Originally Posted by
Mark Altstar
How about, if you don’t like the idea of doing ULR flying, don’t bid onto the aircraft?
If you think the job will be untenable, keep doing something else.
If you’re busy trying to save your colleagues from themselves, how about sitting back and observing how it goes for a while before you convince yourself your opinion is the same as everybody else.
Some people will love the type of flying that will be on offer and others will hate it. If you think you’d hate it, simply don’t bid for it. A lot of the same comments were made prior to 787 doing Perth to London on the 787 and you don’t hear the 787 crowd bleating about that operation. From what I can see they are the most content Fleet in the Airline.
If you don’t want to do the flying and you are concerned that it will affect your colleagues health, perhaps tell your colleagues to go to the gym and think about what they eat and drink on the job.
It’s horses for courses and if you don’t like the course, stick to the track you’re on but don’t get pi55y pants and try to close down the race. The operation will need an excellent crew rest and a lot of thought about crew complement and I hope it succeeds and like the 787 long range flying, proves the naysayers wrong.
Perhaps if the science (which does not exist) supported it, then fantastic.
A statutory duty of care is just that and it relates to a safe workplace.
The proposed "study" is simply not scientific and serves only to window dress legitimate health concerns.