Gone Flying

I’m gonna amend my answer a bit after reading section 3E and the definitions section. We should have a case to negotiate a new rate. Whether or not that rate is the same as the other WB rates is TBD.

First Break

Agree. Considering the A350-1000 didn’t even exist when the current A350 rate was negotiated, it’s fair to assume a new rate is required. But it wouldn’t shock me to find out this management team would ignore that blatant fact and make an arbitrator force their hand. After all, it’s not a violation till the arbitrator says so.

TNDeltaFlyboy

The pay tables make no mention of A350-900 or -1000. I can all but promise the company will say all variants will pay the listed rate until the next cycle. In the contract signed in 2016, the 321NEO was annotated at the bottom of the pay tables specfically saying its rates would be negotiated once on property. That kind of statement doesn exist in the current PWA for the -1000, unfortunately.

First Break

You may be right, but by that logic when our pay table said “737”, how did we ever get rates for other variants that hadn’t even been invented yet?

That Malone guy is the gift that keeps on giving.

JamesBond

It will pay the same.

gloopy

Do we know this for sure? While we did give up "the hammer" clause in section 3, there's still a new pathway for pay rates for new variants (3.E.)

If new engines on an existing "make and model number" can drive that process (321NEO) it seems more than reasonable that a longer variant would as well.

Just because the scale says "350" doesn't mean it automatically covers any and all variants. What if they made a stretched 380 and called it the 350-2000 (or better yet, the A220-5000), would that be the magical loophole that sneaks it in under an existing column?

While that's not likely to happen and it'll be called an "A350" it will also get a different dash number (-1000) so how is that not going to be considered a new aircraft for pay purposes?

Or was there something pre-agreed upon with our "blended" WB rate that was already agreed upon for this specific, and larger, sub variant?

If not, it seems like the 3.E. clause would still apply. If not who not?

If it is applied, we could still choose to roll that pay bump proportionatly into the existing WB pay if we wanted to, which would mean "it pays the same" but there would still be captured value in that new model regardless.

FangsF15

No, 3.E would be triggered. It would simply result in the rate being the same as the rest of the WB pay band. I’m sure some will say that’s defeatest.

FL370esq

I agree...especially because of our newly minted pay-banding. (A 350 is a 350....which is a 330 which is a 767-400). However, that isn't to say that I won't be interested to see if any demand is made by the negotiators if/when the first -1000 is painted in Delta's livery. [Insert popcorn munching meme at that time].

Whoopsmybad

Agree, it’ll probably be the same, if not it’ll defeat the reasoning for the pay banding. Now what we should do is set a new rate and then band the rest UP to it.

Scoop

I have no idea what it will pay but I am positive about two things.

If it pays the standard WB rates the Pilots that fly it will scream like stuck pigs that they are getting royally screwed.

If it pays a super premium rate the other WB Pilots will scream like stuck pigs that they are getting royally screwed.

Merry Christmas you filthy animals!


Scoop