From our brilliant NC
Q: If JetBlue purchases the C-series jets, especially the 300 series, what's to prevent the company from subsidizing the majority of the A320 flying with the 300 C-series aircraft to get away with paying the lower pay rate?
A: The CS-300 pay rate in the TA is approximately 4% lower than the A320, however the configuration of the CS300 has 17% fewer seats (135 vs.162 with comparable seat pitch). With pilot costs amounting to only about 10% of operating costs and most—if not all—airlines only increasing seats, it wouldn't make sense to reduce seats in today's environment for only a 4% pilot-cost savings. The subsequent reduction in RASM by reducing the number of seats reduces the profitability of the fleet (overhead and maintenance related expenses become even more costly). Additionally, immediate fleet replacement would not occur by virtue of airplane delivery practices and availability. Because of these problems, it is highly unlikely this scenario would occur, or that it could occur before the amendable date of this agreement.
Vote this TA down and require the A220 pay to match industry standard. Add verbiage stating that if the A220 is configured to seat 150 pax, then the A220 will pay equal to the A320.
Does anyone actually trust the company to only park the E190s?