B737 INTL PLT COMMENTS ON COMPANY RESERVE CALLOUTS AND A FATIGUING SITUATION.

Narrative

I RECENTLY COMPLETED A SEQUENCE AT XA00 PM AND RETURNED HOME WITHOUT FURTHER ASSIGNMENT. I ARRIVED HOME AT XC00 PM AND WENT TO BED EXHAUSTED AFTER A 14 HR DAY. AT XF30 AM THE PHONE RANG AND CREW SCHEDULING APOLOGIZED FOR WAKING ME -- FOR A BWI TURN THAT DEPARTED AT XF45 PM! I COULD NOT GET BACK TO A DEEP SLEEP AND ROLLED OUT OF BED; RAGGED; AT XK00 AM TO CALL OPS. HE EXPLAINED THEIR REQUIREMENT TO CALL INTL PLTS 10 HRS PRIOR TO THE DOMESTIC ASSIGNMENT; THAT I DIDN'T HAVE TO ANSWER THE PHONE AND THAT IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE BUT THAT IT WAS A REQUIREMENT. I WAS LEFT WITH THE RATHER UNPALATABLE DECISION TO DECLARE FATIGUE (WHICH I WAS); OR TO TOUGH IT OUT AND NOT COMPROMISE THE FLT (I FLEW). THIS SENSELESS POLICY IS HAVING UNINTENDED NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE JOB FOR MANY OF US. FOR THE PLT; IT IS A DIFFICULT DECISION TO MAKE THE FATIGUE CALL OR TO GO FOR IT; POSSIBLY COMPROMISING SAFETY DUE TO THE IMPAIRMENT. UNDOUBTEDLY; AN NTSB INVESTIGATION WOULD QUICKLY DISCOVER THIS AS A FACTOR IN THE LOOK BACK STAGE OF AN ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION. FOR THE COMPANY; IT IS PROBLEMATIC NOT ONLY FOR A POSSIBLE SAFETY COMPROMISE; BUT ALSO FROM A SCHEDULE RELIABILITY STANDPOINT IF THE PLT CALLS FATIGUED. 'REST' ASSURED; THE INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS POLICY NEVER SAW THE NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS OF THEIR IDEA -- MORE THAN LIKELY THEY HAD EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE INTENTION. HOWEVER; WHAT WE ARE LEFT WITH IS POLICY THAT WRECKS CREW REST (ON A REGULAR BASIS) FOR A GROUP OF PLTS THAT IS BEING UTILIZED TO THEIR MAX CAPACITY. THIS IS A RECIPE FOR TROUBLE.