When the RLA kicks in, I suspect on or near day one, remember the NMB LOVES parity with existing profitable competitors in one's peer set. That is all we need to ask for, with a few reasonable premiums above that here and there backed up with the logic of massive additional revenue. Every time management squeals that we can't afford to pay us SWA rates for SWA planes, we need to answer "but SWA can afford it, and we, obviously, have the most exectutive talent, so why can't we afford it? unless their executive talent is superior to our executive talent, in which case perhaps it is our executive talent that is over paid, but dear Mr Mediator I think you will agree that is not our problem".

As for "simply demanding" all I'm referring to is how we frame the debate. If we can't afford/NMB won't allow/union conspiracy sinks/etc. SWA parity and a true COLA plus reasonable premiums for the other things mentioned, then all I'm asking is that we call it like it is.

A 10% raise on day one with 5% raises for 5 years is NOT a "raise", it is a pay cut below SWA, and close to a net inflationary pay cut anyway over time. If, as you suggest, all we can afford and/or manage to get for whatever reason, is something like that, then we need to at least call it yet another extension of a 9-11/bankrputcy/emergency contract that reduces proven and profitable SWA pilot pay and locks us into the new extention for the better part of another decade.

If indeed the 10/5/5/5/5 nonsense is really "all we can get" then it needs to be referred to not as a "30% raise" but rather a "5% increase over 9-11/bankruptcy/emergency wages but 30% or so below the biggest domestic LCC with partial cost of living adjustments that at best will break even each year and at worst will eliminate the initial 5% raise and we will wind up with a net pay cut over the life of the agreement".

So in either case, windfall contract of our dreams, or yet another concessionary POS shoved down our throats by incompetent management, hoodwinked union leadership and/or government corruption and influence...either way...if we end up with less than SWA parity, including scope reversal to some significant degree, and including a full COLA over the life of the agreement, we have taken a pay cut. The least we can do is to not celebrate it and paint it as a fake "raise".

That said, I think that framing the debate in the correct way will go a long way in helping us get the best possible contract, whatever that ends up being.

And we need to really be cognizant of what inflation does to our money and how reverse compounding works. The "rule of 72" works both ways. Simple concept I know, but its sickening how quick we can collectively be to ignore that basic fact.