True, the past is certainly no guarantee of the future, but I think we can agree that a company's past practices are at least indicative of future actions. The big 3 have routinely and unhesitatingly used furloughs as a staffing model and probably wouldn't hesitate to do it again given the first sign of a downturn. In stark contrast, SWA is quite proud of it's record of zero furloughs in 40 years to the extent GK still brags about it routinely. Company survival, sure, but not the quick fix of first resort routinely sought by the legacies. Less likely not only due to LUV's folksy reputation but moreso their conservative business model with limited international exposure, fuel hedging and a laser focus on reducing risk/cost/debt. It was this approach that enabled 40 years of uninterrupted profitability while sidestepping the ruinous boom-bust hiring/firing cycles suffered at the legacies.

If as a parent, I were forced to choose between adopting a retriever vs. a pit bull, historically speaking, the choice would be easy. Not saying a retriever won't bite... SW will furlough if they absolutely have to, but it's less likely given their legacy and reduced risk.

I don't work at SW (too old to leave), but I've always been a fan and admire their long-term conservative philosophy. To the OP's point, if security (flexibility, compensation) is a consideration, staying is probably his best option.

JMHO