Fortunately the overwhelming response to TA1 makes it pretty clear that giving up anything for “smoke & mirrors” pay raises is not on the table. But what most pilots call QOL is a balance of making a decent living (pay) at a job they enjoy (work rules). Any good contract addresses both sides of that equation. I’m not willing to trade labor protections for pay, but neither am I willing to lose money to inflation just to stop sitting FSBY.

The argument over which side of the equation would better increase the rate of upgrades is mostly academic, in my opinion, since that is not really our problem to solve. My point was that the example used (i.e., VERY senior FOs) was a demographic that are unlikely to upgrade under almost any contract as they have made sacrifices to enjoy seniority-based perks that they just can’t have at their relative seniority in the left seat. Some guys just want to be top 10% in any seat & that’s fine. My assumption is that for the majority of mid to lower seniority FOs who are holding off on upgrade, the magic formula would be a mix of improved work rules (RSV, commuting, etc.) & a pay structure that keeps everyone above inflation but with greater increases to the CA scale, thereby offering a clear opportunity to make more money in the left seat. I think that would end unfilled CA vacancies in the same way the right rules & compensation package would ultimately solve the training dept/LCA problem.