I'm in the top half... and it would have to be a really really really really really really really big carrot. As in C2K + oh.. I don't know... 30%.. So.. no I can;t realistically be bought on this issue.

Why would the regular guarantee need to be raised? That is a fairly meaningless number (other than for line construction purposes). I don;t know anybody... ever.. that has been paid the regular guarantee.. for whatever reason.. or maybe I am missing the point?

That's actually the way it used to be. Except it was called a cap. Reserve guarantee was cap-5. There are a lot of good ideas floating around here. I just have a problem with somebody not off for 18 days a month making less than those not off for 15 or 16 days a month. Keep it at 70 and give them more time off or increase the pay with the same DoA. Short call is necessary evil, but make them think twice before sticking 12 SCs a day. Same concept a furloughs. We seem to have found an effective way to prevent a hostage situation via severe penalty rather than preventative language, and yet give the company flexibility if they really really really need it. Short call should be a semi-emergency need, not a way of keeping commuters in bases just because you can. Creates resentment to the company for doing it, and to the union for not finding a way to prevent it. Fresh perspective, seemed to work in furloughs, no reason for it not to work in scheduling too.

Well in the winter guys are getting lines at 65 hrs, or min guarantee for a regualr line holder. Allowing guys to get 75 hrs as a reserve pilot would make a few not all want a higher min on a regular line. That was all that I was saying. IE I do not want to bid a reserve line to get 10 hrs more pay in the winter, I want a 70 hr regular line guarantee so I only have to pick up a day line.

If it was done this way, there would need to be a rewrite of the ALV/TLV windows and ranges, etc.
I like the idea of ALV-5 with a min of 70. That way you get more when you are going to be used more. It also allows the company to flex the pay by seven hrs a month.
If they do not want to pay it, they will have to have more lines, which in return will increase the requirement for more reserves.

It is the 10%.

I agree. I think that if you would raise the guarantee, you would see more senior people bid it. More senior people bidding it would lead to better QOL for both senior and junior. Although a blanket statement, I think that the more junior in category are more likely to be commuters for a variety of reasons. Not always true of course. I know that I would certainly bid reserve if the guarantee were higher, and I live in base. That opens up a line for a commuter who is junior to me. FWIW

I think that I am technically in the top 51%, and I agree. I have had the opportunity to speak with several people I didn't know before who are WELL in the top 50% who also agree. Without exact numbers to back it up, it would certainly seem that the tide is changing--from the last 3 weeks or so of my experience. :rolleyes:

Hence me doing a little critical thinking this morning. Just throwing out options that may be solutions to some of these issues.

And TS, with a 5:15 credit for SC you would get 31.5 hrs of pay for the month. With three hrs you would get 18. I have gotten to ALV three times this summer with out this. If I had gotten credit for my SC's I would have had either A) More time off, or B) a better paycheck.
Also, how about this. SC credit does not go towards ALV max, but only towards pay. IE, scheduling can still make you fly trip credits to ALV, and if they do the SC credit goes above it. If not you get credit for the SC credit if it puts you over your guarantee. That way it does not hurt the company unless the reserves are used.

I think we're on to something fellas... now if we can just get DALPA on board.....

IMO the pilots here have seen what big raises and letting go of scope does. They gave away a ton of flying, and got their pay taken back a few years later. Yes, they want what they lost, but many realize that the next step up in seat scope limitations is with out a question of a doubt giving away everything below a 757. We give them a 100 seat jet and all of the 88/90/9/7377 etc are gone. They will find a way to make it so.
That cliff is just to steep and the drop too far to even contemplate.
OTOH I do not see guys willing to give up a ton of pay for nominal scope gains.

You have your future LEC reps right here.....