Bikker
It might be legal, as far as paper produced by EK can be considered base for a professional legality. However if you check what most serious main operators do with such flights, a 72h layover looks like a SQ exeption. I have stated earlier that most respected research into flight fatigue revealed, that on ULR flight layovers you would need two sleep cycles to get into a safe working condition again. This is minimal 36h, most operators then go for a two night layover pattern.
The "acclimatised" definition by EK is a derivate of such research, adapted to their needs and badly layed down. To take this screw-up as a base to demand a 72h layover is, imho, going too far with too feeble arguments. Make no mistake, a 24h layover just as much, and purely unsafe to add to the scam.
I am happy to settle with 48h, it would then conform to international standards and to the research of serious institutes. Goes with it, naturally, that the LAX, SFO and GRU patterns MUST follow.
Last edited by GMDS; 21st Apr 2008 at 03:32.