The basings fiasco

[MrClaus]

Rumour has it that the basing fiasco is now so out of hand, that it has been elevated from the children in the basings office to one of the adults at Swire to fix it up. Anyone heard anything about this one?

[Nullaman]

You are essentially on the right track

[Arfur Dent]

Next basings anomaly will be when the first crew achieve the grand old age of 65 but don't want to leave - in UK for sure.

[Abbeville]

Next basings anomaly will be when the first crew achieve the grand old age of 65 but don't want to leave - in UK for sure.

While the case of crew is somewhat influenced by the various regulatory authorities I grant you there may be some sucking of teeth somewhere on this one with thoughts of 'oh no not another court case'.

When do your first 'baby-boomer' crews come up to this cut-off?

[Hellenic aviator]

I've heard the same - They've called in Swire to deal with the aftermath of what has happened.

I also heard (from D.L. Manager of the Basings Office) that in the case of the Canadians that are in the U.S. - the Company had hired a team of attorneys to file for A work visa for ONE Canadian, just to see what the U.S. Immigration would do. If they were successful, then the team would use the same process for the rest of the Canadians.

Well, someone apparently 'didn't do their homework' - the Canadian that agreed to be the 'guinea pig' was a holder of a 'Green Card'. Consequently, he was denied the work visa (which makes sense).

D.L. thinks 'they' have one more chance at this (all of course at somebody's expense, as I would think that the attorney team is not taking this on a pro bono basis).

One thing that the managers failed to realise (regardless the country of the Base) is that, contrary to their belief that it is the responsibility of the crew member to ensure that he/she takes care of their own affairs when it comes to work status and taxes, it is also the responsibility of the Company as a Corporation to ensure that they abide by the work laws of that country. They simply cannot just 'pass the buck' to the employee and claim "Well we told him".

[airplaneridesrfun]

After writing my senators and representatives in the US Congress about this, as well as the INS; I doubt any Canadians working for CX will be getting work Visa's. just my .02.

[Northern Harrier]

Brace, brace!

[Oval3Holer]

I don't think they need 'em

[Rook]

Canadians can be in the us 183 days in a row, leave and restart. Flying a Cx plane registered in HK shouldn't qualify you for US tax. No US jobs are lost. Nuff said.

[Tornado Ali]

....hmm....'nuff said'....Rook....really? There is a big difference between an airline positioning crew to operate aircraft, and having those same crew 'based' in a US port, operating OUT of that port and back TO that port at the end of duty. The INS and IRS in the USA will i'm sure be more interested in the issue than you purport. Just as an American can not be based in Vancouver, neither should an Canuck be allowed to be 'based' in the US. I know it may not be what you want to hear, but how do you justify blocking dozens of base slots from legit Americans who want them? And why would you think that those same Americans might eventually feel they need to make an issue of it with their local congressmen or senators? Eventually CX will have to resolve this, but they will probably mess it up in their usual short-shrift way.

[BusyB]

AA are based in LHR on the 777

[Freehills]

FEDEX have a base in Hong Kong. Evil yanks stealing HK'ers' jobs.

[Maple Leafs]

The American Direct Entry First Officers on a Toronto base (that’s in Canada by the way).

[GTC58]

And the American Freighter Captains and COS08 DEFO's in YVR. As far as FO's concerned there is now equal or more Americans in Canada then Canadians in the US. None of the Americans have work permits which they actually need as they work for an onshored entity of CX.
Funny, haven't heard any Canadian's bitching and writing their MP's or tipping off immigration ......

[boxjockey]

I was under the impression that the Americans on Canadian bases were going to be shipped out, no? Because they "got no papers', they were going to have to leave. Is this wrong?

box

[INDPEN]

Rook,

Quote, "No US jobs are lost."

Except for the approximately 80 or so Captains based in the US, flown by Canadian citizens preventing American citizen pilots from those positions, you are correct.

Ultimately this company has screwed itself up completely by not requiring proof of residence all along. I'm sure the Canucks wish they could be based in Canada and I'm sure the Yanks based up North could be based in the US. Just for simplicity sake.

What Cathay really needs to do, to let the status quo remain is see what the NHL does. That is a business that has Canadians 'working' in the US and Americans 'working' in Canada. How do they do it?

[INDPEN]

Working temporarily in Canada: Jobs that do not require a work permit



This link makes it very clear that pilots operating foreign registered aircraft in and out of Canada DO NOT need work vias. I am pretty confidant that The same is true for the US as well. I'm going to do some more diggin but DL needs to see this.

[GTC58]

Canada Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR)

Division 3

Work Without a Permit

No permit required

186. A foreign national may work in Canada without a work permit

(s) 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;



As CX Canada is onshored and deemed a Canadian Employer for immigration and employment purposes the above does not apply, as one of the conditions clearly states that the crew member has to be employed by a "foreign company".

[rick.shaw]

I'm with INDPEN on this one. The text below with my highlighting(from the link above):

Crew members
Foreign crew members, such as truck drivers, bus drivers, shipping and airline personnel, do not need work permits when:

• they are working on vehicles of foreign ownership and registry that are engaged primarily in the international transport of cargo and passengers,
• their work is related to the operation of the vehicles or the provision of services to passengers.

My interpretation is the fact that the vehicles (planes) are owned and registered by the foreign company is what counts - not the fact that the person is onshored.

Yes, a very simplistic way of looking at it perhaps? At the very least, it should open up temporary basings to those who are not ordinarily able to reside in Canada. Is the company still giving people grief on that one?

[boxjockey]

As GTC58 has said, with the onshoring I believe that Canadian based pilots are now deemed to work for a Canadian company, so the employees are no longer foreign nationals.

box