Nothing to follow...it’s non-sensical, right?

That’s what I recall from the sales pitch but I haven’t had to use it yet. Not extending is completely different.

I know it’s thought to be a low percentage for post-sign-in trips and higher for pre-sign-in fatigue calls. Single digits sounds really low, but I did (before hearing this story) trust that the system was pro-safety (as I think pay-protecting pilots is).

How would you be fatigued before you even sign in for the trip?

It should be, but the company muddies the water by telling us to follow the fatigue/not fit for duty reporting protocol when refusing an extension.

He was probably referring to the fatigue call being heavily influenced by events that happened before sign in. Example: your 4 year old has a bad dream, comes down to your bed at 1am screaming. Then once you settle him down he proceeds to give you a kick in the throat or ribs approximately once an hour until you wake up at 5am to get ready for your trip. Purely hypothetical of course..

Would you expect to be paid for a trip in that situation?

Is this a serious question?

Commute gone awry, hotel issues for a commuter that can happen before sign-in just like they happen after, any number of disruptions to getting rested before starting the trip. You are evaluating your rest before sign-in, are you not? If you don’t think you can safely complete (or perhaps even start) your FDP, you’re obligated to say so.

Well again would you expect the company to pay you for the trip? Sounds like it should be a PD.

Every situation is different, so I won’t speculate on pay expectations. I do think pay protection is understandably less frequent before sign-in. PD doesn’t work at 0400 before an 0600 sign-in.

Sailing, any chance you’re fatigued right now? I understand you want to speak for management, but you’re grasping for counterpoints that are out of character.