A319
Fatigue
No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
General None Reported / Taken
Company Policy
Pairing was scheduled with a red eye on the first leg with a scheduled arrival time of [Day 0] XA:10 local to rest in a hotel room for the day and to report back to the airport the same day [Day 0] at XP:40. The van ride to the hotel was approximately 30 minutes each way which significantly decreased the amount of time available for meaningful rest. Once I was able to go to bed; I was only able to sleep for 4 hours due to normal daytime activity noise in the hotel and its location; nestled between 3 major highways with extremely loud traffic noise.The original pairing would have us depart at [Day 0] XP:40 to fly to [our first destination] and arrive in [second stop] at [Day 1] XU:13.  However; a severe maintenance delay when our inbound aircraft reached the gate caused everything to be pushed back by almost 5 hours. Instead of notifying the crew of the delay in a timely manner and sending us all back to the hotel to rest and prepare ourselves to fly  another red eye (now our 2nd in a row; unscheduled); the Company chose to have us remain in the airport for the entire 4.5 hour duration with nowhere to rest until our flight was to depart after midnight; causing the crew to fly in to the early morning hours of the day; arriving after  [Day 1] XA:00 in [final destination].  This pushed Flight Duty Period (FDP) limits to within 30 minutes of what was legal and did not provide the crew with any preparation time to be truly fit for duty to fly two red eyes back to back.  With this long sit in the airport with nowhere to rest; I felt fatigued during the flight to [first stop] and even more so on the leg to [final destination]. Delaying a flight for almost 5 hours that late at night was a poor decision on behalf of the Company.  It did not allow the crew to have time to prepare to fly this type of schedule. With all of the emphasis on crew rest; fatigue and safety; this type of oversight should not be happening. The Company handled this situation extremely poorly and is a clear indicator of their blatant disregard for safe crew operations and lack of big picture thinking when it comes to scheduling and pilot rest and is reckless. While the Company adheres to the technical legality of FAR 117  FDP rules; as evidence shows; legal does not necessarily mean safe.  Additionally and of note: It is common knowledge that pilots are occasionally being lectured on professionalism as a result of their fatigue call.  Pilots who call in fatigued at [my company] are sometimes met with intimidating and demeaning encounters with the Chief Pilot once they arrive at their gate (if they've notified the Company of the fatigue enroute).  This naturally dissuades pilots from calling in fatigued when they are in fact fatigued and causes pilots to accept flight assignments that they may not be as fit for as they should be.  This seems to be especially true for probationary pilots. The Company can make better choices when it comes to crew scheduling and consider a broader picture when making operational decisions.  Organize pairings with red eyes that allow for more realistic and meaningful rest before the next scheduled duty assignment.  After a red eye; do not schedule more flying on the same day with required rest to be accomplished in a hotel during the day and most certainly not 2 red eyes back to back. The company must make a broader; more educated decision when it comes to flight crews and what kind of schedules they are able to reasonably and safely fly. While these pairings look efficient on paper and are technically legal; these schedules are running crews into the ground and are conducive to an unsafe flight environment with other potential breakdowns in safety.
An A319 air carrier pilot reported becoming extremely fatigued as a result of maintenance delays which were followed by long all night flights. The reporter commented the assignment was legal but not safe.