Details on Delta TA
#1811
Welcome back Carl!
I have previously learned that different people mean different things when they refer to the "MEC Administration". Some mean it to be the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Treasurer, Secretary and the 2 MEC Administrators. Others lump every committee chairman into that category as well. I'm sure others have even different meanings when they use the term. What exactly do you include when you (Carl) say "MEC admin positions"?
Just curious, so I know what you mean when you say it.
I have previously learned that different people mean different things when they refer to the "MEC Administration". Some mean it to be the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Treasurer, Secretary and the 2 MEC Administrators. Others lump every committee chairman into that category as well. I'm sure others have even different meanings when they use the term. What exactly do you include when you (Carl) say "MEC admin positions"?
Just curious, so I know what you mean when you say it.
Carl
#1812
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.
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.
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
#1813
Carl
#1814
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
Carl
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!!!
#1815
That is a really poor analogy. The past and present contributions are better viewed as a good faith investment in your company rather than a write down on an accounting sheet. While I agree sometimes you don't get back what you give, your INVESTMENTS in you career are not just inputs on a balance sheet at the end of the day.
" 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.
#1816
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.
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.
What if the best we can get is better than "restoration"?
#1817
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
Carl
#1818
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
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"?
What if the best we can get is better than "restoration"?
Jerry
#1819
#1820
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post