RAH is one of the few airlines to base pay solely on the number of seats installed. Why would someone use such a pay criteria? Here are a few reasons and other facts to keep in mind:

When RAH (then strictly CHQ) signed this current contract, all aircraft they operated were configured for all coach, high density seating. The Saab sat 30 (A-model), the 135 sat 35, the 140 sat 44, and the 145 sat 50. At the time, there had not been a situation where the aircraft might have less than maximum seating. To the pilots who ratified this contract, pay based on seats seemed to be adequate.

The E170, not on property but rumored to be coming in 2003, appeared as though it would seat 70. But even at 76 seats, the aircraft would fall under the same pay rate. Since the 170 would realistically pay the same rate no matter the configuration, negotiating (and possibly giving up something in return) for pay criteria beyond seats alone did not seem worthwhile.

It is unknown for sure, but it is likely that management favors/favored the seats installed criteria because of business simplicity: each seat generates revenue. Pay is subtracted from revenue. In order to maintain a stable "profit", pay should be linked directly to revenue earned. More seats equals more pay. Theoretical/certified seating means little when setting a reimbursement rate with a customer airline. Gross weight means little when setting reimbursement rates (under a fee-per-departure agreement).

Good judgment comes from good experience. Good experience comes from bad judgment. The pilots who ratified the current RAH contract felt that this contract was a worthwhile improvement over the previous CBA, but experience has shown that the pilots and negotiating committee were short sighted in many areas. I would be very surprised to see a continuation of a strictly seats-installed pay scale in the upcoming RAH contract. We have seen how management can abuse the system. We have 175's being flown for Delta that pay captains $8/hr less that the captains of our US Airways 175's because of the seats installed system. Same plane with two levels of pay. Also, we have seen the error of having a single pay scale for F/O's that has no basis in aircraft size. The contract was ratified when most FO's were flying 30 seat props, and some were flying 50 seat jets. We still have that 30 seat pay but now we have 94 seat jets. Of course, this is why contracts become amendable.