And BTW, the LOA makes no reference when, why, and how many times we can use the crapper in the HKG hub. To use that as an example to bolster your argument is pathetic, and somewhat moronic. But I suppose you were trying to make some kind of point. I missed it. Maybe it is me.

And, did you think that maybe nobody was unsure of something, therefore no clarification was needed? Heck, it is all spelled out in the contract! Anyone can read it and fully understand. No need for ALPA lawyers, grievances, and the like. Heck, maybe you should be the decider.....officially that is.

You forgot to mention the non disclosure agreement.

My question is where is ALPA? Are the offering any assistance? Or are they chearleading and ready to switch side of the field at any moment?

Best of luck to this guy, if he wins we all win and FDX knows it.

Arguing over what someone "intended" may be pointless. Here is a well-known statement on that subject:

"A contract has, strictly speaking, nothing to do with the personal, or individual, intent of the parties. A contract is an obligation attached by the mere force of law to certain acts of the parties, usually words, which ordinarily accompany and represent a known intent. If, however, it were proved by twenty bishops that either party when he used the words intended something else than the usual meaning which the law imposes on them, he would still be held, unless there were mutual mistake or something else of the sort."

--Judge Learned Hand
(Hotchkiss v. National City Bank, 200 F. 287 [S.D.N.Y. 1911])

In a strict technical legal sense, I would suppose you are correct. But if you consider PSP and just culture mentality, you might think otherwise.

From 2nd hand knowledge, I was told our grievance chair suggested to one of the accused to accept the Companies deal. He said he could make up the $$ that had to be paid back by getting his job back, and over time, he would recoup his $180000 or so.

That was before being fired. What they are doing now for the pilots, I dont know.

The Union, IMO, knows the LOA is/was a bad deal from the beginning. When HKG wasnt being filled shortly before the first bid was to close, the Company unilaterally made 2 improvements to the LOA without the input of the Union via side letter. The STV was changed and 500lbs was added to the move package. This was a change to the LOA unilaterally, with no Union input!! I suspect it was done to entice more FOs to bid HKG.

Anyway, a grievance was filed with the Union stating that the Company had violated the RLA by changing contractual language on their own.. The Union never followed up. And about a month later, instead of being up in arms about what the Company had done, our Union signed a side letter allowing these changes.

What is my point? Since the signing of LOA1, I think our Union has known that the LOA was crummy. But instead of having egg on their face, they have, quit a few times, been complicit in letting the Company do things that instead they should have been fighting against. And, we still have the same grievance chair as we did back then.

May have been sound advice ?, but at the end of the day it is just advice looking at the facts from his and legals perspective. In no way will it affect how ALPA represents the pilot going forward. You seem to have some angst against our Grievance Chair, well I know for a fact that he is one of the most diligent, hard working pilot advocates in the ALPA system and if you want to throw stones, go ahead, but be ready to step up because people only will take so much in volunteer positions and I for one am very glad we have people like him on our seniority list.

He did not negotiate the LOA, he enforces and protects the CBA, LOA(s) and most importantly pilots in discipline cases. ALPA has a very good record of saving jobs. Lastly, the "guilt before proven innocent" theme is not accurate in these cases, you see the Company has given the pilot his due process under the CBA and has found the pilot(s) guilty. Not saying I agree/disagree because I do not know the facts, none of us do, but the process is what it is and these pilots will have to hear from the VP if their cases are upheld or overturned. If termination is upheld then they have an arbitration appeal and any outside actions they see fit to fight for their jobs.

I think the Grievance Chair must have seen the risk/reward and to bet a multimillion dollar career against some harsh terms but with job in hand is a decision none of us ever desire to be faced with. I wish all of them the best of luck and hope they can return to the line in short order.

Yes, it would seem that I have some angst toward our grievance chair. It is nothing personal, mind you. He seems like a nice guy, seriously.

Having said that, I feel that someone in his position needs to stand up for principle, which I dont believe he has in some instances. I am sure that he has had to follow marching orders so to speak. If that has been the case, maybe a resignation would be appropriate.

The direct deal the Company did was wrong, plain and simple. But our Union, IMO, played politics instead, and did not do the right thing by standing up for our contractual right under the RLA. A very bad thing! And being part of the DW BC administration, I have a hard time putting faith in his ability to be principled. Maybe I am being a little harsh, maybe not. All I know is that our Union needs to fight tooth and nail for their constituency, leaving all politics aside.

Sadly, I think the company is banking on the fact that pilots will take what's offered. I do hope some of these guys hire their own attorneys and go through the process with them. The reality is if the pilot legally moved himself, he can't tell his spouse what to do. He didn't do anything wrong. The company banks that the individual pilot will be scared to lose his job and give in. I think anyone who met the legal requirements of residency of HK, regardless of what his spouse does has a legal case that could be a big winner in the Courts after the arbitration process with the company paid arbitrator. What the person does on their days off is untouchable unless it was somehow in the LOA.
Said pilot could win enough on a lawsuit they'd no longer need to work.

Just my 2 cents and outsiders view. I'm no lawyer but I'm married to one and yes I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

And I'm sick of hearing guys say then don't bid it or making comparisons to where the can is. We are talking about people's lives here. And it's David versus Goliath, with an association that doesn't appear to be doing much.

If any of the fired pilots has children, where they attend school could be determinitive...

Not to open up another can of worms, but I think this is the same with the people who say their crashpad in TN is their primary residence so they can get out of paying their state taxes. Might work, but it's playing with fire. If most of your family is going to school, driving on roads and using local services that you aren't paying taxes for, it might come back to haunt them.