to do with the fact that many low cost airlines have schedules with rotations leaving at that kind of time in the morning, would it?
Having worked in the industry since 70's I've seen the changes in FTL's and have the firm opinion that FTL's have altered to coordinate with a/c performance and technology.
Example. In 70's charter flying was in its infancy. It was still considered a privilege, but was getting cheaper and package holidays were new. Not everyone flitted off to Spain. A single out and back was considered a full working day of 7-8 hours. The early jets could only make it to the Med' anyway. The Canary islands were dots in the ocean and unknown and a/c didn't have the rage from N.Europe. Then more people wanted to fly on holiday and prices became important. Then came the double rotation out/back and the double 'W' pattern. One crew doing twice the work of before; but now the working day was 12 hours. Then came B732's and more range. Then came the Canary islands and the Greek islands, and departures from N.Europe. These were 10-12 hour days; but hey: then airports wanted night curfews so those in normal jobs could get some sleep. Next brilliant idea was to have the a/c flying at night instead of sitting on the ground. The 8hr night became 12hrs. But crews could not fly 5 nights, but had to work 5 days, they would have to have a slipping sleep pattern: start in the morning for 2 days and slowly get later until the end of the block had 2 night flights. Nicely tired for the last longest flight duty and then only 2-3 nights sleep to recover.
All caused by a/c flying longer ranges and pax wanting cheaper prices. FTL's had to accommodate the business model.
Then there was inter-continental. All scheduled flights for the better off. Demand was not so high, yet. B707, DC-8 & VC-10 were the a/c. They had 10hr ranges for N.Atlantic and Africa. If you wanted to go to Aus you bounced off Frankfurt, changed crews in Dubai/Bharain, changed again in Singapore and arrived 36 hours later in Sydney. The a/c couldn't do anymore and crews were working 10 hour duty legs.
Then came B747-200. It could do 13 hours. The days were longer and needed extra crew. So hey, Boeing were great guys and included the crew lounge/rest area in the upper deck. Then came the wise guys (accountants and marketing people) and weak unions. Hey presto, the upper deck became 1st class cocktail lounge. Then came -400 with no FE and a larger upper deck. The range increased considerably and extra crew were still needed, but they overflew the old crew-slip station. The bunk remained in the flight deck and the upper deck became a money making extra business class area. Cabin crew rest areas, if you had a good union, were included and were hot beds in some container down back, under the floor, nicely down wind of the engine noise. Never, ever was the upper deck used for what it was designed for. And hey, the FTL's had crept up so that now crew rest was not needed. A/c could then fly 14 hours so FTL's rose to match. More long-haul flights were at night so let's increase the night FTL's. Crews were compliant because they could enjoy 3 days on 'the beach', or 'shopping'. That was when there were only 2-3 flights each week. Then came the daily schedule and stop-overs reduced in days.
Now there are 16 hour a/c. Costs need to be kept down; crews kept to a minimum. And hey, there is even a shortage of muppets wanting the job. Productivity needs to be increased. All driven by a/c performance. And hey; technology, reliability and automatics have improved so much that the work-load of flying is much less and even 2 pilot a/c can now use 'controlled rest'. How long before the heavy crew is abandoned, the bunk removed, and controlled rest in the flight deck becomes the FTL of the day? Never say never. The FE's said that.
Managers look at profit and not the humane side of things. The only humans that matter are the fat walleted business & 1st class pax. Everything is geared for them. Keep prices down, services up. FTL's are a tool used in the profit game and the lobby of the airline owners is huge and strong; the XAA's are weak, pilots' unions also.
I have friends who fly a Europe - Far East route. They hate Far East. They fly double crew and have 3 days off to acclimatise before returning, and then have another minimum 4 days off to re-acclimatise and enjoy home; more likely 6 days off after a 6 day duty and <30hrs flying. Not very productive, 30 hrs in 12 days, but great for per diems. How soon before that is a 1 day turn-round with 2 extra days off at home?
There was talk of one EU operator that was considering flights to USA east coast. One crew flies out with the return crew resting in the back. A smart turnaround and the crews swap over. This would be a 16hr day. The return crew reports 15 mins before departure and flies only a single sector, for which there would be dispensation as they had 'controlled rest' immediately before their flight. It hasn't happened, yet, and may never, but the idea has been contemplated.
I've experienced many occasions where rosters, schedules, FTL's were manipulated for business reasons and XAA's had given dispensations. One major problem, and I don't know if EASA has this conflict of interest, is that XAA's were over-seers of safety compliance and financial survival of their airlines, who also paid the XXA's. Strict enforcement of ALL rules might impact negatively on some struggling operators. What to do? I thought the FAA had been exposed to this conflict and the responsibilities had been separated. Is that correct?
Meanwhile FTL's will continue to be flexible and malleable, pressurised by the airline lobby, until the crews say enough.
Where was ECA in the discussions with EASA. The stable door is open and the horse has bolted. The toothpaste is out of the tube and the eggs are broken.