Sounds to me like that should pay less then.

The entire reason A321 pay is lower than 757 pay right now is because US had the largest 321 fleet prior to the merger. They had roughly 120 A321s.

APA, through its selfish endeavors didn't want the A321 flying to be paid at a rate equal to 757 flying, as that would give the US pilots an advantage in seniority list integrations, with MORE Group III positions to bring to the table. If you don't believe me, go and read thorough the seniority hearings transcripts.

The same logic applies to why E190 Captain pay is so low. Wouldn't want to closer to wide body FO pay, because that would have benefitted the US E190 guys as well.

Very classy, APA.

Not really nwa757

That dog-chit along with the A319 low ball pay came long before APA called the number on Douggie's LAS sidewalk flier for a good time partnership.

LOL, but ^^^This^^^

The 319/321 group negotiations were before the merger. Not everything is about scr3wing the non-nAAtives... [emoji6]

Unbelievable. A union actually tried to protect it's members?

What was 190 pay before the merger? Did it not increase by a similar percentage that the other pay rates increased?

Totally and completely wrong. See above posts.

Is not the 757 a far more capable aircraft then the A321? With the same seating types it generally seats 5% more people, carries more cargo and has vastly improved short runway performance. It also has a better range off long runways and a dramatically better range off short runways with a full load of people. I would expect just looking at those numbers the 757 should pay 5 to 10% more then the A321. What is the actual difference?

The actual difference is 75%.

As in, that is the percentage of pilots who voted "Yes" for the contract, including the current pay rates.

It never ceases to amaze, amuse, and infuriate me that pilots will vote overwhelming in favor of a contract, then spend the rest of that contract's life complaining about it.

That's like F/A's complaining non-stop about a hotel, to the point where the union and company agree to leave that hotel -- or the hotel throws them out -- only to hear them complain even more about the new hotel.

The no voters would have you believe that if we just held the line and voted no on every contract that wasn't perfect, we would end up with a perfect contract.

By the same logic if I refuse to vote for a President I don't like, we'll end up with a perfect President. Or if i refuse to buy a car that doesn't meet my exacting specifications I'll end up with the perfect car. Life just doesn't work that way, it's about compromise. JCBA's are no different. Arguing the relative merits of a yes or no vote is valid. Saying that any yes voter has no right to gripe is bad logic.