Canadian Transportation Agency
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N9
Sir/Madam,
Earlier this summer, I sent the following request to the CTA Information Coordinator.
My request is here:"..what explanations were provided by the Carrier Sunwing under the Air transport regulations 8.2 (3) (j) where they had to provide “an explanation of why the use by the licensee of all or part of an aircraft with a flight crew provided by another person is necessary” for the three applications that led to the following decisions: 147-A-2011, 44-A-2012 and 63-A-2012..."
https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/summaries ... -june-2012
When a Canadian airline wants to wet-lease a foreign aircraft, the regulations require that the applicant provide in its application a REASON for which the lease of a foreign aircraft is NECESSARY. The rule is spelled out here, in the Air Transportation Regulations:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regu ... 5.html#h-9
I received copies of three application letters, two of which did not contain any reason whatsoever as to why such airlift was necessary as per 8.2 (3) (j) of the Air Transportation Regulations. The application was thus incomplete.8.2 (1) For the purposes of section 60 of the Act and subject to section 8.3, approval of the Agency is required before a person may provide all or part of an aircraft, with a flight crew, to a licensee for the purpose of providing an air service pursuant to the licensee’s licence and before a licensee may provide an air service using all or part of an aircraft, with flight crew, provided by another person.
(3) The application shall include the following:
(j) an explanation of why the use by the licensee of all or part of an aircraft with a flight crew provided by another person is necessary.
So I wrote back to the ATIP Coordinator, informing her that the information I had asked for was missing from two of the applications, for no REASON had been provided in the applications explaining why such leases were NECESSARY. I thought the information I was looking for was perhaps located in an attachment or inside another document that had not been sent to me.
Here is the reply I received:
I am not a lawyer, but the way I was taught to read regulations is when one sees the word "SHALL", it never refers to something that is optional. I know of no regulation in aviation that is optional when the word "shall" is used in its text."First I checked with the division responsible for this function and was advised that application are not denied because documentation is missing. It is at members discretion to request additional information if they feel it is required. There is no reason provided on file.".
When the lawmakers wrote up the Air Transportation Regulations the way they were written, each word, each comma, was thought out and had a reason and a purpose. When they inserted "shall include" in paragraph 8.2 (3) (j), it was because that information was pertinent and important to the application, and to its outcome, not something the applicant could decide to dispense with, or that the CTA could unilaterally decide to overlook. Such information is relevant and important.
The reasons for a Canadian Airline to require a measure as extreme as needing to wet lease a foreign operator, crewed and maintained by foreigners, overseen by foreign regulatory agencies, instead of buying or leasing their own aircraft and having them crewed and maintained by Canadians and operated under a Transport Canada Operating Certificate, MUST be important to the CTA.
If they were not, nothing would prevent a Canadian carrier from starting a shell airline with just a token aircraft and wet-leasing a whole fleet of foreign aircraft from countries where salaries are extremely low and where regulatory oversight is minimal and standards lower than in Canada.
This new attitude that the CTA has with regards to wet-lease of Foreign Aircraft where Airlines are allowed to use Wet-Lease of foreign aircraft as a business model instead of just for emergency purposes as was the case in the past, opens the door to all sorts of abuses and is a menace to the Canadian Aviation industry and to its workers.
Regards,
Gilles Hudicourt
