SIA(Mauritius) OZ Jobs

[noax2grind]

I`m looking for a new job and have applied to the one above (as well as others mentioned in this forum !!)
I have read all the comments made re. SIA with dismay, sorry guys I hope it gets better soon!
How close is the OZ op. to HQ in Singapore, is the low morale and corrosive politics the same there too?
It seems to me they have been `upfront` re. pay etc and its up to me whether I think a 777 rating is worth the bond. I have an Aussie passport and the idea of a 777 command based in one of the two nicest places in the world is quite appealing!
Is the OZ op. new, or is there someone flying there already who would like to comment? I would appreciate any input.

p.s. By way of an aside to Capt. PPRune.
It has been a long time since I was a regular visitor to your site, congrats on its growth!
A mate suggested I visit to glean info re. possible jobs. now I am hooked, If I dont get my daily fix I`m a mess!
`Course I could give it up any time I wanted. I started with just a quick look and now I`m writing!! But I wont go onto the `hard stuff`... you know slagging off, bitching, back biting like the old junkies I see lying around the place!!!
Thanx.

[Tosh26]

noax2grind

Please be advised that nothing in relation to SIA or SIA Mauritius is "upfront". Get them to send you a contract and then spend a few dollars getting a lawyer to have a look at it. After he has finished choking with mirth, he will advise you not even to bother talking to them again. If however you do misguidedly decide to go ahead and the stardust blows away, you will find that the actuality is somewhat different from the gloss you are presently receiving and like thousands who have trodden the path previously, you will wonder why ever you got yourself into the present mess.
Please similarly be advised that the hundreds of posts which you tell us you have read on Pprune are not made up but are based on truth and are, mostly, sardonically understated.
Finally, you might like to look at either basing in OZ with KAL (in which case you pay OZ tax) or flying out of SEL (in which case you will not pay OZ tax and be home 10 straight days a month). Start salary USD 10,400 per month. Check out with KAL - if you have a B757/767 rating, the 777 rating with Boeing is real cheap.

Best of luck

[Offchocks]

The money is poor, the contract out of the dark ages.

[noax2grind]

Sorry to have wasted your time folks!
Email today, "you have been unsuccessful in your application" I guess 13000hrs (5000 jet command)was not enough, or did they have a flood of people with stardust in their eyes. If so I hope those people will read here.
In the meantime, many thanks to Tosh 26 and Offchocks.
Now I`ve started I guess there is a chance you may see me around again!!!

[Rising Sun]

noax2grind
Do not feel lonely mate you are not the only one. Similar experience with exactly the same e-mail message. Maybe SIA made a mistake with the add, should have been 17,000hrs with 13,000hrs command!
Does anybody out there know if the add in Flight was purely a data gather exercise?
Cheers

[Vincere]

It is said SiA were data gathering to see if the Ansett and Air New Zealand pilots would go for a B scale pay, in exchange for job security and wide-body exposure.

"The floggings will continue until moral improves"

[Rising Sun]

Tosh26
SIA aside.
Noted your previous reply and your notes re KAL.
Do you know for a fact whether KAL are still taking guys with only type ratings on 777/747 and no line experience.
I have heard from a few agencies that KAL were only taking rated guys with line experience now.
Interested to hear your comments or comments from others.
Cheers

[king bonza]

to tosh 26,
just wondering about the KAL 767 positions that mentioned in your post. I checked their website, and alas, no mention of them owning 767. can anyone fill me in

[Rising Sun]

Kingbonza
KAL were taking pilots without type ratings last year. However there was a preference (I believe) for B767/757 type rated pilots as the B777 type rating is pretty quick for pilots with B767/757 experience.
No KAL does not have 767/757.
Cheers

[EasyGo-Lucky?]

KAL had a scheme last year where B767 rated pilots were invited to apply for B777 command positions. This scheme was terminated at the end of last year. As far as I am aware the scheme has not been reintroduced. KAL now require a B777 or B744 type rating with command time on type. Hope that helps.

[Rising Sun]

Thanks for that.
I wonder where they are getting all the B777/B747 guys form SIA?
Cheers

[EasyGo-Lucky?]

I think SIA would be a very good guess but most are holding off on applying at present whilst they wait for the backpay and July bonus.

[Bokomoko]

Can someone tell me if AUD 168,000/year is a good salary to live in OZ?
Thanks....

[Anti Skid On]

Bokomoko - dpends what you are measuring it against - A$160K = £60K in the UK, or US$95K - that will go a long way in most places in Oz. Cost of living is cheaper than UK/mainland europe.

[EasyGo-Lucky?]

Anti Skid, I have heard though that you can expect to pay 40% tax on that salary, is there any truth to this? If so the salary is not looking so good especially when compared to Qantas and Ansett.

[Goofyfoot]

You will pay 47% plus.

[Offchocks]

Bokomoko and EasyGo-Lucky.....Aust$168,000 is a good salary in Oz but expect to pay at least $70,000 of that in income tax. Is it a good salary for a B777 captain? NO!



[This message has been edited by Offchocks (edited 01 April 2001).]

[EasyGo-Lucky?]

Offchocks, after tax it really is not too good at all especially when compared to KAL or CAL. Would you or anyone else know how does this salary compare to say an Ansett or Qantas B767 Captains salary?

[Offchocks]

EasyGo-lucky it is about 15% below a QF767 Captains salary (excluding allowances).
You have to consider that you are comparing Captains salary on B767 and B777, the B777 should be more.
I doubt any at QF would move just to earn less and be bonded for 5 years. But then SQ may be targeting those who left these shores a few years ago and want to return.

[Gladiator]

Is SIA data gathering?

The 'save cost lah' crusade is a Singaporean trait with no end.

In the early 90s a letter was put in the mail box of all the expat SIA Captains. This letter was from the DFO, MDVz. The letter stated that due to a policy change, all expat captains are required to sign into a local contract. This event happened shortly after SIA kicked out all the F/Os on expat contracts (they caught up with their local F/O training and no longer needed the expat F/Os on expat contracts).

A couple of the Captains actually fell for it. For the rest, it was an outrage. The company then came out and said, "Oh, that letter was not from the DFO, it was a fake letter and we have informed the police".

Bull pucky, data gathering in stealth form, get a feel, con man tactics, Lee con you.

I was over a friend's house, an expat SIA Captain of 15 yrs+. The phone rang, it was Dudley himself asking him to change to local terms. He told Dudley to sit on it, "if the expat contract goes, I go", replied the Captain. Amazing these people and their focus on money.

SIA, truly a candidate for a modern day tragedy. You have been informed.

Reformasi.

[titan]

$168K for a B777 Captain! re you guys serious?? Wake up and smell the roses, better ask for a copy of the contract and read the fine print. Questions to ask:

- where will you be doing reserve
- how many days off in Perth/Brisbane per month
- Can you be transfered to other bases
- can SIA take the bank guarantee without your signature(you could be in foe a long futile legal fight if they can)
- what happens if SIA terminate the contract before 5 years; do you still pay

Kust a thought. You guys that accept this are pawns in SIA's game to lower the pilot wages in Sngapore. You will not be accepted kindly by other employees INCLUDING THE CHECKING DEPARTMENT. Fail your check - pay up buddy.
Its a pilot's market, have a bit of patience.

[sia sniffer]

During the early nineties, the first mention of the London basing was made to ALPA-S. All and sundry vowed to fight this erosion of SIA pilots status. Consequently, the London base was established anyway, with the company promising that it would still send local pilots to London, as there were to be more flights.SIA said that London was unique, as it was solely a 747-400 route, and therefore pilots need not worry about any further inrodes made by SIA Mauritius.

It was interesting that the main opposition to the London basing was from the local incumbent 747 captains.Of course it all boiled down to them worrying about there allowances disappearing. There was little attention paid to the fact that local commands would suffer.The company merely said that direct commands onto the 747-400 would start, and therefore local commands were no the issue.

The London base was extended to Sydney and LA.Then we now have the B777 basing announcement.

The B777 is where a lot of locals (and local expats, had not that new captain bunked of to Korean!) would expect to get their initial commands in the future. However, how many will still be in the command pool, following SIA announcement about the 777 basings? I do believe it will be popular, especially with the ex-disputers, hankering for a cold Fosters.

The retirement of 4 A340s this year will free up about 25 captains. As the B777 is the expanding fleet, they will be expected to transfer there ( along with signing another 3 year bond).However, the 777 pays less, for increased work load.Its not just the sectors, but those oh so keen co-pilots that are spewed out of Seletar.They have to learn the ropes, usually on your sector.A few visits to the office can be expected by expat captains, to explain all those heavy landings when the f/o flies.

Its also unlikely that SIA will be keen for its current crop of expats to transfer to the basings. They want blood, new blood that is, to crew out of Australia.So the guys in Singapore will again be frustrated in their attempts to return home.

And unlike the 747-400 basing, candidates are not required to be rated.For just a few years of your life, SQ will give you that rating and even let you fly all over Asia with it. Consequently, you can expect every Tom Dick & Harry sakka to be applying from dun-under, to sign up to the nihilism of SQ.

Its strange that SIA continue to take pilots with less experience than their current crop of Senior F/Os, who have paid big time to crawl into the command pool,just for their dreams to be shattered.Why am I not surprised.

[Spad]

For anyone tempted by the offer, it's worth noting that the 168K per annum that SQ are quoting INCLUDES bonuses, allowances per diems etc. They're also Oz Pesos, paid in Oz at Oz tax rates.

Talk about sleight of hand...

I have to agree with Vincere's comment on page one. SQ are trolling the waters to see if they can scare up a few nervous nellies at bargain basement prices amongst the sc... sorry, I'm not allowed to use that word - amongst the highly respected professional aviators occupying left hand seats in AN and to a lesser degree, Qandom, who might be worried about their future employment prospects with their existing employer but who'd rather not leave Ozmate.

I'm told the interest among current SQ pilots has to date been underwhelming.

'Lee Con You' is about right.

[ditchy]

Spad,
I know a few expats who are considering this position.Personally,I think you are probably right about the tactics used by SIA,but your insistence on including the inevitable reference to the 'S****' in your posts devalues it in the eyes of people who have not been through your experiences.I am not trying to criticise you, but pointing out that your message is put in the category of "just another 89er blowing off" by the very people you want to take it seriously.

[Spad]

The fact remains, what I said SQ is hoping for is still more than likely true. They'll get a few applicants from within SQ with pressing family problems or who've made their money and just want to go home to something other than retirement, but there aren't too many of that second category around. I daresay they'll also get a few from outside who are willing to pay the price demanded to get the 777 or 747 endorsement.

And I accept that you're right, Ditchy. 89 is an instant turn-off for anyone who wasn't affected. However, if the Lufthansa and BA threads now current on R&N are anything to go by, (ie, their threats to strike if necessary demanding a 30% pay rise), I think there might soon be quite a few more out there who:
(1) will wish they hadn't 'turned off' quite so quickly whenever 89 was raised, and
(2) will at last understand how deep and long lasting the bitterness can be against turncoats and blow-ins in such emotional situations.

[Tosh26]

Any “star-dusted” wannabes out there who might still be considering a serious application to SIA (Mauritius) for a B777 Captain job, based in either Perth or Brisbane might like to consider the following further points:

SIA (Mauritius) is a recruiting/contract pilot management company with an accommodation address in Mauritius. It is unclear who are the shareholders but it is abundantly clear that the redoubtable SIA SVPFO, Maurice de Vaz, is a director and prime mover.

The “contract” you would receive and require to abide by to the letter, from SIA (Mauritius), if you were rash enough to accept a job offer, would be entirely one-sided, contain no employee safeguards enforceable in an Australian court (or any other court) and would be subject to change at the whim of SIA (Mauritius) without any form of consultation with the employee group concerned - business as usual – just like SIA proper!

The terms of the “contract” in respect of flying/duty hours would in no way be constrained by the Collective Agreement (CA) which may be in force for the time being between SIA and ALPAS in Singapore – as it presently is for ex-pat pilots based in the Republic. Hence pilots would be required to fly for the maximum hours permitted by the Authority (Civil Aviation Authority Singapore) with no overtime payments beyond 75 hours per month. Please think in terms of 100 flight hours per 28 days and 1000 flight hours per 12-month period – in fact the kind of “productivity” which SIA is currently trying to squeeze out of ALPAS and hence all Singapore based pilots.

The job would not involve cosy rotations between Perth/Brisbane – Singapore and back home for tea with the wife and kids, as the ad implies but would involve the new fodder being pitched into the full 777 network, via Singapore, with only statutory days off guaranteed in home base, either Perth or Brisbane.

The wonderful remuneration offered is “approximately AUD 168,000” and is the new improved rate, published before the present impasse in Singapore is resolved between SIA and ALPS – now 2 years and 4 months old! Included in this figure is what SIA call “incentive flying allowance”, which I would imagine is pitched at around S$33.00/AUD37.00 per flying hour. Hence, if a pilot is reckoned to be good for around 950 flying hours a year (he will be), this relates to a sum of AUD35,150. Similarly, the “year-end bonus” (shoved in so that it can be reduced at will to reflect “changed market conditions” ;) will probably turn out to be around 15% of salary or AUD17,350. These calculations mean the base salary (only on which the prudent pilot will rely) will amount to around AUD115,500 – or S$102,450/USD56,300. Wannabes may wish to ponder this one and compare with the KAL first year pay of S$227,100/USD124,800 for 70 flying hours per month and in addition to which is payable an annual bonus plus hotac in SEL/down route plus per dium whilst away from home station. Any flying over 70 hours per month is subject to a generous overtime agreement.

There is a double taxation treaty between S.Korea and Australia – hence KAL arranges to pay a notional tax bill on behalf of the contracted pilot who then does not have a home country tax liability. Needless to say there is no such arrangement with SIA (Mauritius)! OZ residents expect to pay 48% on the “package”.

On the question of a “bonus depending on the company’s performance” (presumably SIA rather than SIA (Mauritius)), and if this is not the same as the previously mentioned “year-end bonus”, be advised that this is under constant pressure from SIA in Singapore as it seems that the more profit the company makes, the less bonus it wants to give to its employees.

Finally, it can safely be assumed that the ad is pitched at non-rated pilots as not even the most half-witted rated pilot would go anywhere near this bunch, so all remaining candidates would be well and truly bonded and bank guaranteed (and hence at the tender mercy) well before any training took place.

All wannabes are advised to insist on exact details before proceeding! Hope this is useful.

[titan]

4 month bonus?? hmmm. Let me use my crystal ball for a monent:

- All that bad publicity from SQ006
- refusal of the insurance companies to pay up the SQ006 costs
- very poor status of all Asian currencies against the $US
- lack of experienced pilots for new 777s
- major management fallouts and rudderless direction of the company
- history of whimsical bonus variation by the company
- loss making performances of Air NZ and Ansett

Well, if you really think flying a bigger plane makes you a bigger person, then go for it. Sure hope the rest of your life stays together to support your dissappointment.

[tulips]

Tosh26, thank you for an informative post!

A couple of questions, for clarity:
Regarding the legal position of a pilot based in Oz in this way. I would have thought that he would HAVE to comply with Oz laws, irrespective of whether he signs a contract with SIA-M. Surely if SIA-M allowed 1500 hours per year and CASA allowed only 1000, he would have to comply? After all, he is working, earning and paying tax in OZ. Thus he must enjoy the benefit of the country's legal system (and comply to it).
Similarly, in the event of a dispute. SIA-M cannot be just a paper company in Oz. There has to be a tangible, legal company that employs people in Oz (otherwise it could not pay in AUD!), that files company statements with the Revenue authorities, etc. During a contract violation by SIA-M or a dispute, could the pilot not take the Oz company to the Oz courts for redress?

I have no intention of applying for the position, but am interested as the above would hold water in most Western countries (abide by the local laws, have a local company registered, pay the local taxes, etc). Is it very different in Oz?

If you have more info on this, I am sure that a number of pilots would find it useful.

[Tosh26]

Tulips

As I understand things, it works like this:

1. SIA (Mauritius) interviews pilots crazy enough to fall for all the drivel in the ads.
2. In the interview, these naïve candidates are then taken in by all the flannel that Maurice de Vaz will dish out (usually he doesn’t bother to explain to the guys – no girlies here – that he is the SVP Flt Ops and hence the architect of all SIA pilots’ misery, preferring just to be called Maurice!) and if he thinks them suitable fodder for the 777 inferno (i.e. in the present pilot shortage climate, having at least some gliding and hot air ballooning experience), then he will inform the HR dupe who will be “conducting” the interviews and a letter of offer will be sent out to the intended victims for signatures which are construed as acceptance of the job offers plus the “terms and conditions” hazily laid out in a page and a half of big writing with some joined up bits as well.
3. At this stage no sight will be offered of whichever document governs the agreement between the pilots and the employing company (either an SIA (Mauritius) contract or the Collective Agreement between SIA and ALPAS in Singapore). These are only available when the individual pilot leaves the former employer and is firmly committed to join the vale of tears. Any pilot insisting on sight of these vital documents is considered “unsuitable”.
4. Those pilots with right of residence/work in OZ (vital qualifications in the present case of the proposed 777 outstation pilot contracts) and who are “successful” in the recruiting process will be shipped across to Singapore with the rest of the sheep and fleeced of their bank guarantee money (S$45,000/USD25,000), following which they will then be obliged to sign a humungus bond with SIA, to “cover the cost of training” on the 777 (Boeing price for conversion USD25,000 – SIA price USD193,300 – see any relationship in the numbers here?) which will keep the guys around for 5 years servitude – see all previous SIA threads and the hundreds of postings which refer to this matter.
5. SIA (Mauritius) has then completed its initial responsibility – that is delivering the lost souls for their branding and indoctrination in the SIA Training Centre, Upper Changi Road. Next, the clever bits. SIA (Mauritius) is the contracting company, so it pays the pilots directly in to whichever bank account is specified, in whichever country is nominated (money originating from SIA, Maurice presiding over this operation). Other posters have mentioned this before but usually, the pilots will try to get away with paying no income tax to the Revenue Authority of country of residence and this dodge has been successful over the years, for example in London where the retired (at 55) BA 744 drivers have been manning the helm of the SIA base for some time now as a nice little supplementary to their main income, the BA pension (explains why Maurice has been able to get away with such low London pay for so long and why no SIN based pilots have ever needed to be posted up there). Of course, the guys have been masquerading as UK non-resident, helpfully providing the UK Inland Revenue with accommodation addresses in Cyprus that are represented as the individuals’ permanent addresses. Now, inevitably, the Revenue has cottoned onto this cosy arrangement and is planning a number of formal audits of the tax affairs of these enterprising operators – with a view to ripping into them for back taxes and punitive fines. Hence you will see that, yes the pilots have to comply with the law of the land of residence – in the case of the ex BA guys, UK and, in the case of any OZ adventurers who go for the presently offered 777 deal, Australia. The advantage to SIA is that through contacting agency SIA (Mauritius) it can pay whatever it cares, to these un-represented outstation pilots, unfettered by any boring old pay agreement between SIA and ALPAS which might eventually be signed in Singapore and which might contain rates higher than desired (by SIA) and productivity lower than desired (by SIA). Through SIA (Mauritius), SIA can also chop and change pay rates depending upon “market conditions” and not give a toss about any productivity deal worked out with ALPAS in Singapore but work these pilots to the statutory maximums of the Authority which issues the SIA Air Operators Certificate (AOC) – in this case CAAS. Inevitably, SIA will have these pilots well and truly by the balls (preferred situation) in that the bank guarantee can instantly be grabbed in Singapore at the slightest sign of dissent (try getting that back in front of a Singapore court), a major corporation with unlimited legal resource will be pursuing the bond (i.e. not SIA (Mauritius) which will in this event firmly take a back seat) and if all else fails, the tax authorities in OZ can be informed of the individual’s present employment/tax situation – and if anyone thinks the latter would not happen, then I think they should push off to live on the nice planet Zorg where everyone is lovely to each other!
6. In terms of legal jurisdictions – well yes, the contract will be governed by Mauritius law (see you in court in Port Louis) but there will be clauses whereby a defaulting pilot may also be pursued in both the Australian and Singapore courts. No prizes for guessing that clauses will not exist to cater for the reverse situation of SIA defaulting on the individual pilot!

This seems to have turned into a bit of an epic – must be something to do with all the fast balls and unilateral contract changes we've all had in Singapore and the feeling that this generates about SIA among the pilots (this one, anyway) – hope it’s helpful.

Best regards

[gaunty]

So I'm likely to be sitting behind people who fall for this claptrap and yet are making the decisions up front. :rolleyes:

Hmmmmmmm nope, with apologies to the REAL pro's therein, not this little black duck.

[tulips]

WOW! Thanks, Tosh.

With the residence requirements, I can see this is firmly aimed at the Australian diaspora. Fair comment also, regarding the likelihood of the pilot not wanting to pay the tax if he can get away with it (natural pilot trait!) But it leaves him totally exposed to SIA spilling the beans on him later; another lever of control.

Sounds like the best option is for guys only to apply for 'proper' SIA jobs. If SIA then want to base pilots elsewhere at, that must be negotiated with ALPAS.

Also only to apply to SIA once the salary package and current disputes are resolved!

Fly safe!

[Gladiator]

Tulips in reference to flight time limitation, CASA would have no say in SIA operations. You will be flying Singapore registered aircraft with a Singaporean license. Therefore under CAAS limitations.

100 hours per month is very realistic. You will be lucky to hit 10 days off per month (not in a row), more like 8 (still not in a row).

Staff travel is a con job. If you buy a interline ticket, you will be told that it is ID75%, but you will pay full fare.

If you get into legal disagreement with SIA/SIA Mauritius, it does not matter that you are in OZ, you will go to a OZ court but follow Mauritius law. Why Mauritius to begin with? Most probably because Mauritius has laws or lack of for SIA to take advantage of you.

Always keep this in the back of your mind, Singapore corporate culture dictates, if they can not exploit you, they do not want you.

[Tosh26]

Actually tulips, the best option is not to bother applying for any SIA job, proper or otherwise.
It’s also instructive to note that non of the SIA OZ 777 drivers are interested in basing Perth/Brisbane – they all want to push off asap to KAL once the back pay and annual bonus has been coughed up!
Gladiator’s comments on SIA “staff travel” are correct. The “privilege” is viewed with contempt, derision and loathing by pilots, more especially as the department actually produces an annual profit from the employees, for SIA, of approx S$4M (the only reason for its existence).

Happy landings

[Anotherpost75]

I’ve followed the 777 debated here with intense personal interest and checked with a couple of the employment agencies that represent Korean Airlines (KAL). They confirm that the starting salary figures used on this thread are substantially correct and that all figures quoted are net of income tax.
KAL does, as stated, pay income tax to the Korean authorities on a notional salary, “earned locally”, for the individual pilots and as there is a double taxation treaty between Korea and most other countries (inc OZ), the pilots flying with KAL are therefore fire proof in their country of residence. Five star hotel accommodation is provided in Seoul between flights, plus down route when flying. A daily allowance is paid in Seoul and down route. There is a generous annual bonus to keep the guys interested and this is under review so I couldn’t get the numbers. Travel to and from nominated home station is by first class confirmed interline flights. Staff travel is the standard unlimited ID 90 basis in F/J/Y class as preferred and based on excursion fares for pilot and family.

It would seem to me that, in the present case, 777 rated OZ pilots returning home from, for instance, Emirates, would be far better off flying 20 days on and 10 off (all as a block at home base) with KAL, rather than going to SIA for very substantially less money, what seems to be very poor treatment and the odd couple of days here and there, throughout the month, back in Perth or Brisbane. More especially as they can live within striking distance of any of the big OZ cities/airports if with KAL.

Alternatively, KAL is happy to base 777 pilots in Brisbane, though the tax situation is not as advantageous – their words, not mine. KAL can fix work permits, in most cases, for non OZ pilots who want to get a toe hold down under.

Both agencies stated that the contract pilots with KAL are very happy with their terms and conditions and KAL go out of their way to keep it that way. I’m sure the agencies would say this anyway but the above seems to be borne out by what’s said by the 744/777 guys I know in KAL.

Guess where I’ve applied to!

[747-436]

Shouldn't be too bad. Apparently London based 744 Capts get something like 8 days flying and then 8 days off. Not bad really I'd say. Half your time spent at home if they do the same in Oz

[B772]

For those interested the current taxation rates in Aust are as follows.

Net income. Marginal rate

0 - 6,000 0%
6001 - 20,000 17%
20,001 - 50,000 30%
50,001 - 60,000 42%
60,001+ 47%

This is a sliding scale system. For example the total tax payable on an income of $50,000 after deductions, credits and rebates is $11,380.

For $100,000 the tax is $34,380

For $150,000 the tax is $57,880

Taxable incomes can be further reduced considerably using well known investment strategies.

[captainschlonger]

Bokomoko

You probably already have the information , but A$168K is not a good salary except if you're in GA.

Jet capts in Ansett and QF domestic get 200+.
737 Capts in AN flying max hours are currently earning close to .25M, and well over after super contribution and DTA included - gotta boost it up like the CX guys do.

However, tax is the killer. I'll pay over A$100K this year and that's no fun when you see it keeping losers and professional social security users.

If you qualify for what KAL are looking for, or even the current Air Japan contracts, better go for that than come here. Any job that'll pay you offshore has to be better

[captainschlonger]

Spad,

You're tragic. The pilots' dispute in Oz was almost 12 (twelve) years ago, and you're still talking about scabs. I suppose you're still having the Saturday afternoon BBQs and burning effigies - is that you?


Better get on with life. There's serious evidence that stress, bitterness, hatred all contribute to cancer. You have to be a prime candidate.

[titan]

I word of humble advice.

I know that those of you applying for these SIA Maurtius positions believe that flying a 777 is the be all and end all. Many of us here on Pprune have been through the SIA grinder and we know what we are talking about. We joined the company believing we would be joining an airline in the same mould as our national carries i.e. Qantas, BA, Air NZ, SAS. How wrong we were. There is no prestige in working for SIA, for you are treated like dirt. You are a cost of production and nothing more. The real losers will be your family, future family or lack there of.
You guys are fortunate in that you have us here to show you the hidden, dark, nasty side of SIA.
Driving a big plane wears off quickly. Be careful and remember that more often than not it is better to have travelled hopefully than to arrive.

[Andu]

What was it about Spad's comment that upset you, Ross?

[Tosh26]

747-436

I don’t know which planet you live on but its not one that SIA has a route structure on. First off it might be better if when you post, you had the facts at hand so you wouldn’t have to write “apparently London based Capts get something like etc, etc”. Secondly, how do you know if what you write is true as you do not state that you are a London based SIA captain (what I state is true – I’m a Singapore based captain) and so presumably you are receiving information second or third hand. And thirdly, you are comparing apples with oranges as a true long-haul operation such as the SIA 744 one, consumes crew flying hours very quickly, whilst a short/medium haul operation such as the SIA 777 one consumes them at a slower rate per 28 days and requires the individual crew member to perform more sectors to reach the 28 day limit (and I’ll tell you right now SIA will use them to the limit) and he/she will therefore inevitably be away from base (Perth or Brisbane) very much more than a London counterpart would be away from LHR.

[Roadrunner]

Captainschlonger

The following refers to you OR the spinally challenged mates you are supporting.

I’ll tell you what’s tragic my friend.
People like yourself talking about your inflated salaries, (re Oz standards) when we all know what you did to be in a position to earn them. By the way, don’t complain about tax, as it is an inevitable part of your decision from 11yrs ago. I know a lot of people that would love to earn the sort of money that would attract 100K tax per annum. I’m talking really good people…….

The other tragedy is that you are unaware that your line re the dispute being over 11yrs ago and needs to be forgotten is even more worn out than the inevitable frequent reference to you and your fine upstanding mates.

Unlike some, I very rarely have cause to think of you and your kind. I’d have to say it does amuse me to read the good old, let’s forget and move on drivel. I guess that sort of thinking is to be expected from many of your contemporaries.

In closing, don’t be so naive as to believe that your perfidy and avarice will ever dilute with time.

No, I’m not bitter and twisted. Actually, from where I’m sitting, things look pretty fine and beaut.


Ciao

[Hung Like A Horse]

No, I'm not bitter and twisted, I just hate:

other people getting ahead,
other people talking about getting ahead,
other people enjoying life,
other people engaging in debate,
other people thinking or doing what I didn't,
other people

[Roadrunner]

Hung like a flee

Rather lame reply old boy.
Not concerned about people getting ahead one little bit, it's the way they do it.

Many of us OS have managed to get well ahead, there is no jealousy there I can assure you.

[Tosh26]

Contrary to what I had written in earlier posts, I’ve just heard that the 777 pilots proposed to be based in Perth/Brisbane are to be paid within the Australian system, rather than treated as their SIA London based counterparts, who are paid “off-shore” by SIA (Mauritius).
There is only one reason behind any move made by SIA and that is bottom line cash.
One of the very neat things about this latest basing manoeuvre is that any SIA corporation tax liability generated by the OZ revenue stream and payable down-under, can be reduced by off-setting the cost of OZ based pilot salaries against this local liability. Much better if the pilots pay the OZ tax bill rather than SIA!

Pilots who have applied for this number can now properly judge their importance in the scheme of things and be proud of the potential assistance they may be able to make to corporate well being.

If only the flight ops department was so imaginative!!

[tulips]

Tosh26, an interesting development. It would appear to add credence to my presumption on the previous page. If the pilot is rendering his services in Oz, and being remunerated in Oz, then he is technically employed in Oz. Maybe by SIA-OZ?!?! (Thus you could possibly ask that your bond be lodged and held in Oz, although I doubt that you would get far on that!!)

I would also be confident that all employees of the Oz Company would have to work within the limits of CASA. If the CAAS limits are tighter, fine; if looser, then the CASA ones would apply. Comments?

You would also have access to the Oz courts in the event of a dispute (something that seems likely with SIA, reading this thread!) and you could cite SIA-OZ (or equivalent). A bit radical?

I don't see much wrong with a company doing things to improve the bottom line, provided the corporation acts in a fair and equitable manner as a normal matter of course (I expect to get picked up on that caveat!). Reducing their tax liability is good business practice. If they offer you a salary of, say 10 000 dollars and you live in Oz, you are legally obliged to pay the tax on it. If they offer you the same salary and they pay it in Oz, you will also pay the tax on it. So your nett salary is identical. The only difference the pilot could claim is that he intended to evade the tax (illegally) by not declaring it if it was paid offshore, thus increasing his nett package. This is clearly a dubious argument at best, and would not hold water in any serious negotiations.

So at this stage, the prospective pilot purely has to decide whether the offered gross salary (taxable) plus offered benefits (if any) are worth it or not. Depending on their current employment and personal circumstances, some will say yes, some will say no.

Obviously this does not make the associated issues (collective agreement, benefits) go away, and from past experiences the SIA pilots have good reason to be skeptical.

Generally, this thread has been an interesting and informative exchange of ideas, facts and speculation. Just as it should be! I understand and acknowledge that '89 was a harrowing and emotional time for some people and their families. However, most of the people reading PPRuNe are not Australian and are not interested in what happened 12 years ago. That topic had a VERY thorough airing here a few years back. It would be sad if a minority engaging in cyber-warfare and the mudslinging and name-calling that inevitably ensue spoiled this thread. Besides, '89 is completely off-topic.
Just my opinion!!!

[twitchy]

No way CASA limits boys. if SIA had to make you guys work anything less than the CAAS of Singapore, than you are not required here in SIA. They wan to increase their profitabily by hiring you there in oz. So you nbetter watch out. I hope you have reffered to other threads where it was high lighted about the Indians. You know what these guys had to go through. A total cheating on SIA's part. Don't think this is a very good offer for you, rather its a golden opportuniy for SIA to hire the fodder at less cost than before. If you want to be begger here in SQ , you qre most welcone.

Hey Guys any update on the CA in the Arbitration Court of Leepublik of Stingapore.

[addinfurnightem]

Tosh26 - LHR based SIA pilots are not paid "offshore". They are part of the BA payroll, have BA Staff Numbers and are paid in the UK.
Titan - No insurance claim has been refused by the underwriters, just off the 'phone from London.

[Insider107]

Tosh26

Re your post of 10 April, I think your source might be a bit off-course in respect of the employment and payment mechanism that SQ would use for pilots at its proposed Perth and Brisbane bases.
Above all else, SQ requires to have absolute control of its pilots, therefore:

1. If employed in and paid from Mauritius, pilots would have a very difficult time pursuing a dispute in a Port Louis court and a much easier time in an Australian court. So for max control, employ/pay through Mauritius.
2. A pilot bond/bank guarantee lodged in Australia would be far easier to litigate successfully in that country, in the event of a dispute, than in Singapore, where it would be virtually impossible to litigate with any measure of success. So for max control, specify in the Mauritius contract that the bond/bank guarantee be lodged in Singapore.
3. An Australian employment contract (including rates of pay and annual pay increments) would be very difficult to unilaterally alter at the whim of the employer, with zero employee consultation. A Mauritian contract …… well you've guessed it.
4. Employees of an Australian registered company could form a local pilots' association/union with the full backing of Australian law. Perhaps not something that SQ would like to contemplate ……. So, you've again guessed the solution to this little problem.
5. Any contractual problems that might arise could be firmly pushed to the SIA (Mauritius) in-tray, to be dealt with by that master of evasion and obfuscation, Captain Maurice de Vaz, supposedly without any slur on the "reputation" of SIA proper
6. Any agreement between ALPAS and SQ in respect of Singapore based pilot productivity can be ignored and the Mauritius contract can specify max flight/duty hours as prescribed by CAAS. Annual leave entitlement can be reduced from the present ex-pat pilots' six weeks to the national pilots' four weeks.

Once absolute control is established and the naïve employees are fully shackled, cynical consideration is then given to saving as much cost of employment as possible, regardless of any resulting detriment to the employee group concerned. So, given that the prime reason for Australian recruiting is to pull in fresh meat that otherwise would not consider Singapore basing, the secondary (only just) reason is to cut cost in the following areas:

1. Ex-pat housing allowance can be dispensed with.
2. Shipping allowance for personal effects also goes.
3. Schooling allowance need not be paid.
4. Provident fund not provided.
5. The annual 4 x ID90's granted to ex-pats can be forgotten.

Now whilst it can be argued that the above may be legitimate, immediate cost savings by SQ, in its drive to recruit Australian based pilots, it must not be forgotten that, very shortly in the future, these savings will be used as levers against the Singapore based, bonded/bank guaranteed ex-pat pilots, who SQ are now attempting to split from ALPAS and the national pilots, in an attempt to further reduce their package costs, which include the above, citing "uncertain economic outlook" as the rational. All pilots ill advisedly considering applying for Singapore based positions may wish to ponder this.
On the point of corporation tax, SQ merely has a liability in Singapore (26%) and can set the cost of Mauritius contracted, Australian based pilots, against this liability - just as it does with the cost of Mauritius contracted, London based pilots. I am unaware of any move to set up SIA (Australia), which company would be liable to conform to the full panoply of Australian law, including the employment protection act and the provisions of the finance act in force for the time being.

Finally, as a contrast in company styles, I'd like to quote Raw Data's post of 11 April on the thread "Bonds. Legal or not in UK Law?" (http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/013345.html)
Quote

"The point is, a good American company will make you want to work for them. A British company will try and prevent you leaving. It is a fundamental difference in approach. Sadly, we (ie the Brits) have a long, long way to go in the area of employee satisfaction. If your employees are happy, they won't leave. Your company will make lots more money with committed, happy employees. The Americans have learned that this is the cheapest and most effective way to run a business".

Readers have only to substitute Singaporean for British.

[Wiley]

Like 'Hung like a Horse', (see "SQ006 Revisited" thread), I've always suspected that 'Titan' and 'Gladiator' might have had a not too hidden agenda in their pursuit of SQ. However, I was in Singapore last week, and had arranged to see a friend who works for SQ. He couldn't make it - he'd been called out for a flight. But he wasn't complaining, because he'd worked out that the only way he could get any leave was to fly until he 'max-ed out' on his flying hours for the year - which he was very close to achieving.

It will be interesting to see how and where SQ finds crews for the 14 new 777's soon to join their fleet. You can't help but wonder if something approaching the following scenario hasn't been touted around a Singapore boardroom. (If it has, it might explain the seemingly suicidal tendencies among AN senior managers in their mishandling of their 767 fleet maintenance.)

Let's see... SQ own a big slice of ANZ, who own AN, and SQ own a big slice of Virgin Atlantic, who are run by the same man who owns Virgin Blue, whose staff, (including pilots), come far, far more cheaply than the very well paid AN pilots and the very long term AN engineering and ground staff. How do we (literally) kill two birds with one stone? - ie, get cheap 777 BONDED pilots for our Australia basings AND get to run a domestic operation within Australia far, far more cheaply than we currently are using Ansett?

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean the b*****'s aren't after you.

[burnoff]

Wiley,
Virgin Blue is a completely seperate company from Virgin Atlantic.
Also, I do not believe that the domestic Oz market is big enough to warrant 777 just yet. Pax still prefers higher frequency services between cities where the 767 and 737/A320 is doind just fine.
As for crewing of the new 777, not too many are needed now as quite a number of them will be PARKED in Arizona.

[FLARE DAMIT]

Burnoff, vigin blue might be seperate to virgin atlantic, but sure has the sponership of the Branson off shore hidden money involved in it, and being part owned by SQ, these boys are in it to make money at any cost: hence the crap pay deals at virgin and SQ's compulsion with screwing its pilots.

[Wiley]

burnoff, I meant Virgin Blue or possibly Air New Zealand's 737s and 767s, not a new Singapore Airlines Australian domestic carrier.

[titan]

Wiley
"I've always suspected that 'Titan' and 'Gladiator' might have had a not too hidden agenda in their pursuit of SQ"

Is this a statement or a question?
Are you attacking our arguments or supporting them?
Please try lucidating rather than riddling.