North, we talked to municipal leaders, to airport authorities and other groups, and the cost of doing the infrastructure work in the North is so exorbitant. Indeed, if you are laying asphalt, there will not necessarily be an asphalt machine in your community. If there is, it costs a lot to get it there and to get it out of there.
There is $42 million for the eligible airports, and the eligibility criteria and the amount of funding available need to be adjusted.
Can you give us a number? For this work, I think $42 million is a drop in the bucket. Taking into consideration the government does not have an endless supply of money — there are budget constraints and we have to provide for safe advanced spending on airports in the North — if you were making a recommendation to the Finance Minister today, how much would you suggest that he allow?
Mr. Black: Senator, it would be as big as we can fill the bucket. One of the things here, and I do not mean to be facetious, is that it is $45 million spread across all the airports in Canada, which I think number about 200, and 45 of those airports meet the eligibility criteria in the North.
Doubling that amount probably would be a start. I do not know exactly what the numbers were of the recent reconstruction of the airport here in Ottawa, but it was substantial and you go through money very quickly.
With regard to putting asphalt down on airports in the North, it is probably not that practical. One of the things we can do to get around that particular problem is that the operators purchase aircraft that can operate on gravel and meet all the criteria set down by the regulator.
What we are looking for, specifically, is getting that aircraft lined up in a constant descent angle, as Captain Adamus talked about, in a stabilized approach so that they have a chance of lining up the aircraft without unnecessary control input and to continue the approach and land successfully. Likewise, if they elect not to land for whatever reason, it may be — they feel it unsafe because of weather conditions or there may be a caribou on the runway; it could be many things — that they are able again to exit or leave that area in a very controlled way.
It is important to have accurate and updated surveys of the areas leading into and away from the airport. A GPS or global positioning system fine-tunes the accuracy. The more accurate your navigation, the finer and better you are able to get from A to B. I do not mean to thread the needle, but you can go through a very narrow confine and know that your obstacles are well away from you.
Senator Mercer: Who pays for that survey? I have a GPS for my car and they have mapped out all the cities.
Mr. Black: Right now, in the case of the territories, it would have to be the owner of the airport, which in this case would be one of the three territories that would have to pay for that survey.
Senator Mercer: That would be a pretty costly item when surveying in rural, remote Canada.
Mr. Black: It is, indeed, but like many of these things, although the precision of the survey is getting better and better, the technology being used to accomplish that survey is becoming better and probably coming down in price. I do not have an exact price as to what it is, but it is becoming very accurate.
Senator Mercer: With respect to ACAP requests in the North, I am familiar with one airport in northern Alberta that has a request on the table for $25 million. That is over half the money that is there alone.
The Chair: You have in mind Nunavut, obviously, and as Senator Mercer said, if you want to make the runway longer, you have to put it in the water.
You mentioned cost. If governments were to invest in this improved GPS system, would fewer flights be cancelled? Do Iqaluit and Yellowknife not have a high level of flight cancellations, meaning people are stuck not able to do what they want to? It is not obviously just tourism but also business flights. Would this investment not be recouped by a more efficient service of airlines in the North?
Mr. Adamus: A simple answer is yes. It would be worthwhile. You would be allowed to land at a lower cloud base level.
The Chair: You would have fewer reasons for cancelling flights and more security for everyone.
Mr. Adamus: Correct.
The Chair: The problem, as you mentioned, is that because of the smallness of the market, funding is a problem.
I will quote from an article on Mary River in The Globe and Mail this morning. That is the iron investment being done in Iqaluit.
Once built, Mary River could triple the territory's annual economic growth rate and provide nearly $5-billion in taxes and royalties to the territory over its 21-year life.
Could we not do as we do in northern Quebec? The electricity revenues in Quebec go to fund the northern communities. Could we not find a way of having a royalty-driven program in which the airports and infrastructure could get part of that revenue guaranteed to them so that we would have improved capabilities and more secure airports?
Mr. Adamus: I do not know if it is our position to commit that sort of funding, but whatever it takes to get the funding in place to improve safety, we are all over it.
The Chair: We are getting toward the end of this report. We probably will not have the opportunity to get you back again. After the two questions, I would like you to address the issue of foreign pilots and their involvement in the Canadian industry.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I would like to go back to one of the items you stress in your report, the latest generation of GPS.
At the moment, how are these old and new technologies distributed among airports? Is the latest one reasonably widespread or are only a basic number of airports able to use the instruments?
[English]
Mr. Adamus: I will let Mr. Black answer the question on the actual numbers. I am not sure if he has it or not, but just to tell you about the old technology and the new technology, the old technology is taking a GPS and overlaying it over the traditional approach with the ground-based beacons. It allows you to be a little more accurate on lining up because the beacons sometimes move a little bit. The GPS is very precise.
However, you are still doing what we call a step-down approach where you go to a certain point and then you go down. It is not considered a stabilized approach.
The new technology allows you to start back here and do a constant descent angle, reach a certain point, and then, if you do not see around, over you go. That is what we mean by the old and the new.
As far as the number of airports, I do not know. Maybe Mr. Black has that information.
Mr. Black: Yes, senator, the "old" technology, if you want to say, or the GPS overlay, right now exists in 58 approaches in the three territories that take care of that. There are approximately 90 approaches that go to the old technology, land based or ground based, NDB or VOR instrumentation. The GPS overlay which we were talking about, we will call that first generation GPS navigation. Basically it mimics what is the ground based, so it enhances it. As Mr. Adamus says, where a needle is moving generally in the direction of a beacon, the GPS system narrows that down and results in less wavering. You are tracking that a little more accurately.
With regard to the newer generation GPS systems in the territories, there are only eight right now that exist that provide some form of vertical accuracy as well, and that is what we are talking about. This vertical component, combined with a much stricter lateral component, makes the navigation far more precise and more like landing on an instrument landing system, ILS, in one of the major airports.
Again, that is a ground-based system and very expensive to maintain. However, the new generation GPS does have this vertical component which gives us the stabilized, constant descent angle approach and makes for lower limits which reduces the number of people who have to sit in the terminal in Iqaluit waiting to get to Clyde River because the weather is not good in Clyde River. That is what the benefit there would be.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: For the eight airports that have the latest generation equipment, do you have data on the difference in the number of cancelled flights with the old instruments compared to the new instruments? My question is about whether the regularity of flights is improving.
[English]
Mr. Black: Senator, we do not have specific numbers, but we can get them for you.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: It would be interesting to get data that tells us, for example, that the number of flights cancelled has been reduced by 50 per cent, because there is an economic impact when a flight is cancelled. Perhaps it would make for an interesting argument in terms of getting the equipment installed.
[English]
Mr. Black: Senator, you are absolutely right, it would. We can and will get that information. In actual fact, as I said, there are eight approaches that have this vertical component, but those are only at five airports. Three of those airports are actually associated directly with mining operations, so they were more or less commercially funded to bring them in. They then went through the vetting process through NAV CANADA and Transport Canada, and they are published for general use. One in Inuvik has the vertical component. Whitehorse does as well. There are not many airports that have this vertical component. In addition to those two airports, they also have ILS. They have a ground- based system that brings them in.
To get accurate data, it is there, but I think you would really see the difference if you were to take that vertical component and put it into a place such as Clyde River. I do not mean to pick on Clyde River, but it is there. I think we would find that the success rate of approach and landing into these smaller communities would go up. I have been operating in the North for 34 years, and I would say they would probably go up somewhere around 80 per cent.
Senator Unger: What is the rough cost of one of these new, enhanced GPS systems?
Mr. Black: We probably need to understand that when we talk about a GPS system, we are talking about two separate units. One is the equipage on board the airplane, the ability of the aircraft to receive the signals and then process it and put it through an auto-flight system to do the approach and landing.
The second part is the satellite system and the procedure of creating an instrument approach which is done with design tools through the people of NAV CANADA and Transport Canada. They set specific criteria, heading, directions and obstacle clearance, based on the accuracy of the GPS signal.
When NAV CANADA says they would like to consider building an approach into Clyde River, sorry, what they can do is say, fine, we can give you a basic approach, but your minimums are going to be fairly high. The accuracy of the survey around the area means that they have to be very generalized and over conservative. I do not mean to say "over conservative," but they are obviously always going to be as safe as possible to build the approach. As we fine- tune and drill down and get more and more accurate with the GPS and the survey, we will know exactly what obstacles are out there in the extended plane outward from the airport, both into the runway and then leaving the runway. They can fine-tune that to a great extent.
Typically your minima may be up to a thousand feet above ground that you would have to be able to leave the cloud and see the airport environments. Now, with the new enhanced GPS system, both the approach and on-board equipment, which most operators in the Canadian North are equipped with, would get you down to somewhere under 500 feet, sometimes as low as 300.
Mr. Adamus: If I could just add to what Mr. Black had to say, you are talking about cost. There are two components here, one for NAV CANADA to design the approach and the other for the survey itself. I do not believe the design of the approach is really that expensive. It is something they do on a regular basis. It is the survey that is the costly part. That is the part that we would like to see eligible under ACAP funding. Currently it is not. ACAP funding will not pay for those surveys. That is what we need to do here. Unfortunately, we do not have the numbers with us. We can look into it for you.
Senator Unger: Is this technology possible for every remote northern airport, or is it only for bigger ones?
Mr. Black: No, it is a geographic issue. In order to get these approaches that have this vertical component to a high degree of accuracy, you need to update the signal information using a separate set of independent satellites. They are situated, geographically, just off the west coast of Mexico. When they point north, the airplanes that they are pointing at get just below that horizon, if you imagine that line of sight.
What I am saying is that the current technology allows, for the most part, having this new generation of approach system through most of the Canadian North. There are some parts right now that just will not be able to do it because there are not enough master satellites up there to provide the correction. Technology is moving forward as we speak, and hopefully that will be mitigated. Right now there are some geographic boundaries, mostly because of the location of the satellites themselves.
The Chair: If you could provide the numbers through the clerk, whatever numbers you can provide, we would appreciate them. You can contact the clerk and he will forward them to members.
Senator Unger: There are so many priorities here. I was part of the group that went to Iqaluit, and there were so many gravel runways. If you were the minister in charge, what would be your top three or four priorities?
Mr. Black: If I were the minister in charge it would be navigation accuracy: getting from A to B as accurately as we can. That is the top priority. That means making sure that we have the latest GPS-type approach systems that are designed and built for use by commercial pilots across the North. That would be my first priority.
After that, then you are looking at the infrastructure, the lighting, the terminal facilities, creature comforts perhaps, anything that will basically go to enhance the safety of those airports for both me as the flight crew member flying into them and also you as my passenger.
Mr. Adamus: I would just add weather reporting as well. It would be nice to have 24-hour weather reporting. I know NAV CANADA is looking at that issue through automated stations. Also, communication is another priority that we would be looking to see get enhanced.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: My question is very technical. Ground-based GPS systems work using waypoints. Do aircraft GPS systems work on the same principle or do they work with satellites only?
[English]
Mr. Black: GPS is satellite only. There is and can be a land-based component that augments the GPS signal, but it is on a very localized area.
Senator Boisvenu: Most of the time?
Mr. Black: GPS is just taking the triangulation between the various satellites and saying, "This is where you must be," whereas with land-based or ground-based, it is a fixed antenna on the ground. That is the difference between the two.
Senator Mercer: I want to go back to your presentation, Mr. Adamus. You made reference to the requirement for fuel to be on board a flight and the difference in flying in the North because of the distance between your destination and your alternate. However, then you also said that at some point you were not allowed to identify your alternate. I am looking for some clarification. If I am confused, perhaps some of the viewers are also confused. You need enough fuel to get to your destination, plus enough fuel to get to your alternate, plus 30 minutes you said?
Mr. Adamus: It is 30 or 45, depending on the type of aircraft.
Senator Mercer: Could you clarify that for us in a little more detail? As well, are you proposing that there be a change in that as we operate in the North? Obviously, the less fuel you have, as you say, the bigger the payload you can carry, which is a very important factor in Northern Canada, as we saw. Everything has to be flown in. I mean, butter in Iqaluit costs $8 a pound. You do not have to go much further than that to understand the impact of not being able to get things in by a cheaper method.
Mr. Adamus: You need an alternate airport for every IFR flight — instrument flight rules flight — that you embark on. Sometimes, if the weather is such that it is so bad that the closest alternate airport is way over here and you simply cannot put on enough fuel to go from here to there and onwards, you have to cancel the flight because you do not have an alternate. We are saying that if we had more approaches to airports that would satisfy the criteria for an airport to be used as an alternate, the chances are that we would have more airports to choose from as alternate airports. Does that answer the question?
Senator Mercer: I guess. Fine, thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: One final question, Mr. Black, if I may. We have talked about there being 50 or so airports in the north. At how many of them could the satellite-based equipment be installed?
[English]
Mr. Black: All of them, to an extent. The GPS approach system can provide vertical guidance in two ways. I will not get into the details, but one is barometric. The pilots apply a correction and put it through the flight computer, and the auto flight system will take it down on a constant angle. That is the basic one that can apply everywhere.
The greater accuracy one, which will take you down much like an instrument landing system that we have here in Ottawa or Toronto, will take you down much lower. The northern limit as that exists right now is very similar to the Northwest Passage, if you look at it on a map, and that is where that exists, again because of the placement of those master satellites off the coast of Mexico that update the GPS system to make them extremely accurate. That is the limit right now.
Of the 52 airports in the three territories, all of them could be equipped with some form of GPS approach that would provide vertical guidance.
The Chair: Mr. Adamus, I was going to ask you about the international component of pilots now seeming to work for Canadian airlines, and probably not members of your organization. Since we will not probably have a chance to see you again, could you update us on remarks that were made about a year ago by you concerning that component? I would appreciate the members being able to get that information.
Mr. Adamus: Absolutely. We did talk about it briefly in our appearance here about a year ago. There is a growing trend amongst some airlines in Canada to bring in foreign pilots on a seasonal basis to supplement their operations. It is mainly carriers that are in the leisure travel market, down-to-the-sun destinations. Many of these carriers are busy in the winter and not as busy in the summer, so they need more pilots. Rather than training a Canadian pilot to do the job, they have elected to grab pilots from abroad that are already trained.
There are three different ways to bring foreign pilots into this country. The most common one that has been in the news lately is the HRSDC Temporary Foreign Worker Program where they advertise for pilots and, if they cannot get the pilots, they go to HRSDC and say, "See, we cannot find any pilots, so we want to bring in these foreigners."
Getting right to the point, the problem is with the way they are advertising. They are asking for a pilot to be type rated before they consider them eligible. What does that mean? It means that they are trained on that specific type of aircraft, and in this case it is a Boeing 737NG, new generation. They are saying that unless you have that training, you will not be considered to be hired by their airline, and that training is about $30,000. For any aircraft over 12,500 pounds, you have to have that type rating.
In our association alone, we have 90 pilots without work right now. Pilots do not just have that endorsement unless they will be working for a company.
Let me illustrate this another way. If Air Canada were to go out of business tomorrow, they have 3,000 pilots, and I would bet that 99.9 per cent of them do not have a 737 endorsement. Therefore, this particular airline would say, "No, you are not eligible." The pilots would be on the sidelines looking for work, and the airline would bring in foreign pilots. That is one way through the labour market opinion.
There is another program under Citizenship and Immigration called a reciprocity agreement, where we bring in some of your workers for a period of time and then we send our workers overseas. We have been able to work with the department there, and they have put in some checks and balances. In the past, they did not really track the numbers that accurately. Now they are using the 75 per cent rule. You have to provide jobs for at least 75 per cent Canadians going out. We have made some gains there.
The other way is through Transport Canada, where they allow an airline to wet lease aircraft. A wet lease means they lease an aircraft that has crew on board as well.
Going back to this one particular airline, they normally operate with 155 pilots and 10 aircraft. This winter season, they are bringing in over 200 foreign pilots, so up to 360 pilots, and they are going to be leasing another 19 aircraft from abroad, so going up to 29. Here we have a Canadian carrier, and more than half of their pilots are foreigners, and two-thirds of their aircraft are leased from abroad. Since they are not paying these training costs, which are about $30,000 a pop, 200 pilots times $30,000 is $6 million right off the bat that they are ahead of their competitors.
We do not agree. First, it is jobs for Canadians first. Second, it is creating an unlevel playing field.
Senator Greene: Are the foreign pilots type rated?
Mr. Adamus: Yes, they are.
Senator Mercer: We have 90 unemployed pilots and 300 pilots being employed from outside of the country. You say it costs $30,000 to get someone up to snuff on a 737. Is it just this one aircraft — the 737 new generation — that we are talking about?
Mr. Adamus: Two airlines are making use of this program and both fly that same aircraft, so yes, it is just the 737NG.
Senator Mercer: Instead of allowing more foreign pilots to come in the country and take those jobs, would it seem wise that we find a program to take those 90 pilots and upgrade them to get the proper papers for the 737? I think we would all like to see the airlines pay that fee for the pilots. However, in any other job in the country, if we see a need for a trade, whether it be a plumber, a pipefitter or what have you, we will get a training program going to fill that need through our community colleges and federal and provincial government support.
Would that not work here? With government, and perhaps with the help of industry, could they not come together and provide training for these 90 pilots that are unemployed today and try to get them working?
Mr. Adamus: We have a request into HRSDC right now asking for funds to train some of these unemployed pilots because they will be going on Employment Insurance. We are not against temporary foreign workers. There are lots of uses for that program in this country. We are not against the individuals coming in. However, when we have pilots who are on the street and are going to be using our social programs to supplement their income, and we have foreign pilots coming in that are not paying Canadian income tax or contributing to our social programs, there is an issue. We need to get that addressed ASAP.
Senator Mercer: I want to underscore the fact that I think the foreign workers program is an extremely useful tool to supplement gaps in available workers in Canada. I support that too, but I am with you. If we have 90 Canadian pilots — whether it is using government funding to help train those people — we should find a way to get those people off the unemployment rolls. There is more money in having those people working than we will ever spend in training.
Mr. Adamus: I certainly would accept money from anywhere, but the airlines traditionally — not just in Canada and the United States, but all around the world — pay for that type rating. Some airlines will ask you to sign a paper saying you will commit at least two or three years to them so that you do not get the endorsement and then go somewhere else. That is fine. That is up to them, but the airlines pay for that training. That is the cost of doing business, and that is why they are creating this unlevel playing field. It is hard for the other airlines that hire full-time Canadian pilots to compete and it is creating an issue. If we do not address it now, it will force the other airlines to do the same thing. Is what we want in this country that half the pilots of all the airlines are foreign?
Senator Mercer: Thank you.
Senator Unger: Why do Canadians not get this training as a part of their overall training and whose responsibility is it? You say the other airlines. Would a regulation, or something put in place now, stop this from continuing to happen in the future and pilots get that training?
Mr. Adamus: The way the advertisements are going out to advertise for the pilots, they say that you must have this endorsement. If you do not have the endorsement, we will not consider you qualified for the job, and we think that is all wrong. We have been talking with the folks at the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and saying you cannot accept this as a valid attempt to hire Canadians first. This is wrong. I have been at this for six years. This is not something new and it is really getting to a point where it is totally unacceptable. We are pushing them harder and harder, and I think what we have made some gains in the fact that they agree that something has to be done.
However, right now they are saying it is too late in the year and that they have already started bringing in these foreign pilots. We are saying that is a bunch of hogwash. These airlines knew a year ago that they needed these pilots. They could have started training a year ago. They are playing you guys like fools and you have got to stop this now. The folks at the foreign worker program say if we stop them now, we will inconvenience some passengers because they paid for this family trip over March break.
Nobody will be inconvenienced. There is lots of lift in this country to fill the void.
Senator Unger: My question is why are pilots not given this training before they are licensed to fly?
Mr. Adamus: It is because you need a type rating for each specific aircraft type. There are 40, 50, 80, 100 different types of aircraft out there, so you just cannot do that. You get a licence, but then you need a type rating to go with that specific aircraft.
Senator Greene: I am a little confused about this issue. Is it not normal and natural that an airline, air company or tourism company would want pilots that are type rated for the aircraft that they are flying?
Mr. Adamus: They have to be type rated — Transport Canada regulations.
Senator Greene: Right.
Mr. Adamus: The issue is who pays for it.
Senator Greene: You are saying the charter companies, essentially, right?
Mr. Adamus: Yes.
Senator Greene: They do not pay. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Adamus: They pay their full-time pilots. It is the seasonal workers they do not want to pay. They say, "We are only going to use you guys for five to six months, so we do not want to spend all that money." That is a fundamental question: Does that trump an unemployed Canadian worker? That is the question here, and we are saying absolutely it does not.
The Chair: Captain Adamus and Captain Black, thank you very much for your presentation.
I wish to remind the audience and the honourable senators that our next meeting will take place on Tuesday, December 11, at 9:30 a.m. We will meet in camera to consider a draft report and future business of the committee. We will try to do that as soon as we can in December. We still have witnesses in February, but if the analyst and the clerk can start working on the report, it would be easier to do it during our Christmas break. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)