Merged: Tiger Tales

[TIMA9X]

October 06, 2010 15:05 PM A Malaysian news report.
BERNAMA - Singapore Budget Carrier Tiger Hires Pilots On Short-term Contracts

Singapore Budget Carrier Tiger Hires Pilots On Short-term Contracts

SINGAPORE, Oct 6 (Bernama) -- Singapore's budget carrier Tiger Airways
has turned to recruitment agencies in Europe to help ease a spate of
recent pilot resignations, China's Xinhua news agency quoted local media
as reporting Wednesday.

It is therefore targeting qualified A320 captains, on short- term
contracts of about six months, to ensure that flight schedules are not
disrupted, local daily The Straits Times reported.

I don't know how they see this as a short term fix without upsetting the encumbered pilots... or they may not know..

Tiger Airways, however, did not reveal how many contract pilots it would
bring in and is expected to face a potential pricky issue of pay.

An average Tiger Airways pilot receives 17,000 Singapore dollars
(US$12,985) per month, and the contract pilots are expected to get
20,000 Singapore dollars (US$15,277).

Sunglasses and white sticks required at TR HQ?
It appears to confirm the management have been flying blind.

[go_soaring]

EBA - Pilot Negotiations

Found this one on the net the other day, good for a laugh...

Pilot negotiations


go_soaring! instead

[3 Holer]

Tiger Airways, however, did not reveal how many contract pilots it would bring in and is expected to face a potential pricky issue of pay.

I assume one would expect this when dealing with management pricks.

[White Line]

TAX claim

would any one be able to give me some information on how they went about claiming their A320 endorsement when starting with tiger.

Thanks in advance,

WL

[Moneybox]

Claiming your A320 Endorsement.

It can be done. Just make sure you get a good accountant. Dont pop into H and R Block. They are mongs. I had to make my way to a good accountant. He looked at it and was happy with it. The tax guys reviewed it and hey presto, the claim was approved.

GOOD ACCOUNTANT...

[43Inches]

The tax guys reviewed it and hey presto, the claim was approved.

Did you get audited or was the claim just approved, there is a big difference. Tax return claims are processed not approved and the accountant has zero responsibility if its wrong. An audit is the review process and is carried out randomly or if things look grossly out of place.

[George Bush]

Just do it yourself, eTax. Claim under 'self-education' expenses. Enter the full amount. Ignore the warnings people give you about doing this because it's done by many. If you get audited and the ATO have a bitch just plead ignorance and pay back the applicable amount.

[psycho joe]

You can claim the endorsement. You can also claim it over several years to maximise your return.

I used these guys Duesburys Gippsland - Partners

[43Inches]

14. No «deduction» is allowable for self-education expenses if the study, viewed objectively, is designed to enable a taxpayer to get employment, to obtain new employment or to open up a new income-earning activity (whether in business or in the taxpayer's current employment). This includes studies relating to a particular profession, occupation or field of employment in which the taxpayer is not yet engaged. The expenses are incurred at a point too soon to be regarded as incurred in gaining or producing assessable income.

Just wondering how the accountants get around this ATO ruling?

Basically if you resign from one company then complete training whilst unemployed you can not claim any deduction as it is not related to your current employment duties. You are not employed by Tiger until completing such training.

If you paid for your training whilst employed by a company to fly one of the companies larger aircraft it is deductable.

You can only claim against your current income stream, if the training takes place outside the income stream it is no longer deductable.

[ANCDU]

Was looking at all this a few years back, and the advice I got from most of the accountants I contacted was as 43 Inches stated, although one guy said it would be fine for me to claim. I guess it depends on who you get your advice from.

I was told the safest way would be to obtain a private ruling, the only problem would be if it didn't go the way you wanted it would set a precedent against the people who have already claimed it.

Sure enough claim it, but i would be prepared to pay it back if you get audited. Just because your tax gets through doesn't mean the ATO is ok with it, I was audited over a minor allowances issue (luckily nothing came out of it) that took place 2 years prior! I aren't sure but i don't think you are safe for 6 years.

[psycho joe]

The expenses are incurred at a point too soon to be regarded as incurred in gaining or producing assessable income.

You can only claim against your current income stream, if the training takes place outside the income stream it is no longer deductable.

Correct. You can only claim an endorsement after a period of earning taxable income from that endorsement. I believe that it is regarded as a capital expence. Having said that I'm the first to admit that I'm no Tax Accountant.

When I asked about why these Accountants would claim when your average H & R Block wouldn't. It was explained that the qualifications of tax professionals & their motivation to keep up with tax amendments varies greatly. Simply put, asking your average Tax person about a type rating claim is like asking a day VFR PPL Pilot (no disrespect to any PPL intended) to explain the workings of an AC Transfer bus in a B747 electrical system. You may get lucky and strike someone who knows the answer, but you'd probably be better off asking someone who's an expert in that specific field. For that matter, you probably wouldn't go to CASA for an answer to that either.

[43Inches]

You can only claim an endorsement after a period of earning taxable income from that endorsement.

There is a case similar regarding an employee who resigned from a position conducted training for a higher position within his profession and then was re-employed. He tried to claim the expense of the training and was denied as it occured before he was employed by his current employer. That is the training was not deemed to be improving his existing employment.

Another example given by the tax office is a flight engineer who claimed tax deductions training for a PPL whilst employed at an airline as a flight engineer. It was deemed the training improved his current proffesional status at the company and was allowed.

The big issue is whether you are employed or not at the time the training took place. If you were you can claim it against the tax paid whilst employed by that firm. If you were not employed at the time no tax benefit can be gained as you were not earning taxable income at the time.

[Moneybox]

Claiming Your Endorsement.

I spoke to the accountant after my claim was successful. He told me my return was delayed because the tax office did a mini audit of my claim, then approved it.

I was employed as a pilot at the time I made the claim though. If you are unemployed at the moment then you might be fingered...

[psycho joe]

There is no question of claiming whilst unemployed. Given that a claim is lodged as a tax deduction on earnings after the fact; Everyone who claims must have been employed. Or else there would have been no taxable income to be lodging the claim against.

[TIMA9X]

http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/...-dismays-tiger

Meanwhile, the usual bun fight between Malaysia & Singapore continues regarding Tiger's proposed start up in Thailand. It appears pressure is mounting against the TTA (Thai Tiger) Airways setup in Bangkok.

'White guys' comment dismays Tiger

• Published: 16/10/2010 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: Business

Tiger Airways yesterday hit back at AirAsia, the region's largest low-cost airline, for what it called "racial slurs" about the Singapore-based budget carrier.
Saying it was "disappointed and surprised" by the comments by AirAsia chief Tony Fernandes, Tiger Airways stated that "resorting to racial slurs is unbecoming and unnecessary."
Mr Fernandes made a comment about "white guys" running an Asian airline in an interview with the Bangkok Post. He was expressing scepticism about having Westerners running any successful Asia-based business, referring to some Tiger management.
"Tiger Airways is proud of our employees' contributions regardless of their race or cultural background." the Singapore airline said.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/...gths-thai-told

Focus on core strengths, THAI told

AirAsia chief questions budget plan

• Published: 15/10/2010 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: Business

KUALA LUMPUR : Thai Airways International should focus on its core strength - the premium airline business - rather than getting involved in low-cost carrier (LCC) ventures, says the founder of Asia's biggest budget carrier.
Tony Fernandes, chief executive of AirAsia Group, questioned the need for the Thai flag carrier's contentious plan to create Thai Tiger Airways (TTA), in addition to the budget operator Nok Air, in which THAI has a 39% share.
"My question is, is it necessary? Is it being done for the right reasons?" Mr Fernandes asked rhetorically, referring to the proposed partnership with Singapore-based Tiger Airways.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/...-to-be-delayed

Thai Tiger launch likely to be delayed

• Published: 19/10/2010 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: Business

The launch of Thai Tiger Airways (TTA) could be delayed up to two months from its scheduled March 2011 takeoff due to complications, said Ampon Kittiampon, the chairman of Thai Airways International (THAI).
Ryan: TTA venture to be a big success

One complication is additional time is required to complete the negotiations of the joint venture between the Thai flag carrier and the Singapore-based no-frills carrier Tiger Airways.
THAI also faces possible legal opposition from the Transport Ministry on whether the creation of TTA is legitimate.

Back in Australia today
Tiger Airways to charge 'membership' fee for air fare sales

And be warned: there's no refund of the fee if you want to quit later and, after the first year, fees can change "at any time without notice to the member".
And if you want to argue the point, you'll need a Singaporean lawyer, because the membership will be "governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Singapore", the airline says.

Really......so do we grant them Australian ASAs under Singaporean laws as well?
WOW! It never ends.... nothing is straight forward at TR anymore.

[Pedota]

This is a novel way of raising additional revenue without cost . . . charging for first access to special fares! It is a wonder someone else has not thought of it before!

Tiger earns stripes on member fees

Andrew Heasley – The Age October 19, 2010

TIGER Airways has extracted tens of thousands of dollars from customers without them even getting close to an aircraft, just for the privilege of being among the first to know about upcoming fare sales.

In the latest revenue-raising "innovation" among low-cost airlines, Tiger has started charging passengers a "membership" fee of $29.95 a year to join an email list that gives priority access to sale fares a day before their general release.

Already "thousands" have signed up and paid the joining fee, a Tiger spokeswoman said - even though there are no points accruals or reward redemptions such as in other airline loyalty programs.

Most airlines offer free email alerts spruiking special deals, such as Jetstar's JetMail or Virgin Blue's V-mail.

The move is driven by falling fares. Leading domestic airfares fell more than 15 per cent this month, according to government economists, and budget airlines are looking to more inventive ways of extracting passenger revenue beyond the fare paid.

But after paying for Tiger's email alerts, there is no guarantee you will be able to snare flights at the sale price, for yourself or your companions, as sale bookings are subject to seat availability.

And be warned: there's no refund of the fee if you want to quit later and, after the first year, fees can change "at any time without notice to the member".

And if you want to argue the point, you'll need a Singaporean lawyer, because the membership will be "governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Singapore", the airline says.

Tiger Airways Australia's managing director, Crawford Rix, said the idea of "members-only" previews of sales came from customers.

"Our promotions are so popular that many customers have suggested special 'members-only previews'," he said.

See Tiger Airways to charge 'membership' fee for air fare sales.

[wheels_down]

VH-VND flew up to Singapore about a week ago, I thought maintenance was done at JH?

[NOT QF LAME]

Word is Tiger are so tight even JHAS who need the work have told them to get nicked, they think they will get a beeter job in Singapore. Hope you cheapskates are not disappointed, someone needs to explain that the cost of maintenace does not go down just because you declare yourself a "low cost carrier"

[tourismman]

I noticed that BNE-SYD-BNE is now in the drop down menu of Tiger destinations.obviously soon to be announced.
Aircraft 11 and 12 due Feb-March to Australia with routes not yet announced so we could assume that BNE-SYD will be one of these.

The BNE common user terminal expansion will be completed by Xmas with a extra 2 parking bays, total of 7 plus 2 at the main terminal =9.There will be more gates and lounges upstairs and eateries etc.

[Gnadenburg]

The episode regarding Captain Ryan Goh's deportation and the surrounding controversy is nicely summed up in this article, written by a Malaysian publication over 6 years ago.

====

Lee Kuan Yew and SIA

Pilot Ryan
Does it change things?
Fears that it will reverse Singapore's 'opening up' seem exaggerated. Here's why. By Seah Chiang Nee.
Mar 14, 2004

MONTHS away from his son becoming premier, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew has acted to revoke the permanent resident status of a Malaysian citizen for "instigating" a labour dispute.

It’s the first time since 1990, when he stepped down as Prime Minister, that such action has been taken.

SIA pilot and union representative Ryan Goh Yew Hock, who has lived here for 26 years, was accused by SM Lee of trying to instigate a union revolt against the government-controlled airline.

The subsequent cancellation of his PR status - pending the outcome of his appeal - was seen as a warning to foreign residents not to meddle in domestic issues.

In the 60s, this would have passed as a non-event by people who knew him well.

But in the 21st century, with a whole new generation of better educated citizens, what he did has caused concern - even anger - among people who know little about his role in history.

The episode has given rise to complications, which veteran People’s Action Party (PAP) MP Tan Cheng Bock brought up in Parliament.

Firstly, Singaporeans felt disquiet that Lee had to step in and, secondly, it raised questions in people’s minds about the younger ministers’ capability to handle such problems, Tan said.

He was reflecting what the public generally felt.

People were asking: Why did Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong or the minister in charge keep quiet when it was happening? Were they agreeable to SM Lee’s action?

SM Lee had accused the Malaysian-born pilot of being the "chief instigator" behind the move to sack the SIA pilots’ union leadership after it had approved pay and job cuts during the SARS crisis.

Unhappy with the union’s concession, the majority of members eventually did just that. The plan was for a new team to confront SIA in forthcoming negotiations.

Ryan Goh, Lee alleged, had "surreptitiously" taken actions "that would undermine industrial peace in SIA and also put the economic interests of Singapore at risk".

Lee revealed that Goh had accepted permanent residence in Australia, bought a house in Perth, moved his family and car there - and sold his flat in Singapore. It implied he was preparing an escape route should things go wrong.

Lee told the pilots: "It is not just SIA that goes down, but you go down, too."

He added that it was different for permanent residents such as Goh because they could "opt out".

To some critics, it raised a bigger question of a possible change of leadership style after the milder Goh Chok Tong retires as premier, probably this year.

The elder Lee’s move came just after his son had promised in a newspaper interview to continue with the process of opening up society on taking over.

SM Lee had also said he would remain in his present position after the changeover.

Despite his declining health, the 80-year-old Lee has been enhancing his political role in recent months that seemed to show dissatisfaction with the way some things were run.

He had stepped in to take charge of the SIA labour conflict, evidently on feeling that his younger colleagues were too soft or hesitant in dealing with it and allowing a potential threat to build up.

With his mind still quick and alert, Lee had earlier declared that Singapore was too small for two competing domestic television networks.

Then he reportedly called up editors and journalists of a daily tabloid for a tongue-lashing session.

In an interview obviously targeting his younger ministers, Lee said he did not believe in a populist government whose policies were just to win votes.

This was not something new. In the past, he had said that Singapore would have been in trouble if his actions were based on meeting public demands.

Long before he stepped down, he had been advising his successor on the need to run a "tight ship" and once chided Goh for not being firm enough.

Lee had ruled with two ingredients - superior logic and fear - which transformed Singapore from a poor, squalid city with high unemployment and low education into an affluent, global city.

Many in Singapore’s heartland, especially the baby-boomers, still admire him but youths, raised under new circumstances, think differently.

Does his handling of the SIA dispute mean that Singapore is reverting to Lee’s authoritarian past?

The answer is no. It’s not possible. The trend is towards a more open society.

I believe pilot Goh’s case was a one-off action rather than the beginning of a new political trend.

It came because of Lee’s personal conviction that, unless firmly handled, this dispute would lead to a dangerous confrontation with far-reaching impact for Singapore’s economy.

SIA is no ordinary company. On its shoulders lies the bulk of the city’s tourism industry and up to 100,000 jobs.

Living with constant dangers had made what Lee is - even today. He has a suspicious mind that makes him act when others debate.

On spotting danger signs, as in the case of the SIA dispute, his instinct is to act firmly and if he erred, it would be erring on the side of caution.

However, what he did and how he ruled are less relevant today. It is unlikely to be how his son, Hsien Loong, will behave when he takes over.

The troubles confronting Singapore and the new economic necessities, both globally and internally, have changed dramatically. So have Singapore’s highly educated population and even the ruling PAP.

Where Kuan Yew had used logic and the stick, Hsien Loong has to resort to persuasion.

The stick (tough, punishing laws) could be effective when Singapore was dealing with communists, violent extremists, kidnappers or simply people who spit.

But legislation alone cannot be relied on to resolve today’s type of pressing problems of citizens’ emigration, marriage and procreation, work ethics, loyalty and promoting entrepreneurs - which is what the new leader is faced with.

For that persuasion must take precedence.

The process of de-control, I believe, will continue steadily and, at times, hesitatingly. The question is not 'if' but 'how fast', especially in the political arena where it's a lot slower. Critics want a faster pace.

(This is an update of an article published in Sunday Star).

I didn't see this a few pages ago....

One of the reasons Australia must tread carefully and occasionally block Singaporian investment in this country. Singapore requires as cautious an approach as we tread with China.

China, for its undetermined strategic ambitions in the region. And Singapore, for the facade it presents, and its threats to human rights and freedoms.

And Dr Pepz. How did PM Lee come to survive and admire the Japanese occupation? A time when his countrymen ( of Chinese origin ) were being shot and tortured, with Chinese-Singaporian women forced into prostitution by the Japanese army.

Singapore is not a beacon of good leadership in the region but a threat to advances and progress. Under its facade it is an ugly nation.