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.

Option C: $150K flight pay + 18% to restore to 2004 = $177K + 'at risk' PS = $30K = $207K


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.

Or would they prefer Option C, because PS is always At Risk, it cannot be counted as pay. It should be viewed as a Bonus, when the company is doing well.


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?