If I had training on Tuesday at 6am I could legally be on RB on Monday for 4 1/2 hours. If the sim was at 10am I could be legal for most of the RB period on Monday! My point is why did the whole R day go away and how much negotiating capitol was spent on the fix?

I don't believe we've ever been able to stand (sit? Whatever) a partial day of reserve. It's all or nothing.

Obviously, you have never received the phone call saying your 1 in 7 starts now, part way into an R day and your back on at xx:xx tomorrow, which is another partial R day.

I don't remember if that ever happened to me. However, I don't really think that scenario applies to what we were discussing. Changes made in effectively real-time by crew scheduling are not the same as reconciling bid conflicts before the month in question even starts.

Have you ever gotten a crew notification about a conflict for the next month that says due to a conflict with your recurrent training you have 4 hours of an A-reserve period on a particular day? No, you haven't. The whole day stays in your schedule or the whole thing gets removed.

We can talk until we're blue in the face... BL is we have to account for a 12 hr buffer prior to our training start in order for it to drop the entire R day block. I dropped a whole R day block with only one day to the left of it, but my training started at 14:00 so didn't know that's why. All of this according to old CBA. Got it.

New one it will not matter, as I read it. It touches an R day, it drops the block.

Max, if you had an afternoon out and back to DEN, you could get half way there as well, so why would they drop the whole trip?

It's obvious that you think there is some sort of conspiracy by the company and union on this. I'll just go back to my spot on the grassy knoll.:rolleyes:

What fix? you make it sound like the change to the rule was made to "fix" the old rule by not requiring a split to drop an entire block? This concept is not one created by ALPA, the old way (pre-2006) was much more inefficient, sub and partial reserve blocks that may have been bordered by buffers/training are not easily used. Now it will be even easier to conflict away inefficient blocks of r days.

Many pilots enjoy the process and many more CH will be lumped into the view/add process with the new rules, but do not confuse this concept/rule with something that we should of spent any of the elusive "negotiating capital" on to "fix" as this process certainly is a company efficiency, not ours. However, it has a nice side effect of allowing us to leapfrog our seniority a few times a year.

This is sort of on topic since this thread seems to be a good discussion of contractual language...
As far as our contract is concerned, what is the legal meaning of the word "Shall". It's all over our contract, and my assumption would be that "shall" means "will" and implies an obligation. As opposed to "may" which implies there might be other options.
An example in our CBA would be: "4.H.1. A pilot who is assigned a trip(s) or base standby in reserve status shall have the trip guarantee or standby pay credited toward his leveling and/or RLG as follows:"
Does that "shall" obligate the company to provide a pilot what is described in that section?