Nick,
I don't think your comment stands up to much scrutiny! In an operation/company where pilots are operating close to the maximum allowable FTL limits, and factors such as rotors running turn rounds, multi-sector leg times and additional routings for IF approaches can all affect the ability of the company to meet contractual obligations with minimum crewing, the last thing the comapny wants is an edict that will increase the crew flight times still further! What this will mean is that the company will need to employ more pilots and I doubt very much that the extra cost would be compensated by charging another 5-10 minutes per flight.
By way of an example, I know of an operation run by another company, now closed, where the a/c (and crew) did a triple trip programme, rotors running from start to finish, that (in general) was 8 hours total pilot time (the maximum allowable.) However, to achieve this, the a/c were ground towed by tractor, from their main base to the passenger terminal across the airfield, first thing in the morning as the additional flight time this would have entailed would invariably have put the crew over 8 hours, and therefore would have required a second crew.
So, I think you'll find that what the operators would ACTUALLY want is legislation that puts the flight crew time CLOSER to the airborne time, not FURTHER from it.
In countries with low regulatory oversight, this can be achieved, and my first two years on the 212 were on such an operation, with crew time logged as airborne time. With 40 sector days common place, the 6-8 hours logged was more like 7:30-10.
jbrereton, no ground runs don't count as there is not the 'intent' to take off.