Not anti the aircraft however what Qantas want to do will be hard flying on the body. If you think 23 hour work days leaving at night is easy then your viewpoint disagrees with the science otherwise it would be legal. Regardless No one has flown it so anyone that says it’s easy is full of S$&*. If your (sic) potentially flying this kind of operation for many years consecutively, potentially to 65 and beyond it needs to be safe and sustainable. I believe CASA are of the viewpoint it’s not safe as other countries don’t allow it.
The duty of care ought be foremost in the minds of both the airline and the AIPA, after it is a statutory requirement.
It is not as any such study fails to meet benchmarks for established statistical modelling.
Instead, Little Napoleon stresses "efficiencies" need to advance by the pilots, otherwise, ever the one trick pony, the aircraft go somewhere else.
Such TOD extensions may not meet with member state approvals.
Aircraft capability may limit the operation, but health outcomes over the long term ought be the prime focus. They are not as the study is not long of sufficient size or duration from which any meaningful inference can be drawn.