Look Oberon, you're looking foolish now.
Why do you attack me? I haven't attacked anyone.
Nobody is saying that "sunk cost" isn't a real economic theory, we're just saying you're misapplying it. Pilots don't want restoration because of what they've invested. They want restoration because of what we voluntarily gave up to save our company from liquidation.
That's the same thing.
We're not asking for that loss to be returned to us like an investor or as a loan to be repaid. We're asking that those old rates be restored because our partnership was successful in keeping our company out of liquidation.
That's the same thing.
That's the last I'll try to speak to you about this because if you still want to argue your "sunk cost" misapplication, you're just being stubborn and that's a waste of everyone's time.
You still haven't addressed the argument. You called me "foolish" and "stubborn" and cited two pretty clear examples of making economic decisions based on some past loss.
If history was erased and you had to make a decision on what the maximum we could possibly get in the next contract would it be the same number of whatever you define "restoration" as?
I was going to explain it to you Oberon, but Timbo has done a much better job than I could have done. Please read what's below carefully and please don't let me hear from you again that nobody has shown you a lucid argument.
So the MEC said "restoration" in 2001 and the company gave in? The final contract didn't have anything to do with the economics of the times?
Also, when did the MEC do Family Awareness meetings for C2001? I realize I asked this before but no one replied and I'm genuinely curious.