Couple points:
It does sound terrible. But somehow some folks aren’t getting the message I’m trying to convey.
It’s not a question of not caring about those who commute in this example. It’s a question of providing a benefit for those who choose to commute(improved QOL) at the expense (reduced QOL) for those who don’t but would like to retain their non rev benefits as originally designed.

To use your healthcare example as a hypothetical, it would be analogous to providing a health plan where FOs have to pay higher deductibles than captains because reasons.

I don’t use Delta for my family’s healthcare. But I still want/expect improvements to the coverage available.

If there was a way to design a PSC policy that provides a benefit to commuters WITHOUT negatively impacting those who don’t want or need the benefit then I am 100% onboard and I would definitely support it. FWIW, I think there are ways to get there, some of which have been touched on in previous posts.

Lastly, the worst thing about PSC, in my opinion, is that it seems to have sown division in the ranks. Despite having disagreements, I think it’s important in the larger sense that this group continue to show that we are unified in wanting the company to stop the obfuscation and lies and negotiate in good faith.