I find it funny that i make same as a guy flying a 66-86 seat airplane.
And now the RAH guys are nice enough to fly 100seater for regional wages :(
But to answer the qs....48k to start+$800/month allowance (for living in guam)

Well coming from a military background I look at it this way. A 2LT on flight status is paid by the Federal Govt $4572/mo or roughly $55000/yr while he/she is in training. 2 years later as a 1LT it becomes $5667/mo or roughly $68000/yr and after 4 yrs as a newly minted Capt they make $86000/yr. This is of course after they(the Company) have spent approx $1,000,000 in training cost. What you are paid is what your value to a company is. It is based on "your value added" to the product and your level of responsibilities. If the Feds went back to regulating the airlines the Military pay scales would be a good start. Bear in mind that 1Lt Snuffy gets paid a fair wage to be the First officer period...not the equipment he flies. F-15, C-5, B1B, sherpa, helo, or T6...it does not matter. He is an officer of that company and a pilot and is paid as such.
Just my two cents.

I agree with not paying dependent on type of aircraft. A CRJ-200 flies just the same as a CRJ-900 as a 737. Perhaps T-props should be less than jets because they don't fly as high and fast? The only big difference should be a type that goes international (besides Canada and Mexico). Those flight requires very different training. Besides that, there's really no reason why one airplane should pay more than another.

Maybe I was somewhat misunderstood. I'm talking about base salaries. If the company feels that the value added to the company and level of responsibilities are greater with a 777 or 737 and want to pay more amen...but the notion of the original question..."how much more do FOs NEED to make..." is disheartening. There should be a baseline pilot salary PERIOD!

I agree with this 100%. This would be a minimum starting point for discussion. And ATP should be the minimum requirement for Part 121 flying.

I agree, you can't have one with out the other. Meaning, the FAA requires 2 crew members on 99% of 121 aircraft. And for a good reason might I add. Anyone that thinks an FO serves no purpose other than pitot heat and when do we eat, doesn't see the big picture. Most of the time we as FO and CA share duties and responsibilities. Our base training must be equal and the only training that differs between the CA and FO is most of the time company paid. Yes CA deserve a higher pay rate. But why? Because they have more seniority within the company and have about 75% more responsibility over the FO. But that last 25% could be a matter of life and death. So my argument is we are all pilots in the end so there shouldn't be a 100k difference between an FO's pay and CA pay. That was a great incentive to get your but over to the left seat ASAP but we are in kind of a five year chrisis now and people are seat locked for a long time.

I don't see this happening here in the US. There is NO shortage of pilots. DAL alone is planning to cut additional 10% of flying and is planning to cut back on international flying. With the age 65 rule it will be at least another 3 to 5 years before these senior guys start to retire and once they retire, many of their jobs will not be replaced. DAL is reported to be about 1500 pilots overstaffed. All US major airlines (Legacy) are planning to cut back on both domestic and international flying by at least 14 to 17% for 2009 and beyond. If anything, standards for part 121 should go up, not downward.

Forgive the small history correction, but even when the CAB regulated airlines, it had no regulation on airline employee pay. Except for probationary periods, FO pay was almost universally 60% of the CA scale.

I agree except now we have a lot of powerful senators huffing and puffing about the 'unimaginable" wages being paid 121 pilots ...they only get involved when they can make some hay out of it. for example the federal minimum wage act.

Where are you getting your percentages? I know it might hurt some captain's ego but I see it as a 51/49 relationship. The captain will have final say on that flight by that 1%. However, you're both relatively equal in duties and in responsibility of the final outcome of that flight. The way you put it makes it seem like the captain does all the work and the FO just sits around observing. (and yes, I did understand your sentiments)