Hello,
You're right and I did not put that very well in my post. The entire group pay push by the company stating it was primarily to prevent equipment jumping (and more training) for more pay was a joke from the start IMO. Before the agreement I told my local APA reps it was a bad idea but the response I got was that in the big scheme of things it wasn't what they wanted to put their focus on since so few (the more senior group) would be affected by it in comparison to other issue to be negotiated.

I am still a firm believer that size and speed equals productivity and should be reflected in pay. Whether it be a 767-200 vs -300 or A319 vs A321, you should be paid accordingly. I don't know much about the A350 rumors though and did not want to make this an issue of native vs. the rest. I used the A332 example because it is the smallest in the group versus the largest (B773). It would be just as valid in regard to the 787, B772 or A333. And should somebody fly even a low density A380, they should obviously be paid more than a 747 or 777-300. This flys in the face of those that want to pay the 190 pilot the same as everyone else, a difference in philosophy to be sure. I recognize that it is my seniority and nothing else that puts me in the position I'm in. I make no apologies for that, but I hear what you're saying.

I truly don't look down at those on the smaller equipment. We were all there at some point. I think in the future you will get your wish though, single pay adjusted for longevity. I think it would be bad thing in the long run, but they didn't listen to me before so I doubt they would care now!