March 5, 2008 Following the tragic accident that took place on the Pranpraz telecabin, early indications today enable the Company to make an initial response to the questions which are quite naturally raised by such an incident. First and foremost, our thoughts and sympathy lie with the victim, his family and close friends. Spending a few days enjoying the sport and relaxation offered by our valley should not lead a young man to his death. We may die taking risks in the mountains and sadly, in our line of work, we are sometimes faced with situations like this. However, a simple ride on a ski lift should not prove fatal. As a matter of principle, this death is unacceptable. Two questions arise as a matter of course: - Could this death have been avoided? Any reply must be carefully considered and it is not our place to provide one. This is why inquiries are necessary; necessary to understand, to identify the causes and responsibilities, to make amends and to prevent what can be prevented. Two investigations have been undertaken. Firstly a judicial inquiry. Officers of the Police Judiciaire (equivalent of the CID) of the Peloton de Gendarmerie de Haute-Montagne (the Gendarmeries Mountain section) have just completed their immediate investigation, known as de flagrance (to establish the more obvious facts) under the supervision of the Procureur de la République (state prosecutor). This will be followed by an in depth preliminary inquiry. An administrative and technical inquiry has also been opened by the relevant public bodies covering land transport, notably the Bureau National dEnquêtes sur les Accidents de Transports Terrestres (the national office for enquires into land transport accidents). It seems that the four passengers in the telecabin may have been behaving in a manner unsuitable for this type of equipment and notably that at the time of the accident they may not have been correctly seated in accordance with the regulations covering this type of telecabin. These rules, which are drawn up for the safety of passengers, are deemed to have been accepted by anyone holding a ticket to travel. They are posted in the stations and reproduced in the cabins. Failure to observe these regulations may have endangered the passengers and in particular those who were leaning with their backs to the cabins side windows. The cabins on the Planpraz telecabin are of the type where passengers travel seated. They were renovated in 1992, the work being carried out by a reputable Swiss manufacturer, the CWA company. They were subject to a major safety inspection in 2002, after the interval laid down by the regulations. To date, these cabins have transported over 11 million passengers. A new telecabin will be replacing the existing one next year, not for safety reasons but to provide our clients with a shorter journey time and greater capacity. The windows on seated telecabins provide passengers with protection from the outside but are neither classified nor designed as safety components. Such are the current regulations and the Planpraz cabins were built and have been maintained in accordance with these regulations. Checks carried out by the public inspectors after the accident confirmed that the installation of the cabin windows conformed to the manufacturers plans. The continued operation of the telecabin has not been called into question. - Could this tragedy happen again? Safety in a seated telecabin can no longer be guaranteed if the cabins are not manufactured or maintained in accordance with the relevant standards or if the passengers do not abide by the safety regulations. Our cabins were constructed and have been maintained in accordance with current standards. Clearly, passengers must behave properly when riding in them. This is the case with all passengers who travel sitting down in the cabins. Accordingly, we can guarantee that there is no danger to passengers who behave normally when riding in the Planpraz telecabin. This is what we are able to reveal at the moment based on the objective information available. Clearly, there are some questions still to be clarified, the better to understand and to prevent a recurrence. This is the purpose of the judicial inquiry and of the technical and administrative investigations, which we fully support.
