Hmmm, interesting. When the DC was set up some(less seniority) got more DC at 16%. some of the more senior with less time left got less contribution ...5%. So, as time went by they re-evaluated and make adjustments to try to level the playing field, eventually everyone getting the same %. The important thing is, rules change as times change. You used to have to be on property 10 years to be vested....now the retirement plan is portable....helps the younger. Point is...just because you can't imagine a system that does ??????........ maybe , like policing, we need to re-imagine ???. All I know is the same argument used by younger pilots is, "Why should I take less to help you old guys out"...and the old guys say, "Why should I get less to make things better for the young guys?" I can give probably 20 examples of things that got fixed for new/younger guys at the expense of older guys....things the older guys endured and thought that should be fixed due to "equity" .......... B-scale, no pass privileges on probation, paying for pass privileges, pay banding, hotel rooms for training, training pay, commuter paid parking, leveling of GS, etc, etc. Most things that are considered improvements help all equally or( my opinion) help the younger guys more. The most relevant example would be the B-scale. I spent almost 5 years on B-scale and then it got fixed. So, in my mind I paid for it twice. The big "pay" was 5 years at substandard wages....the next "pay time" was achieving a contract that dismantled it at a cost to everyone on property via reduced pay rates. Any fixes, have costs associated with them, and each "side" will view with their inherent bias(usually in the form of "you're taking money out of my pocket").