First, I was not on property to participate in the current RAH contract ratification process. I have had the opportunity to talk to those in charge over the years, but I myself was not around to chime in about 100 seat rates.

But, to answer your question: I see no problem with negotiating pay scales for 100, 150, or 200 seat aircraft. In principle, it makes sense to put as much thought into a contract as possible, and cover all contingencies in advance. It saves a lot of work and headache down the road. That said, I do feel that the people directly responsible for the current contract's negotiations, and the pilots who ratified it, sold themselves short. I feel that the pay-by-seats criteria left too much room for abuse. I feel that the divisions in the pay-by-seats scale are too broad. I feel that negotiating committee should have made it more cost prohibitive to expand into these larger airframes. 70 seaters were essentially a reality at the regionals in 2003, though they were not on property yet at RAH. I understand and accept that those pilots on property chose to settle for average pay rates that were competitive for 70 seat aircraft. However, no one was flying 78-99 seat aircraft then, and I feel the union had nothing to lose by pursuing pay rates for that class of airplane that would either prevent the company from getting them, or greatly reward the pilots who flew them. Granted, they did get about $8/hr more for that pay class, but of course that is still inadequate. Yes, I saw the pay before I came to RAH. The 70 seat pay was competitive. I was fine with that. I had worked worse places, and I had been laid off from better places. Starting at the middle of the road was acceptable to me. The FO pay scale obviously needs overhauled. That is why contracts become amendable.