Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > Delta
Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? >

Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Search
Notices

Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-01-2009, 10:39 PM
  #4581  
Gets Weekends Off
 
newKnow's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Default

Originally Posted by satchip View Post
yes, sorry am in Manchester in a snow storm. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. You sound more like a lawyer than me but after years of observation I believe I can spot trends. I am certain this issue will be litigated and the trend seems to be to punitive towards any kind of discrimination, whether real or perceived.
You are right about the trends. With Roberts and Alito on this Court, there is no telling. Roberts seems to want to make a name for "his" Court. Breaking precedent and stare decisis is the way to do it.
newKnow is offline  
Old 02-02-2009, 05:49 AM
  #4582  
Happy to be here
 
acl65pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Default

Originally Posted by upndsky View Post
Someone posted this earlier in the thread:

"Flowdowns to Compass get paid the lesser of your current Delta longevity or 2nd year CA pay/4th year FO pay."

I'm still a little confused over what that mean but I assume a pilot who is on year 3 would make 2nd year CA pay or 3rd year FO pay, right?

BTW, is there anywhere that has a single copy of the JPWA? I've looked on DALPA and all I can find are bits and pieces, section this and attachment that. It's really hard to find anything because you don't know if it's still applicable. I would love to have the whole document in one single file. If one exists, can you point me to it? Thanks.

It means that you would get the 2nd year pay as a CA and Fourth year FO pay as an FO. I am sure that anyone one on the DAL list gets more than what they would get on the CPZ pay scale.
acl65pilot is offline  
Old 02-02-2009, 09:38 AM
  #4583  
Gets Weekends Off
 
upndsky's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: Bebe Bus De L'Air Assistant Aerial Conveyance Facilitator
Posts: 351
Default

Originally Posted by acl65pilot View Post
It means that you would get the 2nd year pay as a CA and Fourth year FO pay as an FO. I am sure that anyone one on the DAL list gets more than what they would get on the CPZ pay scale.
Are we talking about years of longevity or the pay commensurate with your longevity? And if it's the latter, what mainline pay rate would they use to determine the "floor." Would it be MD88 pay? EMB170/CRJ900 pay? A first year DL FO makes less than a first year CPZ CA. What rate would that person get paid? His first year Delta pay or the first year CPZ CA pay (provided he is holding that position)?

I see what you are saying, acl, but I also interpret it to mean that they are just comparing longevity as to what rate to pay you.

Does anyone have the actual language of this deal?

Thanks.
upndsky is offline  
Old 02-02-2009, 11:25 AM
  #4584  
Happy to be here
 
acl65pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Default

I will look at it, but I read it to mean that based on each pilots own position and pay prior to going to CPZ.
acl65pilot is offline  
Old 02-02-2009, 12:21 PM
  #4585  
Gets Weekends Off
 
matlok's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: ERJ-175
Posts: 217
Default

From our contract:

D. Hourly Rates of Pay

1. The initial pay step for Northwest Airlines Flow Down pilots will be based on the
lesser of:
a. Step 2 for Captains and Step 4 for First Officers, or
b. Accrued Northwest longevity.
2. The initial pay step for new hire pilots will be First Officer Step 1, or Captain Step 1, as applicable, based on their permanent position.

EXAMPLE 1:

A laid off Northwest Airlines pilot with nine (9) years of longevity for pay
purposes at Northwest Airlines who holds a First Officer position at Compass Airlines would be paid as a Step 4 First Officer in his first (1st) year at Compass.
If the same pilot then became a Captain in his second (2nd) year at Compass
Airlines, then he would be paid as a Step 3 Captain during such year.

EXAMPLE 2:

A laid off Northwest Airlines pilot with one (1) year of longevity for pay purposes
at Northwest Airlines who holds a First Officer position at Compass Airlines
would be paid as a Step 2 First Officer in his first (1st) year at Compass. If the
same pilot then became a Captain in his second (2nd) year at Compass Airlines,
then he would be paid as a Step 3 Captain during such year.
matlok is offline  
Old 02-02-2009, 12:33 PM
  #4586  
Happy to be here
 
acl65pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Default

Thanks for looking it up. It was as I assumemed.
acl65pilot is offline  
Old 02-02-2009, 12:40 PM
  #4587  
Gets Weekends Off
 
satchip's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
Default

Originally Posted by newKnow View Post
You are right about the trends. With Roberts and Alito on this Court, there is no telling. Roberts seems to want to make a name for "his" Court. Breaking precedent and stare decisis is the way to do it.
Funny. I was thinking the other way around. The Roberts/Alito/Scalia/Thomas faction are far more likely to stay with what the Constitution says. The other side of the spectrum is the trend to which I am referring. That persuasion is more likely to find rights and discrimination wherever they look.

The more I think about it the more I think management would be against any lifting of the age limit. It would only serve to complicate their long term staffing plans. Imagine trying to figure if hiring was needed based on a moving retirement date.

I think the law is clear, age discrimination is Un Constitutional. The rub will be is the harm done to the individual balanced by the public intrest of safety and the burden placed on business.

OBTW, just because it's precedent, doesn't make it right. Remember Dred Scott and Plessey v Fergeson?
satchip is offline  
Old 02-02-2009, 02:17 PM
  #4588  
Gets Weekends Off
 
newKnow's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Default

Originally Posted by satchip View Post
Funny. I was thinking the other way around. The Roberts/Alito/Scalia/Thomas faction are far more likely to stay with what the Constitution says. The other side of the spectrum is the trend to which I am referring. That persuasion is more likely to find rights and discrimination wherever they look.

The more I think about it the more I think management would be against any lifting of the age limit. It would only serve to complicate their long term staffing plans. Imagine trying to figure if hiring was needed based on a moving retirement date.

I think the law is clear, age discrimination is Un Constitutional. The rub will be is the harm done to the individual balanced by the public intrest of safety and the burden placed on business.

OBTW, just because it's precedent, doesn't make it right. Remember Dred Scott and Plessey v Fergeson?
Satchip,

The more I study the U.S. Constitution, the more I realize that there is very little about it that is black and white. What is funny is one of the few things that is clear in it is that age discrimination is constitutional.

Article I, Section 2 - Minimum age of a U.S. Representative, 25.

Article I, Section 3 - Minumum age of a U.S. Senator, 30.

Article II, Section 1 -Minimum age of U.S. President, 35.

So, like I said, I don't know what will happen with Age 65, but the precedent is clear. Right or wrong, the Court is more likely to defer to past decisions, if only for the reasons of keeping things consistent. If you change or overturn one decision over here, it could have monumental effects over there. Think of the Constitution and its past and future decisions as a giant house of cards.

The Justices that have appeared to be most willing to unsettle a card or two are Roberts and Alito (mosty Roberts). Also, all of the Justices have their individual issues that they look to the Constitution to to find "rights and discrimination," but that is another story. Admittedly, it is almost impossible to be completely Constitutionally consistent when adjudicating the many kinds of cases that come to the Supreme Court. It's a tough job. That is why they are hesitant to overturn prior decisions.

I know that precedent does not make a ruling right. But I would point out that it took the Civil War and the passing of the 13th and 14th Amendments to overturn Dred Scott. Also, it took 54 years and a masterful litigating strategy, led by Thurgood Marshall, that culminated in Brown v. Board of Education to outweigh Plessy v. Ferguson. (But, if I remember correctly, Brown did not speciffically overrule Plessy)

So, my only point is that it will take a lot to change the Courts thinking and a simple "that's not fair!" won't do it. Many things in this country are not fair and individuals are harmed by governmental actions and decisions every day. Mostly, all that is required is due process. The FAA ruling on Age 65 is due process.

I do agree with you that management would not like to see Age 65 go any higher though.

New K Now

P.S. I love the discussion, but if the powers that be don't want us clogging up "their" board with this, we can move it to another thread.
newKnow is offline  
Old 02-02-2009, 08:07 PM
  #4589  
veut gagner à la loterie
 
forgot to bid's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Default

Saw this on another site, looked it up myself on travelnet, no more 767s running from ATL-MCO? I did spot checks through the summer, weekdays and weekends and all I saw was 14 flights a day with the 757. Didn't notice the 753s though, wondered if they'll come down prior to SOC? Seems like it'd be a good trip for it, have MSP/DTW crews go to ATL on a regular 757 then MCO on a 753?
forgot to bid is offline  
Old 02-02-2009, 09:04 PM
  #4590  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FlyingViking's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: B-7ER JFK
Posts: 931
Default

Originally Posted by forgot to bid View Post
Saw this on another site, looked it up myself on travelnet, no more 767s running from ATL-MCO? I did spot checks through the summer, weekdays and weekends and all I saw was 14 flights a day with the 757. Didn't notice the 753s though, wondered if they'll come down prior to SOC? Seems like it'd be a good trip for it, have MSP/DTW crews go to ATL on a regular 757 then MCO on a 753?

Weird stuff going on there. I looked up open time for the ER out of ATL today and found LAS trips... Go figure, but I guess, and hope, somebody there knows what is going on and will bring it all together.
FlyingViking is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
On Autopilot
Regional
22594
11-05-2021 07:03 AM
AeroCrewSolut
Delta
153
08-14-2018 12:18 PM
Bill Lumberg
Major
71
06-13-2012 08:36 AM
Quagmire
Major
253
04-16-2011 06:19 AM
JiffyLube
Major
12
03-07-2008 04:27 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices