to be honest, i don't know.

All I know is that the 2006 Had NB rates, WB rates and a new A-380 Rate.

We didn't have any A380's but had them on Firm Order (a limp term)

We didn't have any 737's or 757's on order but the language was cleverly hidden as NB's in the last sentence of Section 26K.

It is usually the last sentence of any section that is the most important one.

Who ever thought that the 727 replacement would be anything other than NB pay?

:confused:

So - if the company decided to pass on the 75 and replace the 72 with the 76 - you wouldn't have a problem with it paying NB?

Max ... I think you're 'putting the cart before the horse.' We agreed that the 757 would be NB pay in the last contract TA. The 767 is a "new animal" on the property and our CBA says it will be negotiated.

Be sure to thank BC for the 757 rate that is at the heart of our current discontent. It's the gift that keeps on giving

If he even tries to say it was unforeseen, Raise the BS flag. Carriers have been using the 757/767 common type for a long time.

That was not my point. I was responding to Baron's quip about the 72 replacement.

Looking ahead, once the 767 IS on property and the company gives the small excess bid theory a try (think 4A2B implementation/tough economic times), do you think there would be a scramble by all the senior guys to a 'protected' seat in something other than the 75/76?

There would be no additional training required moving guys back and forth every 6 months seeing they would already be flying the 75 and 76.

Just a thought...

The problem with your logic is that the 767 is a widebody aircraft and nowhere in our contract do we have a provision that allows the company to operate a wide body at narrow body pay. The 757 (or 737 if we had continued on that route) are both narrow bodies. Seems pretty simple.

:cool:

Except that a displaced 767 pilot may choose to bid the 777, MD, or Bus. He doesn't have to take the 757 unless that's all he can hold.