Why is there opposition?
When the U.S. introduced updated fatigue rules, following the 2009 Colgan Air accident in Buffalo, NY, industry lobbied extensively against it, arguing that it would raise costs for passengers and potentially cripple the aviation sector.
As part of the regulatory review process in the U.S., the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) conducted a regulatory impact analysis. That analysis rejected much of the industry's claims of higher costs.
It also assessed the benefits of preventing a catastrophic accident, compared to potential costs to the industry of implementing fatigue rules. Here's what the report found: "…preventing a single catastrophic accident in a 10-year period with 61 people on board would cause this rule to be cost beneficial."
Read the full document