The recurrent theme of fatigue is present in the interviews, at the public NTSB hearing and in the conversation on the CVR.
There was sparring between the union and the company in the hearing over the vetting of fatigue and sick calls and whether pilots hesitate to make the call because it will invite scrutiny.
However the captain's wife says in her interview that he was not really ill when he told the company he was sick for the first legs of the trip and then went to a weekend family social function.
The FO flew the first legs of the trip with another captain, presumably a reserve. The first layover in SAT was scheduled for over 60 hours after a less than four hour duty day according to a trip listing posted on another forum.
Three legs were flown in a nine hour duty day followed by a 15 hour layover in RFD. RFD-PIA-SDF sit in SDF for over three hours and then the leg to BHM. This final duty day was about 8 and a half hours.
It seems like the part of the trip that was flown was not unusually demanding by current U.S. standards except that it was done in the middle of the local night. And the captain's phony sick call seems to affirm the view that some of us can't be taken at our word on attendance issues.
Traditionally, if you had a good CBA (labor contract) you didn't worry too much about FAR's in rest and scheduling since your agreement would be more restrictive. Many of the work rules and contractual protections of legacy passenger airlines have disappeared from the post bankruptcy contracts. It was thought that the new rest rules imposed by the feds would force reduced duty limits without the need for further contractual concessions in return. Whether this will be the case remains to be seen in my opinion.
Should cargo pilots be included in the new FAR 117 rest rules? Or, should they have a similar FAR more tailored to their operational needs? I suspect the NTSB will weigh in on these questions from the direction of some of the testimony at the hearing.