Paris Base Closed
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing changes ... housing deal is in accordance with normal cos, why should it be any different? Come back to HKG on expat terms if eligible. Otherwise, freighter guys will be on HKPA.
Don't judge everyone by your own circumstances. There are guys in CDG who will not want to come to HKG no matter what. Will freighter capts want to come to HK on HKPA? Will they want full expat housing in the RHS? If there are no resignations I will be very surprised.
Don't judge everyone by your own circumstances. There are guys in CDG who will not want to come to HKG no matter what. Will freighter capts want to come to HK on HKPA? Will they want full expat housing in the RHS? If there are no resignations I will be very surprised.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Exactly. Little to lose. Especially given the fleet 'realignment'.
Such has always been the risk with bases; the threat of having to move to HKG at short notice, or leaving the company. With the EU aviation sector dead in the water, I predict minimal attrition. A handful to the Middle East (out of spite/bad feeling) perhaps, but not enough to raise eyebrows. They, sure as ****, won't be joining any big French carriers anytime soon.
Will the AOA do anything? Hahahahaha, don't make me laugh. Perhaps a RA 65 on local conditions without HKPA?!
In all seriousness; If they're eligible for full housing, we all know there aren't swathes of better opportunities to be had.
Better the devil you know.
Such has always been the risk with bases; the threat of having to move to HKG at short notice, or leaving the company. With the EU aviation sector dead in the water, I predict minimal attrition. A handful to the Middle East (out of spite/bad feeling) perhaps, but not enough to raise eyebrows. They, sure as ****, won't be joining any big French carriers anytime soon.
Will the AOA do anything? Hahahahaha, don't make me laugh. Perhaps a RA 65 on local conditions without HKPA?!
In all seriousness; If they're eligible for full housing, we all know there aren't swathes of better opportunities to be had.
Better the devil you know.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: lapbandland
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay the Paris base is closing, some will be screwed by the
offered conditions in HKG.
But, what are the companies true motives in closing the base.
I always believed getting the bases up was a means of shutting
down as much of the old provident fund as possible.
There must be an underlying tax or employment issue to
cause a scrambled shutdown of Paris, especially as the cost
to the company seems far from neutral.
offered conditions in HKG.
But, what are the companies true motives in closing the base.
I always believed getting the bases up was a means of shutting
down as much of the old provident fund as possible.
There must be an underlying tax or employment issue to
cause a scrambled shutdown of Paris, especially as the cost
to the company seems far from neutral.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: hong kong
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The company has said that officers may bid for any vacancies in their base area. However, there are, at present, no vacancies so it's HKG or bust. Cargo guys with families will find that really tough and commuting only a short term fix.
IMO Man will not be closed but numbers reduced to cover the service only there are plenty of 744 drivers in LHR. As most of the MAN base is ex KA I don't think CX or many others will care that much, we'll have bigger fish to fry.
This is another Pole Shift moment, and remember, that the base review is still ongoing, that is stated in the letter. So another threat left to linger.
IMO Man will not be closed but numbers reduced to cover the service only there are plenty of 744 drivers in LHR. As most of the MAN base is ex KA I don't think CX or many others will care that much, we'll have bigger fish to fry.
This is another Pole Shift moment, and remember, that the base review is still ongoing, that is stated in the letter. So another threat left to linger.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: hong kong
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Closure letter
The terms are stated that officers may bid for vacancies in their base area, however, there are, at present, no vacancies.
The base review is still ongoing, read into that, that there could be more base realignments.
MAN will be downsized, IMO, to fit the services into there. Most of the MAN base is ex KA so what do CX care, there were no promises to not disadvantage them when they signed over.
IMO. This whole mess is precipitated by the French. This is a Pole Shift, more disruption to our lives will, no doubt, follow. Interesting that the new French govt is planning a big tax hike on ex-pat Poms living in France.
Doing business in the new socialist Franch will be more challenging for any foreign company, best let the cheese eating surrender monkeys fester in their own merde.
The base review is still ongoing, read into that, that there could be more base realignments.
MAN will be downsized, IMO, to fit the services into there. Most of the MAN base is ex KA so what do CX care, there were no promises to not disadvantage them when they signed over.
IMO. This whole mess is precipitated by the French. This is a Pole Shift, more disruption to our lives will, no doubt, follow. Interesting that the new French govt is planning a big tax hike on ex-pat Poms living in France.
Doing business in the new socialist Franch will be more challenging for any foreign company, best let the cheese eating surrender monkeys fester in their own merde.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I certainly empathize with our Paris based colleagues. This is quite a significant change imposed on our members, with little warning. I understand the benefits package that will be available to them in HKG is still somewhat unclear.
What has motivated this sudden change in policy? I suspect CX is just starting to realize that the basing fiasco noose is slowly tightening around their skinny little necks and they are hoping to quickly reduce their liability.
May I suggest that this may be a defining moment for the HKAOA going forward. This will be a real opportunity for them to show some leadership and stand up for these members. Many based pilots have felt for a long time that the HKAOA has never really represented their interests. This is a real opportunity to prove otherwise.
Will the HKAOA rise to the occasion?
What has motivated this sudden change in policy? I suspect CX is just starting to realize that the basing fiasco noose is slowly tightening around their skinny little necks and they are hoping to quickly reduce their liability.
May I suggest that this may be a defining moment for the HKAOA going forward. This will be a real opportunity for them to show some leadership and stand up for these members. Many based pilots have felt for a long time that the HKAOA has never really represented their interests. This is a real opportunity to prove otherwise.
Will the HKAOA rise to the occasion?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cupboard
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very sorry for the PAR guys, I know this really messes up your lives.
Besides the persistent rumours, considering the new extra costs, the significant loss of control over based personnel, the first world employment laws/taxes/etc., and the relative roster "inflexibility" of based crew, I too am not surprised. I am sure there will be more bases and basing areas (whole onshored "entities") that will close relatively soon.
After the AMS fiasco a couple of years ago, in which seniority and the basings agreement were "re-interpreted" and/or altered and/or ignored and/or "read between the lines searching to determine some convenient intent" by both the company and the AOA, behind the scenes with the secret "new based positions being created but only for the AMS crew" deal going down before anyone knew what was happening....well, I think we can be certain this type of deal will be clearly and loudly opposed this time, and many will aggressively fight to disallow any similar deal. The AOA will surely not dare to try pulling this out-of-seniority scam again, unless they want a revolt and massive resignations - which of course is just what the company surely wants.
Perhaps the whistle-blower pilot who raised the BS flag last time to try to prevent the "company-style" manipulation/re-interpretation/ignoring of base closure rules and/or key words will put a motion forward immediately to ensure no "insider" can do this again?
I'm sorry for those who don't want this base closed, but the deal is there in writing, and for years you knew it was likely to happen: The company can close the base if they want. The 2 1/2 months' notice is pretty lousy. But, you know they did that on purpose too....
Besides the persistent rumours, considering the new extra costs, the significant loss of control over based personnel, the first world employment laws/taxes/etc., and the relative roster "inflexibility" of based crew, I too am not surprised. I am sure there will be more bases and basing areas (whole onshored "entities") that will close relatively soon.
After the AMS fiasco a couple of years ago, in which seniority and the basings agreement were "re-interpreted" and/or altered and/or ignored and/or "read between the lines searching to determine some convenient intent" by both the company and the AOA, behind the scenes with the secret "new based positions being created but only for the AMS crew" deal going down before anyone knew what was happening....well, I think we can be certain this type of deal will be clearly and loudly opposed this time, and many will aggressively fight to disallow any similar deal. The AOA will surely not dare to try pulling this out-of-seniority scam again, unless they want a revolt and massive resignations - which of course is just what the company surely wants.
Perhaps the whistle-blower pilot who raised the BS flag last time to try to prevent the "company-style" manipulation/re-interpretation/ignoring of base closure rules and/or key words will put a motion forward immediately to ensure no "insider" can do this again?
I'm sorry for those who don't want this base closed, but the deal is there in writing, and for years you knew it was likely to happen: The company can close the base if they want. The 2 1/2 months' notice is pretty lousy. But, you know they did that on purpose too....
Last edited by Iron Skillet; 16th Jun 2012 at 07:55.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: far west
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If they touch FRA, it will be Emirates for me. Might avoid the rush and start the process now..."
I am right there with you mate......
I am right there with you mate......
Last edited by positionalpor; 16th Jun 2012 at 07:11.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IS, unfortunately the choice is going to be either bending over and spreading them wide for the CX bat or the dole... aviation is heading for the next financial disaster, particularly in Europe, and maybe in Oz too...
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Here
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They've always known the social cost of the Paris base and manning levels so why wait so long and give the guys such short notice? You could argue the Perth base is of an equal manning level and that is left untouched. So is it really because of a new social government? You can't get more socialist that Gillard the dullards Australia! Something smells very fishy about all this.
Last edited by Threethirty; 16th Jun 2012 at 14:38.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Phil's Asshole
Age: 57
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Closing Paris a no brainer
Costs for closing:
1. Snr CN - Move to HKG, 5 years max full housing, then they'll fark off
2. Fr8 CN - Move to HKG, 24k housing...
3. FO's - Move to HKG, full housing
4. Might Lose a few Fr8 captains/ FO's
Costs for keeping it open:
1. Conversion for Snr CN - 1 mil hkg / course... good for 5 years then they'll fark off
2. Fr8 CN - No Conversion
3. FO's - conversion - 1 mil hkg
4. French social securities!!! 10% of salaries
Benefits for Closing:
1. Make use of overmanned fr8 captains from manchester on gbp scale
2. Avoid french social secrities
3. Force some Fr8 captains to leave company ... takes care of over manning
4. problem on the 400 with freight downturn and the need for UPL
5. Intimate strong arm tactics of closing bases if mgmt doesn't get what they want with px on freighter.
Benefits for Keeping it Open:
1. Saving Full FO/ CN housing
If you do the math, french social securities will equal the housing saved which makes benefit of closing points 1, 3, 4, 5 cream...for the mgmt.
1. Snr CN - Move to HKG, 5 years max full housing, then they'll fark off
2. Fr8 CN - Move to HKG, 24k housing...
3. FO's - Move to HKG, full housing
4. Might Lose a few Fr8 captains/ FO's
Costs for keeping it open:
1. Conversion for Snr CN - 1 mil hkg / course... good for 5 years then they'll fark off
2. Fr8 CN - No Conversion
3. FO's - conversion - 1 mil hkg
4. French social securities!!! 10% of salaries
Benefits for Closing:
1. Make use of overmanned fr8 captains from manchester on gbp scale
2. Avoid french social secrities
3. Force some Fr8 captains to leave company ... takes care of over manning
4. problem on the 400 with freight downturn and the need for UPL
5. Intimate strong arm tactics of closing bases if mgmt doesn't get what they want with px on freighter.
Benefits for Keeping it Open:
1. Saving Full FO/ CN housing
If you do the math, french social securities will equal the housing saved which makes benefit of closing points 1, 3, 4, 5 cream...for the mgmt.
legal challenge in France?
Is there an actual French citizen living in France and paying French taxes on the PAR base?
Didn't a similar Dutch person on the AMS base become the crucial factor? I believe it was "settled" there? Perhaps a supported legal challenge might gain some ground?
Didn't a similar Dutch person on the AMS base become the crucial factor? I believe it was "settled" there? Perhaps a supported legal challenge might gain some ground?
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anecdotal but................
SIA operational management never wanted bases, they felt they were losing control and rosters became very fragmented. Basings were thrust upon them by the bean counters after an ex BA captain brought a so called 'expert' out from the UK to convince them. As soon as operations could they closed down the bases, full roster flexibility is returning, now expat terms in Singapore are fading fast also.
As the management in CX becomes more local I suspect you are looking at the same CX that existed thirty years ago, everyone based in HKG, if you want the job you move to HKG, if not, "next please". Not very encouraging, I know, but I think you will find that 'HKG only' on ever reducing T & Cs is the long term reality.
As the management in CX becomes more local I suspect you are looking at the same CX that existed thirty years ago, everyone based in HKG, if you want the job you move to HKG, if not, "next please". Not very encouraging, I know, but I think you will find that 'HKG only' on ever reducing T & Cs is the long term reality.
Last edited by parabellum; 17th Jun 2012 at 00:58.
Join Date: Oct 1998
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The closure of the Paris base has been driven by recent legislation emanating from the European Union and some proposed legislation expected soon in France.
By way of background, the Double Taxation Agreements between various European countries as they relate to aviation and shipping say that aircrew and sailors will pay tax where the enterprise is based. If tax is not so paid, then tax will be paid where you are resident. For example, the agreement between UK and Denmark is quite specific on that latter provision, so that if you are aircrew working for a European company operating within Europe you will normally pay tax in your employer’s jurisdiction. Note that this does not cover Social Security.
The agreements meant that you could work for Ryanair, based in Paris and pay tax in Dubln. The problem arose when an Easyjet Captain, based in Paris, retired and asked for his pension. The French government said that no Social payments had been made and therefore he could not have a pension, whereupon Easyjet were taken to court and, as I understand it lost the case. Something similar has happened to Ryanair.
Cathay were not a European airline and therefore the judgement did not apply to them and still may not apply. It is all a bit grey at the moment. However, in April the European Union ruled that, whilst the Double Taxation agreements were for the individual countries to decide, Social Security should be paid by the employer and employee where the crew member’s roster begins. You would therefore be covered for Social Security by the state in which you worked and supposedly lived.
Again, this was only meant to apply to European based airlines, but as with all EU legislation it can be open to interpretation by individual countries. Another factor is that not all European countries have signed the legislation, Britain being one of them.
French social costs are enormous as a percentage of salary and if there were any suggestion that France would apply the legislation to overseas carriers with a French base there would be a scramble for the exits. That is what we are seeing with CX.
I have included a table of French social costs for employer and employee. They amount to a tax on jobs, unless you work for the government.
Charge Employer Employee
Family Benefits 5.40% 0%
Health/Sickness 13.10% 0.75%
Social Charges (CSG/CRDS etc) 0% 8.0%
Accident at Work 3% 0%
Unemployment Benefit 4.40% 2.40%
Main Pension 9.90% 6.75%
Complementary Pension 16.45% 11%
Total 52% 29%
(Sorry that is slightly scrambled in the copy and paste)
Faced with an additional cost of 52% per employee it is not surprising that CX are closing the base.
Another unknown factor, now that the socialist Hollande is in charge, is the effect that future legislation within France will have. He has already said that he wants to introduce legislation making it more difficult to sack an employee. Such legislation already exists, so the fact that he wishes to tighten the rules must have any employer thinning out his workforce before the laws are passed.
When CX crunched the numbers Paris ceased to viable as a base.
The French have succeeded in removing 41 well paid jobs from their economy at a time when there are no aircrew jobs in Europe. Frankfurt could be next if they follow the same path as the French in respect of Social legislation.
As far as the UK is concerned, all is not well there. The HKIRD have stated that Cathay Pacific is a Hong Kong enterprise and that full HK tax should be paid by UK crew under the terms of the Double Taxation Agreement. That includes the Cabin Crew. HMRC want to ignore the DTA, so they are to be taken to a Tribunal. If CX get caught up in a tug of war between governments they are likely to pull the plug on LHR and MAN. The bureaucrats would then have sent more jobs overseas.
When we have all left, who pays for the bureaucrats?
By way of background, the Double Taxation Agreements between various European countries as they relate to aviation and shipping say that aircrew and sailors will pay tax where the enterprise is based. If tax is not so paid, then tax will be paid where you are resident. For example, the agreement between UK and Denmark is quite specific on that latter provision, so that if you are aircrew working for a European company operating within Europe you will normally pay tax in your employer’s jurisdiction. Note that this does not cover Social Security.
The agreements meant that you could work for Ryanair, based in Paris and pay tax in Dubln. The problem arose when an Easyjet Captain, based in Paris, retired and asked for his pension. The French government said that no Social payments had been made and therefore he could not have a pension, whereupon Easyjet were taken to court and, as I understand it lost the case. Something similar has happened to Ryanair.
Cathay were not a European airline and therefore the judgement did not apply to them and still may not apply. It is all a bit grey at the moment. However, in April the European Union ruled that, whilst the Double Taxation agreements were for the individual countries to decide, Social Security should be paid by the employer and employee where the crew member’s roster begins. You would therefore be covered for Social Security by the state in which you worked and supposedly lived.
Again, this was only meant to apply to European based airlines, but as with all EU legislation it can be open to interpretation by individual countries. Another factor is that not all European countries have signed the legislation, Britain being one of them.
French social costs are enormous as a percentage of salary and if there were any suggestion that France would apply the legislation to overseas carriers with a French base there would be a scramble for the exits. That is what we are seeing with CX.
I have included a table of French social costs for employer and employee. They amount to a tax on jobs, unless you work for the government.
Charge Employer Employee
Family Benefits 5.40% 0%
Health/Sickness 13.10% 0.75%
Social Charges (CSG/CRDS etc) 0% 8.0%
Accident at Work 3% 0%
Unemployment Benefit 4.40% 2.40%
Main Pension 9.90% 6.75%
Complementary Pension 16.45% 11%
Total 52% 29%
(Sorry that is slightly scrambled in the copy and paste)
Faced with an additional cost of 52% per employee it is not surprising that CX are closing the base.
Another unknown factor, now that the socialist Hollande is in charge, is the effect that future legislation within France will have. He has already said that he wants to introduce legislation making it more difficult to sack an employee. Such legislation already exists, so the fact that he wishes to tighten the rules must have any employer thinning out his workforce before the laws are passed.
When CX crunched the numbers Paris ceased to viable as a base.
The French have succeeded in removing 41 well paid jobs from their economy at a time when there are no aircrew jobs in Europe. Frankfurt could be next if they follow the same path as the French in respect of Social legislation.
As far as the UK is concerned, all is not well there. The HKIRD have stated that Cathay Pacific is a Hong Kong enterprise and that full HK tax should be paid by UK crew under the terms of the Double Taxation Agreement. That includes the Cabin Crew. HMRC want to ignore the DTA, so they are to be taken to a Tribunal. If CX get caught up in a tug of war between governments they are likely to pull the plug on LHR and MAN. The bureaucrats would then have sent more jobs overseas.
When we have all left, who pays for the bureaucrats?
Last edited by BIG MACH; 17th Jun 2012 at 12:09.