Morno. There are two separate issues here.
The first is producing appropriate rosters to minimise the fatigue associated with any duty, in this case, particularly long tours.
The second is receiving appropriate monetary/lifestyle compensation for such duties.
In the case of the first, it needs to be the regulator and employer (with some input from the pilot body) that determine what are appropriate and acceptable patterns of duty for this type of flying; hence we have CAO's and FRMS manuals and rule sets. This includes crew complement, rest time both on and off the aircraft, nutrition, satisfactory crew rests and so on. This aspect of the flying should never be driven industrially and as such it is not up to the pilots to "maybe best to put your salaries on hold and trade some of it for other benefits, such as increased crewing complements, longer layovers to assist with fatigue management" Fatigue management is not an industrial issue, it's a regulatory issue.
What is an industrial issue is negotiating recompense for any aspect of commercial flying. In the distant past AIPA negotiated night credits - possibly in lieu of other salary compensation. I don't know I wasn't employed back then. In the last EBA this was partially traded, some may say given, away to fly the 787. Arguably that's what you do in a negotiation. Whether one person thinks night credits are relevant or right doesn't matter. They'd been negotiated and were then traded to achieve another goal.
I have a particular interest in Fatigue Management among pilots and what I won't condone is the relieving of the regulator and the airlines of their duty, in order to achieve an industrial gain.
Last edited by C441; 8th Oct 2019 at 06:29.