It cannot be denied that you and I do the exact same job. It also cannot be denied that when I fly for one hour, I do so with at least twice the passengers and cargo that you do. So what? That produces at least twice the revenue to the company, again, so what? but my pay rate is NOT twice that of yours.not really relevant, but it is disproportionally higher. It's only marginally higher based on my increased production of revenue. Nope.IF we move away from the model of small marginal pay increases based on revenue production, then you are going back to the old argument that unions used to make.Again with the productivity argument.. who cares??? and why????? That argument was that we have to be paid simply by being on the property...not based on any work I actually do.
Not exactly, but we are getting closer. My argument is that the airplane doesn't matter. You still have to push it around the sky... IOW you still do work. It is not like being on welfare. But OK, in the old days, a guy could bid reserve, go low yellow and not fly for months on end and get paid a lot of money. That is no longer the case for the most part, seasonal differences and economic problems notwithstanding.

That argument is one of the reasons the public soured on unions.

I don't care what the public thinks at this point in time. They are not paying what is in my honest opinion, a reasonable price to fly around the world in an airplane.

I'm just not sure we should ever go back to an era where we can be accused of that by our flying public. I think it's a loser for us if we try. Well that might... might be true, but then again, the public doesn't care, or even know for that matter that we took a 50% pay cut in bankruptcy TEN YEARS AGO and have still not recouped that... but that is a different discussion.

Carl