I agree that we don't need to be too much beyond 14% before it kicks to pay. I think TWA was 18%, and that sure seemed like plenty.

I'm NOT saying, and you're not saying, that we don't want to ask for both, but, if we assume the total amount available is finite (which is more of a philosophical point than some would claim), then my priorities would be to:

1) Get workrule improvements, so that I work less, or work more comfortably, for the money I do get, and so that extra flying is definitely worth my while, and doesn't cost me in terms of health. You can't tax better workrules.

2) Add a couple % to the DC to get the rest of the way there. I'm guessing no more than 17.5% or so.

THEN

3) Let the rest roll into pay.

With those priorities, I think we all benefit. Those that want more 401(k) contributions are free to add.

There may not be a huge difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying. I presume the "more pay" you refer to would be the result of both payrates and workrule improvements. I'm only making the point that, when the workrules are favorable, and one can fly a low schedule comfortably, then the payrate of the incremental extra flying matters less, because it's just not that painful. Conversely, really high payrates combined with poor workrules makes for a highly taxeable, unenjoyable job.

So while 401(k)'s are a good option for many, the key to a better overall package doesn't start with huge DC funding. The way I see it, it starts with excellent workrules, acceptable DC contributions, then higher payrates.