Wouldn't someone who is replaceable be overpaid until they were compensated little enough such that no-one else would work for that amount?

I'm not sure if you subscribe to the notice that it's OK for the worker to max out their compensation while it's not OK for the owner to do so, but I think it's a pretty common stance. Admittedly, the reverse is also true (as I'm hoping to point out).

Ideally, I would hope that negotiations were conducted in a way that is mutually beneficially to both parties. I'd rather we didn't resort to getting as much as we can at the expense of the other party.

Of course in a dog-eat-dog world, what can we expect? All of those bastards on the other side are going to do it to us so let's do it to them first.

But is there an advantage to living in a world that isn't dog-eat-dog? Is it possible to encourage a society where neither side "does it" to the other and neither side thinks of the other as "bastards"? I really, really hope so.

(Possibly not related to your actual position -- your words just made me think of that)

I think both parties try to maximize/minimize for their own benefit, which is healthy and is exactly what determines the market for compensation.

Inherently any gain by one side is at the expense of the other, there is no avoiding that aspect. Either than $X is paid to the pilots or it goes elsewhere in the business. I'm not sure what a non-dog-eat-dog world would look like and how it would be able to persist without heavy incentives to take advantage.

It depends what's the availability of replacements. For example if almost all pilots are employed, you won't get more pilots until they're trained. Paying more than another company just moves the problem temporarily, not solves it.

Similar to what happens with expensive cities which don't expand. The prices keep raising and there will still be people who can afford to pay for a long time... until the larger environment either changes or collapses.

Sure, but those kinds of structural issues are the airline's problem. BA's pilots are underpaid if they are so in demand, and BA would have to pay a lot more to poach pilots from other airlines.

If they're underpaid, sure. (And I would assume they are) But that was the original question - what are the working conditions? If they were paid $1M a day (of course they're not), would you still say they're underpaid just because they're in demand? What about $300k a year? What about $200k?

This article doesn't say what the pay / demand is. Another one (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/08/ba-pilots-t...) mentions BA proposing an increase that would bring "some" over £200k a year. I'm sure that's cherry-picked for PR and doesn't show the whole distribution, but it's at least one number.

If they were paid $1M and could get more then they are still underpaid and there is sufficient demand.

There is no absolute number at which they are no longer underpaid, it is completely relative to how much demand there is and how much companies are willing to pay for that demand.

If the airlines and pilots existed in isolation then maybe. If they were paid 1M, I'd think they're overpaid and the tickets should be cheaper instead. There definitely is a threshold compared to all other salaries / cost of living / economy where the pay would become irrational - regardless of demand.