Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-24-2012, 08:53 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
Originally Posted by Scoop
I would say cover both bases by typing "Hear Here" But since you asked. 
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:
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.
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” = 1,740,000 hits
- “here here” = 3,880,000 hits
- “hear here” = 307,000 hits
- “here hear” = 334,000 hits
Hear hear (Wikipedia):
…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…
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
04-24-2012, 09:42 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,324
Originally Posted by TheManager
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.
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.
04-24-2012, 09:43 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 737n/FO
Posts: 667
Originally Posted by TheManager
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.
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.
04-24-2012, 09:50 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
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.
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
04-25-2012, 01:15 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
Gonna do a drive by here..... Is our "demanding" improvements really good for "constructive engagement" with management? I know what I did with my kids when they "demanded" something because they think they deserved it.... Better to show how they would be better off giving us what we want...
Agree with the rest of your post.
Denny
Agree with the rest of your post.
Denny
I'm wildly fascinated with the word semantics we are fed sometimes. I think it all depends on management's interpretation of the word "demand", it's not personal, it's a negotiation. I don't feel as though taking a stance should be interpreted as a move of disinterest towards "constructive engagement".
That's just me though...
04-25-2012, 02:47 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: CRJ Captain
Posts: 1,406
Detroit makes plea for direct Dubai service - Transport - ArabianBusiness.com
Hopefully delta does this one and not emirates. Problem is that. Emirates would offer all the connections over there whereas delta Would be mostly originating pax. Maybe not daily service but 3 or 4 times a week with a 777 or 747?
Hopefully delta does this one and not emirates. Problem is that. Emirates would offer all the connections over there whereas delta Would be mostly originating pax. Maybe not daily service but 3 or 4 times a week with a 777 or 747?
04-25-2012, 02:55 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Position: 767ER capt
Posts: 1,190
Originally Posted by PinnacleFO
Detroit makes plea for direct Dubai service - Transport - ArabianBusiness.com
Hopefully delta does this one and not emirates.
Hopefully delta does this one and not emirates.
04-25-2012, 03:09 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,199
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
Gonna do a drive by here..... Is our "demanding" improvements really good for "constructive engagement" with management? I know what I did with my kids when they "demanded" something because they think they deserved it.... Better to show how they would be better off giving us what we want...
Agree with the rest of your post.
Denny
Agree with the rest of your post.
Denny
04-25-2012, 03:27 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by johnso29
This is interesting. Apparently other creditors think DAL providing DIP financing to Pinnacle should not be allowed.
http://dm.epiq11.com/PinnacleAirline...cument/1734794
http://dm.epiq11.com/PinnacleAirline...cument/1734794
It's interesting that the parties objecting to the DIP terms are equity holders, evidently not creditors themselves.
It's also interesting to think about the AMR case. I wonder if the arrangements made between three members of the creditors' committee, and a company not currently auhtorized to offer a competing business plan, are also a way to diadvantage creditors in general, at the expense of creditors in general.
There must be a problem in one of thses two cases, not sure which.
04-25-2012, 03:40 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,306
Originally Posted by DAL73n
Let's not underestimate the power of the internet to allow more people to analyze whatever comes out of this contract. Between e-mail, twitter, facebook, SMS, cheap desktop spreadsheet software for amateur analysts, publicly available 10-K etc. data, and we are much more able to get to the bottom line than in the past. It is much harder for DALPA to put a XXX page document in the v-file and have little to no additional information. I'm not saying it isn't possible to get screwed on this contract I'm just saying it's a lot harder to "sneak" things by. Also, I have faith in a 1 CA, 2 F/O NC since every F/O I know is major stagnated (20+ year upgrades to CA unless you want to be an M88 CA on reserve in NYC).
Dalpa puts out a lot more then a document on the contract. On every contract I have been involved with they put out a contract highlights package shortly after signing. Then they put out actual contract language prior to voting. About the same time they put out a extensive often section by section explanation of the contract. Then they put on a series of road shows at the major bases and geographic centers where pilots live. There are also concurrent MEC meetings ongoing where normally the negotiating team will show up for a question and answer. The road shows are also made available as a webcast.
Afer all that 1/3 of the pilot group will complain they did not get any information before voting. Another 1/3 will complain the MEC did a sell job on the TA. The last 1/3 will say contract? Are we in negotiations?
P.S. The MEC had better not bring me any contract for a vote unless they can stand up confidently and sell the contract as the best deal for Delta pilots and their families. If they can't do that then it should not even be released for a vote with one exception. There are situations where putting a bad contract to a vote can be a useful political tool to show pilot resolve. In that case it should simply be put before the pilot group with the understanding its not endorsed by the MEC. That has not happened at Delta yet.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
