I would feel better if the ratio was based on the number of airframes instead of the number of scheduled credit hours for each airframe. The number of airframes will vary much less than the number of credit hours each month.

Perhaps we could lock in a historical ratio of pilots per widebody aircraft and make that a minimum number of 767 pilot slots, regardless of the ratio method.

Additionally, I THINK that the intent of the separate 767 bidpack is to include separate secondary and reserve lines in that bid pack. The extra, punitive 757 R24 reserve lines that get paid 767 rates for that month and count to offset the ratio, would be in ADDITION to the normal amount of 767 secondary and reserve lines already in the 767 bid pack.

The problem with the above is obviously that it is not specifically delineated that way (so far as I can tell) and thus the company could take advantage of that and not build any 767 reserve lines. Here again perhaps a historical widebody average of the number of secondary and reserve lines per airframe/credit hours could be used as a baseline minimum to keep the company honest.

On first reading it appeared to me that the intent was to build a normal 767 bidpack that would include secondary and reserve lines, and additional R24 757 reserve lines would be built only if the manning was below the ratio to augment the normal 767 reserve lines, but since it doesn't specifically state that perhaps we need to tighten up the language.