I heard the exact same arguments during the last contract negotiations. Language will always be an issue since the company will always be armed with better lawyers than the Union and will make their own interpretations. It's not just at RAH; every airline faces the same issues. There is no holy grail of a contract; you negotiate the best you can and deal with it. I heard the arguments about "fight for language" and believed them until I was faced with the reality that words in the end don't put the pay in your pocket. IMO, the best bet would be to gain a higher hourly and per diem rate along with defined company contributions than trying to have some wording changed that won't be honored in the end. I thought after the current contract was signed that QOL would improve, but it didn't. Everything that was given up for wording wasn't worth it. In hindsight, I would rather have had more on the paycheck, because I was still putting up with the same company tactics. There were some drastic changes that on the surface seemed great, but they were twisted to keep status quo. The Union has the best intentions, but with so many "new" pilots I hear about from my former co-workers, I don't see too much support be garnered for a tough stand. I hope for the best, but I see within a year of the next contract, the same arguments for change will be back in the limelight.
I think that there should be teared FO pay too. The problem is many people don't. Some think that since new hires don't choose which aircraft they are assigned to, it wouldn't be fair to have different pay.
