So why have any limits? Your argument is no less ridiculous.

And the highlighted part of your statement is the reason that it is unsat. Safety first my a$$.

This sounds an awful lot like the debate in the 60's over the DC-9 crew compliment. 3-man vs. 2-man. Which is less safe?

WHAT ARE THE CHOICES T? I'll make it easy. There are 4 options:

1) Do nothing - ATA loves this option
2) Compromise and achieve 90% of what we want - the apparent ALPA approach
3) Go for a homerun, but risk a strike out - the apparent CAPA approach
4) Wish upon a star - the typical forum approach

I'll take option 2 every time.

No Slow, and you know what T is saying.

ALPA is (saying) that they are using "science" to make an indisputable (word choice may not be the best) case to enable airlines to man the trips with smaller seniority lists. (This is like the same science that says coffee is bad for you. No, coffee is good for you. Or, if you got your gall bladder removed 10 years ago, saturated fat was bad. Now it is not.

This is not the same as the GIB stuff. Although I see where you could twist it to sound that way. Camel's head under the tent and ALPA sides with the companies, not the pilots.

Where'd you come up with this?

Everything that I've read (and I'm not the expert but have talked to a couple of them) says that staffing will be neutrally to positively affected by the NPRM depending on the type of flying an air carrier does.

And I did recognize what T is saying. That's why it's just like the GIB.

Refresh my memory. The new rules would be based on duty time not block time, correct? So from sign in to post flight completion?

PMFJI, but ALPA hasn't endorsed this NPRM. The NPRM as written differs from ALPA policy on crew rest, which is based on mountains of scientific data. ALPA has identified area in which the current NPRM falls short and is working to effect change.

ALPA is not trying to enable airlines to man trips with smaller seniority lists. ALPA's trying to address fatique issues. But even if you were to accept this latest NPRM as the final version, it is still a huge leap to conclude that these changes create the need for fewer pilots. There may be some routes in which is does, and many others in which it doesn't.

Regardless, this is about safety, you can't bring an argument to the table and have any credibility unless it has data to prove the safety aspects of the argument. It would be counter productive for ALPA to simply rely on arbitrary standards. It would make labor irrelvant to the process. ALPA is correct to rely on years of research when it makes its case.

And I found Big foot.

It will be tougher finding the pilot shortage and the European pilots who want to cross the waters for the money we pay our regional pilots.

Pineapple, I would suggest to you that your willingness to settle for Option #2 goes to the root of ALPA's problems since the Duffy era.
To wit; when Elizabeth Dole suggested she intended to have us all aim for the little cup, Captain Duffy was offered an alternative. Have
the then 44,000 strong ALPA send tightly sealed fluid filled jars to the dear lady to express our displeasure. He was horrified and said we
needed to just "go along."

ALPA's continued unwillingness to stand up and demand more has continued. Our profession as a result has been denigrated by
management, abused by egotistical, headline grabbing politicians and made the butt of jokes by the travelling public.

Maybe ALPA needs to grow a set and stand up with everyone else for once...for the profession and the professionals. "Safety"
is what it's supposed to be about. Once you compromise, it's hard to get it back.

Congress will support you when they see you have the public behind you. The public will support you when you stand up and say
"we will not risk your lives over insufficient rest." And a few cancelled flights, with respectful PA's made to the passengers by the
fatigued crew will end up going viral on YouTube like the JFK landing...and the media will be on board.

Then..."Dear Leader" Babbitt...a former ALPA President...will understand that pilots CAN stand up and be a force that he must deal with.

That's why maybe ALPA should stand up with CAPA, IBT, APA, SWAPA, USAPA, IPA and others...for once.

Ya' think?

I believe some of the fractional operators have some potentially long, fatiguing duty days, however knowing that there are a myriad of factors which effect fatigue (age, sleep conditions, allergies, lack of adequate food, crossing of multiple time zones in consecutive days, heck even personal motivation) they have an iron-clad, no questions asked, no retribution style fatigue policy. Essentially a crew member can, for any reason, call fatigued. They are pay protected and more importantly, "fatigue protected."
As fatigue affect each person differently, a one size fits all policy, whether based on scientific data or not, will not completely eliminate it from the cockpit. If a policy doesn't completely eliminate or significantly reduce fatigue, how can it be acceptable for the passengers?
People like to argue that scope is the most important item in contract talks. Maybe, but imo, having an iron clad policy to eliminate fatigue and increase safety should be near the top of the list. It may not be sexy, but....