Sorry but if you knee-jerkers who like to explode before actually reading the article actually, you know, read the article you might have spotted that the language in said article is a little over dramatic. This leads me to believe that it might also be a little known journalistic trick of stretching the truth to excite all those people who like to get all wound up and explode over an article before actually reading it fully and separating fact from fiction.
First off I don't believe there are any pilots at UAL who would knowingly allow themselves to violate a FAR, rest related or otherwise, so read the article. You'll notice that the long quote describing a nine hour rest period doesn't actually mention anywhere that they broke any FARs does it? Yes it's the idiotic FAA 15-minutes-after-you-set-the-brake-you're-on-rest rule at it's worst but at the same time it doesn't actually break the FAR. He goes on to say he got six hours after that but doesn't specify what the actual rest period assigned was. It was likely a ten hour compensatory rest period but the pilot only managed to eek out six hours after all the shenannigans involved in putting the plane to bed, getting to the hotel, getting food etc etc.
Point is, although the rest rules are indeed idiotic, this article sounds more like overblown fear-mongering than a truly factual report and to my mind does more damage than good to the credibility of those working to advance our rest rules beyond the 1950's. It's disappointing to see the 'OMG MAN UP, DO YOUR JOB, GROW SOME BALLS' crowd are still around. You guys are the reason poor reporting exists in the first place.
Last edited by ViciousSquirrel; 13th Aug 2012 at 17:25.