Article 33: who designates hostile areas?
Why this briefing: Place the Article 33 notice, requested records, and unresolved hostile-area questions in one readable briefing.
A March 19, 2026 notice challenges how hostile-area designations are made. The central question is whether the process follows the designation authorities identified in Article 33.A.3.
Who has the authority to designate a hostile area?
The answer may affect contractual compensation and benefit protections.
Keep in mind: This is a notice of intended grievance—not a decision. Its listed appendices are missing.
01The issueUnderstand what is being discussed
John Corcoran and Jesse Johansen's five-page notice quotes a designation clause referring to the Department of Defense or agreement of the parties.
The authors argue that these are independent sources of designation authority and allege that the company's internal assessments have effectively replaced that mechanism.
The document is a notice of intended grievance, not an adjudicated outcome.
02Why it mattersSee the effect on members
The notice identifies compensation and benefit protections that it says depend on Article 33, including 175% compensation for covered operations and specified injury and life-insurance protections.
The designation process can therefore affect more than a label on a destination.
The draft does not determine any individual crewmember's eligibility or private insurance coverage.
03What went wrongSeparate the criticism from what is established
The authors report reviewing 32 company determination letters from 2022–2026 and say those letters do not identify either contractual designation authority as their operative basis.
The supplied PDF does not contain those letters or the listed analytical appendices, so that review cannot yet be independently checked from this packet.
04The deeper concernsExplore the questions still open
The notice distinguishes a dispute over the overall interpretation from a dispute over a particular location.
It requests designation agreements, a grievance form, and the union's interpretation.
The unanswered questions are what response was received, whether a grievance was filed, and whether any decision or agreement has since clarified the process.
A military pay-area listing should not be presented here as automatic proof of contractual entitlement.
05Our positionWhat we propose to do
seek a documented explanation of the designation process, make the relevant records available to members where appropriate, and pursue unresolved interpretation questions through the applicable contract process.
Report the status and outcome without presenting an allegation as a ruling.