I wasn't around for bankruptcy. Does this "starting point" concept accurately reflect how a BK judge actually thinks and behaves? It's a commonly repeated theme... should we enter BK court, we want to do it from the highest water mark possible. But I honestly don't get it. In BK, operating costs and debts exceed revenue, so the company is attempting to restructure to get projected costs and debt obligations below projected revenue, right? Doesn't a judge just validate if a proposed (or executed) departure from the existing PWA is necessary... not that it is or isn't above or below some percentage value?

If I'm cutting my family's budget to balance cash flow, I don't honestly care what I used to spend. I need to get down to X, no matter what Y USED to be.

What am I missing? Is the consensus from last time that had the union NOT agreed to a 32% pay cut before BK, the end state 40+% cut wouldn't have been so big? Or is the desire to maximize income before it eventually falls per the BK judge's decree?