Redeye,

I understand your line of thinking, however I think it's exactly that line of thinking that hurts pilot unity and pay scales industry wide.

By creating a "more revenue" arguement, we divide the pilot group and require costly training events when people bid for larger aircraft. Likewise, when and airline is losing money, the larger aircraft have much more potential to be "revenue holes".

IMHO, pay should be based on experience and longevity. Why is it that I am paid more than 300/flight hour to fly a Cessna Citation, when if I went to the airlines I'd make only 35-40/hr to start at a major (if that).

Going to a longevity based system would do several things (IMHO):

First off, it could lead to a nationalized pay scale. This would benefit everybody, and only strengthen labors position.

Second, it would save money for companies- by going to longevity pay, pilots would be less inclined to move around the system, thus reducing training costs. Since pilots wouldn't have to continuously move to larger equipment to get the higher echelons of pay, the company wouldn't have to pay for the constant bump up/ripple effect or bump and flush effect that comes with upgrades and displacements.

Finally, it would allow pilots to live the lifestyle they wanted based on the fleet type they bid for. Single? Want to see the world? Bid for widebody international flying. Have young kids, want to be home every night? Bid for a 737 shuttle route that allows just that.

Just my two cents...