“Entitled” is a strong word. If you can divorce yourself from the idea that what we’ve always done is necessarily the correct method, the real question is whether the amount of increased pay being offered justifies the negative aspects of the job. Current circumstances suggest not enough of us answer that question in the affirmative. Supply & demand.

Now, if you conclude that the incentive to upgrade needs to be greater than it is presently (big if), you’ll quickly realize that there is no way to accomplish that with a purely even increase. The captains would have to be given something extra, which would naturally lead to some sense of “taking” from the FOs- even though the idea is to convince the company there is value in coming up with additional payroll money to keep the CA seats filled. (In that sense, those who would immediately vote no on any uneven rate increase might actually be keeping the total contract value lower than possible.)

But if everyone claiming QOL is their only priority is being honest, why is an uneven pay increase such a problem? Senior FOs maintain the QOL they’ve prioritized at a wage that outpaces inflation, and those willing to sacrifice said QOL for extra pay have more incentive to do so.

Food for thought.