JFK 777 base
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: az
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JFK 777 base
I wonder if the combination of at least one ice storm a year in JFK, plus the occasional TS or hurricane that shuts the NYC airspace down will lead CX to establish a 777 JFK base? Not only would they save $$ by increased operational efficiency, reduced pilot costs (the payscale is less in the US), and no CEA or 13th month payment; but CX would not have to pay housing to expats in Hong Kong that take the slots. Four flights a day should be able to support a base. Am I missing something? What are the constraints here?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CX reviewed the cost of basings in the beginning of this year. The conclusion was that the cost savings associated with basings are minim or for some basing areas cost are higher than the HKG base.
Considering all new hires will be icadets on cheap HKPA my guess is that no new base vacancies will be offered. Bases will slowly shrink due to attrition, retirements and HKG commands. When a base shrinks to critical size it will be closed .........
Hopefully I am wrong and September's basings bid has some vacancies, but I fear that won't happen.
Considering all new hires will be icadets on cheap HKPA my guess is that no new base vacancies will be offered. Bases will slowly shrink due to attrition, retirements and HKG commands. When a base shrinks to critical size it will be closed .........
Hopefully I am wrong and September's basings bid has some vacancies, but I fear that won't happen.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: up here, everyone looks like ants!
Posts: 966
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real issue is efficiency.
Three full patterns from JFK to HKG equal over 90 hours. Thats an unacceptable level of overtime every month, according to CH (and we're all his beotch).
Two and a half patterns is 75 hours. Not enough. Regional "fillers" are unavailable at the appropriate hour unless re$t in HKG is scheduled - at a co$t.
Additionally (and personally I'm unconvinced CX gives a rats behind on this) there's the issue of radiation on polar crossings. CX pretty much takes the lowest readings from the most conservative source for it's readings. Truth is, it's much higher. Ask any ULH pilot about visits to the oncology unit at the Sanatarium Hospital and little crusty things being removed.
What CH dreams about at night and sends little shivers of pleasure up his spine at the thought, is a guaranteed minimum of 90 hours. Our next fight, gents (and ladies).
Why doesn't CX have a JFK base, you ask?
M O N E Y
Three full patterns from JFK to HKG equal over 90 hours. Thats an unacceptable level of overtime every month, according to CH (and we're all his beotch).
Two and a half patterns is 75 hours. Not enough. Regional "fillers" are unavailable at the appropriate hour unless re$t in HKG is scheduled - at a co$t.
Additionally (and personally I'm unconvinced CX gives a rats behind on this) there's the issue of radiation on polar crossings. CX pretty much takes the lowest readings from the most conservative source for it's readings. Truth is, it's much higher. Ask any ULH pilot about visits to the oncology unit at the Sanatarium Hospital and little crusty things being removed.
What CH dreams about at night and sends little shivers of pleasure up his spine at the thought, is a guaranteed minimum of 90 hours. Our next fight, gents (and ladies).
Why doesn't CX have a JFK base, you ask?
M O N E Y
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: az
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So. Besides paying to establish a crew room, and a small amount of administration (sum neutral since that means less admin required in HK), there are no significant additional costs for CX to base pilots in the US. The US does not make foreign entities that have employees in the US (not onshore) pay US tax, US social security or medicare/medicaid. In fact, you could have two pilots in New York for the price of one in HK. Even with the crap deal being offered (but seldom accepted), it is still cheaper to have pilots based in JFK opposed to HK. Not only that, if CX wants to recruit or retain any Americans, it will have to show that at some point a base will be available!!! Furthermore - there is no long service leave in the USA!
Again - not adding up. However, I'm sure the mgt would be happy to tell you there will be no basings unless you CX pilots do X, Y, or Z (or X, Y and Z)...... so please stop spreading this ridiculous rumor about no more bases - mgt is laughing at you.
Again - not adding up. However, I'm sure the mgt would be happy to tell you there will be no basings unless you CX pilots do X, Y, or Z (or X, Y and Z)...... so please stop spreading this ridiculous rumor about no more bases - mgt is laughing at you.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: up here, everyone looks like ants!
Posts: 966
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airplaneridesrfun
You were asking about JFK. ORD, MIA, ATL, LAX, SFO and (best of all, from CX's position) ANC all have different dynamics of scheduling. CH can squeeze out 84 hours a month to within a gnats hair on all those bases - but not JFK.
I wouldn't be so sure about your statement on the other fiduciary responsibilities though (IRS, medical coverage etc). As Uncle Sam mires itself in more and more debt, the federal government is passing as much of the social network buck onto employers as it can (read the Times, WSJ and Washington Post) for the latest shenanigans.
Finally, and this is important - CX wants it all. Low wages, indentured labour, labour laws that favor big business, the freedom to do just about anything. Under the current US administration it's unlikely to expand bases, but if (when) the GOP gets back in, watch this space.
My .02c
there are no significant additional costs for CX to base pilots in the US
I wouldn't be so sure about your statement on the other fiduciary responsibilities though (IRS, medical coverage etc). As Uncle Sam mires itself in more and more debt, the federal government is passing as much of the social network buck onto employers as it can (read the Times, WSJ and Washington Post) for the latest shenanigans.
Finally, and this is important - CX wants it all. Low wages, indentured labour, labour laws that favor big business, the freedom to do just about anything. Under the current US administration it's unlikely to expand bases, but if (when) the GOP gets back in, watch this space.
My .02c
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: 35,000 feet
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple solution for JFK base, CX simply base EFP threshold on a 2 month schedule with legal agreement signed by the aoa. If you do 2 months of flying and do 5 JFK flights = 160 hours that averages 80 hours a month for the 2 months. heck they could even publish a 2 month roster
If there is a will there is a way. but clearly there is no will on CH's part!
If there is a will there is a way. but clearly there is no will on CH's part!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: up here, everyone looks like ants!
Posts: 966
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 month rosters
When basings first began in 1994, there WERE 2 month rosters. that lasted about 1 year if I remember correctly.
Expecting 2 month rosters now implies they actually know what crewing and aircraft availability levels will be 2 months from now...
Don't hold your breath.
Expecting 2 month rosters now implies they actually know what crewing and aircraft availability levels will be 2 months from now...
Don't hold your breath.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US does not make foreign entities that have employees in the US (not onshore) pay US tax, US social security or medicare/medicaid.
As an employer REQUIRING the employee to be based in the US you are FULLY responsible to comply with labor laws of the US.
If this wasn't the case, then all American carriers could base their headquarters in the Caymans and hire foreigners to fly their aircraft based in the US.
Can't do that yet.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WTF???
Besides paying to establish a crew room
As far as I know at all the bases (except HK of course) you report for work at the aircraft 60 mins before departure.
As you say, a small cost, but a cost none-the-less, therefore, CX doesn't have them.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: az
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point waterskier. Not to mention that the PXing to ORD to cover that flight would also add flexibility in rostering a JFK base; after all, if ICM is unable to schedule 84 hours of actual flying duty, then the next best thing is to PX you around the world to complete your roster.
7700 - As it stands now, CX is not liable for paying the employer part of social security tax, medicaid and medicare, etc.... to the US government. The reason is that they are creating jobs for Americans.... er, Canadians. This in turn does lead to tax revenue from individuals. You are absolutely correct in that this does not absolve CX from the liability of ensuring that those working in US bases are either Americans, or pilots with the right to work in the US. Sounds like they are getting this sorted out slowly, but surely; and in the spirit and intent of the law. Some Canadians might be surprised at the penalty and repercussions for lying repeatedly to an immigration officer (the corollary is that a few Americans may be surprised at the penalty for lying to a Canadian immigration officers in YYZ).
7700 - As it stands now, CX is not liable for paying the employer part of social security tax, medicaid and medicare, etc.... to the US government. The reason is that they are creating jobs for Americans.... er, Canadians. This in turn does lead to tax revenue from individuals. You are absolutely correct in that this does not absolve CX from the liability of ensuring that those working in US bases are either Americans, or pilots with the right to work in the US. Sounds like they are getting this sorted out slowly, but surely; and in the spirit and intent of the law. Some Canadians might be surprised at the penalty and repercussions for lying repeatedly to an immigration officer (the corollary is that a few Americans may be surprised at the penalty for lying to a Canadian immigration officers in YYZ).
