International Air Transport Policy Issues for Canada: Views from the Air Currents Conference of January 2004
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, we describe several key international air policy issues discussed at the Air Currents: Building the Future of Canada's Air Transport Policy conference, jointly organized by Concordia University, McGill University, and University of British Columbia, and supported by a majority of government agencies involved in air transportation in Canada. These key issues are: (a) completing an Open Skies North American air transport market in the context of the NAFTA region; (b) Canada's approach to the proposed EU–U.S. Open Aviation Area; (c) foreign ownership limitations and a foreign airline's rights of establishment in Canada; (d) air cargo liberalization; and (e) problems arising from government-imposed fees on passengers, airports, and other air transport infrastructure providers. For each of these topics, we present background to the policy issues requiring decision, conference presenters' views, results of audience opinion polling, and our analysis and recommendations. Our most important recommendation is that Canada has reached the point where the focus of aviation policy, including its stance taken at bilateral and other international negotiations, should be shifted away from the protection of the air transport industry and carriers to the promotion of consumer welfare, business competitiveness, and the wider economic interests of the nation. Résumé Dans le présent article, nous examinons plusieurs questions de politique aérienne internationale abordées au cours du congrès Air Currents: Building the Future of Canada's Air Transport Policy. Le congrès était conjointement organisé par l'Université Concordia, l'Université McGill, et l'Université de Colombie-Britannique et bénéficiait du soutien de la plupart des organismes gouvernementaux impliqués dans le transport aérien au Canada. Les questions fondamentales abordées ont trait à: (a) l'achèvement du marché du transport aérien dans le contexte géographique de l'ALENA dans le cadre du traité Ciel Ouvert; (b) l'attitude du Canada vis-à-vis de la proposition américano-européenne d'un espace aérien ouvert; (c) les restrictions imposées aux propriétés étrangères et les droits d'établissement au Canada accordés aux compagnies aériennes étrangères; (d) la libéralisation du fret aérien; (e) les problèmes liés à l'imposition, par le gouvernement, des droits aux passagers, aux aéroports, et autres fournisseurs d'infrastructure de transport aérien. Pour chacun de ces problèmes, nous dressons un état des lieux actuel et présentons les questions de stratégie exigeant des décisions, des opinions exprimées par les congressistes, des résultats des sondages d'opinions; nous clôturons par une analysis et des recommandations. La recommandation la plus importante est que le Canada a atteint un niveau où il doit passer de la protection de l'industrie et des compagnies aériennes à la promotion du bien-être du consommateur, à la compétitivité de l'entreprise, et à l'intérêt économique général de la nation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".