Air Canada wishes to be accorded special treatment and to receive compensation for LOST OPPORTUNITY COSTS, not the actual cost of the Canadian Air Carrier Protective Program. There is a big difference between the two. My understanding is that the personnel who are in the program are members of the RCMP and are paid by the RCMP. Personnel undergo specialized training which is quite expensive. Air Canada is not paying for this, the Canadian taxpayers are. A portion of taxes collected in the airfares go for this program.

Please put on your thinking caps. Agents are deployed on the routes where there is a heightened risk of serious trouble. Drunken idiots do not qualify as an incident that initiates intervention. Agents are deployed on key routes to airports such as DCA (mandatory requirement), YOW and foreign destinations with a history of problems (e.g. CDG, BRU and FCO).

AC's position is incredibly arrogant, but not suprising. A company has an obligation to behave in a prudent and responsible manner. Providing adequate security is part of the obligation. Large office buildings and shopping centers have a security presence on their premises don't they? Should these businesses be asking for compensation for the lost rental income because the security desks and office take up space that could otherwise be rented out? An airline has the legal and moral duty to protect its assets and its customers. Would you support a cruise line that would seek to claim lost revenue from the security staff presence, since the staff were occupying cabin space that could otherwise be used for a profit making activity?

AC has the lion's share of activity amongst Canadian carriers on these routes. Its competitors could easily argue that AC has received an unfair subsidy from taxpayers since AC uses more of the RCMP agents than any other airline and does not pay for those agents. In some Canadian cities the police department will charge back the cost of additional security services. Examples are community & sporting events or traffic control costs around construction projects. The RCMP has not been charging AC (or other airlines) for the services provided has it?

In respect to the obligatory seating of agents in business class, it's a myth. The agents sit in an area where they have the easiest access to all areas of the plane. They can be seated in proximity to pax who may raised a red flag. Now that cockpit doors are reinforced, the risk of an intrusion has been managed as best as it can be. On a B777 I believe that there can be be 2+ agents with at least 1 in Y. It is incredibly difficult to work 10 hour+ flight and to stay awake if one is forced to remain seated and forced to keep a low profile.

An airline making a claim for compensation must be able to support its claim and to substantiate the validity of the costs incurred. I don't believe that Air Canada did that. Many of AC's flights to risk zones are not flying at full capacity most of the time. Even flights to CDG and FCO in peak travel season have a few empty seats. It is hard to claim for an opportunity cost when there hasn't been an actual loss. Even if one wishes to argue that there has been a cost incurred, historically, these costs have not been compensated unless there has been a contractual agreement to do so. "Liquidated Damages" are a nightmare to liquidate and have to be spelled out clearly in a contract if one has any hope of collecting. This is why most business contracts exclude compensation for such losses and why insurance policies will not cover "future or potential losses". The loss has to have been incurred and an airline would be unable to claim if there was so much as one vacant seat on the implicated flight. The only ones who will make money form such a claim are the accountants and lawyers.