Mmm Hmm. Another conspiracy threory: The ol' cooking of the AA books so management doesn't have to negotiate employee raises. Original.
Look, I'm traditionally a unionist, but belonging to a union is a double-edged sword. On one hand it levels the employee-management playing field and provides labor with negotiating leverage.
On the flip-side however, unionism keeps labor locked in to a specific job category, minimizing risk, yet also limiting individual career growth and ultimately, restricting longer-term earnings potential. Naturally, those individuals who assume greater risk by taking on bigger projects that may lie beyond the scope of their traditional job description, are much more fluid just by the nature of their working construct and as such, are positioned to yield greater earnings potential.
So...sorry, but I don't trust you. I do not believe that AA is making money in this revenue environment and with a cost-structure that is not competitive with its industry peers.
There is perception and there is reality. The reality is that AA continues to have an employee cost structure that is unsustainable in the longer term. Management-types who took pay cuts in 2003 are fluid. They're upwardly mobile and have been able to move into higher paying positions. Therefore, I cannot...and do not...characterize "management" to be the Antichrist whose sole purpose is to conspire against the rank-and-file.
BTW:
there = their
loafs = loaves
there = they're (as in hungry)