Not necessarily. It's just the way ALPA contracts have been written since prior to the jet age.

The theory goes back to the introduction of jets. Jets not only vastly increased capacity, but vastly increased speed. Both were huge increases in productivity per hour of piloting. ALPA fought hard for pay increases based on this productivity. Management fought it extremely hard. Management wanted pilots to be paid the same.

It was what ALPA fought hard for. It had nothing to do with ol Carl. Unions get insulted constantly for being afraid of more productivity. It's a slur. ALPA fought hard back in the day, and won the right to be paid via productivity. To me, it has always made economic sense to pay per productivity. For me personally, I would prefer to fly day trips on the 757. That would be my idea of the ideal gig. I don't do that because it's not the best financial decision for me. If we move away from pay based on productivity, we play into the hands of those who wish to taint us with the brush of being afraid to be productive.

It has NOTHING to do with my job being any harder than anyone elses.

It could be argued that way, and could be argued another way. Truth is, both jobs have significant risks and skill requirements. That's a given. The only question is whether you pay pilots based on the amount of revenue they produce based on the aircraft they fly.

I can only give you my opinions and the historical background of how we got here.

Carl