From the research I have conducted, most employment contracts with non-U.S. carriers contain a forum selection clause and an agreement to consent to the personal jurisdiction of their country's courts. As a practical matter, no pilot is going to stick around to argue his case in a foreign court in the unfortunate event that things go pear shaped, even if he thought he would get a fair hearing.
Consequently, if the carrier decided to pursue it, as I am told some will do, they would be entitled to a default judgment, issued by a court in their country. They would still have to domesticate that judgment in the state (specific county) where the pilot's non-exempt assets are located before they could execute on those assets. Execution means that they could get a writ ordering that a law enforcement official seize and auction the asset and give the money to the judgment creditor to satisfy the amount of the judgment. In most states, execution also allows garnishment of up to 25% of the debtor's wages and seizure of his bank accounts to satisfy the judgment.
The carrier's problem is that mutual suspicion of one another’s court systems has prevented the United States from entering into treaties with other countries for mutual recognition of judgments. Thus, the enforcement of foreign judgments in the United States is governed almost entirely by state law. Some states, like Colorado, do not even recognize foreign court judgments. Many other states scrutinize foreign judgments and are favorable to the judgment debtor when issues of fairness, jurisdiction or affirmative defenses are raised.
This is obviously a very sensitive subject for some, as manifested by some of the replies to my original query. Perhaps my employment by strictly U.S. carriers throughout my career has resulted in a sheltered state of ignorance regarding the employment practices of some of the world's major air carriers. I have no "hidden agenda," but I could just as easily ask whether the respondents, who are apparently repulsed merely by the fact that I have raised the question, are acting to protect ulterior corporate interests.
I am just trying to do my "homework," which would necessitate examining the worst-case scenario. The best-case scenario is, of course, what we all hope to experience.