Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](,dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); }

An Air Canada flight attendant makes her way to the departures gate at Toronto Pearson Airport in this file photo.

Tim Fraser/The Globe and Mail

Canadians will be put at risk if the federal government moves ahead with plans to allow airlines the flexibility to use fewer flight attendants on certain aircraft, the country's largest union says.

Ahead of a Transport Canada meeting in Ottawa on Thursday, CUPE airline division president Michel Cournoyer told reporters Canadians could find themselves traveling as soon as this summer with fewer flight attendants on board – a regulatory change that could leave emergency exits unstaffed on certain aircrafts on airlines that opt for the new ratio.

"Since Transport Canada is now willing to take a chance on passenger safety, we think it is time for the House of Commons standing committee on transport, infrastructure and communities to launch a public inquiry of a proposed regulatory change that will put airline passengers at risk," he said before the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council meeting, which the Transport Canada director of standards said could get "messy" because of the number of people and regions hoping to weigh in on various proposed amendments at the day-long consultation.

Story continues below advertisement

Airline representatives, flight attendants, union heads, pilots and MPs were expected to be among those who descended on the at times heated meeting in Ottawa, some by teleconference from cities such as Calgary and Toronto, and dozens others in person. The meeting, led by Transport Canada officials, including Director of Standards Aaron McCrorie and Safety Inspector Christopher Dann, kicked off around 11 a.m. EST and was slated to wrap up at about 5 p.m.

The special technical meeting was called to discuss a proposed amendment to Canadian Aviation Regulations that would allow airlines to choose between the current ratio of one flight attendant for every 40 passengers – a standard determined in 1968 – or a new ratio of one attendant for every 50 passenger seats. Both ratios would still come with a set of additional requirements that in effect dictate a minimum staffing level based on, among other factors, the aircraft type.

A number of other changes, for example around flight attendant training and evacuation demonstrations, were also among the proposed amendments to ne discussed Thursday.

Already, certain aircraft configured for up to 50 passenger seats are allowed to have a single flight attendant, and several carriers, including WestJet, which has been flying under the 1:50 ratio since October of 2013, have successfully applied for exemptions.

Others, such as Air Canada, have since asked to follow suit, arguing the move would maintain safety levels, wouldn't result in layoffs and wouldn't apply to international flights using wide-body aircraft, where each exit would, under the proposed changes, have to be staffed by a flight attendant in case of an evacuation.

The proposed changes, outlined in a 15-page notice of amendment, have over the years gleaned mixed reviews, even within Transport Canada. After receiving a 2002 industry request to allow the 1:50 option, Transport Canada did a risk assessment that looked at international regulations and passenger safety.

The conclusion was that the 1:50 ratio provided an acceptable level of safety, but it was ultimately decided that only the 1:40 ratio provided the consistent level of safety Canadians had become accustomed. In 2006, Transport Canada decided not to pursue the change.

Story continues below advertisement

This latest resurgence of the issue, prompted by industry requests for the ratio change, comes less than a month after a survey of Canada's professional aviation inspectors showed the vast majority feel travelers are vulnerable to a major aviation accident under Transport Canada's current safety regime. It also comes at a time when travelers are still waiting for the federal government to develop a passengers' bill of rights, an idea once floated by the Conservatives but as of earlier this year nowhere on the horizon.

Proponents of the change say it would put Canadian operators on a level playing field with U.S. and European carriers, who fly in and out of Canada under the 1:50 ratio, that it wouldn't affect safety and that it could reduce fares. But opponents say allowing airlines to reduce the number of attendants onboard would negatively impact disabled passengers and is a direct threat to passenger safety – that airlines are effectively putting profit over the well-being of their customers.

Opposition to the move has been playing out not just in the court of public opinion, but also at Federal Court, where CUPE mounted a legal challenge last fall against the Conservative government's decision to grant Sunwing an exemption. CUPE represents 10,000 flight attendants employed by Sunwing, Air Canada, Air Transat, Calm Air, Canadian North, Canjet, Cathay Pacific and First Air.

Mr. Cournoyer said the issue at hand isn't layoffs but rather safety. When asked how many attendants under CUPE might lose his or her job, he estimated roughly 600. He said he doesn't have an estimate on how many millions the airlines could stand to save if they opted for the ratio that staffs fewer attendants.

At his press conference, he gave the example of an Airbus 320, which has 140 seats. Under the current ratio, the airline would be staffed with four flight attendants, meaning there would be one attendant for every exit. Under the 1:50 ratio, there would be three flight attendants, leaving one door unstaffed. He confirmed the change is only slated to apply to narrow body aircraft, and noted that while the U.S. uses the 1:50 ratio, Australia and New Zealand fly under a 1:36 ratio.

The National Airlines Council of Canada, which represents the country's largest passenger air carriers, said in a statement Thursday it supports the 1:50 flight attendant ratio because it will harmonize rules with the international standard and align Canada with the U.S. and Europe.

Story continues below advertisement

"Safe and secure air travel is of the utmost importance to the member airlines of the NACC and this move to standardize Canadian regulations will in no way compromise the safety of passengers and crew," the council said.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Tickers mentioned in this story
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies