Originally Posted by forgot to bid

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 well that over the life of C2015 chances are that PS is guaranteed and its a %, so the more I fly the more I make so leave PS untouched. 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 I'm actually fine with $170K hard pay over Option A, because at least 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.

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

Thoughts *****es?