I think it's good we talk about PS because there is one thing to hash out, is which one you think is better:

Option A: $150K flight pay + $30K PS = $180K.

Option B: $180K flight pay.

Some guys will look at A and say that over the life of C2015 the chances are very good that PS is nearly guaranteed money and since its a % of your flight pay the more I fly the more I make- so leave PS alone. We will be profitable for some time, probably profitable even in the next downturn.

Some guys will say that $30K PS is at risk, it isn't guaranteed and it could go away. Give me $180K in hard pay.

Now the bigger question is would someone who prefers Option B be okay with say... $170K hard pay over Option A? Because again it's guaranteed.

To me when I hear "at-risk pay" being bandied about it sounds more like reducing W2 for the sake of having more guaranteed pay. So I cringe.

Personally I'm for Option A because I'll hedge my bet that over the next few years (with RA in charge) we're probably profitable. But it's a bet. I think some guys are probably not willing to make that bet.

Thoughts *****es?