CX Sponsoring Illegal Pilots

[Apple314]

The flight department has finally discovered that most of the Canadians based in the US have been working there illegally for years and are trying to make things right with the US government.

They are now paying $50k USD per Canadian captain to get them US visas that will eventually lead to them getting green-cards.

Another example of inequity amongst the pilot group, and lack of respect for US employment law. I wonder how long this will be allowed to go on before the US pilots revolt and start sending off emails to US ALPA, ICE, government officials, etc., about foreign workers being brought-in to take American jobs??

Discuss..

[KAG]

American jobs??
Or chinese jobs...

[Tornado Ali]

Soooo, i'm a Canadian captain based in Canada. Some of my fellow Canadian colleagues are going to be sponsored by CX to the rare and valuable US Green Card...? Ok, so, I would like that same benefit thanks. I am sure the company is keen on being seen to be fair. Please Mr. L, where can I pick up my application paperwork? And of course, seniority will be honoured in this case as usual....right? A few other questions to follow....

(...um, how do the REAL Americans in the company feel about the precious US base slots being filled for many many years by Canadians....and thereby keeping those properly entitled out of their own county's base....? just wondering...)

[flyhardmo]

What about the Americans on the Canadian bases

[Mooseflyer]

Employment Without a Work Permit

The following are additional examples of employment in which a foreign national may engage within Canada without the requirement of a work permit:

as a member of a crew who is employed by a foreign company aboard a means of transportation that
(i) is foreign-owned and not registered in Canada, and
(ii) is engaged primarily in international transportation;

[Maple Leafs]

Standby while I break out my hauberk. Now if I only had eyes in the back of my head?

[Cpt. Underpants]

Hi Moose

The statute you're quoting is aboot irregular employment, as in aircrew in transit and so on, not permanent employment on a base, resident or non-resident in Canada. I am pretty sure that the intent of the law wrt crew in transit is definitive, eh.

I guess you could always claim "natural person" status and unencumbered by national laws.

Oh yes, that doesn't work.

[GTC58]

Hey Mooseflyer

The law does not apply. You are not employed by a foreign employer but rather a Canadian, the onshored CX, as far as the Canadian authorities are concerned. Why do you need a Canadian SIN, had to fill out a T1 and receive T4's? Why are you responsible to pay CPP and EI? Don't be confused with how CX onshored, because this is causing all the problems at the moment. The only reason why this is not an issue at the moment is that the Canadian immigration authorities are not aware that these American individuals are employed in Canada as the CRA does not forward this information to them.

Apple

Where did you hear the 50k per captain for a visa? The number I have heard is not even 5% of your claim!

[elgringo]

I read the title of the thread and thought you were talking about Mexicans....



Sponsoring Canadians in US bases...pisses me off. I'd love be based in Toronto and fly the 777. But... CAN NOT since I am US Citizen, and YES I have the Seniority.. Fair? I think NOT.

It is strange since there are a bunch of DEFO's (US and junior to me) that are in Toronto... it is all a mess.. Seniority means NADA...CX does as it wants, when it wants, how it wants..PERIOD.

[CokeZero]

So where do I sign up to get my Green Card?

[Flap10]

They are now paying $50k USD per Canadian captain to get them US visas that will eventually lead to them getting green-cards.

huh??? Where are you getting this info from???

I thought to keep a green card one has to reside in the U.S. I doubt most of the Canadians are willing to move their families south.

[Tornado Ali]

Haha, yea, you're right....why would you want to live in Phoenix when you could live in Edmonton (in January!). Seriously, CX lurches from one fiasco to the next, and all the time messing up the lives and finances of it's own employees. The ONLY requirement is to cover CX's own ass. When are we going to make a stand against ALL the gross violations of our career conditions, and the ongoing assault against our financial security. As it stands now, I am expected to pay full tax in both Canada AND HK. What little gem will the basings office throw our way next?:mad:

[Flap10]

Haha, yea, you're right....why would you want to live in Phoenix when you could live in Edmonton (in January!).

For the same reason they left a tropical climate....it aint home!!!!

[flynhigh]

Why can't they just move to U.S. guys to U.S. and Canadian back to Canada...I know some might need to change fleet..but the training cost is lot less than what they are trying to do....

[SMOC]

HDFU CX is a prick of airline to work for, if you decide to work for it expect 3rd world working conditions it's in China!

I'm afraid aviation is supply and demand now, don't expect anything more from CX it's no longer a Legacy carrier.

[sadde6]

This is the first time I've posted here after observing this forum for years. I just couldn't let this one fly without comment. First off we need to distill this discussion down to what all the complaints directed at the Canadians is all about. This isn't about the legal issues or how the company could of set things up differently, this is about jealousy plain and simple.

Apple 314, how long have you been here? I've been here for 17 years and based in LAX for 11 and commuting to Canada. The company had me sign up for an ITIN an American tax payer identification number and I file along with every other Canadian based in the US every year based on a percent of time flown in US airspace and from there a tax exposure is determined, so go ahead and approach the gov authorities, sorry to disappoint you but it's already been done, I guess you won't be able to take any pleasure by exposing all of us (Illegal workers) and by the way you wouldn't be the first American to contact the authorities recently to pursue personal gain. In addition what has changed recently since you joined Apple 314, were these policies of allowing anybody on any base within Cathay's network not in effect when you joined and suddenly all these snowbacks have come down and taken your job, of course not, many of us were there long before you even heard of the name Cathay, you just don't like the conditions you joined under and are now having a hissy fit trying to get them changed and trying to screw me an my family for personal gain.

Before you start throwing numbers out (50K) due your homework and go talk to the basings manager the figure is 2500.00 usd but you we're close. If it makes you feel any better I'm a young captain and I'll have your coveted base for another 20 years. I've provided you with all the info you need to identify me so feel free to contact me or should I just wait to have your government official arrest me the next time I pass through immigration. This all seems to be a all to common theme on pprune, if you don't like the conditions you signed up for blame someone else for your poor decision making.

[airplaneridesrfun]

If you look into it a little further, there are criminal and monetary penalties if a Crew-member does not have a C-1 and D-1 Visa AS well as if the crew-member makes false statements to the immigration officer. With a green card, the Canadians will have to finally pay US tax. Maybe this will lead to triple taxation for them. It would be nice if these violators of law would be required to return to Hong Kong (both US citizens in Canada and Canadian citizens in the US) and the bases rebid in seniority order. That would solve everything.

[Avius]

As with the Amsterdam base situation, I think, the company is doing the right thing, to make sure the Canadian guys can stay at their US bases. I'm a US citizen and possibly affected by this, but come on, there are more important moral issues at hand here. To do something by choice is not the same as being forced to.

The canadian guys took the bases when they were available to them and under the premise, that they will be able to commute to and from work. They have done absolutely nothing wrong.

Given that assurance, their families have adjusted their entire lives and to take that away -just because some government buerocrats changed their mind- is just plain wrong.

I would expect the company to do the same thing for me and my family if it was the other way around.

Some people on this forum are talking as if seniority is the "holy grail" of everything. It might be so for the initial bidding of a base, but once based, many other criteria come into play, seniority being just one of them.

That is how it works everywhere in the world - except the USA. Personally, I believe, the US style seniority system is nothing but a form of ponzi scheme, that has helped to create unprofitable Airlines, resulting in equal dissatisfaction amongst airline employees, passengers and shareholders alike.

A system with no winners, except the few with tenure at the top of the seniority lists.

[airplaneridesrfun]

Any illegal being harbored at CX should be given the chance to return to HKG immediately, or find other employment. Then a massive new bid can take place throughout the system in order to rectify the current issue. Those senior enough to hold a base in their home country can certainly take any position available, and if an aircraft type change is required, use their joker. I guess then we would really be able to see how many Canadians are in US bases, and American's are in Canadian bases.

If you are telling me that those pilots violating immigration law throughout the system have done so without understanding the consequences, then I would respond to you that they should have read their contract and the basings agreement before bidding on a base. I realize these guys have families; so do I. Not only are they illegal, but they are not contributing to the tax base of the US government - something that those US citizens in HKG that want a base would be happy to do. Kind of like hiring a Mexican without a green-card as a nurse, when there are plenty of US citizen/green card holders that may be looking for a nursing job.

CX managers and CX are liable for harboring these employees as per the US immigration regulations. If they are not careful, some manager may be surprised when Swire does not come to bail them out; and some pilots may be surprised when the US government informs them that not only are they forbidden from entering the US and it's territories, but also that they owe $300k in back taxes, fines, and fees.

For those that are worried; look at the law, don't make excuses why you are special and can get around it. It's not going to be fun if you show up at work in the USA 5 hours before your flight, only to be informed that you are being deported.

[GTC58]

If all the Canadian Captains would have to vacate their US bases and these 45 slots would be made available for bid, most would be not filled.

Most Americans at CX are not senior enough to hold a Passenger Command. Proof me wrong, but last time I checked there are not too many Americans with a seniority # in the high 900s. As we all know all new command positions are within seniority offered in Hong Kong. Only captains or when commenced the command course one is able to bid a base slot.

In reality this means that most of these US positions could not be filled if offered and these flights would be crewed with Hong Kong crews.

Plain and simple.

[airplaneridesrfun]

GTC,
Please tell me how you check who has what nationality to 'proof' you wrong on your statement that there would not be enough US pilots to hold US passenger commands? There are enough US FO's that are on BPP and extremely close to command to fill any gaps that may ensue in CX's bid to comply with the law. There also are enough FO's and possibly SO's waiting for a slot in certain bases around the US. There has been a lack of slots available for bid in the last few years in the US bases, and pent up demand remains.

[GTC58]

Airplaneridesfun

Just an educated guess, as CX was not hiring too many Americans until 8-9 years ago.

you said
If you are telling me that those pilots violating immigration law throughout the system have done so without understanding the consequences, then I would respond to you that they should have read their contract and the basings agreement before bidding on a base.

My Basings agreement says the following:

16.5 Based Officers will be responsible for ensuring that they comply with any immigration and/or visa requirements of the relevant authorities in the Officers choice of residence although the Company will render Officers reasonable assistance wherever possible.

Doesn't say anything about my base.

Anyways, your interpretation of the law is incorrect at least according to DL and CXs immigration lawyers. Presently it is absolutely legal to commute for Canadians to the US, employed by a foreign company, operating foreign aircraft. However, when a visa application will be made (like CX is doing now) and the INS would deny issuing a visa then it becomes for the Canadian individual illegal to be based in the US.

I don't understand where this sudden anger is coming from. Most of the Canadians are on their US bases for many years. Nothing will change with the visa application as these are for Canadians already on a US base.
The Americans working for the onshored CX Canada are actually illegals plus seem to be on the bottom of the seniority list and I recommend you try to write your posts not so confrontational as I can see some of my Canadian co-workers getting pi$$ed off and tipping off the Canadian authorities. That wouldn't be nice as we are all seem to get along on the line and in the bar without having any issues.

On a side note these Visa's are for Canadian nationals only, if you have another nationality you are out of luck.

[Avius]

airplaneridesrfun,

It seems you want to use a machete where a scalpel is more appropriate. I believe the goal should be to create as little as possible pain.

Sorry, if your personal agenda is being altered by this (so is mine) but as I said before, there are more important issues here. Seniority is not the only parameter here. In life sometimes you give and sometimes you get. Maybe it is now the time to give. Over the longer term, everybody will be happier.

Agree with GTC58, there is nothing illegal about commuting to the US for work, as CX is a non US company. It certainly did not appear illegal, when the guys took a base.

FedEx has a base in HKG, UPS a base in Germany and all these positions are filled with US guys. I don't see any Germans protesting and claiming entitlement to these jobs.

[Air Profit]

Avius, your mention of Fedex having pilots in HK is a bit deceptive. The significant difference is that Fedex ONLY hires US citizens, thereby making the verifiable claim that due to US law they have to have those people flying their aircraft, no matter where based. CX however has already demonstrated a prima facie case that they can and have hired US citizens where needed. Therefore, to claim that the US based Canadians are 'essential' has already been undermined, as they have US citizens ready and able to do the job. An immigration court in the US would quickly see this argument.

[Avius]

Air profit,

The last time I checked, HKG was not part of the United States, therefore US law is rather irrelevant.

Point is US pilots are based in many foreign countries, despite the availability of local pilots, thus taking local jobs. The policy to hire only US citizens is nothing more than protectionism.

[Air Profit]

Ok Avius...just ignore my point entirely if it makes you feel better. :ugh:

[GTC58]

Air Profit

The first visas are already approved. I guess the INS has a different view than you. You can complain all you want, but that will not change the outcome of the visa process.

[Air Profit]

Really....i'm still waiting for mine....

[Air Profit]

...that would also presume an outcome based on what US immigration was told during the application process. I do wonder if they were made aware that there are many US citizens ready to fill those slots other than a/c type issues to be resolved. It will be interesting to see how certain 'enquiries' of the process will work out over coming months.

ps. I really am waiting for a visa...so i'm hoping for the best...but a top $ immigration lawyer that I engaged tells me that this won't work. Time will tell...but I sure don't want to move my family to the US if it is only going to be unwound later....

[GTC58]

Air Profit

You have a point nobody knows how CX is spinning it. I don't think any FOs will be approved for a visa however talking to DL it sounded like captains are no problem.

If you don't think you get a visa are you ok with being forced back to Hong Kong?

[Apple314]

First of all, there is not doubt that the Canadians have been knowingly working illegally in the US for years. Their regular place of business, where the majority, if not all of their work originates, is the US. When crossing the border, they are specifically prohibited from engaging in employment, which they chose to ignore. However they and the company try to justify it in their minds, it's still illegal, or why would they now be applying for, and paying alot or money for: WORK VISA'S.

Im sure the company hasn't provided US Immigration with the entire truth also. They are claiming that these captains are "essential" to the operation and that no other suitably qualified US citizen can do the job. Obviously a bold faced lie. If you think that because one or two have already got these visa approved that its a sure thing, you are mistaken. US Immigration is just a small insignificant pawn in this game. Do you think any Congressional Representatives know about this? Senators? Local media outlets looking for a story about the pillaging of American jobs to Canada? Think Customs and Border Control has any idea of foreigners coming in and out of the country under the radar to operate Large Airliners without proper documentation? Think ALPA lawyers would say its okay for foreign pilots to be flying out of a LAX base claiming that no American can do the job? Do the Teamsters know that US based Canadians without visas are operating internal flights: ANC-SFO-LAX, MIA-DFW, ATL-MIA, etc? What about the California State Tax Agency, who also claims a ~10% tax on World Wide Income for California based jobs? Ever reported to them with your tax waiver Sadde6?

Though it may seem otherwise, my anger is NOT directed at Canadians, it is against a morally corrupt company, that shows favoritism to some, and utter disregard to others. Just like you Sadde6, I have a family to look after. The company wont allow Americans to have a base anywhere else, but allow, promote, and now assist others to come onto the only base we are capable of getting. Just as you said, you got my base for the next 20 years. FO pay aint going to cut it that long. So just like you have to do right for your family, I must for mine.

The company AND the AOA(dont know why i still pay dues) have tried to keep this quiet and out of sight, for obvious reasons, but if we are to make this an equitable environment for ALL our pilots, then this cannot be allowed to go on. This isnt a vendetta against the Canadians, its a call for change and equality for the pilot group. For those senior who want the base, for those who would like to get a visa paid for and organized by the company, and also for my future. How many "exceptions" should be allowed? None. If so then everyone would claim a right to one and keep screwing each other.

So if you agree, then email your Congressman, your local news station, the AOA, the company, US Immigration, US ALPA, the Teamsters Union, California State Tax Agency, Obama, let them know how you feel about this issue. They all love a good cause...

(by the way, thanks for motivating me Sadde6, I was happy to just discuss this and vent a little on PPrune, but now you've inspired me. see you in LAX, if they open up the base that is)

[2 cents]

Apple 314,

So lets get this straight, you want to use every possible method conceivable to remove guys with 10+ years of seniority over you off a Base so that you can have it? What an absolute piece of #$@% you are!! Kinda like that other well known freighter weasel and his escapades.

You can be inspired all you want, it's unlikely you'd get through a Command anyway.

[Tornado Ali]

Let's put this in perspective a bit shall we. Imagine that the Sydney base was full of Americans....who the company is now going to get visa's for because the Aus govt has just said that they need to be documented. Then also imagine the Australians still stuck in HK are told that the base will remain full of Americans...and probably block the base slots for the next 10-20 years. No, I can't imagine that the Aussies would have a problem with that at all.

Right. Now why is it SO UNREASONABLE for most of us to think that this situation with the US base is a travesty?? :mad:

[Tornado Ali]

I should add that the fact the US Govt has insisted on proper visas should be the point that the company says to those concerned that the gig is up. Time to go home, wherever that may be. If the US Govt has an issue with 'documentation', then basically it means they shouldn't have been there in the first place. Whether they have '10 years seniority' or not is irrelevant. How can ANYONE justify the company undermining the 'ownership' of a particular base slot against the interests of that country's own nationals. Imagine if they started doing that to other bases, there would be howls of protest. This issue is NOT going to go away quietly....I am sure of that.

[GTC58]

Apple

you said

They are claiming that these captains are "essential" to the operation and that no other suitably qualified US citizen can do the job.

If you go on the USCIS website and research the conditions attached to the L-1A visa you will see that no other suitably qualified US citizen can do the job is not a requirement to receive the visa.

Don't forget you work for a foreign company.

[BusyB]

Playing Devils Advocate.

If we assume that guys are taken off bases at conflict with their nationality the next steps would be:_
1) Does CX declare a vacancy there, if not ( a possible surplus already) then no-one else will get the base until it is open again.
2) If a vacancy is announced it would be in seniority order and, if for a Captain ,he would have to have the appropriate citizenship. If no suitable Captain then it would have to be operated from HKG as a N/S.

There is no agreement for out of seniority commands to satisfy based Captain vacancies.

Personally, although I think seniority should be the final arbiter this thread is tainted by spite and vindictiveness which does not bode well for any consultations with CX.:*

[Tornado Ali]

No, it's not 'spite' and 'vindictiveness'. It's the fact that the company is once again playing fast and loose with the career expectations of a particular group of employees. The value of a base is a tangible thing, and to deliberately undermine the criteria of ONE base ONLY, in favour of a group of individuals against the reasonable expectations of those who by birth have the right and desire to be there is outrageous. As I said previously. I would like to be based in Sydney....so i'm sure it will be perfectly ok for the company to obtain a visa for me, and then I will block that slot from a HK based Aussie and his family for the next decade or so....? Seems fair doesn't it. Forget spite and vindictiveness.....how about just moral outrage? Good enough for you. I can assure you that this issue is going to be finding it's way to EVERY interested party until this CRAP is stopped dead in it's tracks. If you can't see the inherent unfairness in what's happening then you must be a Canadian based in the US.

[GTC58]

Tornado Ali

All these Canadians are on US bases for many years probably even before you got hired. What is changing you career expectations now with them getting visas???? Just curious .....

[Tornado Ali]

The difference is prior to the NEW RULES, I had the opportunity to go and bid for ANY base, just like the Canadians are effectively still being allowed to do in the case of the USA. I no longer have the opportunity to bid on any other base, therefore my ONLY basings option is my HOME country....and that is now being LOCKED OUT by people that shouldn't be there UNDER THE NEW RULES. Not really that hard to understand....other than by Canadians who sense they have possibly won a lottery ticket.

[Tornado Ali]

Another point: If I was an American on a Sydney base, and the Aus govt now came along and said only Aussies or documented workers allowed....it is highly likely CX would NOT go and get a visa for me. They are only trying to do this because they have a bigger problem on the US bases, because they allowed so many non-americans on the base. I don't think this issue will go quietly....as there are too many Americans who are being marginalised by this decision. Effectively, CX is helping a small group of employees 'steal' a very valuable asset from people who should rightfully have an expectation of moving themselves and their families back home. It would be nice to be able to have my children live near their grandparents back in Denver....but apparently CX thinks that not only should Canadians take up the Canadian bases....they should also lock up all the American ones too. Yea, I think i'll just roll over and let that happen without a fight. Letters and visits to certain politicians offices will be the order of the day going forward.

[Tornado Ali]

Another point: If I was an American on a Sydney base, and the Aus govt now came along and said only Aussies or documented workers allowed....it is highly likely CX would NOT go and get a visa for me. They are only trying to do this because they have a bigger problem on the US bases, because they allowed so many non-americans on the base. I don't think this issue will go quietly....as there are too many Americans who are being marginalised by this decision. Effectively, CX is helping a small group of employees 'steal' a very valuable asset from people who should rightfully have an expectation of moving themselves and their families back home. It would be nice to be able to have my children live near their grandparents back in Denver....but apparently CX thinks that not only should Canadians take up the Canadian bases....they should also lock up all the American ones too. Yea, I think i'll just roll over and let that happen without a fight. Letters and visits to certain politicians/labor leaders offices will be the order of the day going forward. I sincerely hope CX has represented ALL the true and relevant facts to the authorities...because you can be certain they will soon be in possession of a wealth of facts to consider. The best solution, in light of the new residency requirements on a base is to reset the clock, and make room in Canada for Canadians, and the US for Americans. Any other solution is going to lead to a very unpleasant time....

[BusyB]

One has to worry about the state of mind of those who repeat themselves:hmm:

If grandfather rights don't matter then maybe CX should sack everybody who hasn't got a right of abode in HKG at this time.:)

[Tornado Ali]

You can't 'grandfather' nearly an entire base to citizens of another country, just because of an anomaly in the way it was originally staffed. Why are you incapable of seeing that CX is bending the rules for a single base, to the exclusion of the rights of the now 100+ legal citizens of that country already employed? Again, it would be fair if they did this for all pilots requesting basing in all bases. To do this in this one instance is highly prejudicial to the Americans employed by CX. Nearly 80% (!) of the base is staffed by non-americans. What exactly is fair about that? I suppose you would be happy to see 80% of the Canadian base staffed by Americans....? btw, most of the Canadians staffed in the US commute back to Canada...so save me your platitudes about 'disrupting their families...! They either need to move to the Canadian bases, or back to HK. They should no longer be able to live with THEIR families in Canada, and also block OUR base from those who really DO want to live with OUR families in the US (where we are from!).

(and as for repeating myself, some of you are so thick and obstinate that it needs repeating until the simple fact of the matter sinks in....)

[BusyB]

Tornado, ( I could have sworn the last post was posted by Air Profit!!!)

Glad to hear you double posted above deliberately and not because you've totally lost all sense of reason.

Not being Canadian or American I have no axe to grind. I do suspect the aggressive attacks on those who originally took bases in good faith will end up being counterproductive.

Out of interest, which base is 80% foreign crewed apart from HK?

[Tornado Ali]

....?? what you on?

Trying to compare HK to the outports is basically showing the weakness of your argument. And, if you aren't a yank or canadian, why WOULDN'T you be worried by this development?? If you are in HK, then one day YOUR base might be locked out by someone who really isn't entitled. If you are on another base...then your really are a smug and arrogant p*ick to not really care about how this affects many of us.

[BusyB]

Grow up,

I'm not making any argument just stating an opinion and asking a question.

No, I'm not on a base and my requested base has been given to someone 13 yrs junior to me.

"smug and arrogant p*ick" imo applies to those who post like you:ok:

[Tornado Ali]

What you seem to be missing is this: when we ALL had the opportunity to bid to ANY base...I didn't have a problem. With the stroke of a pen, DL restricted all of us (except the Canadians apparently) to ONLY the base area from which we are citizens. Because of THAT, I am incensed by the attempt by the company to go the extra mile to help lock out most of our base to citizens of another country, especially when most of them will continue to live and commute back to Canada. If you can't figure our why this is such a travesty, I can't be bothered to explain it to you further. Time will tell how this all plays out, but do you really expect most of the Americans to sit by and watch this happen without a fight?

[Tornado Ali]

Busy, as you said you are neither Canadian or American, would you be satisfied if the company obtained visas for nationals of another country who then staffed nearly 3/4 of your base....permanently? If that is ok with you, then you and I are wasting our time debating this further.

ps. I retract the 'p*ick' comment....that was uncalled for....sorry.

[BusyB]

Can you answer a question or not?

Out of interest, which base is 80% foreign crewed apart from HK?

In answer to your question it already happens in Euroland.:eek:

[Tornado Ali]

Just goes to show how the entire basings concept has been screwed up from the start. The big difference in Euroland is that everyone has the RIGHT to live or work in any given EU nation.....much different than the situation in Canada/US.

[GTC58]

Tornado Ali

Get your facts straight. There are 247 Capt and FO based in the US. 55 are Canadians. That's actually 77% Americans and 23% Canadians.

So it is actually exactly the opposite of your claims. But hey who cares about the truth.

[sadde6]

Tonado Ali,

You are confusing me, you said "when we all had the opportunity to bid any base... I didn't have a problem". What has changed with the Canadians in the US, ALL the Canadians that have a base in the US bid under the old system, the same system you said you didn't have a problem with. Now we all have lost the ability to take bases outside our own country you think the rules should be retroactively changed to allow you to get a base your seniority couldn't hold before the changes, how convenient for you this has all been. You also said that with a stroke of the pen everything has changed (except for the Canadians), one again please enlighten me how the Canadians have been treated differently than every other pilot group, please tell me one pilot who has been kicked off her or his base since these changes.... I'm waiting. What about the Americans in Canada, you don't here a bunch of Canadians whining about losing there base to Americans or do you think they should be sent back to Hong Kong as well. I will support your position for any new Canadian pilots wanting a base in the US as the rules HAVE changed. To me this is just like one of my children having a fit after losing a game and saying they didn't understand the rules when they started playing the game.

[Apple314]

please tell me one pilot who has been kicked off her or his base since these changes.... I'm waiting.Wait no longer: when the UK went onshore, those that didnt have a right to work there where told they had to either get the proper visas or go back to HK, period. There was no exception made for them, nor did the company provide them with legal counsel and visa.

Just because you have been working illegally in the US for 10 years, doesn't give you the right to continue to do so. Thats called amnesty. They wont do it for the Mexicans who have been living there illegally for decades, im sure they wont do it for you.

If you cant see the unfairness of this, as Tornado Ali eloquently described, then there is no room for further discussion. I understand you dont want your situation to change, it is after all a nice deal, but by keeping a US base, you are denying many others their only opportunity to live outside HK.

EVERY other nationality at CX has the ability to get a base in their home country without having a foreign incumbency already in place. American's are the ONLY group being discriminated against. Since the company doesnt appear to be doing anything about it, and the AOA is playing dumb as usual, then the only recourse American's have is to deal with it through their own justice system. I now spend my layovers drafting letters to my Representatives and US ALPA to have a look into this matter. I suggest ALL American pilots do the same to ensure YOUR and your family's future.

[nitpicker330]

So, you've been in CX 10 mins and already you want his basing!!!!!!!!!!!

See this is why Pilots as a group worldwide are farked:mad:

You cannot expect anyone that went on a base 10+ years ago under the rules of the time to just leave now.

This is yet again a right royal ****up by CX, so don't screw the individual.

[GTC58]

Apple

Good luck with that. If the company is not able to get visas they just might base all of the US based Canadians in Canada, reduce the US base slots and PT the then Canadian based Canadians to LAX and SFO to operate flights. This is an absolute legal solution and way cheaper for the company than forcing everyone back to Hong Kong. Case solved.

[sadde6]

Good to see pilots are still the self serving bunch they have always been. Thanks apple for the incentive, my mom is American and I've have never bothered before but I will contact a lawyer tomorrow to achieve a green card to ensure a long term base in LAX. I hope you and your family enjoy your long term expat life.

[airplaneridesrfun]

GTC.... by your theory, the company has the bases for the convenience of Canadians; not for operational considerations when people get sick, break a leg, etc... at the last minute.

Multiply Canada's GDP by 10, and you will arrive at the US GDP. I have a feeling US destinations will be more important in the near future for expansion; especially with our newly appointed American CEO. I wonder what JS would think if he knew CX was illegally employing Canadians in the US? How fast would heads roll in FOP - and who would he start with?

How do these issues fare for illegal Canadians on bases? Not very well. I'm not sure CX would enjoy being told that they will not be able to fly to CHI, SEA, BOS, etc... because of CX's shoddy employment practices.

[Apple314]

GTC, thanks for the well wishes. I have been hard at work and starting to get responses. A great place to start for anyone interested in making their opinion heard is the American Consulate. They are the final word and decision making body in all of this. The USCIS is just an administrative exercise.

Seems as though DL(who interestingly enough is Canadian...) tried to apply for H-1B Specialty Occupation visas for his countrymen, which is the appropriate visa for pilots seeking employment in the US, but it was denied based on merit. So they are trying to back-door it with the L-1A Intracompany Transferee Executive or Manager, claiming that the captains are in Management, and specifically required for the operation. Also they havent told the USCIS that these "Canadian Managers" will not be living in the US working at the US based office, but instead commuting in and out of this supposed US based job. The deceit just gets deeper and deeper. Grab your popcorn gentlemen.

An I-797 Notice of Action showing the approval of the visa petition does not guarantee that a visa will be issued at the U.S. consulate or embassy, but L-1 visas are normally approved if the consular officer concludes that the individual is qualified and that both the U.S. company and the foreign parent, subsidiary, affiliate or branch are legitimate.

Basis for visa denial: A consular officer may deny the issuance of an L-1 visa in cases where the officer determines the U.S. company that filed the L-1 petition may not be qualified, or that the parent, subsidiary, affiliate or branch outside the United States is not qualified or does not intend to continue in business after L-1 visa issuance, or that USCIS approved the petition based on a fraud committed by the company or the visa applicant, or that the applicant is ineligible for that class of visa under section 212(a) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. In addition, the consular officer may request that the underlying petition be reconsidered by USCIS.

[Tornado Ali]

GTC. I have no problem with that solution. CX will adjust the size of any base relevant to the task required. As long as the bases are staffed by people who are legally entitled to be there, and the policy to determine that is EQUITABLE amongst ALL crew. At the moment, CX is engaged in yet another bout of arbitrary madness to plug yet another hole in the dike. As for the ratio of Canadians/Americans on the US base, my numbers were reflecting the pax base crew, not the freighter crew. The pax base was the one first implemented, and was filled by Canadians. These are the most sought after base slots, and therefore are the most contentious. At the very least, there are many freighter captains just waiting for their chance at a pax slot in LAX/SFO. The company's method to solve their problem will lead to a far greater problem when it starts to come under the scrutiny of different agencies and groups. This play is only in the first act...

[GTC58]

Airplaneridesrfun

No, I don't think we have bases for the convenience of the Canadians. It's pure financials. Let's assume there is 55 Canadians on US bases, over 40 are captains. Let's assume they all have to return to Hong Kong. Let's assume all these positions will be up for bid. I guarantee you that there are not 40 Americans who have the seniority to hold a pax command. Let's be generous and say 10 captain positions will be filled, half from HKG based Americans and half from already based FOs. That leaves 20 FO spots open. can they be filled internally? Probably not, but who cares for the matter of this exercise. That means not counting the FOs a net increase of 35 captains returning to Hong Kong at USD 100k/year plus. That's USD 3.5 million/year. Assume there will be hardly any Canadian base slots for Captains available in the next ten years, plus you need around 22 years seniority to hold a spot as it stands at the moment, these captains will stay min. 10 years in Hong Kong. The result a cost of USD 35 million, not including all other expatriate benefits, 13th month and the cost of FOs.
That's why CX will do whatever it takes to keep the Canadians on the base. And if you think that all your actions against the company in this matter will remain unpunished you are kidding yourself. If the company feels that you guys f__ked this up, they will take action against individuals if known or as a group in some form or another.

[Tornado Ali]

ooohhhh, i'm so scared...!!! If there are not enough US pilots to staff the base, then they either upgrade/train, or they leave the slots open until they can be filled. At the most, they can be temporarily filled until the next American is trained who can hold it. Many base slots in the UK and Aus stay unfilled because there are not enough volunteers (certainly that was the case until recently). The company didn't go an apply for visas to fill those slots. I don't really care what CX wants to do. I am waiting for a slot in the US....and I will NOT see those slots filled for the next decade or so by people that aren't even LIVING there, but commuting back to their homes and families in Canada. CX goes down this road at their peril.

[GTC58]

Tornado Ali

Most US freighter captains don't have the seniority to hold a pax command. Well, MB and a couple of other captains that's it. Most Ex-ASL captains have a seniority not even qualifying them for a US base pax FO slot.

[Tornado Ali]

GTC. You're missing the point. The most senior pilots who have the legal right to live in a respective base area must get those slots. Otherwise, see my other solutions mentioned in my earlier post. Since CX decided that you couldn't bid for any base slot UNLESS you had the right to live and work, the slots therefore must now go to legal residents. I can't apply for a Melbourne slot can I....but I would like one...? Unless CX are willing to sponsor all pilots for all bases, how can they justify just doing it in the US? Is that fair?

Another point is this: Why should an entire base be majority occupied by foreign nationals for the next decade or so, just because of an anomaly with the original formation of basings. Such a situation would not be tolerated on any other base, so why the US ?

[GTC58]

Tornado Ali

You don't understand how the captain bidding system works at Cathay.
All commands are awarded in seniority in HKG. So at the moment guys with a seniority # in the high 900s can hold a pax command. If you are already a pax captain you can bid a pax command vacancy or if you started your command course in HKG you can bid a Pax base vacancy. If you are a freighter captain and you have fulfilled your freighter commitment and you have the seniority to hold a pax command you can bid a pax base vacancy.

So if all the US based Canadian captain spots become available you would need presently an approx. seniority # between 970 and 1020 or below, plus US citizenship or the right to live and work in the US. If nobody wants the US slots or there is no US citizens in the above seniority # range these positions either stay vacant and flights will be crewed with HKG crew or CX will close these vacancies and flights also will be crewed by HKG captains.

That's how the new system works.

[Tornado Ali]

I have absolutely no problem with what you describe. They can leave the slots vacant and crew them from HK. What is not acceptable is to give special treatment to a group of crew thereby blocking the base slots for many years to come. No other base, nor pilot group is being treated in such a manner. I should have the expectation of bidding into a US slot when I am able. I shouldn't have to see those slots occupied by people who not only are filling the slots in their own country, but are now (with CX's help!) filling the slots in MY country. To further add insult to injury, most of them are still living in Canada and commuting in and out of the US, thereby getting their cake and eating it to. Meanwhile, all of us yanks stuck in HK see years of basing unavailability in our home port. CX needs to completely revamp the basings concept, and rebid all slots based on seniority and residency....you know, like a company would do if they actually cared about following proper laws and being fair to all staff. As a person can only bid for a base in their home country, the base slots in each country are far more valuable than previously, and therefore MUST be reserved for legal residents of that country. No exceptions. CX need to allow all US based canadians to be based back in Canada....much as they did with the extra freighter slots. It's their screw up, started back in 1994. If you refuse to plan properly and try to cut corners, you eventually end up with the fiasco we are presently dealing with.

[GTC58]

Fair enough.

Please do me a favor then. If you want it all fair can you please also write to the Canadian authorities while you are at it to remove all Americans from their Canadian bases. I would greatly appreciate if they also have to be forced back to Hong Kong as you desire for us Canadians.
( I am sarcastic here, of course I don't agree with your sentiment)

[Tornado Ali]

GTC. I completely agree with your sentiments. I'm glad you are coming around to my way of thinking. :ok:

(notice also that CX is not applying for Canadian visa's for the Americans in Canada)

[nitpicker330]

Tornado Ali, There is 1 DE FO on a Mel base that CX did apparently help to sponsor to live in Aus. Previously the person lived in an Indian Ocean Island country.

The partner came out too.

[nitpicker330]

Benny, you know ( or should know ) that the reason CX is not opening up more bases ( part from SYD FO's ) is because they have been instructed to hold off by Swires until they sort out the mess they created.

Once this is fixed ( and it will be ) bases will open up again.

CX just save way too much money to not do it.

[BillytheKid]

So if all the US based Canadian captain spots become available you would need presently an approx. seniority # between 970 and 1020 or below, plus US citizenship or the right to live and work in the US. If nobody wants the US slots or there is no US citizens in the above seniority # range these positions either stay vacant and flights will be crewed with HKG crew or CX will close these vacancies and flights also will be crewed by HKG captains.

That's how the new system works.

No, that is not how it works. How it works is CX agrees to the above with the AOA, then ignores said deal by sending freighter flying CN and FO jobs to AHK. In an ironic twist, we are the ones training our own replacements!

[Flap10]

Apple314

Just because you have been working illegally in the US for 10 years, doesn't give you the right to continue to do so.

You keep repeating the above as though you are sure of yourself. For one thing there was nothing illegal about it. You keep forgetting the all important fact that Cathay is NOT a US registered company. You refer to the base as though it was always a US registered entity, which it never was. For all intents and purposes outside of Cathay there never really was a base in the eyes of the US authorities. Please explain to me the difference to a HK based Canadian pilot operating to LAX on a long layover and then the pilot making arrangements to fly to Canada and back again as a pax to visit family? Are you telling me that the pilot reentering the US to operate LAX-HKG is entering the US illegally?? Or a foreign cargo ship that docks in LAX and takes on an entirely new crew for the return journey. Are you telling me that these non US nationals employed by a foreign company, operating a foreign registered ship are entering the US illegally???


Tornado Ali

You keep using Sydney as an example, but you do realize that there are a few Kiwis based in Sydney and commute to Auckland. Yes yes I know that Kiwis do not require any VISAs, but by your analogy they are essentially preventing an Australian national from taking a Sydney base. The fact that one requires a VISA and one that does not is really semantics from your point of argument.

[Tornado Ali]

Flap .10

Why don't you give a bit more thought before posting? Your comments regarding the Canadians in the US are invalid. They are invalid because the US has now insisted that ANY pilots BASED in the US MUST have a VISA. Therefore your mental gymnastics trying to justify them being there as 'visitors' or 'transients' are meaningless. They have to be legal....next question??

As for the Kiwi/Aus issue, BOTH (i'll repeat....BOTH) groups have equal rights in each others respective countries. No group has an advantage over the other. Again, very different from the Can/US issue, where ONE group is obtaining a special benefit at the expense of the other (until the authorities and politicians and labor groups are made well aware of what's REALLY going on :E)

[Steve the Pirate]

Could it be that CX is looking at getting visas for the US based Canadians for reasons other than spite? Perhaps they could be looking at it from a morals point of view (unlikely I know) in that some of these people have been based for a number of years. Forcing them to return to HKG due to a change in US government requirements (if that's the case as Ali points out) is just wrong if there's something relatively simple that can be done.

The second possible (probable) reason is cost. It's cheaper to provide visas to the Canadians on US bases than to "repatriate" them to HKG or run the risk of them resigning over a forced return. Let's assume that all Canadians are forced to return to Hong Kong - are there enough US citizens to replace them on the US bases? If not, the net increase in expatriate benefits would far outweigh the cost a few visas. Let's assume that, having been forced to return to Hong Kong, all (or even some) Canadians resign - how are those pilots going to be replaced? I would hazard a guess that Tornado Ali's answer to both questions would be "Don't care" and "Don't care".

STP

PS. This wouldn't be the first time CX has sponsored pilots to work in a country other than their own - I think even US citizens needed a work visa when they came to Hong Kong.

[Flap10]

Tornado Ali

They are invalid because the US has now insisted that ANY pilots BASED in the US MUST have a VISA.

An expert team from Swire has been put together to tackle the complex issues facing the on-shoring, but you and Apple seem to know everything...**** they should have consulted you two.

What makes you think the US is insisting VISAs for these pilots? Are you personally involved with all the details of the on-shoring? These VISAs may stem from the fact that CX is attempting to on-shore the US bases, in which case there is a fundamental change in that now you have a US registered entity, but certainly not because unknown to CX they were illegal for all these years.

From the US immigration point of view there was nothing illegal about Canadians flying to JFK, SFO, LAX, etc. to operate a foreign registered aircraft. Some of us in the past have actually consulted immigration lawyers, so fair to say that I can speak with a bit more credibility than you. For the past 14 years or so we've had Canadians from different embarkation points in Canada (where you clear US immigration) fly into the US, and not once were crews being whisked away and denied entry.


As for the Kiwi/Aus issue, BOTH (i'll repeat....BOTH) groups have equal rights in each others respective countries. No group has an advantage over the other.

You obviously don't see the holes in your argument. These pilots were LEGALLY there long before they actually disadvantaged anyone. No different than the Kiwi on the Australian base.

[Tornado Ali]

Ahhh, bringing a knife to a gunfight again F10. Firstly, I have had several consultations with a top immigration lawyer over the past few years, the purpose of which was to obtain my Green Card (so, considering the utter inept way that CX has handled the basings from the start, yes, I probably DO know more than they do...). Second, you just don't see to get the main point to you? That is that because CX has arbitrarily CHANGED the criteria for staffing a base, the main point NOW being that you must have legal residence status, the value of each nations basing slots is 10 fold what it used to be, because the ONLY base we can bid on is the one in our own country. Most of the Canadians based in the US commute anyway. Why should they be allowed to not only lock up the slots for many many years, but at the same time not even live in the country. Imagine if a large percentage of the Canadian base was staffed by Americans, and they all lived back in the US, but only commuted into work....meanwhile hundreds of Canadians and their families are stuck in HK because they CAN'T bid onto their own base?? I'm sure that would seem fair huh...? If you can't see that the new base rules require a wholesale rebidding effort, instead of this singular attempt to favor a particular subset of pilots, and consequently disadvantaging many other pilots, then you really are drinking the koolaid. As for the Aus/NZ example, I clearly explained why it is a different case in an earlier thread....but no surprise, you didn't understand that either. I can't be bothered to continue this debate further, because if you can't see the obvious you aren't worth arguing with.

ps. your last comment: they weren't 'there' legally earlier. They were moving in and out of the US as a subterfuge......and it worked for many years. Now the game is over.....but why recognise the truth eh?

[Flap10]

Tornado Ali

To further add insult to injury, most of them are still living in Canada and commuting in and out of the US, thereby getting their cake and eating it to. Meanwhile, all of us yanks stuck in HK see years of basing unavailability in our home portLet me ask you are you a Captain now? Because I certainly know a few American Captains that had the opportunity to take a base, but decided to stay in HKG for just a few more years to capitalize on the housing allowance or the property market. If you happen to be one of the above, aren't you trying to have your cake and eat it to?? Be careful how you criticize.

[Steve the Pirate]

Tornado

Meanwhile, all of us yanks stuck in HK see years of basing unavailability in our home port. Firstly, I have had several consultations with a top immigration lawyer over the past few years, the purpose of which was to obtain my Green CardIf you're a "yank", as you so delicately put it, why would you need a Green Card?

STP

[Flap10]

, I have had several consultations with a top immigration lawyer over the past few years, the purpose of which was to obtain my Green Card

haha now that is f*&^ing rich!!!!! So let me see, you are not even an American citizen, obtained a Green Card, and now you are preaching us about the injustices of what is transpiring??? Yeah you're right you are not worth arguing either. Funny how in time the real selfish motives becomes apparent. Nice of you to initially hide behind the curtain of what is morally right and wrong for the entire pilot body :yuk::yuk:

FYI an immigration lawyer was consulted to the issue at hand, ie. the legality of a Canadian crossing the border to operate a foreign registered aircraft. not about how to get a Green Card, so please put away the Pez pistol.

[2 cents]

Tornado,

Most of the Canadians based in the US commute anyway. Why should they be allowed to not only lock up the slots for many many years, but at the same time not even live in the country.

Uh, it's called SENIORITY!! They are SENIOR to you. Next question.

Imagine if a large percentage of the Canadian base was staffed by Americans, and they all lived back in the US, but only commuted into work....meanwhile hundreds of Canadians and their families are stuck in HK because they CAN'T bid onto their own base?? I'm sure that would seem fair huh...?

If they were SENIOR to me, YES, of course that's fair - DUH!. That is how seniority works. Next question.

[Steve the Pirate]

Tornado Ali

This from you a couple of years ago:

Can anyone answer a question: If you are based in Canada, but live in the US, how will taxes be handled (withholding etc). Thanks. So, even though perhaps you're not based, you can't deny that you were thinking at some stage of doing exactly what you're accusing the US-based Canadians of doing.

It's also obvious that you don't like Canadians based on the following quotes, once again from a few years back:

please tell me that you don't represent the educational level of the average Canadian..?....typical canadian response. You have a pathetic domestic industry, and you have been responsible for a worldwide downgrade of pilot conditions. enough said.And this would point to your heritage:

I don't agree with everything the USA does, but sitting here in BlightyPot calling kettle black, people who live in glasshouses and suchlike are proverbs that spring to mind.

STP

[Dragon69]

If you can't see that the new base rules require a wholesale rebidding effort, instead of this singular attempt to favor a particular subset of pilots

I don't agree with any of your logic. My understanding is that the L1 visa are being issued only to those that are already there, it is not as though CX will be issuing new visas to any Canadian wanting a base in the future. I agree with STP's comments.

For those Americans that had the opportunity and seniority to leave in the past they could have done so. The fact that the bases are full shouldn't require a whole set of new rules or a rebidding effort to accommodate one individual that is throwing a hissy fit because of the time and expense spent acquiring the Green card. There are some very senior Captains that will not be able to be based because their respective bases are full. Does that mean the rules should be changed to continually allow a senior pilot to bump out the most junior pilot from a base??

Despite what you think I also believe that there was nothing illegal in the previous setup, if you can show me anything to the contrary I will happily accept it.

[Tornado Ali]

The difference is that I spent 7 years, and thousands of dollars to obtain LEGAL residence. I am now an American citizen...so I don't have to apologise for any of my opinions. I also intend to actually LIVE in the US, unlike most of the Captains/FO's that are simply going to continue to commute. The bases are being filled by people that don't have legal residence, but the company is doing a special deal to help out a group of people against the interests of the nationals of that nation. It defies belief that the simple unfairness of what is being done is lost on you lot. Of course, flying with many of you I realise that I shouldn't be that surprised.

[Tornado Ali]

FYI an immigration lawyer was consulted to the issue at hand, ie. the legality of a Canadian crossing the border to operate a foreign registered aircraft. not about how to get a Green Card, so please put away the Pez pistol.
Flap10 is offline Report Post


FYI, I spoke at length with someone at the immigration dept several years ago. What you say above is correct. The difference is that CX actually BASED the pilots in the US. That is the distinction, and that is why it is now being DISALLOWED. It is being disallowed because it has been determined that what CX was doing was never actually LEGAL, and they have been told to sort it out. In other words, the underlying basis for the Canadians being staffed in US ports was NEVER LEGAL. That being the case, CX needs to provide extra slots for them back in Canada, not now engage in a one-off deal to lock the base slots up and keep actual AMERICAN CITIZENS out of their own base for up to the next 20YRS!! Again, if it was reversed, and it was Americans in Canada.....would you be so quick to defend the situation? I think not.

[Tornado Ali]

Gee Steve, perhaps you would provide the FULL context of my comments...? What exactly was I replying too...perhaps my comments were justified based on the original comments I was responding to. You should apply for the Corporate Communication Department with that sort of hatchet job....you have all the skills necessary. :D

[Steve the Pirate]

Tornado

You can't deny that you made the comments regardless of the context. Indeed, one was a question rather than a response and that was the one which, to my mind, undermined your case more than any and that was the post regarding taxation matters should you be based in Canada and commute to the US.

Clearly you were considering taking a Canadian base and commuting to the US, otherwise why ask the question in the first place? Now, some years later to be so vehement in your attack on those who are doing what you clearly, at the very least, considered doing strikes me as somewhat hypocritical.

As far as "hatchet jobs" go I disagree. I was simply exposing a weakness in your argument using views that you had expressed publicly on this forum. There was no subterfuge on my part and I have no personal axe (or should that now be ax as you're a US citizen?) to grind. What I find distasteful, however, is the way in which you seem to be trying to claim the moral high ground when history might suggest that you have no right to do so.

STP

[Tornado Ali]

Actually, the facts support my position, not undermine it. I did indeed look at the implications of living in Canada and commuting. After extensive research, it was clear that it would not be a sustainable situation (as has proved to be the case, hence the current panic to get legal status). I therefore spent considerable time and effort to obtain my US documents, and eventual citizenship. The company has played fast and loose with all sorts of shady arrangements for 16 years, and now they find that they have been violating the law all that time (as I was told by a top immigration official). I did it the right way, and it has been costly and time consuming. Myself and dozens of other AMERICANS are incensed that the company is going to treat a small group of pilots in an arbitrarily favorable manner at the expense of our expectatons. As I have said on several occasions now, would ANY OTHER base area's national pilot group accept that a large percentage of their precious base slots be occupied by people who aren't even from there, and furthermore probably won't live there but commute back to their actual homes and families? Rhetorical isn't it..?

As for my quoted comments, without the full context they are meaningless. Don't need to explain that further.

[2 cents]

FYI, I spoke at length with someone at the immigration dept several years ago. What you say above is correct. The difference is that CX actually BASED the pilots in the US.

You spoke to someone at the Immigration Department... WOW what an expert you are! Big deal. Whether it suits your personal little backstabbing maneuver or not, the situation IS LEGAL. Many other airlines do EXACTLY the same thing as do many other industries.

and keep actual AMERICAN CITIZENS out of their own base for up to the next 20YRS!!

Do you really think you OWN the bases? It's actually none of your business what one chooses to do when they arrive at their base. I can do, and go wherever the hell I want, and I certainly don't have to justify it to you!! Again, whether you like it or not, those guys are SENIOR to you. That's the way it works.

[Tornado Ali]

Uh, 2cents, what do you mean 'backstabbing'. I happen to disagree with the company's efforts on behalf of a single group of pilots. In case it's missed your attention, the fracturing of condtions over the past 16 years has created one of the most messed up set of conditions of service in the airline industry. This latest arbitrary act is yet again affecting a single group against the interests of the whole. I have a right to an opinion about it, and I can express it as I wish. That does not make me a 'backstabber'. The Immigration Office I spoke to was based at the Immigration headquarters in Washington....so, yes, my information on this subject is verified at the highest level. As for seniority, i'm probably senior to all of them.

Why don't you focus on the simple fact that the company's treatment of different groups in different ways at different times is the REASON that nearly ALL of us are unhappy with this company and our career prospects? Don't shoot the messenger....just my 2cents worth?

[Svengali]

Before you wind your self up into a heart attack.

I don't Know how long you have been with Cathay, But your PPrune date of 1998 does show to all of us. If you have been here since then, you may have forgotten some of our history.

The short version, Cathay will do what it wants (Within some of the laws). (It fired 49 pilots on one day, has put new contracts in mail boxes with sign or your fired letters, Etc, Etc, Etc and some more Etc).

May I suggest the next course of action for you is to march up the DFO's office and pound your fist on his desk and inform him how you will no longer accept this injustice.

please let us how that goes.

[Flap10]

The Immigration Office I spoke to was based at the Immigration headquarters in Washington....so, yes, my information on this subject is verified at the highest level.What a bunch of bollocks....sorry...bull!!!! I highly doubt a senior official from Washington is going to tell an employee that his company has been violating all laws in a simple one on one chat. Do you really think readers are that gullible??

The difference is that CX actually BASED the pilots in the US.Please explain to me the distinction in the eyes of US immigration when there is no limitation to a HKG based Canadian flying into the US and picking up an airplane to one that is, within the arrangements of Cathay deemed based. There is none! It's either legal or it isn't! There is absolutely no stipulation to how many times a HKG based Canadian is allowed to cross the border for the purposes of operating a foreign registered airplane. So because Cathay has labelled a group of pilots LAX based means nothing to US Immigration.

Your comments just don't add up! In order to have obtained citizenship through a Green Card you have to have been a permanent resident for at least 5 years I believe. How did you manage to not be based in the US and yet claimed US permanent residency to the Immigration officials. Could it be that you were telling them fibs, in which case you were violating immigration laws to serve your self interests.

[Tornado Ali]

If it's 'bull', then why is CX now going through the panic of trying to get visa's...? As for my being in Washington visiting the Immigration HQ, why is that 'so' hard to believe? I made an appointment, and interviewed. I was explicitly told that you could not be 'based' in the US without documentation. You can only transit into the US to pick up an aircraft for operational reasons. It can not be a 'permanent' condition of your employment. Why don't YOU go and visit Washington and find out the same. If "there is absolutely no stipulation to how many times a HKG based Canadian is allowed to cross the border for the purposes of operating a foreign registered airplane" as you say, then why is CX rushing around to get them visa's? The fact that CX is now rushing around trying to clean it up would suggest that I do in fact know what i'm talking about. The fact that you just can't seem to acknowledge it is your problem.

[2 cents]

Tornado,

I'm not shooting the messenger, it's just obvious what your motivations are.

Let me ask you this. If CX decided tomorrow to provide all possible immigration/visa assistance to ANY pilot in ANY base area, would this make you happy? Honestly, would it? I doubt it as it would not help you get your US base. Seniority, plain and simple. That's the way it works, and that's the way it SHOULD work.

One more question. If you think you are senior to all of them, then why aren't you there? Could it be....let me see...because you took a freighter command? So, you essentially took a command WAY out of seniority on crap conditions, and now all of a sudden you are claiming the moral high ground and are concerned about the "interests of the whole"? That's a little rich to say the least...

[Tornado Ali]

Svengali, your 'assumption' about my prune joining date shows your lack of intellectual rigor. You imply i've been at CX since 98...or later. I hope you don't make other incorrect assumptions in other areas of your life... As for a 'history' lesson, i've been here many years longer than you, so save it. I take it you just don't care that CX is once again acting in an arbitrary manner?

[Tornado Ali]

2cents, you seem to insist on making incorrect assumption after incorrect assumption. I have been in the company MANY years more than you...and am senior to nearly all the US based pilots in question. Let me ask you a simple question: are you happy with the company acting in an arbitrary manner, and favoring a few to the exclusion of the many? Try and be honest and to the point...I realise that may be difficult for you.

[Flap10]

I was explicitly told that you could not be 'based' in the US without documentation.Herein lies the problem! To the officials the term based is implied that Canadians are residing in these bases, which is not the case and which it would be completely illegal. There were and may still be a few Canadian that were actually living in these bases but yet claiming residency elsewhere.

then why is CX rushing around to get them visa's?

Think I already stated this before. Because of the on-shoring process which completely changes the equation. You cannot have a US registered entity employing Canadians without the legal right to be employed in the US. That is why CX is rushing to get VISAS, and not because they were violating laws for 16 years.

[Tornado Ali]

The US base is NOT being onshored. USAB is a HK based entity, NOT a US based entity. Get your facts straight. You obviously don't really know what you're talking about.

[Flap10]

The US base is NOT being onshored. USAB is a HK based entity, NOT US!! Get your facts straight. I think you are the one that needs to get your facts straight. The plan is to on-shore all the bases. Yes of course USAB at the moment is a HK entity...duuuh! But the ultimate goal is to have the bases on-shored, including the US!

Still waiting how you've managed to tell the officials you were a resident of the US when you claim you were never based there???

[Tornado Ali]

And where exactly is it published, or even mentioned, that the intent is to onshore the US base?

[Flap10]

show me where it say it isn't planned???

[Tornado Ali]

several basings newsletters have stated explicitly that there are no plans to onshore the US. So....where have you seen a contrary statement?

[Flap10]

Really Tornado, it is a simple request, show me, provide me with a link, just anything to substantiate your claim!!!!

Tik Tok...still waiting for an answer to my previous question!!

[Tornado Ali]

I just told you that there are several basing newsletters stating categorically that they do not plan on onshoring the US. So you need to substantiate your claim. As for the other question, I don't even know what you are referring to. Why don't you copy the quote you are going on about and let me see it, k.

[Flap10]

Your comments just don't add up! In order to have obtained citizenship through a Green Card you have to have been a permanent resident for at least 5 years I believe. How did you manage to not be based in the US and yet claimed US permanent residency to the Immigration officials. Could it be that you were telling them fibs, in which case you were violating immigration laws to serve your self interests. 9th Apr 2011 06:40

[Tornado Ali]

How I transferred my Green card to full citizenship is no business of yours. The fact that this issue so incenses me should at least confirm that I do in fact now have legal status. It wouldn't make much sense for me to have such a vested interest in the issue otherwise, would it? But of course, why should you bother to debate the fact of the issue instead of worrying about my citizenship status?

tick tock....where is your documented proof to suggest they are onshoring USAB?

[Flap10]

Tornado,

I've quickly re-read all the basing news letters that are available on intra cx and although I've quickly glanced it, I didn't see anything about not on-shoring USAB.

However what I did find was this

Future Taxation Status If On-Shoring AUS/NZ/US Were Carried Out AUS Base




NZ Base



US Base US residents
Non US residents

As you can clearly see on-shoring the US base was always in the plans.

[Flap10]

How I transferred my Green card to full citizenship is no business of yours.

Yes of course it isn't when you technically acquired it using false pretenses.

why should you bother to debate the fact of the issue instead of worrying about my citizenship status?


Well you are the one taking the morale high ground when there is no doubt in my mind that you've lied your way to a US citizenship.

Anyway good luck with your attempt at getting a base!

[Tornado Ali]

...you quickly read all the basings newsletters...in the past 5 minutes since my last post. Sure. The fact that I saw DL only two weeks ago and he confirmed that there are NO intentions to onshore the US (for many legal reasons), and there are several newsletter references to the same is at this point conclusive. Again, why don't you comment on the main thrust of my posts, which is the fact that the company is treating a group of pilots arbitrarily to the detriment of the rest of us? Go ahead, debate the facts for a change.

[Tornado Ali]

You're unbelievable. Just keep making it up as you go along. I completed a legal process to obtain citizenship. You have no evidence to suggest otherwise. Any other unsupported assumptions you would like to make?

[Flap10]

you've asked me to show you proof and I've provided it, to you. You on the other hand have not!

This isn't going anywhere so say what you have to say, have your last say and will end it!

[Tornado Ali]

That is a generic text you refer to. The company has explicitly stated there are no plans to onshore the US. I'm sure you know that, but again, you aren't even debating the main issue I originally raised (and have continued to highlight). Your right, this isn't going anywhere, as you can't even seem to comment on the main issue.

[Steve the Pirate]

Tornado

I've just read all the newsletters put out by DL since he took over and I can't find anywhere that it states:

The company has explicitly stated there are no plans to onshore the USI also did a search on IntraCx for anything related to USAB and I still can't find anything that states categorically that the US base won't be on-shored. There was a reference in the 2010 Happy New Year letter from NR which said that there was less urgency but no categoric statement. So where are the:

several basing newsletters stating categorically that they do not plan on onshoring the USIf you've kept them and you've got a scanner you should be able to put this to bed (well, this particular point anyway) by posting a .pdf version. Failing that, if you don't want outsiders to see company information, just post the link and let IntraCx security do the rest.

STP

[GTC58]

I went through Tornado Ali's previous posts and came up with this

I too am appalled by the knee-jerk anti-americanism that far too many of our population parrot...without thinking about the facts of history. Something about Lenin's 'Usefull Idiots' comes to mind. Although I am not a fan of Tony Blair, I admire his ability to see through the obvious 'easy politics' that would have been his for the taking, and intstead stood up to the naieve sentiments of most of the UK population and his own party to do what will be seen in history as a brave, moral and principled stand

British

Posted September 2007
Having been with CX for almost 10 years, this has been their 'modus operendi' since I joined. Hopefully the guys will have the fortitude to 'just say no' to anything that is not acceptable...regardless of the inevitable threats and rumours.

Hiring date of 1998

Posted 2008
Last week, the only ticket I could get to travel from Florida to LA was over $400....one way. I was able to use a pass getting back home thankfully. With the NA carriers rapidly reducing domestic capacity and quickly raising prices, pretty soon we will not be able to travel to work without it costing us more than we earn

Based in LAX

Conclusion:

Maybe the rumours are true; about a certain freighter training captain.

[Neptunus Rex]

This whole sorry thread gives ample demonstration (as if any were needed) of the enormous success of Cathay's "Divide and Rule" policy, instigated by Red Oddbod in the 1990s.

First implemented by Julius Caesar some 2,000 years ago in his Gallic Wars, it has been a winner with tyrranical management ever since.

The only answer is for a WHOLELY united body of pilots to demand change, in th strongest terms.

Bon chance mes amis!

[Tornado Ali]

GTC.

Regarding your comments, and your incorrect assumptions (in every instance):

British: wrong, I was just making a comment regarding Tony Blairs support for GWB and the invasion of Iraq (but of course, why would you and Steve the Pirate provide a full context to determine that?)

Join date 1998: wrong....and i'll let you figure out why.


LA based: wrong, have lived in Florida for many years....and even I go home on leave once in a while, via LA in this case.


Any other idiotic statements that you would like to make? While you're trying to think up some (shouldn't be difficult for you), why don't you actually offer some comment on the main point I was raising, which was that the company is once again treating a pilot group in an arbitrary manner, and to the detriment of another group of pilots. I would have thought that that would have been an issue that most of us could have agreed on. I think this debate demonstrates why CX will always be able to manipulate and divide this group...because people like you show that you would rather bicker than recognise the danger that this new policy presents to all of us.

[GTC58]

I guess we have to agree to disagree. You have your point of view and I have mine. I don't bicker at all, as I will have a US visa in a few months. You are the one who bickers.
Enough said, that's my last post.

[Tornado Ali]

Well that would explain why you wouldn't comment on the issue I was raising. You have PERFECTLY explained your point of view. Your earlier attempt at a crude 'scare tactic' is now a lot clearer as to it's true intent. As I said...this is only the first act of the play. And that's my last post as well.

[Old China Driver]

Benny, you are correct in this. The other additional problem regarding the Canadian crew will be when they go to file their first US tax return. It will be apparent that they are commuting back to Canada. This will be a violation of their visa requirements. You can't 'emigrate' to the US, and then not 'really' do so in practice. They will also find that their attempt to avoid Canadian taxation will not sit too well with their Canadian based colleagues. Should be an interesting debacle to witness.

I don't much mind if the Canadians obtain visa's. What I do find distasteful is Cathay acting in their time tested manner of ready, fire, aim. They will end up creating even more trouble, not only for themselves as a company, but for the individuals who are sucked in by their ill-conceived policies. This is no way to run a 'railroad'. It is also interesting to see how differently they are dealing with the Canadians vs their treatment of those that needed visa's when the UK went onshore. Where is the AOA on this contradiction. I predict this will not end well.

[Steve the Pirate]

Tornado

Personally I couldn't give a rat's a*s (to use the American vernacular) where you come from but you can't deny it's bound to provoke interest considering the topic of this thread.

That aside, you seem quick to attack other peoples' assertions yet reluctant to provide contrary evidence. If you could answer my previous post then I could start to base (ha, ha) my point of view on this topic on fact rather than emotion. I have to say, I can't recall anything that states categorically that the US base won't be on-shored but I'm prepared to be proved wrong. To use a poker analogy, you can't declare that you've won the hand without showing your cards; to do otherwise is simply bluster.

As it's impossible to tell how long you've been around, given your last post, I'll assume it's been long enough for you to understand that there is one major driver behind decisions in this company, as in many others, and that is cost. As I stated in an earlier post, I should imagine that the cost of arranging visas for the Canadians based in the US will be cheaper than any alternative. The fact that you and your fellow aspiring US basees are "collateral damage" is unfortunate. Is the company acting immorally? Personally, I don't think so as they are considering the welfare of those already based under a set of rules that were in place at the time when the base was offered. That the rules changed after the event is not of the Canadians' doing and it could be argued that the company is being morally responsible towards them.

King Neptune

I think this would have happened regardless of the divide and rule dictum as, fundamentally, the majority of people in the western world these days are selfish.

STP

[Dragon69]

It will be apparent that they are commuting back to Canada. This will be a violation of their visa requirements.

Maybe not, have a look at this;

L-1 Visa

This visa is given to a person who intends to expand his business in US or being transferred to the US branch of his employer. Canadians can get L-1 at the border itself by providing the necessary documents as per NAFTA treaty. It means that they need not send their application to USCIS. You can get a permanent Canadian Commuter status, and the 7-year-valid L-1 visa can be extended using this.





the L-1A Intracompany Transferee Executive or Manager, claiming that the captains are in Management,

Are you certain they are getting an L-1A? Maybe it is an L-1B Visa which are issued to those persons with specialized knowledge of the business. A crew member flying an airliner for a company primarily involved in flying passengers could be deemed to have specialized knowledge of the business.

It is obvious that the interpretation and the rules are beyond the scope of our understanding via simple Google searches.

Tornado Ali,

I have to agree there has been nothing but contrary statements from you. Your hand has been caught in the cookie jar where you specifically stated you have been at CX for almost ten years, and then you claim you have been here much longer than that and are senior to the majority currently on a base. Which is it?

[Steve the Pirate]

Benny

The nature of the ad hominem arguments against Tornado were inevitable as his own argument was never really based on the premise that he was trying to alert the Canadian US-based pilots to a potential legal issue, rather that he was planning to take action against his colleagues, possibly based on the fact they they are in possession of something that he wants.

Regardless of his nationality, background or location, one can't help but glean more than a hint of vindictiveness in his argument. At times he's tried to couch his argument in terms that he is trying to protect "the greater good" of the pilot body as a whole but, too often in my opinion, that thin veneer barely covers what appears to be nothing other than contempt. I might be wrong, and I hope I am, but I don't get a warm, fuzzy feeling when people start talking of writing to law makers and visiting consulates. As OCD says, this will not end well.

STP

[Dragon69]

I bet the company, or the Canadians have failed to mention that they have been employed illegally for many years

But how do you know this, based on what information? You seem to be implying that the US Immigration officials were purposely allowing the Canadians to cross the border illegally. I am sorry but that just doesn't happen. If you don't have the required paper work they just don't let you in. If they've known they were illegal it would havee been stopped immediately. The fact that to this day they are still able to enter the US to operate would indicate to me that there is nothing illegal about it. It's like allowing illegal immigrants to enter the country and then telling them they're there illegally.

If you've read the latest basing newsletter it specifically states that usab is a hkg registered company with jurisdictions in hkg. CX is not the only airline or shipping company that sends crews to pick up foreign registered aircrafts or ships. There is nothing illegal about it from what I can see.


Also where do you read that before issuing an L1 visa the government has to ensure that no American jobs are lost? From what I have read there is no mention of this. Can you back up your statement?

There seems to be lots of misinformation for the purposes of validating ones point. Claiming that they'be been illegal or not paying taxes is irresponsible without knowing the big picture.

[Sqwak7700]

If you've read the latest basing newsletter it specifically states that usab is a hkg registered company with jurisdictions in hkg. CX is not the only airline or shipping company that sends crews to pick up foreign registered aircrafts or ships. There is nothing illegal about it from what I can see.


I can't think of any other airline that bases pilots in the USA without the legal requirements of employing foreigners in the country.

And Cathay doesn't "send" pilots to the US, they are BASED there. They are responsible for getting themselves there, their place of work.

What Cathay has been doing is illegal. If it wasn't, then we would continue to do the same thing without needing to change anything.

The question is, how much money is it gonna cost to fix things. The IRS does not "forgive" money owed, they demand payment with interest. I would expect that they will demand quite a large tax bill from Cathay, as well as from individuals.

[Flap10]

Sqwak

I generally agree with about 99% of your posts, but on this one you are off the mark.

Prior to on-shoring the bases the basings office did not oversee whether individuals had the right to live and work where they were going to be based. This included ANY CX base, so to single out the US base as being different than the others is wrong. All you had to do is sign a letter confirming that it was your responsibility to comply with any immigration requirements in your choice of residence. This was no different than if you were in the past to bid for an Australian base.

I could be wrong, but theoretically nothing stopped a Canadian, American, or European individual from bidding an Australian base in the past and commuting to a place outside of Australia. Obviously no one was stupid enough to do this so it was never an issue. You seem to forget that we had several Captains based in the UK, but living in France which eventually brought about, not immigration problems, but taxation problems.

Unlike Australia/New Zealand, or the European states, North America can be considered unique within the basing circle because there is obviously no unrestricted cross border travel, which is bound to produce certain problems. My opinion and best suited for a different forum, but the US is alienating itself from the rest of the world and only a matter of time before that country implodes within itself.

What Cathay has been doing is illegal. If it wasn't, then we would continue to do the same thing without needing to change anything. They would have if it wasn't for on-shoring. You also seem to forget that times have changed, requirements have also changed. Obviously Cathay is changing with the times and on-shoring seems to be a necessity nowadays, but how can you say that what Cathay was doing was illegal?

Also, these guys weren't living in the US, weren't working for a US registered company, so what taxes are going to be owed?

[Sqwak7700]

I agree with your description of what basing policy used to be like Flaps. You could bid anywhere.

but how can you say that what Cathay was doing was illegal?

I can best answer this with what you said in your post. I use the US as an example because I am familiar with its laws the most.

You said Cathay left the immigration issues up to the employee. YOU CAN'T DO THAT AS A COMPANY. If you are going to employ someone based in the US you must ensure they have the right to live and work there. Employment is a two way street, there are two parties involved - therefore two responsible parties when a law is being broken with regards to that employment.

This is why bases need to be on-shored. They need to comply with local regulations to employ people who live and work in those countries.

Also, these guys weren't living in the US, weren't working for a US registered company, so what taxes are going to be owed?

The US asks you to pay taxes when you work there. They don't care where you live. If you live outside the country then you can get expatriate exemptions after showing you spend sufficient time outside the country. So you would need employment visa (which is what CX is doing now), and then claim that you spend a certain amount of time outside the country (everyone needs to consult a good accountant because US tax law is very complex).

Cathay is now applying for these Visas, in order to comply with the law. There are no other airlines (that I know of) that have US bases without legally employing either Americans / Greencards, or work visa foreigners.

For example, Korean employs foreigners and provides commutable rosters. They are not based in the US - they start their trips by deadheading in and out of their home countries. I think if Cathay wants to save on Housing this is the only way they will be able to employ foreigners without forming very complex on-shored mini airlines that comply with all local regs.

The only obstacle to them doing this is that our current agreements require expat benefits in HKG without mention of commutable exceptions. If they get rid of the full expatriate package or find a way around it, you will see these bases disappear quicker than you can say ayiah...

[Flap10]

The US asks you to pay taxes when you work there. They don't care where you live.Again you are making the false assumption that USAB was a US registered company which it never was! I am not arguing the way CX formed the bases, I am only arguing the point that there was nothing illegal about it from the immigration perspective.

Lets assume that Oasis was still in operation with their 400, and lets also assume that they had only one long haul sector, a weekly flight to LAX crewed by mostly Canadians. With their small crew number and their horrible working conditions (layovers forms part of monthly days off) lets make a final, and quite plausible assumption that the same Canadian operates the same sector three times a months, every month. That would be a total of 18-21 days per month that this individual would be in LAX to the point where at times he decides to travel to Canada and back. For scheduling ease crew control then labels this individual internally as LAX "based".

Is there anything illegal with the above scenario?? Is he all of a sudden required to have special VISAs because the company internally has labelled him "based"?? Is there a limitation in how many times the same individual can operate in to and out of an American port? Is he disallowed to fly to/from Canada and his port of entry??? Is there a maximum number of days per year an individual as a crew member can spend in the US??

The answer is NO, so exactly what laws were broken? It really is essentially USAB in a nutshell. For crying out loud I am starting to spend more time in India then Hong Kong with these wonderful Airbus rosters :{:{. Do I now have to apply for an Indian employment VISA???

[BusyB]

All this talk about right to live/work in the USA brings to my mind a conversation I had with an American 777 pilot who had bid to be based in the UK for some months. I think he was an AA pilot but he was living in Canterbury and operating USA registered aircraft.
He certainly didn't have a UK working Visa as when Atlas tried to do that in Stansted GSS kicked up a fuss.:confused:

[jriv]

The maximum stay on an L visa is 5 years. This sounds like a short-term solution.

[Sqwak7700]

The answer is NO, so exactly what laws were broken? It really is essentially USAB in a nutshell.

Well then Flaps, can you explain why that standing practice has come to a grinding halt then? I can't explain why it is the way it is, except for maybe that each country is trying to protect their residents. I agree with your argument, but there is the way the world should be and the way that it is.

Using your example, Cathay could base itself in Manila, and claim that we are all just simply "internally based" (to borrow your term) in HKG. Then they would not need an employment visa, as well as not having to pay expatriate benefits. They could just roster you to start and end trips in HKG.

I'm sure the HK authorities would not allow that. It is viewed as trying to circumvent immigration and tax laws, and governments don't appreciate it. Sometimes, they look the other way - as in when the jobs offer such poor pay that legal workers won't accept them. But it is illegal.

For crying out loud I am starting to spend more time in India then Hong Kong with these wonderful Airbus rosters . Do I now have to apply for an Indian employment VISA???

While funny, clearly you see the difference in that you are not based in India. If your trips were starting and ending in India I can guarantee you that the DGCA would certainly want to talk to you and Cathay. Not only would you need a work visa but you would need to get your license validated there and converted (which I guess is just a matter of paying off the right people these days. :hmm:)

So clearly, two different scenarios. I agree with you in principle, but I don't write the laws. :O

[JoeShmoe]

LOL yes they are all asses!!:D

Those Canadians are always laughing and drinking beer and playing hockey! Then they wanna go out and eat and invite all along. They give away sectors and are pleasant in the cockpit. They say nice things and treat you like an equal. Most are young Captains on the U.S. bases.

Then there are all those OTHER Canadians, Dan Akroyd, Michael Fox, RUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a bunch of miserable bastards. Throw em ALL out I say. We cannot have this going on in our country. How dare they come down here and make life and going to work bearable! I hate all of them, Curse you Canada!!!!!! Eh

[Flaps10]

Lighten up eh! Ya hosers!

YouTube - Great White North - Topic : Great White North

[airplaneridesrfun]

I hear an update is in progress from the basings office on this matter shortly.

[Sparemethewinging]

American Jobs:= A rethink on that maybe?

If you want an american job, go join an american company:ok: You came to CX to get away from the crap in usa(or was it couldn't get hired:eek:), if you don't like the way they do it, go back and fly for a us company and live in the LAX parking lot....LOL!!!

[Oval3Holer]

Apple314, have you found that your Congressman, your local news station, the AOA, the company, US Immigration, US ALPA, the Teamsters Union, California State Tax Agency or Obama has shown ANY interest in this issue?

Just curious, as I've heard that others who have contacted some of the same people/organizations have been met with lack of interest.

[airplaneridesrfun]

The IRS is giving those that turn someone in a cut of the proceeds. Apparently, the immigration department is gathering information on the managers involved, as well as those that are illegal aliens so they can have a full grasp of the situation (more evidence).

[cxhk]

Ahhh, bringing a knife to a gunfight again F10. Firstly, I have had several consultations with a top immigration lawyer over the past few years, the purpose of which was to obtain my Green Card (so, considering the utter inept way that CX has handled the basings from the start, yes, I probably DO know more than they do...). Second, you just don't see to get the main point to you? That is that because CX has arbitrarily CHANGED the criteria for staffing a base, the main point NOW being that you must have legal residence status, the value of each nations basing slots is 10 fold what it used to be, because the ONLY base we can bid on is the one in our own country. Most of the Canadians based in the US commute anyway. Why should they be allowed to not only lock up the slots for many many years, but at the same time not even live in the country. Imagine if a large percentage of the Canadian base was staffed by Americans, and they all lived back in the US, but only commuted into work....meanwhile hundreds of Canadians and their families are stuck in HK because they CAN'T bid onto their own base?? I'm sure that would seem fair huh...? If you can't see that the new base rules require a wholesale rebidding effort, instead of this singular attempt to favor a particular subset of pilots, and consequently disadvantaging many other pilots, then you really are drinking the koolaid. As for the Aus/NZ example, I clearly explained why it is a different case in an earlier thread....but no surprise, you didn't understand that either. I can't be bothered to continue this debate further, because if you can't see the obvious you aren't worth arguing with.

ps. your last comment: they weren't 'there' legally earlier. They were moving in and out of the US as a subterfuge......and it worked for many years. Now the game is over.....but why recognise the truth eh?


Is it just me, or everyone thinks Tornado Ali is talking complete non-sense?

First of all, CX changing their worldwide basing requirements will not impact on how the US immigration looks at Canadian Pilot Commuting to US to work on a foreign registered aircraft. That is totally internal CX policy, so it has nothing to do with anything.

Second, because the US base is not on-shore, the so call US base pilot are not actually being pay in the US, hence to the US authorities, they are not actually employed in the US. In CX, they might be call US base, those pilots might live there, but they are not actually working for any American entity. So the actual "title" of "US Base", is completely irrelevant because it is simply a title. These US base pilot, are in reality employee of a Hong Kong company, they just happens to choose to live in the US. So whenever we talk about US base, it is never really a US base, because CX US is not actually an on-shore company. So I highly doubted any of the US laws apply in this case.

However, having said all that, CX might be dealing with this mess now because they might be thinking of on-shoring the US base in the future, but who knows what the management will do?

[cxhk]

To add further comments to this, yes the world government is changing the way they look at basing (compare to the CX view), however, the main reason behind this changing view is TAX TAX TAX... however, since any American living overseas will need to submit tax return to their IRS each year anyway, it makes jack all difference to the US authorities where you are actually working, because they will tax you as required anyway. Hence, this is probably why CX decided to on-share Canadian base and not the US base.

[4 driver]

cxhk...makes sense. Along the same lines; Canada is "onshore" and I'm not sure how people are working on these bases without the right to work in Canada????

[Oval3Holer]

I bet applying for visas for those pilots based in the USA who do not have the right to work in the USA is a prelude to going onshore in the USA. As it stands now, none of these pilots need the right to work in the USA because they are NOT working in the USA. BUT, if CX goes onshore they WILL need the right to work in the USA.

L-1B Intracompany Transferee Specialized Knowledge

The L-1B nonimmigrant classification enables a U.S. employer to transfer a professional employee with specialized knowledge relating to the organization’s interests from one of its affiliated foreign offices to one of its offices in the United States. This classification also enables a foreign company which does not yet have an affiliated U.S. office to send a specialized knowledge employee to the United States to help establish one. The employer must file Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, on behalf of the employee.

General Qualifications of the Employer and Employee
To qualify for L-1 classification in this category, the employer must

Have a qualifying relationship with a foreign company (parent company, branch, subsidiary, or affiliate, collectively referred to as qualifying organizations); and
Currently be, or will be, doing business as an employer in the United States and in at least one other country directly or through a qualifying organization for the duration of the beneficiary’s stay in the United States as an L-1. While the business must be viable, there is no requirement that it be engaged in international trade.
Doing business means the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services by a qualifying organization and does not include the mere presence of an agent or office of the qualifying organization in the United States and abroad.

Also to qualify, the named employee must

Generally have been working for a qualifying organization abroad for one continuous year within the three years immediately preceding his or her admission to the United States; and
Be seeking to enter the United States to render services in a specialized knowledge capacity to a branch of the same employer or one of its qualifying organizations.
Specialized knowledge means special knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning organization’s product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests and its application in international markets, or expertise in the organization’s processes and procedures. (See 8 CFR 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(D).) Such knowledge is beyond the ordinary and not commonplace within the industry or the petitioning organization. In other words, the employee must be more than simply skilled or familiar with the employer’s interests.

So, YOU read all this and decide for yourself. If those currently based in the US are working abroad for CX (as required in order to be granted an L-1B visa) they would not need visas to continue to be based in the US UNLESS the US is planning to go onshore. THEY would be the ones seeking to enter the US to render services in a specialized knowledge capacity to the NEW branch of CX in the US.

It all sounds very underhanded...