Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Fatigue; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was assigned this trip more than a week prior to the actual day it would occur. This trip would start in ZZZZ1; after the crew would be there long enough to acclimate to the local time zone; and would begin shortly after midnight local time. My crew was scheduled to deadhead to ZZZZ2 and then fly back to ZZZZ1 on a part 91 flight. This duty day was too long even for a 4 pilot crew under FAR Part 117 rules. I questioned the safety of this trip and sent my concerns to the chief pilot; director of safety; director of OCC; and crew scheduling. The only response I received was from the chief pilot who forwarded it to the manager of crew scheduling for comment. The response was 'it's legal'. Since there are no legal limits on part 91 flying; this response is irrelevant. I questioned the safety of such an operation; and received no reply.The fact that this trip would not have been legal under part 117 rules for a 4 pilot crew was completely ignored.The day of the trip; my crew rested as best they could; which is a difficult task considering that the flight leaves in the middle of the night; and the rest facilities on the aircraft consist of open business class seats. The Flight Attendants are required to provide multiple meal/beverage services to the passengers during the initial flight. We tried to rest during the flight to ZZZZ2; with not much success. The crew evaluated our readiness to fly in ZZZZ2; and decided that although we were tired; we would commence the flight. We refused to sign the part 117 rest statement on the flight release that was still present from dispatch due to the length of the duty day. Added pressure exists on flights of this nature; because a layover in ZZZZ2 due to fatigue subjects the entire crew to security issues; which is why the company refuses to layover there in the first place and provide a safe duty day to crews.After departure; and about 2 1/2 hours into an almost 6 hour flight; I noticed that the other crew member on the flight deck had fallen asleep. I was having a difficult time staying awake and alert myself and felt very uncomfortable that we had been forced into this situation.The [company fatigue program] states that the controls are checked during morning meetings and monthly metrics of flight and duty times. It appears that these do not occur since this concerns that were brought forth prior to the flight were never addressed by the chief pilot; or director of safety who were made aware of the issue and concerns of the crew. Chapter 3 of the [company fatigue program] states that FARs will be used to mitigate fatigue and provide limits to flights as part of the 'RISK MANAGEMENT' program. This is obviously not the case as the regulations were completely ignored in this case even when a safety concern was raised. The Company's attitude toward fatigue and safety in Part 91 flying is unsafe; and there are no controls in place to prevent this sort of scheduling. Crews are directed to fly unsafe duty days regularly with the statement 'it's legal' being the catch all for any expression of concern.The company needs to follow the procedures outlined in the [fatigue program] for Part 91 flights (perform them within the applicable regulations); or establish limits and guidelines to mitigate fatigue on Part 91 flights. Crew members' duties and responsibilities do not change just because the cargo or passengers are not onboard. Safe operation of the aircraft is dependent upon the fatigue level of the crew in large part; whether the flight is operated with revenue on board or not. The appearance is that the Company has little regard for the safety of the crew members on board the aircraft and only follows the rules when forced to do so by strict FAA guidelines. Part 91 flights MUST be taken seriously when it comes to fatigue and the duty/flight times of crews involved. Hiding behind the words 'it's legal' will not explain an accident or incident that occurs on a flight.




Synopsis: The B757 Captain reported on a Part 91 ferry flight that he said pushed FAR legalities and compromised safety. He was having a difficult time staying awake and noticed other crewmembers who had fallen asleep.