I really like your fresh perspective.

The problem is that the 777 (and its PIC pay) is their carrot and once you give it away...

Here I am more optimistic than you. If enough people are informed and the existing model is strained enough...it will change. Now is the time to push for change.

I think the biggest problem an airline would face even if all the RAA member companies agreed to do this at the same time is that the stupid pilots would resist because ALPA would resist. Such a change would be good for the regional airline industry, good for pilots, but bad for mainline and bad for ALPA. Since ALPA and mainline control the regionals...that's the biggest obstacle, not proving that it could work.

If the regional airlines really were profit motivated independent entities as some here want you to believe, this would have happened already.

You keep parroting that, yet continually fail to see the connection, and thus the answer to your own question. Not aiming this singularly at you, but people like you are effectively the reason pay is the way it is. We call this: price inelasticity of supply. Put in other words, when elastic players do not make black, they exit stage. Pay goes up. When inelastic players do not make black, they subsidize their pursuit in order to remain in the market. Pay stays down. This is rational behavior when it comes to attaining medical care; it is not rational when it comes to getting your jollies off playing jet pilot. Reference Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. In the more egregious cases, it results in threats to public safety, aka Colgan 3407.

--break break--

I don't find the whole "..because one day you'll earn 240/credit and work 10 days" argument particularly persuasive in undergoing a decade-long regional airline economic internship, when normalized for how protracted that timeline is in the context of an adult's working and filial life, not to mention medical outcomes as a function of age. I don't need 240K at 55 with a big COL-adjusted goose egg between 25-40. I need 120K at 30 for 25. Time value of money is off the charts higher for the latter case; if we account for non-economic opportunity costs then even more so.

Heavily protracted exponential compensation models are horrible for quality of life. Divorces are made of such calls for economic monastic life. . Making it to the upper middle class income past 45, marrying a 15-junior trophy wife and having dependents at 50 is a big joke. Life laughs at you. Most traditional jobs tend to be logarithmic in compensation, which falls more in line with human life. But as long as there are pilots who do not hinge their livelihood on their vocation, you'll never be able to leverage for a better structured compensation model. To put it colloquially: this ---t shouldn't be a hobby, yo.

^^^^^^^ this!!

I think basically what was said that it makes no sense to live on poverty wages (even bouncing up and down to poverty pay scales as you switch jobs) in the hopes that if you do it for twenty years you will get a reasonably good paying job that you may or may not be able to hang on to.

The problem is that in your quest for financial independence you need to earn a good wage early in life to make it count. i.e. $125K per year for thirty years is far more valuable than earning $50K for ten years followed by $250K for the next twenty. The numbers may seem higher but all the lost investing opportunities and higher loan rates you pay while younger mean you likely retire poorer.

So do you feel the same way about ex-military guys, with a 20-year pension, flying 121? Those guys don't absolutely rely on their regional salaries to pay the bills; they've got decent pensions and might also have a Guard slot as well. Do you blame them for the state of pay in the industry?

why? Are 400 people more important than 40? Do you not see how this is shooting yourself in the foot and trying to return you back to the B scale?

I have read this entire thread.... wow.....lots of opinions and ideas.. some good ...some not so good.....

the seniority system has its pro's and con's.... that is a given.... frankly my solution to this question revolves around two solutions... of which I am sure their are issues with both....

1......TRIP rigs... with the rig being high enough that it absolutely makes it essential that the company schedule mainly efficient line...

or

2...... Duty pay.... We all generally are paid two rates.... an hourly rate based on equipment, seat and longevity and Per Diem..... Lets add a third rate... DUTY Rate... you will be paid an additional rate based on report time till release time. What should that rate be... I don't have a clue... but I am sure some of the smart people in this industry could come up with something.

Simplistic? ... probably..... Doable? sure.... Realistic?... probably not

Just LOL'd hard

Keep in mind that a lot of people who post in these threads use made up online persona that aren't close to who they really are. Sometimes they may use several profiles to support their own opinions in a discussion. Often they are pushing issues that are in the interests of the business in question while pretending to be a pilot. They are usually recognizable by a general hostility and insulting comments toward anyone who disagrees with their agenda but are careful to stay within the forum rules. Tech forums are far worse though. If you speak out against the interests of a large tech company (especially some cable companies) in a public forum expect to be lambasted by fanboys and professional "astroturfers" guarding the interests of their clients.

So...are you gonna call people out that you suspect are using multiple screennames to bolster themselves or simply let such an accusation linger?

Also, I don't spend much time on tech forums, but I don't think I've ever seen anybody defend Comcast or Time Warner on the interwebs.