Ukridge
Senior
- Aug 27, 2002
- 354
- 0
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #16
Cosmo - We hope that your schedule will soon allow you to post your thoughts. Although that I see others differ with you from time to time, your posts are extraordinarily free of emotion and speak to specifics - a rarely found trait in disputation these days.
To all: As you noticed I did not post a link to the FT article from which I so freely drew my initial post. We have an old-fashioned print copy in the office and I made the assumption that it also appeared in the electronic version as well. Well, the FT has a free-registration and a subscribe online version, neither of which I make use of. On the free registration site, I noticed there were various articles (including one now about a pilot labour agreement), but not the article which I referenced. I would be pretty sure that it is on the subscribe section (to which I am not privy). My second assumption was that if this article was already in the FT, that it must have already made the rounds of the US business press.
My apologies for making a post without submitting the linked article and if my gloomy response to said article was inappropriate. I do not know the inner workings of labour-company negotiations, nor the "mercenary" journalism that very well may be an undercurrent to the Star/Oneworld, Heathrow/US access issues. My humble defense is only that I was struck by the "apparent" company statements as to the seriousness of the situation and the attitude of "burning cash until there is no more."
Back to my most humble status as an observer.
Cheers
To all: As you noticed I did not post a link to the FT article from which I so freely drew my initial post. We have an old-fashioned print copy in the office and I made the assumption that it also appeared in the electronic version as well. Well, the FT has a free-registration and a subscribe online version, neither of which I make use of. On the free registration site, I noticed there were various articles (including one now about a pilot labour agreement), but not the article which I referenced. I would be pretty sure that it is on the subscribe section (to which I am not privy). My second assumption was that if this article was already in the FT, that it must have already made the rounds of the US business press.
My apologies for making a post without submitting the linked article and if my gloomy response to said article was inappropriate. I do not know the inner workings of labour-company negotiations, nor the "mercenary" journalism that very well may be an undercurrent to the Star/Oneworld, Heathrow/US access issues. My humble defense is only that I was struck by the "apparent" company statements as to the seriousness of the situation and the attitude of "burning cash until there is no more."
Back to my most humble status as an observer.
Cheers