Originally Posted by saturn

So upping pay rates on some similar sized jets is a concession? Sounds like that'd cost many millions anually. That aspect is definitely not a concession, but is it less than the perceived cost savings from "reduction in training" and the manning formula? Nobody can say, but I'd wager the net loss in pilots who'd be relatively microscopic with a net gain in higher wages.

Here's an oft forgotten issue we already live with: throughout a career, to achieve the financial metrics that ALPA uses for earnings/retirement, one is required to attend multiple training events simply for pay rates. Each time we go to training, its a QOL hit. We have zero say in when we start class, and can miss all sorts of important dates with up to 12 month conversions. We then spend a lot of time away from home with pay not commensurate with a normal month. We spend hours studying and subject ourselves to additional evaluation. We get to spend a month living in a meh hotel eating out for every meal in an area that's risky after dark. We get rushed after LOE right into OE.

Anything that reduces the need for me to go to Virginia Ave is a big QOL boost. Opposite of a concession.
I know personally, and from flying with a lot of folks, moving equipment soley for 10-20/hr isn't compelling (seniority and base being equal). Our low training QOL is such a deterrent in itself, it's has probably equal or greater effects on pilot movement than a payband.

But yeah, making rates 320 = 737 or 330 = 777 is a huge concession. Think of all the 320 guys that won't bid over to the 737 for those rates!