I see exactly what you are saying, and I can see how on the surface that may intimidate folks. Not to get too far into the weeds, but if you are talking Alaska, they are ALPA as well, which would indicate ALPA merger policy. I doubt that any ALPA/ALPA merger with our group would end in an amicable non arbitrated list; I think most of us would expect it to go to arbitration. I'm no ALPA policy wonk, but I don't believe that "pay rates" are part of the ALPA merger policy. The considerations in that case: "in no particular order and with no particular weight now include but are not limited to career expectations, longevity, and status and category."

Yes I realize that pay rates can certainly be brought up due to the "not limited to" clause, but I think we will find the mergers which have been arbitrated using this methodology haven't really included it.

However, if you want to start with the assumption that we somehow get 737-9 and A-321 rates up to the same as the 777, who cares if the potential 737-9 operating merger candidate's pilots get merged with our most senior pilots via a direct ratio? Not saying this would happen, but like I said previously, these guys would be bringing their own equally high paying airplanes with them. What makes any of us think they would want our 777 flying if they can make the same money staying right where they are? (Or even if they do, when they "move up" to a 777/747 seat, they are vacating another Capt seat that pays exactly the same- hard to call that a loss to be honest). At that point we are looking solely at the question of do we really value that type of flying for the sake of itself vs do we value it for its higher paying status. I think we have heard plenty of very senior folks weigh in on this.

I would have to say the real losers in a potential tie up with Alaska in particular would be their junior FO's. Take a look at how senior anything remotely west goes at Delta. Even at a straight ratio not accounting for equipment a great deal of those guys would be getting the boot from their west coast bases over time. The same thing happened to junior FO's in SLC, LAX, and more recently to FOs in MSP. That is assuming of course the company would not add additional capacity to those bases in a post-merger scenario.

I'm not advocating a T2 style LGB, and I'm certainly not saying that the rates for either of these aircraft will actually be the same as the 75/76 (or the 777 from your example). I'm just pointing out the flaw in logic in advocating lower pay for the 737-9 and the A321 based on fear of it giving those aircraft status equal to 767/777/name your fleet in some potential future merger scenario.