I think our rosters do "maximise time off" in the main; most believe this is to maximise your recovery. All the available science tells us that most rosters worked in Oz are not the best way to do it.
As for having 4 on 4 off, well hardly. A late start on the first day is very common, but not the norm. A round of golf before work is rare from my read of things.
The squeezing OT into days off is debilitating as in this maximised down time rosters the inherent fatigue is very great, despite what FAID says. It wouldn't be so severe if it were the occasional morning or day shift, but mostly it's lates and nights, the worst for ongoing recovery.
In my experience the biggest obstacle to a reverse cycle roster has been management, as it limits the people available for their precious OT; ie it's harder to squeeze OT in and comply with PORs.
As for Doggo's not being all night, about 12 rosters from my quick examination, out of 30+ rosters that have greater than single staffing on night shifts; most of these rosters have more than one "due traffic", not fatigue; although there are a few (about 5) that appear to have 'breaks' on doggos; but is that unrealistic? It should be the norm to get a break on any shift, but particularly the night shift. It is IFALPA, Civil Air, IFATCA and ICAO policy to not have single person duty, ever.
The problem from a management view point is they are "paying" for effectively dual coverage and only getting single staffing; so it is about the money, not staff welfare. They claim 'making people' work extra night shifts is cruel and worse; but the reality is for everyone who has worked half a night shift instead of a whole night shift long term has a much better outlook on life. Sure there are some that prefer the latter, but the %'s are very low and usually it's people who don't have kids or significant family issues outside of work.
If they introduced 5 on 3 off rostering reverse cycle they might just have a win win, less fatigue, happier work environment and more available OT coverage?
Additionally if the OT rate was more beneficial to staff and thus more costly to management, there would be an instant push to really have full staffing as opposed to minimum or less than minimum staffing which is definitely the norm. Make OT more costly, does two things, give people more incentive to attend, gives management incentive to staff to realistic levels.
At the moment 1 OT a day on average is less costly than one extra staff member (you'd need an extra on every 'shift'). We don't average more than one a day in most groups; if it were reversed where having 3 extra staff was the same cost basis as one OT a day then you watch them get the three extra staff.
Lets not mention the "goodwill" extra staff (realistic minimum's) would bring and the consequential morale boost.
Last edited by SM4 Pirate; 14th Aug 2008 at 02:56.