Well, of course they do. But they're have apparently decided to do this manually and cannot keep up. There can be any number of changes to the calculus, including improved tech, more schedulers, less open time, more pilots, etc. The proper solution is likely a combination of some things. I guess refer to the part where I said the coverage process was flawed. On their end and our end but we all agree that there is a point of failure in the system. The objective is to cover trips and that isn't being done in an effective way.

It seems pretty simple to me that if there were fewer trips to cover, they could keep up. Doesn't matter how it gets done. The variable Y requires X energy. Lower Y and the requirement for X is lower. X can be software, people, reroutes, cancelations, delays, or premium pay, etc. The fact that we also have a contractual constant that is being (perhaps maliciously) applied to the formula adds to the chaos. But like I said, there is no silver bullet here.

Maybe someone smarter than me can post a gif of it, but this is like Lucy at the chocolate factory having to stuff her shirt and face full of chocolates because they just won't stop coming down the belt.