It seems like you are looking at it from a base structure standpoint. That might be a better way to do it. You just have to do it as a percentage of "trips." For example, 50% of all pairings will be day trips. One multi-day trip vs one day trip pairing. Block hours don't matter in that instance. Granted, it would leave the door open for a lot of overnights, but it still protects some level of day trips. You would have to pair it with a Maximum number of 4-5 day trips as well (i.e. 20% of pairings). The reality is that there is a 0% chance the company will agree to 90-100% day trips, so take what you can get.

When I said that, I was thinking more along the lines of total system departures. The drawback to using total system departures would be that some bases "could" be day trip bases and some could be multi-day trip bases and it would all work out in the percentages. Once again, you have to cap the longer 4-5 day trips.

In either case, a percentage of pairings is hard to argue against. 50% is 50%. Coupled with pay overrides for breaking the percentages, the remedy is already built-in. So yes, apples to oranges. The scheduling arbitration is much more in-depth and complicated. Also, keep in mind, the union has won those arbitrations already, the company just keeps filing lawsuits and appealing ridiculous items to keep from having to pay it or comply with the way the scheduling section is actually written.

I am really hoping that "Involuntary" TDYs go away, therefore TDYs would not be an issue in the next CBA. No other company does TDYs the way we do (except spirit, which will be fixed with the JB merger). If you volunteer for a TDY, great, that is your choice, but the company shouldn't have the ability to involuntarily TDY. Getting forced out of your base is the issue, not the VBD/commuter guys who actually like the ability to TDY to pad the check and avoid crash pad/hotel costs.