I gave away a flying career after going deep on the scientific literature and discovering the life shortening exposures flying personnel are subject to. The realities are that as pilots, you will likely live a shorter life, age more rapidly, and suffer an increase risk to disease and illness, much earlier in your life. DNA damage; telomere shortening; high levels of brain beta-amyloid… The list goes on.
Precisely.
You have a powerful union use it or accept what is voted in or leave..... There is no doubt that back of the clock work be it flying, mining or stacking shelves is detrimental to your health, hmmm but we do it anyway.
Firstly, it isn't really the purview of an industrial body. It is a misdirection to assume it is.
Three "proving" flights, crewed by selected pilots, with passengers like former AIPA President now IR negotiator, Mr Safe and excluding the FAAA is hardly scientific. Statistically, it is worthless. It provides nothing other than spin and perhaps some column inches in otherwise struggling daily rags. Given that they are actually delivery flights show how little "investment" the company has made in the "science"
- A sample size of three is not sufficient for anything statistically relevant.
- A passenger load of 40 is not representative, considering the likes of Stream Lead Safe
- No long term repeat observations
It actually relates to workplace safety.
It is not hard to imagine what QF pilot's forebears were attempting to circumvent when "Night Credits" were devised; Protecting the crew that came after them from a management which regards regulatory limits as targets. When those limits no longer suit the management, they get new ones, with a duplicitous regulator and union hierarchy towing the line.
Giving up protections to one's health can never be adequately compensated with money, just ask the late Mr Packer or Steve Jobs.