Yep. Purple nailed it. Part of the problem.

In fact, your way of thinking about this is exactly the problem. You've accepted bankruptcy as a reset... your "new reality." And you have no expectation for restoration because you see the improvement required to be unreasonable.

Thousands of your fellow pilots disagree with that line of thinking and apparently have a greater appreciation and respect for the value of what we do.

 

When I refer to the MEC administration, I mean the MEC chairman, vice chairman, the committe chairmen and their appointed members to those committees. I do exclude the safety Committe, jumpseat, flower fund etc...just the big committees that actually run things. It's just shorthand for me to use the term MEC admins.

Carl

 

Um, no...doubling your bet in blackjack is an example of probabilities, not "sunk cost."

A better example for the Sunk Cost fallacy is when pilots decide to stay with ALPA as their bargaining agent even though they're disgusted with the results. They stay because of all the time and money they've invested in ALPA up to this point.

Carl

 

It's a web-based survey tool. You can't tamper with the results any more than you can tamper with a poll you start here on APC. The web survey is doing the reporting, not DPA.

Having everyone know where we stand is a good thing. It actually strengthens the hand of our negotiators...it doesn't weaken it.

They already did. Their survey said: "Labor risk has been taken completely off the table at Delta."

Carl

 

I figured it was "shorthand", but there are a boatload of people that could fall under some people's interpretations when using that term. For others, it's a handful of people. I'm not sure how far your "etc" goes for what you consider exclusions and I honestly believe at this point that there are numerous versions of what "MEC admin" means to different people and therefore a mixed message received by those who read it when the term is used.

Safety is a bunch of people, jumpseat is a few, flower funds are handled by the individual LEC reps and aren't even a committee as far as I know. Surely you aren't saying (and I don't think you are) that other LEC committees like the Council 20 Scheduling Committee, are a part of the admin too?

In your view, would the R&I Chairman and anyone he takes on as a committee member fall under this umbrella? Is it only committee members that are appointed by the Master Chairman or is it also when a committee chairman chooses from the available pool of volunteers to pick a vice-chairman for his committee?

I prefer for us all to be talking apples to apples and everyone understand who, exactly, people are talking about when they give praise, denigrate, complain about or otherwise discuss. The term "MEC admin" doesn't make that clear if everyone uses their own definition.

In the overall scheme of things, this is a very minor point. I just want to know who, specifically, people are referring to. Back to football!!!

 

It doesn't matter how you view your "investment in your company". If you make decisions based on what you've lost in those investments you are probably making poor economic decisions.

" Restoration" is a good talking point but it's hardly a negotiating strategy. Where is the leverage in "restoration"? We have leverage. The company is making billions, the other majors have comparable contracts, and the company values labor harmony enough to talk about it with investors. That's a really good negotiating environment. It may or may not be enough to get to " restoration". It may be enough to get more than "restoration". Who knows?

When the TA or strike vote is in front of you you should be asking "is this the best deal we can get given the current situation?" instead of "does this make up for what I've lost?". If you say no to the second question and it turns out the answer to the first question is yes, you've left money on the table. In other words you've made a poor economic decision.

 

So you don't believe in the sunk cost fallacy? Maybe you think it doesn't apply in our situation? Instead of speculating on my way of thinking, which I think I've laid out quite clearly, address the argument. Why do you think your losses have merit as a negotiating strategy? How does that give us leverage?

What if the best we can get is better than "restoration"?

 

That's the whole point. Doubling your bet doesn't change probabilities it just uses more of your bankroll. If you decide to double your bet because you lost a hand you have made a poor decision. There may be a good reason to double your bet - if you can count cards - but doing it because of money you lost is a pretty clear example of the sunk cost fallacy.

That is a good example of the sunk cost fallacy if you believe there is a better bargaining agent than ALPA. I don't happen to believe there is a better bargaining agent for Delta pilots at this time but that could certainly change in the future.

 

Now we're talking!

Jerry

 

Then by all means... go for it!

You're confusing objective with strategy. When you get that figured out, you might want to try a different analogy.