Recall of MEC Chair & Vice Chair

[Fanblade]

WestJet +2%

That's what we got.

Fanboy Blade.

When I see someone attacking the person rather than the argument, it means they know their argument is flawed and they can’t properly counter the other. Otherwise they would embarrass their opponent with facts.

WestJet +2%

That's what we got.

This statement is irrefutably inaccurate.

Especially after looking like weaklings after the FA Strike. Like it or not, that is what a union looks like.

You want a union that will fight but doesn’t produce results? Well then you would have applauded ACPA 2010-2011. We fought and fought. Strike vote. Government intervention.

We lost DB pension for new hires. The replacement DC was crap.
New hire pay went from 2-4 years
Rouge was introduced with lower pay and QOL
FO PCP was reduced by 3-7%

This dramatic loss was the beginning of the end for ACPA.

A fight doesn’t always produce results. A strike does not always equal more. A significant fight that results in a loss is very damaging and can cause union and membership trepidation that is very difficult to overcome for years. If you do go the full fight route you must be very certain you can win and be willing (not just words) actually willing to go the distance.

Most pilots are more concerned about the results of the battle versus how the battle was fought.

Granted there are some pilots that put a lot of value in the battle itself, how it was waged and its optics. I’m not one of those pilots. I am very results oriented.

[thepoors]

A significant fight that results in a loss is very damaging and can cause union and membership trepidation that is very difficult to overcome for years.

Granted there are some pilots that put a lot of value in the battle itself, how it was waged and its optics. I'm not one of those pilots

You realize these two statements are contradictory right? A fight resulting in a loss is damaging because of how it looks.

I would argue the way the MEC handled the strike notice and subsequent TA was very damaging and will be difficult to overcome for years. Many of us see that as a loss. Optics matter. Especially when you're trying to drum up support and unity. That's not looking great with the amount of AC lanyards on the line. Additionally, communications like "what the company was willing to..." are really bad optics and go directly against the fundamental purpose of a union - to make the company do things it's otherwise "unwilling" to. Reaping the results of the fight also depends on the contract being enforced and ALPA is doing little to none of that at the moment.

[Fanblade]

A significant fight that results in a loss is very damaging and can cause union and membership trepidation that is very difficult to overcome for years.

Granted there are some pilots that put a lot of value in the battle itself, how it was waged and its optics. I'm not one of those pilots

You realize these two statements are contradictory right? A fight resulting in a loss is damaging because of how it looks.

You have a point to a degree. Failing to meet expectations can be demoralizing. However creating gains that don’t meet expectations is vastly different than a devastating defeat where there are no gains. Just losses.

I understand the failure to meet expectations has damaged unity. But not even remotely close to the degree of what happened in 2010-2011. Your current MEC will likely come out swinging harder in the next round because of the membership reaction to the current TA. In fact I would think the next round may very well end in strike simply because the MEC may believe they must. It may sway last minute deliberations.

In 2011 the union and membership response was we can’t beat them. We gave up. Afraid to stand up because more might be taken. We might as well just take what they offer. Culminating in a 10 year deal that locked us in at bankruptcy wages for another decade. The defeatist mentality lasted for nearly a decade and actually became part of ACPA’s narrative. We can’t take them on. If we do they will take more. Taking them on is like taking a knife to a gunfight. A large portion of the membership bought this. To the point that it took a generational change over before anything was addressed. It took roughly until the post 2011 group became 50+1%.

Do not underestimate the damage from a devastating loss.

The unity from the 2011-2022 era to now is not even remotely comparable. You do not want a repeat, especially right on the heals of what happened a decade earlier. The recovery we have seen so far in this group has been largely junior driven. I expect that to be the driving force in the future so long as the junior don’t turn inwards on themselves or give up.

Are things perfect? No. You want better? Fight for it.

Walking away? You’re blowing your own toes off.

[737Drver]

How can you call yourself “results-based” and brag about WestJet +2%?

Then it’s “be ready to fight” — but in the same breath you say AC pilots should pattern bargain off ULCCs… which actually have higher starting pay. So not only was there no fight, the union didn’t even pattern bargain for entry-level pay that matches an ultra low cost carrier.

[Fanblade]

How can you call yourself “results-based” and brag about WestJet +2%?

You are the second poster in less than 5 that have spouted the WestJet +2% rhetoric. This is an absolute false statement. Where is it coming from and how did this false narrative become so ingrained when a little math would tell you otherwise?

[daedalusx]

Where is that WestJet +2 % coming from?
Have you compared pay scales, you’re looking at 5-15% at least… even with the flat pay.

Yr12 787 2026 WJ CA - 353.94
Yr12 787 2026 AC CA - 421.78

Yr12 737 2026 WJ CA - 304.90
Yr12 737 2026 AC CA - 337.33

Yr11 787 2026 WJ FO - 213.88
Yr11 787 2026 AC FO - 265.15

Yr11 737 2026 WJ FO - 170.41
Yr11 737 2026 AC FO - 217.07

And AC has a step 12 pay scale for FO that is even higher. WJ FO scale ends at step 11 which I’m sure many FOs will be on with the rate of upgrades.

I’m all for shitting on ALPA but at least can we use real numbers ?

[Fanblade]

Where is that WestJet +2 % coming from?
Have you compared pay scales, you’re looking at 5-15% at least… even with the flat pay.

Yr12 787 2026 WJ CA - 353.94
Yr12 787 2026 AC CA - 421.78

Yr12 737 2026 WJ CA - 304.90
Yr12 737 2026 AC CA - 337.33

Yr11 787 2026 WJ FO - 213.88
Yr11 787 2026 AC FO - 265.15

Yr11 737 2026 WJ FO - 170.41
Yr11 737 2026 AC FO - 217.07

And AC has a step 12 pay scale for FO that is even higher. WJ FO scale ends at step 11 which I’m sure many FOs will be on with the rate of upgrades.

I’m all for shitting on ALPA but at least can we use real numbers ?

Thank you.

Add on $33.13/hour for Captains and $18.06/hour for FO’s for NB overseas and Nav pay. Widebody gets about half that rate with just overseas pay.

The AC 12y 220 FO rate is $219.90/hour in 2026. It’s higher than a WJ 787 FO.

Rates per hour overseas 12 year CA and FO (2026) Overseas included for WB. Overseas and Nav included for NB.

AC 787 CA $438/hour
WJ 787 CA $354/hour
AC 737 CA $370/hour
WJ 737 CA $305/hour
AC 787 FO $$273/hour
WJ 787 FO $214/hour
AC 737 FO $230/hour
WJ 737 FO $170/hour

*edited for clarity on ovs/nav pay.

The crazy thing is the genesis of the WestJet +2% rhetoric started with Mike Rousseau. When asked what he thought was a fair deal this is what he stated. WestJet +2%.

Why are pilots repeating it as the results of negotiations? It’s what AC wanted to pay you. It’s not the end result.

It is difficult for me to believe that we have AC pilots this ignorant of our contract. Meaning I’m starting to believe some of the people claiming to be AC pilots on this anonymous forum are in fact not AC pilots.

Which means I’m wasting my time.

[3rdWorldClassPilot]

2% is wrong. My bad

2024 rates

First Officer Year 1:

AC: $87.48
WJ: $84.26
Percentage - 2.75%

First Officer Year 3:
AC: $118.47
WJ: $116.66
Percentage: 1.54%

So in some cases LESS THAN 2%

[daedalusx]

2% is wrong. My bad

2024 rates

First Officer Year 1:

AC: $87.48
WJ: $84.26
Percentage - 2.75%

First Officer Year 3:
AC: $118.47
WJ: $116.66
Percentage: 1.54%

So in some cases LESS THAN 2%

This is either rage bait or an ALPA conspiracy to make ALPA dissidents look like fucking retards.

[Jean-Pierre]

Do we still get overseas pay? I thought only narrow body pilots get it now.

[Fanblade]

Do we still get overseas pay? I thought only narrow body pilots get it now.

A12.04.01 was unchanged in the latest contract.

There are two separate rates. One is the overseas rate. The other is the Nav pay rate.

Everyone gets Overseas pay, except fixed rate pilots, while operating overseas.

Narrow body gets both Overseas and Nav pay, except fixed rate pilots, while operating overseas.

I edited the post above for clarity on Nav/OVS pay

[Mr. North]

So not only was there no fight, the union didn’t even pattern bargain for entry-level pay that matches an ultra low cost carrier.

This is another dead horse that continues to be beaten. If you want the big bucks that Flair pays in their first year, go work there!! They have to pay that much because everyone knows the lights could go off at any moment, it's their only way to attract talent. Are people coming to AC for 1st year pay? No. They come here because the career earnings are unmatched. They come here for the job security and the pension.

Whine all you want about junior pay, I get it. But using Flair starting pay is not the slam dunk you think it is.

[FelixGustof]

So not only was there no fight, the union didn’t even pattern bargain for entry-level pay that matches an ultra low cost carrier.

This is another dead horse that continues to be beaten. If you want the big bucks that Flair pays in their first year, go work there!! They have to pay that much because everyone knows the lights could go off at any moment, it's their only way to attract talent. Are people coming to AC for 1st year pay? No. They come here because the career earnings are unmatched. They come here for the job security and the pension.

Whine all you want about junior pay, I get it. But using Flair starting pay is not the slam dunk you think it is.

So Air Canada pilots are ok with being paid less than Flair? An Ultra Low Cost Carrier

LMAO

Quite the union you guys got

[CPU2000]

2% is wrong. My bad

2024 rates

First Officer Year 1:

AC: $87.48
WJ: $84.26
Percentage - 2.75%

First Officer Year 3:
AC: $118.47
WJ: $116.66
Percentage: 1.54%

So in some cases LESS THAN 2%

I see some talking about 787 rates and saying WJ is lower but they don't have Relief Pilots.

So when you take this into account, a crew of 3 WJ pilots flying to Europe is yielding more pay for the pilots.

Using a year 6 & 10 FO, plus Captain. WJ is $737 per hour
AC with a Jr RP and FO & Capt is $690

So WJ crew is actually producing 6% more in salaries.

[BTD]

2% is wrong. My bad

2024 rates

First Officer Year 1:

AC: $87.48
WJ: $84.26
Percentage - 2.75%

First Officer Year 3:
AC: $118.47
WJ: $116.66
Percentage: 1.54%

So in some cases LESS THAN 2%

I see some talking about 787 rates and saying WJ is lower but they don't have Relief Pilots.

So when you take this into account, a crew of 3 WJ pilots flying to Europe is yielding more pay for the pilots.

Using a year 6 & 10 FO, plus Captain. WJ is $737 per hour
AC with a Jr RP and FO & Capt is $690

So WJ crew is actually producing 6% more in salaries.

That’s a cherry picked example.

How about at AC a 12 year FO and 6 year RP, plus Captain. Of which there are many. At oct 2025 rates. $814.85 plus 34.50 for OVS.
Year 12 787 FO is 263.80 vs 208.67-213.88

The top 40% of the yyz 787 FOs are 12+ years. The top 65% are probably 8+ years. Most flights are going based on those rates.

The top rates did pretty well. The bottom needs to come up more. Having said that. You only spend 1 year at year 1 and 1 yr at year 2 and so on. Most will spend 15-20 years at year 12.

[BigGreen]

2% is wrong. My bad

2024 rates

First Officer Year 1:

AC: $87.48
WJ: $84.26
Percentage - 2.75%

First Officer Year 3:
AC: $118.47
WJ: $116.66
Percentage: 1.54%

So in some cases LESS THAN 2%

I see some talking about 787 rates and saying WJ is lower but they don't have Relief Pilots.

So when you take this into account, a crew of 3 WJ pilots flying to Europe is yielding more pay for the pilots.

Using a year 6 & 10 FO, plus Captain. WJ is $737 per hour
AC with a Jr RP and FO & Capt is $690

So WJ crew is actually producing 6% more in salaries.

You only spend 1 year at year 1 and 1 yr at year 2 and so on. Most will spend 15-20 years at year 12.

So wouldn't it be cheaper to fix?

The company isn't stupid. This place is run by an accountant.

[Montroyal]

So not only was there no fight, the union didn’t even pattern bargain for entry-level pay that matches an ultra low cost carrier.

If you want the big bucks that Flair pays in their first year, go work there!!

This is classic.

Union busting by your own union.

This idea: "if you're not happy, then go somewhere else!" is a tired, worn out way for companies to wear down unions.

Embarrassing to see done by your own union & members

Tabarnac

[Fanblade]

You only spend 1 year at year 1 and 1 yr at year 2 and so on. Most will spend 15-20 years at year 12.

So wouldn't it be cheaper to fix?

The company isn't stupid. This place is run by an accountant.

I think what BTD is trying to say is that every dollar moved from the top of the pay scale to the bottom of the pay scale reduces career income for everyone. Including the new hire you just moved the money to. Reducing career income also reduces pension income. The overall impact to lifetime income is very significant.

Yes our CEO is an accountant. He would love us to flatten our pay scales.

Right now someone might chime in and say what about the time value of money? That would be a good question. However our pay scales are so steep that even incorporating the time value of money doesn’t overcome the loss from flattening the pay scale. It puts a dent into the loss but not even remotely close to recovering.

A note here. This applies to someone who will spend most of their career at year 12. It doesn’t apply to a 53 year old new hire for example.

This is actually something that is not well understood and should probably be on the unions radar for the next round. Not understanding why the pay scales are so steep leads to a senior/junior clash. Even most senior pilots don’t understand the significance of the steep scale and how much it increases lifetime pay. In turn they can’t explain why we do it this way when confronted by someone junior. As we know that’s not great for unity.

I am not suggesting that new hire wages are adequate. I’m just explaining the thought process. If you were given $12 dollars to add to a 12 year pay scale where would you put it? Would you increase career earnings for everyone? Or would you help the junior pilots at the expense of everyone’s career earnings, including that junior pilot?

Obviously there is a practical limit to this. And I certainly believe our new hire wages are too low.

[digits_]

You only spend 1 year at year 1 and 1 yr at year 2 and so on. Most will spend 15-20 years at year 12.

So wouldn't it be cheaper to fix?

The company isn't stupid. This place is run by an accountant.

I think what BTD is trying to say is that every dollar moved from the top of the pay scale to the bottom of the pay scale reduces career income for everyone. Including the new hire you just moved the money to. Reducing career income also reduces pension income. The overall impact to lifetime income is very significant.

But that's not how that would go. If we assume the bag of money earmarked for salaries stays constant, and that an average pilot spends 15 years at the top, then one dollar reduction at the top then could mean a 15 dollar increase in year 1, or about 1.5 dollars increase the first 10 years. Arguably when most pilots would need the money most.

And if we would all move to a 2 year pay scale, pilot mobility would increase significantly and you'd have some real market economics driving salary increases. People would actually leave if they didn't like the salaries.

There is no justification for a 10+ year pay scale.

[Fanblade]

So wouldn't it be cheaper to fix?

The company isn't stupid. This place is run by an accountant.

I think what BTD is trying to say is that every dollar moved from the top of the pay scale to the bottom of the pay scale reduces career income for everyone. Including the new hire you just moved the money to. Reducing career income also reduces pension income. The overall impact to lifetime income is very significant.

But that's not how that would go.

It’s exactly how it would go. You do realize accountants/actuaries from ALPA Economic & Financial Analysis do this work for us? It’s not made up.

There is no justification for a 10+ year pay scale.

If we could pull off a pay scale based on year 11 and 12 I would agree with you. Anything less than that would damage career earnings. I don’t think a 2 year scale starting at year 11 is all that realistic. We are constrained by industry norms.

*This is not from ALPA. Hopefully I can paste this and it will still be readable. Its simplistic for illustration purposes.

STEEP pay scale with 2.5 million spread over 12 years. Career 35 years

1 $72,500.00
2 $97,500.00
3 $122,500.00
4 $147,500.00
5 $172,500.00
6 $197,500.00
7 $222,500.00
8 $247,500.00
9 $272,500.00
10 $297,500.00
11 $322,500.00
12 $347,500.00
13 $347,500.00
14 $347,500.00
15 $347,500.00
16 $347,500.00
17 $347,500.00
18 $347,500.00
19 $347,500.00
20 $347,500.00
21 $347,500.00
22 $347,500.00
23 $347,500.00
24 $347,500.00
25 $347,500.00
26 $347,500.00
27 $347,500.00
28 $347,500.00
29 $347,500.00
30 $347,500.00
31 $347,500.00
32 $347,500.00
33 $347,500.00
34 $347,500.00
35 $347,500.00

Career Pay.$10,512,500.00. Assuming 6% company pension contribution. $630,750. (No investment returns applied) Total compensation $11,143,250


FLATTENED pay scale of 2.5 million spread over 12 years. Career 35 years.

$182,500.00
$187,500.00
$192,500.00
$197,500.00
$202,500.00
$207,500.00
$212,500.00
$217,500.00
$222,500.00
$227,500.00
$232,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00

Career pay $7,982,500.00. Assuming 6% company pension contribution $478,950. (No investment returns applied) Total compensation $8,461,450

$2,681,800 less than the steep pay scale.

[thepoors]

The problem is you're looking at this in a fundamentally flawed way. Which is the way the company wants us to think about it - a scarcity mindset. There is no reason you can't raise junior pay without reducing senior pay, or raise them both simultaneously. All the US airlines have done this.

And what is evident is if you raise junior pay to level where those pilots aren't struggling to get by there is much less resentment and junior/senior division. If I was making 100-150k starting and could lead a somewhat comfortable life, I could care less that WB CAs are making 400k plus. The problem is you have a large subset of pilots living paycheck to paycheck while trying to get their lives on track (i.e. be able to afford a house and kids) while the seniors with their paid off homes (and boats) have the luxury of discussing overall career earnings. Career earnings don't help the guy trying to make a mortgage payment next month. This theory of "you will make a great salary 10 years from now" is the exact same bullshit HR lady #1 was trying to justify for the junior FAs making less than minimum wage and struggling to afford their next meal.

There's also the simple fact that AC isn't a entry level gig but is paying entry level wages. It's unacceptable.

[Fanblade]

The problem is you're looking at this in a fundamentally flawed way. Which is the way the company wants us to think about it - a scarcity mindset. There is no reason you can't raise junior pay without reducing senior pay, or raise them both simultaneously. All the US airlines have done this.

Point one. Fundamentally flawed. When you negotiate you have a pot of money on the table. It’s finite. How are you going to distribute it considering steeper scales produce better career income? You can’t snap your fingers and make the pot on the table bigger.

Point two. All the US airlines have done this. We have patterned off the US carriers with our formula pay. Go to article 35/ Appendix I – Composite Hourly Rate Formula. Start reading.

Back on page 8 I freely admitted we still need corrections to the formula. Most of it is done but not all. Outstanding issues. (PCP) Percent of Captain pay. Better but not fully fixed. Year 3&4. RP wages. New hire wages fall outside of formula pay and need to be pulled up.

However moving money down the scale is detrimental to everyone including you. It’s a fact. Everything is a trade off.

And what is evident is if you raise junior pay to level where those pilots aren't struggling to get by there is much less resentment and junior/senior division. If I was making 100-150k starting and could lead a somewhat comfortable life, I could care less that WB CAs are making 400k plus. The problem is you have a large subset of pilots living paycheck to paycheck while trying to get their lives on track (i.e. be able to afford a house and kids) while the seniors with their paid off homes (and boats) have the luxury of discussing overall career earnings. Career earnings don't help the guy trying to make a mortgage payment next month. This theory of "you will make a great salary 10 years from now" is the exact same bullshit HR lady #1 was trying to justify for the junior FAs making less than minimum wage and struggling to afford their next meal.

There's also the simple fact that AC isn't a entry level gig but is paying entry level wages. It's unacceptable.

It has always been this way. I know bad reason and I agree. That is why I am explaining the reason to you. Inflation adjusted, a new hire today makes more than I did when I was hired. I was hired at 30 with a family and had 8k hours. In my Father’s Day a new hire applied for food stamps, it hit the news, and new hires got a raise.

I’ve lived it and it sucked. But I understood why it was in place (larger career earnings) and did not point my finger at the senior pilots. I understood that they went through it too, and now they are getting their reward. Mine will come too.

I am not trying to justify this to you. I’m explaining why we do it. There is a reason beyond “because I had too”. There is a reason beyond “greedy senior pilots”.

You are going to completely outstrip my career earnings even taking into consideration inflation. My generation spent 20 years in a bankruptcy contract. You won’t. Our career compensation won’t even be comparable to yours. By the way. I’m good with that.

[thepoors]

You can’t snap your fingers and make the pot on the table bigger.

Yes you can. And that should be what ALPA is trying to achieve. You've been beaten down into this mindset. Just because the company says "there's only X amount of money" doesn't make it true. Especially when they turn around and do $500m worth of stock buybacks. Wake up.

However moving money down the scale is detrimental to everyone including you. It’s a fact. Everything is a trade off.

Again, it depends greatly on what you see as detrimental. Most junior pilots would be willing to trade off some top end career earnings in exchange of moving out of their parent's house. Or having to commute because they can't afford to live in base.

You also have to consider, for example, getting into the real estate or stock market sooner will likely net you more returns long term than those career earnings you're giving up.

Inflation adjusted, a new hire today makes more than I did when I was hired. I was hired at 30 with a family and had 8k hours. In my Father’s Day a new hire applied for food stamps, it hit the news, and new hires got a raise.

Sorry but this is BS and I've previously explained to you why. Cost of living goes beyond inflation and it has increased exponentially in the last 5 years. The average home now costs 10x the average income, whereas even just 10 years ago it was more like 3x. In your father's day a family home was 50k and he could easily support a family on a single income, so let's not even go there.

There is a reason beyond “greedy senior pilots”.

I don't think senior pilots are greedy. It was not my intention to imply that if I did. I agree you guys deserve pay raises just as much to make up for the decades of lost wages. My point is that pay raises for either juniors or seniors shouldn't have to be to the detriment of one or the other. The company has plenty of money to go around for everyone to be well compensated, they just want you to believe they don't. And ALPA should be fighting that, not buying into it. It's not okay that starting wages at AC are lower than at a ULCC. There is no justification for that.

[Fanblade]

You can’t snap your fingers and make the pot on the table bigger.

Yes you can.

Now you’re being extremely naive about the process and the politics. If we pushed into 107, with 90% certainty, our pay scales would be exactly the same as today.

So, no you can’t just snap your fingers. You can bang your fist and take a temper tantrum. But it won’t make a difference. Once the company has hit the end of their willingness to give, they will let a strike start and the government intervene. We are not working in an environment of limitless power. The power ends when the government decides it ends. And the government bends to voters opinions.

I struggle to see how you can’t see the limits after what happened to the FA’s, Rail workers and Port Authority. You keep responding as if the government doesn’t play a role. What’s up with that?

Sorry but this is BS and I've previously explained to you why. Cost of living goes beyond inflation and it has increased exponentially in the last 5 years. The average home now costs 10x the average income, whereas even just 10 years ago it was more like 3x. In your father's day a family home was 50k and he could easily support a family on a single income, so let's not even go there.

We also had kids earlier and more of them. I was born in a garage apartment because my mother was stay at home and my father was a new hire at AC. He flew floats on the side to make it work. My 4 children still joke about us adding pasta to hamburger helper to make it go further. Had to pull out of organized hockey when I took the job at AC. My wife was stay at home and I had a second part time job. I have a buddy with 6 kids. Actually two buddies with 6 kids. Yes housing is more expensive today. We spent our money differently, but we still struggled. You have it different. You are trading diapers for a mortgage.

I am not trying to diminish young people’s struggles with housing in anyway whatsoever. But I’m not a baby-boomer. I trailed them and didn’t make the money in housing they did. Not even close.

I commute because over 20 years ago living on base was a struggle with four kids.

I don’t appreciate you telling me I had it so much better than you. I have kids buying houses in this market. Yup it’s tuff. End result way less grandchildren. Lots of grand dogs. They are spending to their limit just like we did.

[LongBranch]

You can’t snap your fingers and make the pot on the table bigger.

Yes you can.

Now you’re being extremely naive about the process and the politics. If we pushed into 107, with 90% certainty, our pay scales would be exactly the same as today.

So, no you can’t just snap your fingers. You can bang your fist and take a temper tantrum. But it won’t make a difference. Once the company has hit the end of their willingness to give, they will let a strike start and the government intervene. We are not working in an environment of limitless power. The power ends when the government decides it ends. And the government bends to voters opinions.

I struggle to see how you can’t see the limits after what happened to the FA’s, Rail workers and Port Authority. You keep responding as if the government doesn’t play a role. What’s up with that?

Sorry but this is BS and I've previously explained to you why. Cost of living goes beyond inflation and it has increased exponentially in the last 5 years. The average home now costs 10x the average income, whereas even just 10 years ago it was more like 3x. In your father's day a family home was 50k and he could easily support a family on a single income, so let's not even go there.

We also had kids earlier and more of them. I was born in a garage apartment because my mother was stay at home and my father was a new hire at AC. He flew floats on the side to make it work. My 4 children still joke about us adding pasta to hamburger helper to make it go further. Had to pull out of organized hockey when I took the job at AC. My wife was stay at home and I had a second part time job. I have a buddy with 6 kids. Actually two buddies with 6 kids. Yes housing is more expensive today. We spent our money differently, but we still struggled. You have it different. You are trading diapers for a mortgage.

I am not trying to diminish young people’s struggles with housing in anyway whatsoever. But I’m not a baby-boomer. I trailed them and didn’t make the money in housing they did. Not even close.

I commute because over 20 years ago living on base was a struggle with four kids.

I don’t appreciate you telling me I had it so much better than you. I have kids buying houses in this market. Yup it’s tuff. End result way less grandchildren. Lots of grand dogs. They are spending to their limit just like we did.

Listen I mean this with all due respect, this reads like I endure poverty so therefore you must also take your lumping's. It is absolute ridiculous that company valued in the billions, flying wide bodies to every continent in the world even twenty years ago was forcing you into that situation. Wrong is wrong, while we can disagree what a decent start waging is. How your describing how AC ran the operation is morally bankrupt and near criminal in some ways.