While I wish the CS100 rates were equal to the A319 rates. That is not what the comparison should be.
Compare these real life items:
Current 190 to TA 190
2nd yr FO: 70.12/91.64
Current 195 to TA 195
2nd yr FO: 81.09/91.64
Current A319 to TA 319
2nd yr FO: 103.18/116.60
Now if we don't pass the TA, if the company buys 190/195, we lose out.
You could argue that those aircraft are not feasible, otherwise they would have bought them (190/195) already. Might be a valid argument. The company takes everything into consideration, not just PILOT payrates when buying aircraft.
Some other comparisons:
TA CS100 rate to Current book A319
2nd Yr FO: 91.64 to 103.18 (difference of 11.54/hr)
If these aircraft are super buy economically, wouldn't DL/AA and maybe even Alaska/Frontier/JetBlue scooping up the CS100 in droves?
Do you want to pay for something you might not even get?
I hardly think what our current min 2nd yr rate (103.18) versus new min 2nd yr rate (91.64) is a B scale. Sure, it's lower than I would like, but its for an aircraft we don't even have. I'm sure within negotiations, the NC said they would take no lower than current NB rates for those aircraft. Perhaps the pay raise for all other aircraft would have only been 9% or 10% instead of 13% on Jan 1st in order to get that rate. (again for an aircraft you don't even have)
I believe this is the strategy the NC chose, to maximize the payrates in this TA for the current aircraft we have on property and raise the bar on the rates of those we don't have so that if we get a new SNB, then we don't have to go to arbitration. (what if the arbitrator thinks the CS100 is more on par with the 195? (which in our UPA is paid at 81.09). In addition to this, as a negotiator, the record will show a "neutral" arbitrator said that the CS100 will be on par with the potentially a lower payscale aircraft. That's precedent setting. The only precedent we set here is that the CS100 will pay lower than a normal size NB (you don't think in section 6 we will unband the SNB from the NB?)
Anyway, again my opinion is you go after the big SNB increase once they are on property, not before, otherwise you waste negotiating capital on something you might never get.
In addition, lets say the worst happens and they order the CS100 for mainline (really, this is bad?). How long to bring these aircraft onto property? My guestimate is to bring these aircraft and fly them on property if they order them the day of ratification and steal the orders from one of our regional affiliates, is Maybe this time next year. Give 6 months to get the training program approved by the FAA (very aggressive for a new type that no current US carrier flies) and an expedited sim from the sim manufacturer(which there are none currently in the US, so you won't have 3rd party lease companies to lease partial time from since nobody operates them in the US). We will at best be flying these for a year, more likely we start flying them after openers in 2018 if we ratify this agreement.
For the A350, we're already spinning up the program now for an aircraft which won't be delivered until 2018.
Now, a 190/195 program you could spin up much faster since its and established type that US carriers fly and look at the current 190/195 rates. That is a real threat.
I'm glad our NC left the rates where they were at, as it means they leveraged the maximum for the rates that are currently on property (there are different opinions on this obviously).
When we step back up the table in mid 2018, we'll have the A350 coming on property with a much higher rate when they will be parking the 747.
That's when you go for the throat on these rates and get rid of pay banding, not before you even know if you'll have them. On that note too, you think the company is going to just start parking 319s and 737-700s? We're trying to buy/lease these off the used market right now, so I don't think that's likely.
In my opinion, any SNB will only increase pilot hiring rate which is already at an unprecedented level. This will only speed up that rate.
My 2 cents.