Originally Posted by
Pineapple Guy
Carl, I know you are not this dense.
Working 10 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 8
Working 8 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 6
Working 6 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 4
Working 4 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 2
Do you see a pattern yet???
Why yes. Yes I do.
Originally Posted by
Pineapple Guy
What the ARC and Alfa and all other reasonable people are saying, is you can do the emotional thing, and cherry pick one item you don't like, and tube the whole set of scientifically based work rules, or you can actually use the results of the study, whatever they conclude, and go with that.
I'm so disappointed in you for not remembering your own pattern that you've so accurately listed above. You'll recall that this was NOT supposed to be about negotiations. It was supposed to be about REDUCING the dangers of fatigued pilots. But as usual, the original purpose gets forgotten as partisans enter and try to get their goodies in. The biggest example of which is the APA's deepest desire of getting their JetBlue rule inserted to INCREASE the amount of work pilots can do by 2 hours.
Originally Posted by
Pineapple Guy
No where in the study did it say that 10 was less fatiguing than 8.
But this process was SUPPOSED to be about REDUCING fatigue. As you correctly point out, their study does not say that 10 hours is less fatiguing than 8. Thus this process is not science based to reduce fatigue. It is politically based and used the ABSENCE of science to conclude that they must be right to increase pilots hours by 2. As usual, ALPA took their eye off the ball and caved in so that they can keep their coveted "seat at the table".
Originally Posted by
Pineapple Guy
As APA and USAPA continue to show, when you insist on getting everything you want, which only works in forumland, you often end up with nothing that you want. In the real world, if you can get 90% of what you want, sign the deal. Because you will NEVER get everything you want.
As I've stated earlier, you're making the mistake of buying in to the evolution of this process as some kind of contract negotiations. It was NOT supposed to be that. It was supposed to be a rule making process to REDUCE pilots fatigue. Instead, it devolved into an avenue for the ATA to get their most coveted desire, then try to "balance out" this huge win by letting go of far less meaningful items.
Carl