Who said pilots would make twice as much without the RLA? That's your own straw-man argument.

If there's no shortage of pilots willing to work at first year pay, why is it that RAH and Eagle are offering $5,000 signing bonuses, while Silver is offering $6,000? My regional is having a hard time getting people who are scheduled to interview to actually show up. I wouldn't call it a shortage, but it sure is a "buyer's market."

Comair walked over a decade ago. Which other regional airline has been allowed to strike since then? I'm not saying that without the NMB and RLA then we'd all make twice as much money, that's just silly. What I am saying is that in that sort of environment, management would actually have to come to the negotiating table ready to play ball, or risk having their workforce walk out. The focus would be on getting a deal done. The current NMB environment does nothing but reward management groups for their ability to draw things out indefinitely. This is nothing like a free market system like you called it.

This whole discussion started when you mentioned that new pilots are an "unproven commodity." I contested that when you run someone through the level of indoctrination that PPL-ATP training provides, as well as the standardization of a part-121 training event, you know exactly what you're getting. And then there's "probation," the period of time when if you're not getting the job done, you're gone without union help. Will all of these safe-guards in place, there's no need for low pay just in the name of "unproven commodities." Fire me if I'm incompetent. But until then, pay me according to my level of education, training, risk factor, and responsibility.