Originally Posted by
BlueAvi8tor
Sitting in a tube for a long time eating cake then one landing to a 96 hour layover in a 5 star resort isn’t even in the same universe as a two leg into MEM with a 1.5hr turn to a two leg out to a sht Hilton Garden Inn (repeated 3 days in a row) is hardly comparable.
If this is your conception of the 777 flying then I suggest that you need to reexamine the 777 bid pack so that you can get an accurate understanding of the present state of things. I just perused the 777 May CA bidpack and found exactly two lines that fit the criteria of 96 hours+ layover:
98 hrs SYD - Line 1055
96 hrs SYD - Line 1240
So while I can't say they don't exist, they are quite rare, and many of those good deals don't survive Revision 1. My point is not that all 777 flying is terrible. I'll go so far as to say that I prefer it to 757 flying (I've been on both). There's a reason the 777 goes senior here, but if we wanted to make our pay at FDX based on "who works the hardest", then we'd probably lose to the ramp agents and folks in the sort facility.
Originally Posted by
BlueAvi8tor
Amount of cargo flown isn’t worth discussing. It’s a meaningless metric to the crews up front.
It may be meaningless to the crew upfront, but this does not invalidate the point. You claimed that "by every conceivable metric 757 crews work harder than "real" international flyers". I was simply pointing out that there is at least one metric by which 777 crews do far more "work" than domestic crews. The particular metric I mentioned happens to be the precise physical definition of work.