Understood. But this is such a potentially emotional/false hope infused can of worms that it could easily go off into the weeds and have us divided and negotiating with ourselves.

IMO its possible to maybe create a new program with the equivalent of a couple percent of what would have been additional DC or something like that. But the extent of what's being discussed leaves so much room for false possibilities, such as anything based off a peak period of time (best year etc) and that gets so emotionally intoxicating yet so unsustainable so quickly that IMO it will best case delay contractual improvements for years and worst case lead to scope sales and more "productivity" gains like wheel spin up for block time, longer training freezes, work rule/reroute relief/etc and nonsense like that to fund it.

I just don't see going down this long and winding road as benefitting the pilot group. Its not really even a Senior vs Junior issue, as there's zero chance of a retroactive restoration best year pump and dump system of ever being implemented anyway. Any additional program will clearly have to be based off of go forward costs and actuarials, so even if it looks like an traditional A fund/DB, it won't be anywhere near "restorative" in the sense that some may be thinking, and we'll probably have to chase our tails for quite a while to get it.