I would be more careful in your assumptions, wood prop.
I realize that FedEx has generally been a good and fair place to work in the past. That's why when pilots hear of other pilots getting terminated, they assume "just cause" must exist, since they have seen fairness in the past, and only the most egregious acts got penalized so severely.
This time it is different. Pilots got into trouble because management decided to change the rules (or arbitrarily "interpret" them) 4 years after the fact. The FDA LOA (and part of Section 6) is the root of the problem, as it is simply not clear. Remember, the company had 21 people already targeted, plus 7 more they actively went after, plus an unknown quantity they alluded to, leading most to suspect there were, at a minimum, 40 pilots the company considered to be not in compliance. They only backed down from this once the backlash hit, and perhaps it became apparent to them that they were making a mistake. The letter that came out about dropping further investigations (while still burning 4 pilots who were no more guilty than the others) implicitly stated that management still thinks many HK pilots are not in compliance.
I can only refer to the case you claim "showed a serious lack of judgment." That is unfounded. That pilot had a specific family situation which WAS brought to the attention of FedEx management from BEFORE moving to Hong Kong and then consistently over the course of the next 4 years. Management in HK was fully supportive the entire time. Full stop. At some point management in Memphis decided they had a different interpretation, and the resulting investigation and accusations were anything but fair.
There are a number of serious transgressions the company took to retroactively engineer their own predetermined decision in this case. Perhaps some details will come out soon now that the Appeal Hearings are complete. Suffice to say, the company went way overboard in this case, both in deciding to terminate and especially in the flagrant misuse of facts in building their so-called case.
The approach you rightfully recommend in communicating to management WAS taken. Unfortunately, there were different interpretations of FDA compliance by different managers/lawyers. That is why the language MUST BE FIXED before this problem will go away. This pilot realized the family situation was unusual, brought it to the attention of the CP before moving to HK, communicated pertinent information many times in the intervening years, and had the full support of the CP even after the investigation was complete. Knowing these details, what would you expect? Would you expect to be terminated?
What constitutes FDA compliance is unknown. Many HK pilots have similar unusual family situations, or new issues arise, causing the situation to be anything but black and white. The company refuses to acknowledge the shortcomings of the agreement, or to provide clear guidelines so that pilots do know if they are complying. It is simply not a fair setup.
There is a lot more I could say, but obviously this message board is limiting. Wood prop, I would respectfully suggest that you go to the true source - each of the terminated pilots - to get your information for their side. (ALPA “may” not be the most accurate place to go, and “may” have their own slant on things.) I suspect you will find a receptive audience.
For those wondering, “Alaskan” does not seem to be who you think they are.