Stick to the facts, please
Teddy,
the 33% rest rule applies only to night shifts. Dunno in Spain but out of 200+ shifts I do a year, I do around 15 night shifts. As an example this year I did 18, my basic 15, 1extra for service reasons and 2 swaps to help a colleague (he worked my day shifts; next time it'll be the other way round). That does make sense when you know that I may work a night shift any day, even if 24h after finished I may be getting up to work again. So day 1 work night, day 2 sleep during day, day 3 be at work at 0630 sharp local time. It's not a matter of wanting, it's a matter of being human, you can only pull it for that long.
Which brings me back to Old Fokker. Maybe there were no complains back then because, as a worker, you could choose if you wanted to work overtime (if you could pull it). No one is young forever or is willing to be away from friends and family for that long. So no one complained because, based on your data*, 10% of the workforce were abusing the overtime system, and 20% more were doing overtime (how much is up to debate).
NOW EVERYONE IS WORKING TWICE AS MUCH AND THEY'RE FORCED TO DO IT. Excuse the "shouting" but your argument is twisted and I see it repeated everywhere. Some people even had been granted a reduced working time (=less money too, you know?) to take care of their kids or sick relatives. Well no more, all in the interest of the traveling masses.
Also, on another note, let's not forget that the timing of this has more to do with the letter controllers got today and the news about privatization than with the holiday weekend. Or you're to say that people traveling this weekend are more important than people traveling any other, not universally calendar marked, date? If any of you feel like answering that one I leave some more food for thought: were do you draw the line between workers rights and other rights? (freedom of movement in this case, but who knows what next?)
Good night and safe journeys,
A.
PD: data* there is a debate, for those who know that icebergs are bigger under the surface, that the data given out by the government is not "accurate". Unfortunately it is one of those things which is almost impossible to check, and even if you would, nobody would believe you. But rumour has it that those figures were not what controllers earned, but how much those controllers cost to the company (so not the home take pay, but added tax, training costs, admin costs and even the electricity and heating bill of the facilities were they work amongst others). Fact? I do not know, but given that the government had an agenda, I'd be very careful about what they say.