I did a little exercise at the end of last year that I think helps clarify whether or not negotiating for the kind of improvement it would take to restore our pay would be "in good faith" or "reasonable." I estimated the number of passengers I carried last year. I think I had pretty sound methodology for this estimate:

I took the actual number of days I flew last year. I figure on the MD-88/90 the average number of legs per day is 3. The MD-88 holds 149 PAX and the MD-90 holds 160. Our loads are pretty full most of the time, so I used 145 as the average passenger load.

Then, I looked at my December 31 pay stub. I added Flight Pay, Flight Advance, Profit Sharing, Shared Rewards, and company contributions into my retirement accounts... basically total compensation for the year.

Then I divided that number by the number of passengers I carried. My total cost to Delta per passenger? $2.98.

So... obviously it's more than just me up there. And some airplanes have higher paid Captains and more than two pilots. So let's say for illustration purposes that the average cockpit cost per passenger is $7. To increase our W2's to the same level of buying power we had during most of the 1980's, 1990's, and early 2000's, we would need approximately a 50% increase. Using $7 as our average cockpit cost per passenger, that's an additional $3.50 Delta would need to net per passenger. Delta invented $25 bag fees out of thin air and has no trouble collecting them. I have no doubt that they could find a way to net (whether through revenue increases or cost cuts in other areas or some combination) $3.50 more per passenger if they needed to. Where there's a will there's a way. Our management proves this every single day. They are very good at thinking outside the box.

So, is "restoration" reasonable? Would we be negotiating "in good faith?" Clearly, I think so. I think there is a strong case to be made for that. Trouble is, nobody is making that case on our behalf.