If we were all paid by years of service instead of airplane size, nobody would care if they wanted to buy RJs, or how many seats the new planes have. Pay a 15 year pilot the same if he's on a 70 seat RJ or an A-380, and we would tell the company to buy the plane that makes the most sense--and the most profit. We'll fly them...and everyone will bid the lifestyle they want.

We brought all this on ourselves by demanding more money for flying bigger airplanes (when, in the 1950s-70s, "we" all thought airplanes would only get bigger and bigger and bigger. Sure seemed like a good idea at the time...) Then management realized that our plan also meant less money for flying smaller airplanes, and the race to the bottom was on.

All the scope issues are a result of management trying to get around this "loophole" or you could say, taking advantage of this provision. They can now make a distinction between big planes and little planes to by using our own rhetoric (more revenue, more responsibility, etc.) against us and thus set up the regional subs.

Yeah...I know. It's heresy to pay the same on different planes. But as Dave Ramsey so often says, "So, how's that working out for ya?" I'd love to hear someone make the argument that this system has worked out well for the pilots....How well scope clauses have protected us?

Time to fix this.