Originally Posted by Oberon

It's not even debatable whether the DPA survey is biased. It is clearly biased and unless the authors have no familiarity with statistics they would say so themselves. Only Delta pilots who go to the DPA website participate and since not all Delta Pilots go to the DPA website it isn't representative of the pilot group. You can argue how exactly that bias affects results but you can't argue the DPA survey isn't biased...unless you have no familiarity with statistics.

For what it's worth the ALPA survey suffers from a similar bias.

Originally Posted by Starcheck102

Go ahead and reveal everything to the other side,

Originally Posted by Oberon

Are you familiar with the sunk cost fallacy? It's an economic concept that basically says you should make decisions about a current situation based on what you have already invested in the situation. A classic example of the sunk cost fallacy is the "double your bet" strategy in blackjack. The theory is if you double your bet after each lost hand you will eventually come back to even. The problem is it's a terrible strategy because the odds that you run out of money before winning a hand is not zero. The money a blackjack player has given the casino doesn't change his odds of winning the next hand.

Anyway, from what I can tell your entire argument for contract improvements is (paraphrasing) that you've given enough and you want some specific part of what you've given back. That is a text book example of the sunk cost fallacy.

I've seen you accuse other posters of accepting bankruptcy as a "reset". It wasn't a reset, it was just something that happened. It certainly sucked but it has very little or nothing to do with the next contract. Bankruptcy is the lost hand in the anecdote above. You can double your bet or you can play the odds with the hand you are dealt. In the case of the next contract the odds are favorable.

Originally Posted by Oberon

Are you familiar with the sunk cost fallacy? .

Originally Posted by Purple Drank

Let's be realistic.
"the other side" probably gets the survey results about 10 minutes after the MEC.

Originally Posted by Purple Drank

Let's be realistic.
"the other side" probably gets the survey results about 10 minutes after the MEC.

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver

I'm not suggesting I be paid back for the $1 million I estimate I've contributed to date to Delta's recovery from bankruptcy. I'm only suggesting that circumstances no longer warrant bankruptcy style compensation and that it should be made right going forward.

This isn't gambling, it's our careers.

Originally Posted by Purple Drank

You're either part of the problem, or part of the solution.

From the few posts I've seen from you, I'm going to put you down as part of the problem.

Originally Posted by Oberon

Are you familiar with the sunk cost fallacy? It's an economic concept that basically says you should make decisions about a current situation based on what you have already invested in the situation. A classic example of the sunk cost fallacy is the "double your bet" strategy in blackjack. The theory is if you double your bet after each lost hand you will eventually come back to even. The problem is it's a terrible strategy because the odds that you run out of money before winning a hand is not zero. The money a blackjack player has given the casino doesn't change his odds of winning the next hand.

Anyway, from what I can tell your entire argument for contract improvements is (paraphrasing) that you've given enough and you want some specific part of what you've given back. That is a text book example of the sunk cost fallacy.

I've seen you accuse other posters of accepting bankruptcy as a "reset". It wasn't a reset, it was just something that happened. It certainly sucked but it has very little or nothing to do with the next contract. Bankruptcy is the lost hand in the anecdote above. You can double your bet or you can play the odds with the hand you are dealt. In the case of the next contract the odds are favorable.