You may prefer to have such a simplified metric, but I'd prefer a metric that includes my employer's current and potential profitability. American's contract was a gross undershoot (and they are swimming in debt) - I don't wish to set my personal goals based on "leading" beyond that. Rates equivalent to restoration (without work rule give-backs) are reasonable and fair given the current environment and 3-year outlook; Delta conceded as much when they announced the $5,000,000,000 buy-back. I don't believe restoration rates are sustainable forever, but of course we aren't negotiating a "forever" contract.

I don't support the ways in which many of the ranters present their arguments...it obviously turns a lot of people (perhaps most) off. But the fiscal arguments behind them are valid and should not be ignored.

If I were Delta management, I'd actually want what you seem to want...and that makes me nervous.

RA: "Men, how low can we go and still pass this TA pronto?"

Minions: "If you give them something barely industry-leading, it will pass quickly and we'll still be able to claim exceptional relations with our pilot group. Fortunately, the industry standard is still so low that it won't cost much to make that happen."

RA: "Perfect! Make it so. And when that's done, we'll have to figure out what the heck to do with all this cash laying around. You wanna toss an extra $2.5 back to Wall Street and see what it does to our stock price?"

Minions: "Genius! Let's do it! $7.5B over 3 years to Wall Street would be a far better investment than the $600,000 average per pilot equivalent over the same time. As Parker noted, pilots really don't have anything to do with the profitability of an airline anyway - but don't tell them we said that, haha!"