While I understand your points, and largely agree, I think I would add the following perspective:

1.) Because they have not exercised the bankruptcy option, AA has done more with far, far less; they have not been able to zero out the debt and go on a shopping spree for new aircraft/new interiors like some other competitors. They also have not been able to wipe out large portions of legacy contracts and pension commitments -- which brings me to my next point...

2.) You say that you have not been affected, but if you have flown UA (for example) and had the typical angry experience (YMMV) I would argue you have. The employees (who 'own' UA) are mad as hell, and have good reason to be -- they have been abused and shaken down throughout the UA bankruptcy -- they have had their pensions gutted, their contracts slashed, their benefits largely wiped out wholesale; they lost and lost big. And they take it out on each other, the company, and often the passengers. And, even if you have not had a bad experience on UA, you rarely hear a UA front-liner speak well of the company. This does not translate well when it comes to customer service and delivery.

As an aside, I am not some pro-union nut-job (not that unions are nutty, just their some of their current manifestations, IMO). I think bankruptcies have their place. I just think that they also have consequences that are direct and indirect for the company, its employees, its creditors, and its customers; any company that exercises such extraordinary discipline to avoid these consequences (particularly in an industry rampant with competitors enjoying the advantages) is laudable in my book. It may by unsustainable, and might be ill-advised, but I appreciate their efforts nonetheless.