Reminds me if the trip construction survey they did ten or so years ago. When they published it we looked schizophrenic.

“I want to come here, work and go home. We need more efficient trips.”
“We we need longer layovers. You can’t even drink a beer on these trips.”
“We need more block hours per day.”
“We need less block hours per day.”
“We need more five days, more than half this airline commute you know. If not for us you couldn’t keep these bases staffed.”
“Get rid of five days, you know more than half of us live in base. Tired of this airline bending over backwards for commuters.”
“Stop the downtown layovers. We need to be at a place we can grab something decent to eat and then sleep.”
“We need to be at the downtown layovers more, we need to be able to explore local restaurants and bars.”

I wish more people would do what you did. Maybe then we might start seeing some changes on the part of the Company.

”when any US originated flight departs the continental US, Hawaii or Alaska to a foreign country and vice versa, the minimum layover will be 25 hours”. Not rocket surgeon science.

Sounds good to me.

If people called in fatigued for fatiguing trips those trips will change. That’s a great thing.

However, we have people calling in fatigued all over the place to make a point. Muddies the water.

I don’t need 25 hours in Mexico. But I would want it in Hawaii.

BS flag thrown. Gonna need the evidence on that.

I'd rather have it in Mexico. We're never all going to agree on where we want to be or what kind of trips we want.

That's fine, but my point is that if you don't account for it, those trips will turn into (essentially) turns.

There are reasons that a layover in South America is 30 hours. It is because the airplane sits for 12 hours before returning to the US. That is not the case in Mexico.

At least in the near past - some SA rotations were/are 12 hours like Santiago.