FL,

I agree that the contract says no one can be forced to a FDA and I agree that even on an excess they can only send you to a base in the contiguous US if you can't hold anything else. You may very well be right about them forming umbrella airlines as well. I just see a cheaper(for them) and easier way for them to get this done. Run the bid, excess enough 727SO's and FO's to cover the flying and just tell them that they are going to either CDG or HKG. The most senior of the excessed(sounds funny when you say that!) would get the higher paying widebody position in HKG, the most junior 757 CDG. That would follow the spirit of the contract which is semi-important b/c ALPA would grieve the move and it serves to make them look more 'reasonable' to the arbitrator.

From my admittedly cursory reading of Sec. 20, there are items in our contract that trigger expedited grievances. Many other carriers have such a clause for big things like scope, merger transitions, and force majeure actions-it is probably something we should look at doing going forward. ALPA would indeed file a grievance almost immediately. It is the proper thing to do representation wise, officially forces the company to explain their actions in front of an arbitrator, and since many of us a sheep around here it gets this sewn up into a group grievance vs. individual ones. Just like the MEC, each of us has the right to file our own individual grievances on any issue, however getting a group one done allows ALPA to have an easier time with settlements vs. having to give each individual person their day in court so to speak. Been there, done that and I can assure you ALPA does not like individual grievances on matters that they have filled a group grievance on.

Delta and United filed expedited grievances over after 9/11 over no-furlough clauses and scope. I think they were filed in late '01 and Delta ALPA won their deal by the following summer while United ALPA attempted to roll theirs up in concessionary deals prior to their bankruptcy and ultimately it ended up as an unsecured bankruptcy claim. I think the arbitrator forced Delta to recall its pilots on some sort set schedule. The big points here are that even an expedited grievance took @ 8 mos. or so to solve and that even with a win the company wasn't forced to immediately comply with the contract rather they were given time to do so. A non expedited grievance could drag on for years and all the while the bases would open with the excessed pilots. Not to get heavy into politics, because I think it leads to things getting sidetracked, but we haven't exactly been in a good environment for grievances and RLA rulings the last 7 years. Beyond the aforementioned deals, you have the Comair pilots and FA's, the Alaska salary arbitration, the Northwest mechanics among others. I think the only big win has been American Eagle upholding their scope a few years back.

If it even got to an arbitrator, ALPA's position would be pretty simple: it's a contract violation and these pilots should be brought back stateside and made whole. The company would claim that they are overstaffed and that the contract is an unreasonabl hindrance to their ability to do business economically because it is forcing them to hire unnecessary pilots or lose more money by not opening the bases and possibly furlough. Never mind what we all would think of that personally, it's what they would say. Worst case scenario, they win outright and their decision stands. The more likely ruling imo, would be a settlement that allows the company to staff the base temporarily and forces them to bring those pilots back to the states over a set period of time along with some additional financial renumeration. Either one would likely cost the company a lot less than setting up shell companies and fighting in court for ten years.

The bigger question is would the MEC even let it get to that point? I think a point a lot of us are missing is that the MEC and ALPA National have a vested interest in seeing us over there flying those airplanes. My personal opinion is that ALPA would make a settlement ahead of an arbitration ruling that involves excessed pilots being sent over there but with a shorter stay and some more money than is being paid out to those who voluntarily go. The growth of this company is overseas, FDX ALPA needs those jobs to be ours and national needs those jobs to be done by Americans. The precedent it would set otherwise is bigger in their heads, than a couple hundred junior schmoes. It's similar to the MEC's over at US, DL, and NW forcing their junior pilots into terrible payrates on those EMB-190 jets to set the precedent that they will be flown by mainline vs. the regionals. There is no question in my mind that they would make a deal, the only question is what is the specific deal and how would they sell it to us?

Before you look at this situation in detail, you really have to ask yourself: Do I really believe an overstaffed company will hire people simple b/c I don't want to go somewhere voluntarily? Do I really believe that the MEC is going to give up FDA's flown by FDX pilots over forcing some junior people over there? Once you answer those questions honestly, the rest is just filling in the blanks on the doomsday scenario of your choice.