Retirement age panic

[Baywatcher]

CX are seeking a derogation from ICAO for an urgent review of the retirement age to enable them to overcome the crew shortage exacerbated by CC. Other airlines allegedly looking into it also.

[KABOY]

Probably tied in with the Kiwis taking CX to court.

The precedent of employing guys over 65 who can't fly in international airspace will be costly!

[Frogman1484]

F...know that! I am not going to work a day over 70!:{

[Max Reheat]

I doubt it has anything to do with the short term effects of CC.
More like years of mismanagement where crew numbers and experience levels have dwindled to an unacceptable floor.

You only have to look at the panic regarding new trainers on 777 and Airbus to see that the planners/manpower managers have royally f@#ked this up!

[broadband circuit]

F...know that! I am not going to work a day over 70!

You owe me a new laptop Frog! My old one has coffee sprayed all over it.....

[AsiaMiles]

I am stunned that someone could write this post believing it to be fact.

Do you seriously believe ICAO would react to a request from an individual airline. Any proposed change to retirement age would be coordinated by IATA to assess support or lack of interest for the proposal.

Secondly show me any regulation that ICAO has received, assessed, asked for industry and public response, issued a draft proposal and implemented the change in a short time frame.

The average is about 8-10 years from start to implementation.

[BlunderBus]

It would certainly help if the CEO of ICAO or IATA previously worked as CEO for a certain airline in HK!!!

[airplaneridesrfun]

Any job you have to work past 60 to retire is not a good job.

[Arfur Dent]

65 is enough in a job like this. Don't continue for a moment longer as there is, I believe, a fulfilling life after the abuse that is a job in Cathay Pacific. Friends who have already retired speak of the freedom that is felt when no longer constrained by any kind of roster and a sense that you can assess your own progress and not be 'governed' by a six monthly assessment by others. Save your money to give a 'slush fund' that will allow the potential ups and downs of pension arrangements to be ironed out. Look back with affection. Look forward with anticipation of adventures paid for by years of subservience no longer required. That's the theory - can't wait..........:ok:

[744drv]

Think this is all wishful thinking by Babewatcher:p

[Yonosoy Marinero]

Look forward with anticipation of adventures paid for by years of subservience no longer required.

Ah yes. The cane walking, the bi-weekly doctor appointments, the hearing aids, the casket shopping, the 5:00 pm dinner, the incontinence, yelling at those noisy kids across the yard... Can hardly wait.

:}

[Arfur Dent]

Yonno my dear chap! Glass half full. What you describe is a poorly 85 year old not a sprightly youth of 65!! Have faith.

[Yonosoy Marinero]

What you describe is a poorly 85 year old not a sprightly youth of 65!! Have faith.

At the rate this is going, how old do you think I'll be when I retire?
I'll be lucky if they wheel me out of the cockpit alive at all.

:ok:

[BillytheKid]

In a related story, Captain P.H. got a massive wide on when he heard that he may not have to retire at 65!

[Max Reheat]

Bridgeport,

Oh, how you must be really enjoying life before 55!

[Just Do It]

Bridgeport,

Not sure what you are spending your money on or may be you are saving up for a PERSONALITY!

I guess it will be a cheap one when you go to buy it.

[airplaneridesrfun]

Most people work 20 years and retire with a nice pension. At CX, you work 35 years with subpar insurance, and then you have to get a second job when you retire for money and benefits...... Seems like we have been brainwashed. Here we are, giving the company more productivity than any other airline flying passenger 777's in the civilized world, and last year they gave us 0%. Next year, they are trying the game of a few years ago, and trying to push the pay review to April..... When will the madness end!

Go home, get a real job, keep your first wife, and be happy. Seems simple! Otherwise, you will likely stay in Hong Kong, become mad, and be pissed at CX until you retire at 65, or longer...... But no worries, then you can still work longer as a sim instructor to make ends meet until you die. The whole time you will remember the promise of recruitment that you would be able to take a base in your home country. Servitude? After all, you are working for the worlds best airline!

[BizJetJock]

Most people work 20 years and retire with a nice pension
Wow! I must come to this fantasy world where everyone retires at 40ish...
Sorry, you're in cloud cuckoo land I'm afraid.

[CodyBlade]

Work 20 years and retire? You started working at what age?

This is my 28th year here.

[Freehills]

Heh, I think you will find most people don't retire after 20 years, more like 35-40. Retirement ages in most of the civilised world are 65 and increasing.

[airplaneridesrfun]

So. 20 years ago, how many CX pilots retired happy after 20 years of service? MOST.
Now?
NONE

How many years do you have to work at the FAA to retire? 20

How many years do you get for maternity leave in Germany? More than all female officers combined at CX got this year.

[CodyBlade]

I do see your point.20 years ago this was a better gig.But then again things have changed.

Oh and welcome to Asia.

[Freehills]

After 20 years in the FAA you get 20% of your 'best 3' salary, 34% if you are ATC. They'll also match any money you put into a 401k equivalent, up to 5% of your salary.

Possible to retire on that, but doubt you would be happy, unless you are the frugal type and/or get another job.

[CodyBlade]

Some consolation for sticking it out:

Most -20 year Grey-beards would have some equity appreciation on the property they bought 28 years ago.

But must off-load before 2045.

[Rule3]

How did I know he was from the great USA where the unfunded pension scheme is crippling them.
No worries simple solution, print more money.;)

[airplaneridesrfun]

After 20 years, with at least a bachelors degree at the FAA, and you should be making close to 200000. 20% of that is a heck of a lot more than your CX pension will give you.

[White None]

Bridgeport. Like many reading this I wonder what has led to your extreme cynicism WRT the fairer sex. The only thing which is guaranteed is that if anyone ever viewed matrimony or 'assessed' a suitable Missus using your views and expectations they would absolutely prove you right. What works is when one genuinely marries someone one respects and loves - not rocket science. You're only here once, this is not meant to be an insult, although I doubt you will consider it, but seriously, get some counselling before it's too late. Good Luck.

I agree with you about the uselessness of consumerism/materialism.

[Shep69]

I disagree, Rod. And ain't poor or burned rich.

Certainly things take money; but money's a lot like fuel. You can use a lot to go a little or a little to go a long way. If you're out things aren't fun; but if you have enough--at least enough for the near future--things are OK.

Few here are destitute; few in developed nations go to bed hungry. Really hungry. Most have clean water and a roof (vice a tarp) over one's head. Most drive a car vice walk. It might not be a REALLY NICE car, but it's a car nonetheless. Maybe your kid can't go to a really expensive school, but I'll bet even if one doesn't have much one can still find SOME school where one's kid can have the opportunity to do whatever he or she wants. Expensive schools and education don't necessarily make smarter people--much of the US (and I suspect other nations as well) is full of well educated idiots. And if you're in a situation where you can bitch about hotel air conditioning and crew meals life isn't too bad.

While I might have nicer things and a nicer place to live with more money I can't say I'm a great deal happier than when I just had enough to get by. So for me at least more money does NOT mean incrementally more happiness; just maybe more toys (and you can define that any way you want). And most of us find a way to get all we need and a fair bit of what we want on whatever we're making at the time. More or less.

Certainly not knocking money or have anything against it (after all it's just the accumulated value of what the marketplace thinks your time and talent is worth) but it's only one facet of life. As one gets older one finds that time--and what one does with it--is life's most important commodity. And that if one counts one's blessings vice what one ain't got one might be happier.

[Shep69]

OK..Cheers !

[boxjockey]

Shep,

Thank you so much for this reply. I was beginning to think I am the only person around here that understands this. So many of our colleagues need a little bit of perspective. If you put us on the scale of worldwide earnings, then you will find we are true 1%ers. Just think about that for a moment, and consider just how fortunate we are. And for some, please don't prattle on about hard work and sacrifice. There was a study done recently in which it was found that once basic needs are met, making more money has a rapidly diminishing rate of return on happiness. The amount was around $70K USD/yr. Once basics are met, then money indeed does NOT make you happier.

box

[Brown Nose]

Didn't David Lee Roth say;
"Those that think money doesn't buy you happyness.......are shopping in the wrong place"

[airplaneridesrfun]

We are probably in the top 15% in Hong Kong. Much better than the bottom 15%, but nowhere close to this dream of being in the 1%.... Not to mention the fact that we have to live outside our home countries in order to be there. Money isn't everything, but why else would someone sacrifice their families health and mental stability by living in Hong Kong? I guess for some it is that they only have to see their mother in law once a year. Other than that, our wages should match the other top airlines in the world; and right now we are 20% behind and falling fast (yes, even with the insulting pay award). Open your eyes, people!

[Freehills]

Latest HK govt stats show that 30k gets you into top 17% (and probably top 15% as they exclude domestic workers)

60k gets you into top 5%

They don't give income level for top 1%

[oriental flyer]

The top taxpayer in HK paid just on HK$71 million in taxes in 2009
That is from the revenue dept So you can approximate his total package
I suspect that it is significantly higher than mine and I would imagine that salaries have risen significantly since then
".........................................

$71m bill for Hong Kong's top taxpayer
(05-08 22:33)

Hong Kong's top salaried taxpayer handed over HK$71 million in taxes in the last financial year, including the final payment for the previous year, the Inland Revenue Department said.

The department released figures for the top 10 payers of salaries tax and profits tax in a statement today

The 10 biggest payers of taxes on salaries paid a combined HK$459 million.

The figure includes the final tax for 2007-2008 and provisional taxes for 2008-2009. Taxes were paid on basic salaries and also bonuses, commissions, allowances and share option gains.

Hong Kong is headed for its first full-year economic contraction since 1998. Gross domestic product will probably shrink as much as 3 percent this year, after expanding 2.5 percent last year, Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah said on February 25.

The government's budget surplus shrank to HK$1.44 billion for the year ending March 31 from HK$123.6 billion in 2007-2008.

BLOOMBERG

And from SCMP for 2012
Hong Kong's biggest taxpayer handed over HK$79 million in salaries tax last year, while one highly profitable company accounted for 3 per cent of all profits tax generated in the city, official figures show.

The identity of the top taxpayer was not disclosed, but it is likely to have been Canning Fok Kin-ning, group managing director of tycoon Li Ka-shing's Hutchison Whampoa empire. He earned HK$170 million last year, of which HK$157 million was a bonus. Fok is often assumed to have paid the most tax.

Only once in the past five years has the biggest salaries-tax payer's bill been higher - w in 2009-10, when it was HK$91 million.

Revenue from the 10 biggest taxpayers in the 2011-12 financial year amounted to HK$498 million, an 82 per cent increase on the HK$274 million from the top 10 in 2010-11, Inland Revenue Department figures show.

One expert said the leap in payments - and the fact that the government's tax revenue for last year grew to a record HK$238.3 billion - suggested the rich may have cashed in stock options in the expectation of gloomy economic times ahead.

Another expert, Taxation Institute president Philip Hung, said the figures for corporate tax and the dominance of a small number of companies pointed to the potential dangers of a narrow tax base.

'Our financial secretary has already given a negative note in his budget speech this year. In fact, his thinking has been shared by the companies at an earlier stage. Some predicted the property market would go downwards,' Hung said. 'It is not surprising for the staff of these companies [that predicted a negative economic outlook] to exercise their stock options at that point in time.'

He said the taking up of options was one-off behaviour, which was unlikely to be repeated in later years.

Neither Hung nor Jeremy Choi, a tax partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers, would offer an estimate of the salaries of the top taxpayers, since the calculation would involve numerous variables and their high bills were racked up from a combination of bonus and stock options, not pay rises.

Choi said the higher tax revenue did not reflect a general increase in salaries, but 'it may be a reflection of some companies making big profits, like those in the real estate business'.

The most profitable firm on the list paid HK$3.52 billion.

Hung said the fact that one firm was such a big contributor was unhealthy and showed the need for the tax base to be widened. 'Apart from a few large developers, these are likely to be the multinational investment companies based in Hong Kong, which are attracted to the city's low- tax environment,' he said. 'Can you imagine what will happen to the government's revenue if they relocate to other Asian cities with better air quality and infrastructure? It's also time for the government to rethink how to retain these talents [of individual taxpayers] and companies.'

Owing to the city's narrow tax base, the highest-earning 200,000 individuals paid 80 per cent of the salaries tax. And just 10 per cent of roughly 91,000 firms paid profits

[IDS]

...and that is why IRD decided that all based pilots employed by CX "onshore" companies are actually employed in Hong Kong after all. They want the tax money, and that is plenty! And all of this without the need for work visas, too. Interestingly the conduct of our beloved company during this "onshoring" was never investigated by IRD. Go figure...

[Trafalgar]

I think the time has come for a lawsuit against the IRD in respect of taxing offshore based pilots, working for foreign offshore based companies. It is no different than the IRD taxing a United Airlines pilot who bids HKG trips all year long. We are being taxed without representation, and it is time it stopped. Comments ?

[Benbo]

I think you may find that the reason the IRD started taxing UK based pilots in HKG was that a small group of UK based pilots asked the IRD to tax them in HKG in the hope that they could avoid UK tax. They challenged the double taxation laws on the basis that they should be taxed where they were employed.

[ColonelAngus]

None of the "foreign offshore based companies" are actually foreign, offshore based companies.

All pilots are working for HK companies which are subsidiaries of Cathay. In SOME countries, which are supposedly "on shore," these HK companies are merely licensed to do business in those countries, not incorporated there.

That is why the IRD is trying to tax pilots for the time they are in HK. The same is true for US-based cabin crew. Even THEY are working for Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd., a HK company. The whole Canada address thing is just that: a mailing address.

[Arfur Dent]

In other words - another example of Cathay's brilliant man-mismanagement and lack of research when opening/closing/running/organising Bases. You couldn't make it up............:confused:

[IDS]

"...That is why the IRD is trying to tax pilots for the time they are in HK."

Wrong. IRD is not only 'trying' - they tax based crew. IRD wants the full annual tax in many cases, except one spends less than 60 days in Hong Kong, which is almost impossible to accomplish even for based crew. Or you can offset tax in Hong Kong or your country of domicile, but that is apparently not so clear either. Funny enough, the based guys always end up with barely over 60 days, hence full tax. Pro rata tax was dumped a long time ago. Reasons unknown.

[Natca]

So is this "scare" what the recent CX recruitment spool up is about?

[monster330]

Bottom line is that the rules are made to protect those with the money and keep the rest at bay.

Feed em American idol, give em a few apps for their commute in the morning, pretend they have a say.

When those that can make the rules want more money, they simply change the rules.

Offshore, onshore, not sure.

Notice when the proverbial hits the fan every so often that these ironclad "rules" and laws are changed to benefit the wealthy.

That is why the top 5% have and always will control 95% of the money.

Like it, love it, or loathe it.

It just is.

[BlunderBus]

well they DO insist on building silly bridges

[CISTRS]

well they DO insist on building silly bridges This is a result of the property / construction industries represented in Functional Constituencies making their own agenda. This town is getting more corrupt, whilst slowly the Mainland is going the other way.