Originally Posted by
DAWGS
Reroute,
Thanks for posting all the above. It makes my point. Nowhere does it say ALPA supports 8 hard hours of flying. ALPA has already supported increasing to 9 hours of flying. They often mention science but provide no specific study that supports raising flight hours that also results in less fatigue. It's common sense to the rest of us. CAPA supports 8 hard hours and states such in no uncertain terms. No matter how much you post, ALPA is simply on the wrong side of the argument......again.
Of course, no one will argue that 9 hrs is less fatiguing than 8. However, ALPA's proposal,
taken as a whole, does much to reduce fatigue. I see CAPA taking the APA route -> grandstand, pound their chest, and then when none of their inputs are taken, cry.
ALPA, on the other hand, uses science to craft an overall proposal that,
in total, reduces the fatigue significantly. They work quietly behind the scenes to actually have an impact on the final outcome. Pilots are awarded with a much improved, though not perfect, solution to the age old problem of fatigue.