Insulting. He would have been better off saying nothing on this one.

We do have a fatigue problem......we know it......they know it....This is just part and parcel of the Deny/Delay/Stonewalling until the archaic/bought/anachronistic FAA makes Fatigue Change Mandatory. If they admit to a fatigue problem Lawsuits become problematic, affecting the bottom line. Just more evidence guys/gals that you (in the company's eyes) are simply a cost center. Your health/well being/longevity are non-factors in their equation. Vote for your heath and well-being. Secondarily for the Cash.....and I mean payrate.....anything else can be twisted. FWIW.

"We do not have a fatigue problem"

This reminds me of a shirt a friend of mine had on back in younger times; we had just come out of a drinking establishment in San Diego and he had bumped into a parking meter and basically ended up on his arse after pirouetting around it several times. The shirt said:

"I don't have a drinking problem,
I drink,
I get drunk,
I fall down,
NO PROBLEM!"

He still passed out with his face in the kitty litter next to the commode later that night.

Of course doing 1 out and back is tough. I just thank God we don't have any lines that make you do more than 1 trip a week. I can tough it out once, but, shoot, if I had to do something like that 3 or 4 times a week. Boy, that could get old.

Even worse would be almost adjusting to the mid-night shift, then heading home and having to try and adjust back to the families schedule. Only to have to shift back the next week.

Shoot, maybe the next Enders report will survey folks response time during training then do a comparison of the abilities on Friday night after a week of hub turning.
On second thought, probably much better to live in denial

I applaud OR for offering what what he has to share and have no illusions that he has any input on most of those issues. You could shoot the messenger but what's the point?

Some of it is obviously a wish list and not to be taken as fact.

I'm curious, At UPS we have AM/PM turns ( fly outbound to a city then fly back to domicile in one duty period ) Is this the same thing? We have contractually legal lines operating nothing but AM or PM turns amounting to around 13 of them a 28 day cycle.

Would a line like that be unusual at FDX?

Why go from 100 to 300 sleep rooms if nobody is tired?

We (at FedEx) do have a number of these such as the following:

AM Out and Back Line

Show MEM at 0200-0300 Local
Fly to outstation, sit for 1-2 hours
Return to MEM 0800-0900 Local
Do this up to 12 times in a 28 day bid month (10 times in the current reduced structure)

PM Out and Back Line

Show MEM at 1400-1600 Local
Fly to outstation, sit for 3-4 hours
Return to MEM 2300-2400 Local
Do this up to 12 times in a 28 day bid month (10 times in the current reduced structure)

We have many crewmembers that prefer this type of schedule construction - especially those that live in domicile. ALPA seems to not like this construction as they seem to want all lines commuter friendly i.e. with layovers and deadheads.

Yes we have them. We refer to them on here as out and backs. Generally, a line with o/b's would consist of 3-4 per week with a total of approx 12 in a 28 day month during normal times. With our reduced guarantee which we are currently operating under, it would consist of 9 in 28. They would either be all pm (afternoon o/b's starting about 3pm to 12 am) or am o/b's (starting about 2am until 8 or 9am).

Beat me to it 290, (I had already slowed to 250kts.)

Uhhh...

Only 5 service failures in the 727 for no crews? Draft calls for CA and FO draft were extensive. LCAs, flexes flying as FO. Same for the MD11 except they didn't have any failures. FOs getting multiple calls for the same trip. If it's not a manning problem, it's a reserve problem. Too few reserves. Can't agree with the "didn't rely on draft" claim. Unless it means we called but not enough answered so we had failures instead. OR was fed conflicting information.

The company wants badly to come out of 4a2b? If so, I think they would have done a better job of avoiding the need for draft and service failures during peak. Good thing they could tap LCAs and flexes extensively, at least until the service failures. This talking point has no basis in reality.

I wonder if OR knows we're paying more than few guys 120 hrs or more per month and offered multiple draft trips during peak to a select group (CT would call these guys TD scorers) while paying over a third of us 57 hrs a month. With the really onerous, but apparently not fatiguing, pairings relegated to the reserves and most junior, it's even better.

Ethics? Really? Holy double standard Batman!

Sure am glad I'm contributing to those 120 hr guys' VEBA account.

My guess is you won't hear about what's happening now in the ACP meet and greet monologue in a year or so. I also don't think OR was adequately briefed on what actually happened during peak. Was he intentionally misled?