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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks for looking it up. It was as I assumemed.

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.

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.