You may be right, sir. I certainly do not claim to be an expert in economics. My thinking is it would likely depend upon the market that each operator caters to. As I do not have access to all 135 clients' balance sheets, I can only offer my guess as to the financial viability of a night shift. My guess is that most people/companies that can already afford to charter planes can and probably will spring for it. Also, salary is not my highest priority, other QOL issues are more important to me. So if implementation resulted in two 50k positions with work-life balance versus one 100k position for one poor soul, then that would suit me fine.

I am afraid I must disagree with you here. I have done a fairly thorough search on this topic. The First Circuit opinion is the only one I have come across that specifically addresses 135 rest, my interest. I do not recall seeing any contradictory 121 rulings, though I cannot say for certain.

I did find many interpretations issued by the Chief Counsel's office that define rest, both 135 and 121. If I recall correctly there was even one that went back to the time of the CAA (FAA's predecessor, I believe). Every one of those interpretations defined rest in terms similar to those in my previous posts.

If you know of an opinion/interpretation that defines rest differently, perhaps you could direct me to a particular case. If I have missed something (due to lack of access or whatever), I am not afraid to admit I'm wrong. It was not my intent to be persuasive by selecting only certain cases.

Even assuming a contradictory 121 supplemental opinion, how do you see that affecting this opinion? It is my understanding that 121 and 135 rest regs have historically been treated differently. From what I've read, there were years of interpretations defining rest for 121 purposes before a single 135 interpretation came along.

Ah, that sincerely sounds nice! Glad you liked the post, and thank you for the reasoned discussion.