TonyC

Sadly, I believe I have found the answer to the question of why we're not hearing from the MEC about the Hong Kong pilots who were wrongfully terminated. I had an opportunity to speak to our MEC Vice Chairman Captain John Cardaci after the conclusion of the August 22nd Memphis Joint Council Meeting. I specifically discussed with him his communication in the Positive Rate Weekly of June 12, 2012, when he said the following:
I thanked him for expressing 100% support, but expressed my disappointment by the qualifier which immediately followed it, and drew a comparison between that statement and something he probably heard during his military Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape training. When he was in that mock Prisoner of War camp, he or one of his fellow "prisoners" was offered an opportunity to leave the camp or receive special treatment in the form of relaxed punishment or perhaps upgraded meals if he would simply sign the confession. Sign this paper, and we will let you go. Sign this paper and you can eat steak. Sign this paper, and we will let your buddy out of that torture contraption. Just sign the paper.

I gave John the benefit of the doubt, not thinking he really meant for it to sound that way. I wanted to believe that he really does support the wrongfully terminated pilots, and the "but" statement which followed was just an unfortunate choice of words.

Sadly, my discussion with him revealed something quite different. In our conversation, he tried repeatedly to convince me that if I were one of those pilots, I would have signed the confession, that is, accepted the settlement. He stated that he himself would have signed, accepted the settlement. What his support amounts to is far less than I wanted to give him credit for originally. He supports their right to make their own decisions, but he does not support the decisions they made.


Gee, John, we appreciate that kind of support.


I guess that's why we're hearing crickets.






.

iarapilot

Sounds like a pretty good analogy to me.

And, I think it is impossible for most of the crew force to actually understand the true nature of the situation that the 4 HKG pilots are in. Contractually, they have met the requirements to receive the HA, but the nebulous phrase "primary residence" (or whatever the term is) means, to some I think, that on your days off you need to spend the "majority" of your time at that location. Some guys I have talked to think that this is one of those scam the Company situations. As far as Price Waterhouse is concerned, I believe the 4 meet the IRS requirements for HKG residency.

And as far as the Union goes, they have been sitting on the sidelines since day one; no pro-activity to really fight the Company on this one. Hence, the Vice Chairs attitude. For him to think that they should accept the Companies offer without a fight is basically saying that they are guilty. Otherwise, one would defend their actions instead of rolling over.

4A2B

very interesting reporting Tony, I have one question. Does it not concern you that the VC has this view, presuming of course, that he knows more of the facts than any of us have access to?

Maybe it was just his gut instinct but I would have to believe he made his position known to you based on a larger inside picture. In any case, I am sure he appreciates the public release of your conversation in any case. I am not sure being worried about your perceived lack of ALPA support is helping our 4 pilots return to the line?

I am personally rather confident that ALPA has expended vast and deep resources on the vigorous defense of our pilots. If public comments, rhetoric or plain ole PR battle was going to help them get their jobs back sooner I bet the MEC would be doing so. Could be wrong and i am sure you will let me know.

iarapilot

What you say sounds OK if it was based on hard fact. But you seem to be assuming quite a lot. If you dont know first hand what the 4 HKG pilots side of the story is, you might want to reconsider your assumptions.

And, I would think that, knowing Tony, and speaking to him and telling him the things he did, the VC could probably have expected for Tony to air his opinion in a public way. JMO

TonyC

Does it concern me that the Vice Chairman believes the four wrongfully terminated pilots should sign the confessions?

Hell, yes, it concerns me.

It concerns me that a fifth pilot could not, for personal reasons, afford to take a financial hit and was coerced into signing.

It concerns me that the Vice Chairman compared signing the deals to signing a promise to never embezzle. You would sign that, wouldn't you?



This was not a private conversation, and there was no expectation of privacy. We were standing near the table of food with a dozen or so pilots circulating around, and some listening directly to our conversation.

How about those pilots returning to the line? What would it take? Many would have you believe there are only two options. One, sign the confession. Two, take it to the arbitrator and hope he takes your side.

There's a third way. The Company, the entity who wrongfully terminated the pilots in the first place, can admit they were hasty, they made mistakes in administering the housing allowance and in investigating and administering discipline, that their actions were overreaching, and that the pilots should have their jobs back with full back pay, plus the costs they've been forced to incur by uprooting their families through this horrendous process. The Company could apologize for the false accusations they've made publicly about those pilots. That's right, The Company could admit they are wrong and take action to mitigate the harm they've caused.

And every single one of us should be furious until they do.


How do you think the pilots who were fired for exercising their PIC rights to bump jumpseaters got their jobs back? Did we sit idly by and hope the arbitrator would see it their way?



I am also confident resources have been expended, but I won't make the same bet you would.

In fact, we began expending resources on this fiasco before The Company ever began to conduct a CBA Section 19 investigation. In March, 2011, not many days after the membership ratified a "Bridge" CBA to embark on a new journey of cooperation and agreements though Interim Discussions, ALPA began expending resources on 21 pilots who were identified by The Company to The Association. Their Block Rep contacted those pilots and advised them to contact ALPA counsel, and ALPA attorneys then took their time, time which could have been devoted to the Interim Discussions we had just agreed to, to interview those pilots who chose to avail themselves of that "opportunity" to investigate their individual situations. (One pilot in particular made that phone call from the battlefield in Afghanistan to explain his Hong Kong housing situation.)

Maybe we, ALPA, should have told The Company that we have no interest in going down the road of investigating our own. Perhaps we could have halted this witch hunt dead in its tracks before it ever got started. In that case, we wouldn't have had to expend any resources at all. Perhaps those resources could have been devoted to the service of 4,600 pilots through those "Interim Discussions."

Instead ...

To date, none of those 21 pilots has been contacted by FedEx management, either to be told that they are in compliance with FedEx management's view, whatever that is, of the definition of relocated, or to be told that they are not in compliance. For almost 18 months now they've been nagged by a cloud of suspicion, and that cloud has spread to every other pilot in the FDA who must second guess every travel plan, every chance to vacation abroad or visit friends or loved ones in the U.S.

They don't want resources to be expended. They want the problem solved.


But, we wouldn't want all those facts to be made public, would we? We wouldn't want the pilots to be constantly reminded of the type of people we're dealing with, would we? I mean, if the pilots are upset, they might not participate in surveys about how management should communicate with them. They might exercise their contractual rights in ways that might make it difficult for The Company to fill it's schedule. The Company might find it difficult to recruit Memphis A300 LCAs to go to Hong Kong and fly Hong Kong Captain trips.

It's easier to spend dues money than it is to communicate to the pilots and risk upsetting the "Go along to get along" attitude.

I don't need to hear the "expended vast and deep resources" line ever again. They've demonstrated their ability to expend ALPA resources every day they get paid to work from home. The growing number of committees shows me their ability to expend resources. What I'm ready for is real action, beginning with communicating with the pilots, turning the light on to the truth of what's going on.


Shelby County, Tennessee, has determined a simple method to verify the residence of people who want to register their automobiles -- we produce two documents from a list of acceptable documents. Section 6 of the CBA describes a similar test to verify eligibility for relocation benefits -- produce documents from a list of acceptable documents. Why can't we get our employer to figure out a simple way to verify residence in an FDA? Produce documents from a list of acceptable documents.

Any scheme that fails to fix that problem compounds that problem.

Fixing that problem doesn't require "expend[ing] vast and deep resources." It requires commitment and resolve. What I see is a lack of both.






.

Gunter

Tony,

I wish we had done an assessment.

I'm not happy with how legal has dug their heels in. This doesn't make it excusable in any event but they're treating this like a vendor contract. Anyone who knows how we deal with vendors would be appalled at how rough we are with them. Some manager has decided to treat us this way and, IMHO, should be replaced. But I've also seen people promoted for this kind of thing so I don't think that will happen.

Can ALPA fix this with pointed message lines? I think not. Can ALPA do something stronger? How? The RLA does not allow it.

I suspect you took the Vice Chair out of context. I think he might have been expressing his opinion on how best to proceed. After talking with ALPA lawyers on legal options and arbitration possibilities, learning some details about the individuals and getting a feel for the company's resolve he might have condensed it all into a thumbs up or down on the settlement.

After weighing all the risks and rewards you eventually have to make a choice. Would you rather he be wishy washy and say I'm not really sure? I think he was showing you respect by offering his honest opinion. Yet you've chosen to roast him here after sharing it.

No one likes the settlement. Give us a break.

Not happy with ALPA being asked to help pilots under the microscope? I think some pilots signed the HKG paperwork without due diligence. Some really need help. Maybe there should be a mandatory ALPA brief before people bid HKG or CGN.

I took one look at the FDA LOA paperwork and decided I'd rather go buy a timeshare.

TonyC

I hope you are correct.

I hope to hear that he supports the pilots and their decisions to not accept the settlement offers.

I hope to hear him publicly state that he believes in their innocence and that he demands their immediate reinstatement.



But ...

(SPOILER ALERT -- Before scrolling down, cover the screen if small children are present!)


































Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the tooth fairy are not real.






.

FDXLAG

No this is the FDX Legal department covering their arses for writing a contract that is unintelligible. And this is FDX ALPA covering theirs for recommending a contract that is unintelligible. Tony did not take this guy out of context. FDX ALPA wants a settlement where the 4 pilots confess to a crime and risk their tickets. If you need proof read the ALPA statements. Tony saw the light on the bridge contract. I wish he would have taken the blinders off on either LOA.

If I am wrong someone please tell me what constitutes residence in HKG according to FDX. Quote me the appropriate paragraph in the CBA. If you cant quote the CBA ask the PAC if they can give you a good definition.

Hopefully this is all macht nichts and we are back in the PI in three years.

Huck

That's what bothers me the most.

We just ran a bid where people committed to go over there.

SOMEBODY from ALPA or the company needed to warn potential HKers what was expected of them.

We don't have a bright-line rule. They needed to know that, and know that a cautious pilot (and his/her spouse) will spend very little time out of HK until this issue is settled.

4A2B

Man, you go on with rather well thought responses and obvious enthusiasm to help our pilots but then you still feel the need to poke? If you feel that there are or have been improper use of OUR money then I am on board ith you, bring it up to your MEC Rep and demand and inquiry, otherwise stop this juvenile attempt to throw mud, it clouds your true talent and thought process IMHO.