Just so we all agree C/O does impact the next months BLG. Less C/O more BLG (and according to your formula more RLG). Obviously they could use it for more lines but than they couldn't tell the arbritrator we are 700 pilots overmanned.

What are you? A schizo? I don't see anyone else agreeing with that.

But, just a question...Did you walk to school? Or bring your lunch?

But if they build more lines rather than higher BLG, then there would be less people having to work 15 days at less than 4CH per R Day and more making the 60CH and working only 10. Of course neither is desired.

I think I got the then's and than's used correctly.

You are serious; you don't think pulling trips out of next months bid pack decreases BLG next month? You agree "C/O has no impact on RLG or BLG"? Question why did the company reduce carryover when they were buying up lines? You don't think it was so they would have to buy up less do you?

This is the same old argument going around here for a long long time ....................... we all know that C/O is a Senior privilege and a sham on those that cannot benefit from it .....................................

C/O should be proportionately decreased with line averages, senior privilege or not.

Ever heard the phrase:

"It doesn't matter what you think...If what you think doesn't matter"

That fits your argument. It doesn't matter what you think. Yes, if they used the carryover hours to raise the BLGs...Then, of course RLG would rise. However, if they just used the carryover hours to build more lines, the RLG would not change. It's simple. And, we don't have any say as to which they would do.

You ask if I doubt they reduced carryover to raise the BLGs so they wouldn't have to buy up so much? I don't know. Maybe. But if that's the case, why didn't they just reduce carryover even more and not buy up at all? Pretty simple answer for a few million $$$.

And now that they're not buying up BLGs...What would their incentive be to add those carryover hours to our BLG? They could just build more lines, at the low end of BLG and save even more. We are overmanned by thousands, remember.

Again, the bottom line is that it is possible to raise RLG with carryover, or just build more lines with it.

It is simple, they like saving 200 pilots in the MD, and who knows how many in the other acft when flying is healthy. That is why they refuse to eliminate carryover. It allows them to say we are overmanned now and make do with less pilots in normal conditions. The cost to the company is only positive, the cost to us is some guys get paid 100 hours a month and some are paid 58 a month.

No doubt they can play games with the BLGs and line numbers but if you add lines you increase the need for pilots. If you increase the amount of carry over you decrease the need for pilots. If we started our bid month on tuesday most of our weeklong pairings would become carryover. Good for the senior guys who like to work 3 weeks a month bad for the junior guys.

Regardless of what you, me or "they" think the statement "C/O has no impact on RLG or BLG" is wrong.
Why is the union wasting their time try to reduce C/O if it isn't?

If they took next months carryover and built it into lines then it would not be carryover would it? So, C/O has no value in computing RLG!

Yous guys are killen me!!