For something as serious as calling someone a liar, I think you
should bother to reference facts. You would have saved yourself the embarrassment of being wrong, again. More important, you would have spared yourself the agony of owing me an apology. (Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.)
I was on vacation when I posted. I wasn't in Indy, and I hadn't rated, nor had I been denied a sleep room or a hotel room.
I posted conversations about the TA (at the time) verbiage, the concession we considered and ultimately ratified, which increases the layover requirement for (and therefore reduces the number of) HOTEL rooms on longer hub turns.
I then posted a paraphrase of the FCIF issued by the Company which acknowledged the real-world need for rest, and therefore HOTEL rooms during hub turns.
Finally, I injected one comment. I said, "Wow. Who would have seen that coming?"
I did not whine. I did not claim a lack of a sleep room or hotel room for myself. I could not have blamed anyone or anything for such a lack, since it did not happen.
Like I said, you should have bothered to look it up, because you didn't even come close to the facts.
Nothing requires more sleep rooms. Since more crews who previously were entitled to HOTEL rooms are now relegated to sleep rooms, fewer sleep rooms are available for pilots transiting the hub in a status other than hub turning. If you commuted to the hub and will be operating out, don't count on a sleep room -- they're full. If you operated in and you'll be commuting, perhaps jumpseating out, don't count on a sleep room -- they're full. The HOTEL room concession has put more pressure on sleep room availability, and not just in Indy.
The CONCESSION, if you'll BOTHER to read the language, is HOTEL rooms. We gave them up for shorter layovers, provided there are sleep rooms available. And to make more sleep rooms available, commuters lose the convenience they had before of using excess sleep rooms for rest on either end of their trips.
Again, the CONCESSION is HOTEL rooms, not SLEEP rooms and there is no requirement to build more sleep rooms.
SO, why did The Company suddenly see a need to provide more hotel rooms during peak? Were they overcome with a sense of generosity and wanted to be nice to us? Ha. Did they get a sudden urge to put safety over cost? Yeahrite. Why do they do anything? Profit, which depends on reliability, is the driving force. With the increased and persistent focus we've been putting on fatigue, pilots are more likely to admit they're tired and set the parking brake. When we raise the fatigue flag, reliability suffers. In order to keep us flying, they actually did something to address fatigue.
And now that peak is over, they can unilaterally go back to the pre-FCIF parameters if and when they want. At the same time, they'll be able to claim a savings in hotel costs and earn somebody an MBO bonus.
WIN-WIN-WIN
.