A few comments about migrations:

I understand that pilots are frustrated to see crews deadheading into their bases, to handle flying that they don't have a shot at throguh an AE, i.e 80's point about ATL. That cuts in both directions: witness the 777 out of DTW, and the 747 flying through NYC. What must be even more frustrating to ATL is the fact the A330 isn't fenced. Likewise, the fNWA side doesn't seem to respect the 767 much, so maybe they're not thrilled to see it make inroads in SEA.

With that said, let's not forget the influence of seasonality on this process. From everything we're being told, fleet flexibility is one of the keys to the success of this merger. With the biggest aircraft going N-S in the winter, and more E-W in the summer, there will be frustrations for at least one season a year, for at least one group of pilots somewhere. The sooner we understand this, the better we can plan for it, and adapt to it. The days of one kind of aircraft having a steady diet of a certain kind of flying, where we only go to our favorite layovers, are done. The days of one type of aircraft handling most of the flying out of one base, i.e. the 764 handling ATL, and the big destinations in NYC from the base in ATL, are also done.

In the case of the 764, we got what what some are wishing for in ATL for the A330: the category came with the routes. But there, you have to consider the trade-off: for every big aircraft that comes over to "your" base, and to which "you" have access, pilots also come. From my perspective, the 764 in NYC is not a plus. Whereas I do well on the ER, I don't have much bidding power on the 764, AND the guys that didn't come up from the ATL 764 displaced 7ER guys... up here. The only good news is that there is a net plus in positions in New York, which kind of keeps a lid on sliding back.

So there is a definite trade-off to wanting aircraft to be based in your city, so that "you" can do "your" flying: the "other" pilots follow "their" aircraft. The other option (keeping "their" pilots out of "your" base) implies losing "your" flying to "outsiders" for at least one season a year.

So, if there are no aircraft migrations without pilot migrations, and since there is no hiding in base to perform "your" flying year-round, then the question isn't whether or not we will have migrations, but whether we will have unnecessary, or disruptive, movements. It's about having enough higher-paying aircraft in base, enough variety of flying, that your moves are based on geography and family issues, rather than financial considerations that force you to follow an aircraft you need, to a base you don't want to go to.

Three things are aparent to me:

1) Growth and attrition will be the factors that determine whether we are comfortable throughout the migration. We have about three years to go until we're back to mandatory retirements, and the economy will hopefully turn further.
2) A slow and deliberate approach to moving categories around will limit disruptions until we get to a point where growth/attrition kick in to smooth out or limit any financial migrations. Time plays in our favor.
3) Fences are starting to bite many in the a$$, and I'm glad they were limited to two aircraft. The 747 guys wanted to keep their aircraft, but I'm not sure they wanted to fly it out of NYC, and the same is true for the 777 in DTW.