The hotel example is significantly different from the short call example. There is a cost to Manhattan and other long layovers. The hotels are more expensive and the transportation is as well. Every single long layover location was in effect bargained for in our contract. Each and every layover we move from there to the short location is a monetary savings to the company.

Getting compensated for it to any degree up to penny less than the current cost differential still makes it a win-win for pilots and the company. Plus in some cases helps mitigate potential rest issues by cutting out hours in traffic as well as reducing variables that can effect pairing reliability.

I'm not saying we should get huge hourly pay raises, tighter scope and higher daily vacation credit as a trade for moving a few overnights to the othert side of the line. We should get those things anyway though. But a trade that lets us keep at lease some of the savings to the company off of prior book is both fair and reasonable. In a truly constructive collaborative relationship, something like that wouldn't cause any friction at all.

As for those freeloading long call pilots, we sold back a 7th short call (only in the months when the company may want it anyway) back to help fund 4/8/3/3. Funny thing is, 6 short calls wasn't a number picked out of a hat but more like the statistically safe number the company could do what they were going to do anyway WRT coverage with minimal impact to staffing. They found out later that it did create some pressure in some categories the last part of some months, so they wanted 7 and got it. We also recently got an extra hour added to long call, but gave it right back in order to get rid of something the company was supposedly neutral about in the first place.

And yet there are still people who sleep beneath the blanket of coverage that reserves provide, and then question the manner in which they provide it.