The two are interconnected, fix one and the other isn't as much of an issue. We fix batch sizes for them, what drives them to be willing to fix our issues? You mentioned the reserve coverage formula above, that wouldn't be a terrible place to start.

Just open up more bases and then we can split these giant 400+ pilot categories into smaller ones. Then it doesn’t take as long to run coverage with small batch sizes.

You folks do realize that if we had "adequate staffing", there would be a bare fraction of the premium time we have today, if any at all. The senior people in each category would hoover it all up, and everyone else would just be flying their lines. ALVs would be relatively low, the open board and swap board would be empty.

Most on this thread, with the exception of a few, would lose their minds if that were to happen.

LOL exactly. Not to mention there'd be less profit sharing too.

Sure do realize it, and it's what I'd love to see again. Lower ALV's would be a welcome sight. It also means line holders could more freely drop trips without the negative coverage game, fewer days used for the reserves, etc... I lived it for a time here and it was pretty dang great.

Exactly - 10 char

It’s great if you’re top or mid seniority. If we’re fat staffed it means the company is thinking about shrinking. Not a great feeling in the bottom: UNA/Covid, 2008 JCBA/SLI/Great recession, bankruptcy, 9/11 just a few exhibits of plenty of blue days.

Sign.
Me.
Up.

It was great for me (junior guy) as well. We were well staffed in my cateogry in the years leading up to rona. Now, even that WB category has crap coverage. We also had good enough coverage to have great schedule flexibility on the 73 back in 2015-2017. Didn't seem like we were looking to shrink around that time.

But to your first point, ya it should be great for mid seniority and senior guys...that's kinda the point.

Try 665...