Good work on showing the math in public Ron Rico, but don't forget about the 'real reason' the company would LOVE a longevity based pay system, and that is reduced manning, due to the reduced training you eluded to.

We are coming off 5 years of stagnation due to age 65 and merger synergy, so going forward, there will be a lot more pilots swapping seats and stuck in training for a month or more. How many pilots are -off line- going to school is hard to say, but let's use 10% because the math is easier.

IF we had LBP, there would be far fewer pilots playing musical chairs, chasing the big bucks into a widebody, so far fewer pilots required on the seniority list. The bottom 10% of every category could be lopped off, and thus the bottom 10%, or about 1100 pilots on the bottom, would go out the door, or the top 1100 retire and not be replaced.

Then there is the "Productivity" argument. Once you decouple aircraft pay rates from aircraft productivity, why should the company pay a 747 Captain any more than a 50 seat RJ Captain?