Originally Posted by NotMrNiceGuy

I don’t want anything. I just put it out there for discussion and presented an example. I think we should look at it and know the pros and cons.

As far as the aircraft size and pay rate increase, it’s pretty common for the pay to increase with size. This happened all the time before pay banding. Even regionals have an increase in pay from the CRJ-200 to the CRJ-900 despite the weight only being 30k pounds different. Heck, the legacies have a pay bump from the 320 to 321 and variants of the 737 and A220. I think tying the 757 to the 767 was a vestige of being dual qualified on that type. Since we don’t do that anymore, I think splitting the 757 and 767 rates is reasonable.

As far as your Airbus argument, does that make logical sense to you? On one end, you’re arguing for pattern bargaining off size of aircraft (777 pays equal to other fleet 777), and the other you’re arguing against it (757 pays more than Airbus larger size and despite AA having Airbus rate equal to 757). Oh, you didn’t know that? Nobody is surprised. You didn’t know we had industry leading pay of our last CBA either .

Look, each CBA is unique to each carrier. AA doesn’t have A300s. They’re not going to invest in an increase. Same as Delta for 777s. SWA will have much higher 737 rates than the legacies. UPS has an 757 rates that pay the same as a 747. Ours can have reduced rates to pay for retirement, scope, and QOL. It’s a unique negotiation.

It’s just a discussion. Just wanted to hear opinions about the advantages and disadvantages.

Also, there’s no need to be churlish. I shouldn’t have to fight the urge to be a jerk when responding. It’s unnecessary. We’re on the same team.