|
Originally Posted by sinca3
(Post 1174830)
Anyone ever get an answer on why or how to prevent DLnet and icrew logging you off. I've been having the problem for several days and this morning is the worst! When I can finally get logged on it logs me off after browsing only 2-3 pages. Can't get anything done...
|
This is interesting. Apparently other creditors think DAL providing DIP financing to Pinnacle should not be allowed.
http://dm.epiq11.com/PinnacleAirline...cument/1734794 |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1175192)
For the same reason every MEC brings a TA, they think it is the best they can do.
That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the sales job where everything is roses and concessions are downplayed. This is where being your own best expert is important...If you dont read it how can you know if its better or not? Ahhhh. The sales job. It was particularly a hard sell during BK, wasn't it? Never forget a particular 44 rep and his feverent lounge shows where they were occasionally over the decorum line. If I remember correctly, for POS 96, there were official pro-con papers put out by DALPA. Then the policy manual was changed at some point in time to do away with the con paper. For C2K, an industrious individual worked dilligently and put one out comparing the contract gains (green print) with give aways or losses in red. I would love to get a copy of it now. Mickley, you out there?? Anyway, this time around, 12 years later, I am not sure we need a "sanctioned con paper' as we have this. The internet, mass communication on an instant scale, and the one thing that really scares DALPA, the might APC. This is one forum they can't pull the plug on as BH threatens to do to the DALPA forum. Look at what social media what did for Arab Spring. So, point being, there will be the sales job and they will be out in force promoting it. They will most definitely be here constantly hitting there talking points. But, I don't think it will have the same impact as it had before. And instead of waiting weeks for pro-con papers, the debate and dissection of the TA will be instant. |
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 1175178)
Just talked to them....because the trip is one day longer and comes back on a day that reserves required = reserves available they deny it. Every other day of the trip has mega reserves available. I'd be operating a trip that essentially alleviates them of possibly one reserve being called and its denied. Whudda thunk?
I think they are 'Tools', but what's new? :rolleyes: Tomorrow at 9am, call DALPA scheds guys, see if they can help. And remember, common sense is an uncommon commodity... |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1175291)
This is interesting. Apparently other creditors think DAL providing DIP financing to Pinnacle should not be allowed.
http://dm.epiq11.com/PinnacleAirline...cument/1734794 They always cut to the chase and allows you to turn around and say "but, but I thought you said..." It's almost as much fun as match the criminal with the item they stole! TIME WASTER | The Smoking Gun |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1175250)
here here!
or is it "hear hear?" Well, regardless... what he said. I would say cover both bases by typing "Hear Here" But since you asked. :D Scoop Hear Hear or Here Here? So today I found myself agreeing with someone online and went to type “hear hear” but then remembered seeing someone else type “here here” a couple days earlier. I was pretty sure the correct phrase was “hear hear” as opposed to the other variants I'd seen (“here here”, “hear here”, “here hear”) but I'd never actually looked it up. So I decided to check popular internet usage using Google:
Hear hear (Wikipedia): A quick double check of OneLook Dictionary Search confirms this. Six dictionaries list “hear hear” and only one lists “here here” (and that one happens to be the wiki article above.)…Hear, hear is an expression used as a short repeated form of hear ye and hear him. It represents a listener's agreement with the point being made by a speaker. It was originally an imperative for directing attention to speakers, and has since been used, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, as “the regular form of cheering in the House of Commons”, with many purposes depending on the intonation of its user. It is often incorrectly spelled “here here”, especially on websites… Popular usage drives the movement of meaning, though, so at some point in the future “here here” may end up being the correct phrase if we don't do something about it. So if you want to avoid yet another English colloquialism that will have your great grandchildren scratching their heads and saying “***?” (or whatever kids will be saying in those days) then type “hear hear” at every opportunity. |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 1175303)
I would say cover both bases by typing "Hear Here" But since you asked. :D
Scoop Hear Hear or Here Here? So today I found myself agreeing with someone online and went to type “hear hear” but then remembered seeing someone else type “here here” a couple days earlier. I was pretty sure the correct phrase was “hear hear” as opposed to the other variants I'd seen (“here here”, “hear here”, “here hear”) but I'd never actually looked it up. So I decided to check popular internet usage using Google:
Hear hear (Wikipedia): A quick double check of OneLook Dictionary Search confirms this. Six dictionaries list “hear hear” and only one lists “here here” (and that one happens to be the wiki article above.)…Hear, hear is an expression used as a short repeated form of hear ye and hear him. It represents a listener's agreement with the point being made by a speaker. It was originally an imperative for directing attention to speakers, and has since been used, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, as “the regular form of cheering in the House of Commons”, with many purposes depending on the intonation of its user. It is often incorrectly spelled “here here”, especially on websites… Popular usage drives the movement of meaning, though, so at some point in the future “here here” may end up being the correct phrase if we don't do something about it. So if you want to avoid yet another English colloquialism that will have your great grandchildren scratching their heads and saying “***?” (or whatever kids will be saying in those days) then type “hear hear” at every opportunity. Just for you Scoop: Eggcorn (as in "Acorn"): The criteria of how to identify eggcorns have also been clarified. Not every homophone substitution is an eggcorn. The crucial element is that the new form makes sense: for anyone except lexicographers or other people trained in etymology, more sense than the original form in many cases. The Eggcorn Database Cheers George |
Originally Posted by TheManager
(Post 1175295)
Ahhhh. The sales job. It was particularly a hard sell during BK, wasn't it? Never forget a particular 44 rep and his feverent lounge shows where they were occasionally over the decorum line.
If I remember correctly, for POS 96, there were official pro-con papers put out by DALPA. Then the policy manual was changed at some point in time to do away with the con paper. For C2K, an industrious individual worked dilligently and put one out comparing the contract gains (green print) with give aways or losses in red. I would love to get a copy of it now. Mickley, you out there?? Anyway, this time around, 12 years later, I am not sure we need a "sanctioned con paper' as we have this. The internet, mass communication on an instant scale, and the one thing that really scares DALPA, the might APC. This is one forum they can't pull the plug on as BH threatens to do to the DALPA forum. Look at what social media what did for Arab Spring. So, point being, there will be the sales job and they will be out in force promoting it. They will most definitely be here constantly hitting there talking points. But, I don't think it will have the same impact as it had before. And instead of waiting weeks for pro-con papers, the debate and dissection of the TA will be instant. |
Originally Posted by TheManager
(Post 1175295)
Ahhhh. The sales job. It was particularly a hard sell during BK, wasn't it? Never forget a particular 44 rep and his feverent lounge shows where they were occasionally over the decorum line.
If I remember correctly, for POS 96, there were official pro-con papers put out by DALPA. Then the policy manual was changed at some point in time to do away with the con paper. For C2K, an industrious individual worked dilligently and put one out comparing the contract gains (green print) with give aways or losses in red. I would love to get a copy of it now. Mickley, you out there?? Anyway, this time around, 12 years later, I am not sure we need a "sanctioned con paper' as we have this. The internet, mass communication on an instant scale, and the one thing that really scares DALPA, the might APC. This is one forum they can't pull the plug on as BH threatens to do to the DALPA forum. Look at what social media what did for Arab Spring. So, point being, there will be the sales job and they will be out in force promoting it. They will most definitely be here constantly hitting there talking points. But, I don't think it will have the same impact as it had before. And instead of waiting weeks for pro-con papers, the debate and dissection of the TA will be instant. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1175241)
Not going to state what my mins are but scope pay work rules and retirement are a must. Section 1 needs serious protections for us and if the company values constructive engagement they will be more than happy to agree to our demands.
We must pattern well above the top of the industry and we must have up side protections for when not if this company triples or quadruples its profits under this agreement. We have leverage right now whether or not we think we do. All of this talk in the news about consolidation affirms my belief that once this deal is done the events start happening. Agree with the rest of your post. Denny |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:47 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands