low cost 900 hr vs EK 900 hr
Lots of threads mention the tiring 900 hrs with EK, crossing time zones, insufficient rest, factored hours, etc. A wild guess is that most of you fly around 100-150 sectors a year. Compare that to 900 hrs low cost (more achievable, thanks to EASA) 450-500 sectors, crossing some of the busiest airspace in the world, stepped climbs, stepped descents, frequency congestion and changes every 2 minutes. This is far from sustainable in a career span.
The BIG question here is - and I never yet seen this asked - which one is more tiring in the long run: 100+ sectors long haul EK style or 450+ sectors short haul. Replies only please from those that have experienced BOTH! This will be important to take into account if ever I'd want to consider making a jump, despite all warnings....