Relevant to Paris base closure?
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
From: uk
Relevant to Paris base closure?
or not. Genuine question. Apologies if deemed irrelevant.
Ryanair on trial in France:
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130530/ryanair-trial-opens-france-over-alleged-labour-law-breach
Ryanair on trial in France:
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130530/ryanair-trial-opens-france-over-alleged-labour-law-breach
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,167
Likes: 2
From: Australia
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
From: UK
"police investigations of Ryanair’s base in Marignane found 300 sq. meters of office space, with telephone and internet lines, 95 lockers, local employees, and two Ryanair executives appointed as supervisors to the site."
The day after the French Labour Dept were advised of CX's abuse of their laws as a result of PH closing the base, representatives were sent to go through the CX CDG office with a fine tooth comb. I would imaging they'd find the same stuff there as they found in the Ryanair office.
The day after the French Labour Dept were advised of CX's abuse of their laws as a result of PH closing the base, representatives were sent to go through the CX CDG office with a fine tooth comb. I would imaging they'd find the same stuff there as they found in the Ryanair office.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 212
Likes: 28
From: Up in the air
Overseas basings exist only as long as they produce less cost than Hong Kong basings.
Demands for increased involvement of local tax authorities and/or application of local labour law involves the risk of closure of more basings.
I understand the frustration of ex-Paris based pilots, but I don't think it is in our interest to promote or hope for investigations.
Demands for increased involvement of local tax authorities and/or application of local labour law involves the risk of closure of more basings.
I understand the frustration of ex-Paris based pilots, but I don't think it is in our interest to promote or hope for investigations.
Joined: Jul 2007
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 1,953
Likes: 172
From: with the ex-CX pond scum (a zoologist was once head of Flight Ops)
I hear what you are saying 711, but it would take a lot of these costs to make up for HKG salary, housing allowance, education allowance etc. Not to mention the crew they would lose who wouldn't return to Hong Kong. I would be one of them; there are even many based F/O's who have no intention of returning to HKG for their commands.
Basees on A and R days provide a lot of flexibility during disruption or HKG crew sickness at the outports. I am called out on these days regularly.
Finally, the overriding argument is that bases are a carrot to dangle in front of starry-eyed kids with SJS who will accept their pathetic HKG conditions in the desperate hope of a basing later.
With less incompetence and arrogance, and more due diligence and doing their jobs properly, the responsible managers could have set up the bases correctly in the first place. For the above reasons, most would still have been viable from the start.
The Paris debacle and the post-onshoring Hong Kong tax screwup were just unbelievable. If I did my job that badly there would be a smoking hole somewhere. However, there is a silver lining to the HKG tax shambles; now regarded as 'Hong Kong employees' by the HKIRD, many based crew are putting in claims for underpayment of Statutory Holiday Pay (with Association assistance
).
It's not the basings themselves that is the problem; it is the under-resourcing and poor establishment and management of them. The reputed Paris fine and a successful mass claim on the SHP may cost the company dearly.
Basees on A and R days provide a lot of flexibility during disruption or HKG crew sickness at the outports. I am called out on these days regularly.
Finally, the overriding argument is that bases are a carrot to dangle in front of starry-eyed kids with SJS who will accept their pathetic HKG conditions in the desperate hope of a basing later.
With less incompetence and arrogance, and more due diligence and doing their jobs properly, the responsible managers could have set up the bases correctly in the first place. For the above reasons, most would still have been viable from the start.
The Paris debacle and the post-onshoring Hong Kong tax screwup were just unbelievable. If I did my job that badly there would be a smoking hole somewhere. However, there is a silver lining to the HKG tax shambles; now regarded as 'Hong Kong employees' by the HKIRD, many based crew are putting in claims for underpayment of Statutory Holiday Pay (with Association assistance
).It's not the basings themselves that is the problem; it is the under-resourcing and poor establishment and management of them. The reputed Paris fine and a successful mass claim on the SHP may cost the company dearly.
Last edited by Captain Dart; 5th June 2013 at 02:03.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 674
Likes: 10
From: Krug departure, Merlot transition
Few people can afford to simply up-sticks and leave the company on two-and-a-half month's notice (the warning time they were given prior base closure). It takes time to find new jobs: I would be curious to see how many ex-PAR based guys will have left us in one or two years.
Joined: Oct 1998
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Captain Dart. There was nothing wrong with the way the bases were set up before "onshoring". We work for a HK company and, in common with airlines and shipping companies around the World we can be expected to have bases in a variety of locations.
In the case of the UK, HMRC did a tax grab and made demands that cut across international conventions, namely that we be forced "onshore". CPA should have told HKIRD what was planned, but they didn't. Had they done so HKIRD would have reminded them that CPA are a company incorporated in HK and whose effective management is in HK and that the aircrew are still, in every respect, employed in HK. This could then have been used to stop HMRC in their tracks.
For reasons that few of us understand the previous GMA, who has scuttled off to Canada, acquiesced to the demands of HMRC without consulting HKIRD and allowed the current mess where we are caught between two governments. The international conventions are set up to avoid this eventuality, but don't ask the incompetents at HMRC to observe international conventions. They don't even seem to understand them.
You only work in the tax office when no other employer will take you. It is a form of welfare.
In the case of the UK, HMRC did a tax grab and made demands that cut across international conventions, namely that we be forced "onshore". CPA should have told HKIRD what was planned, but they didn't. Had they done so HKIRD would have reminded them that CPA are a company incorporated in HK and whose effective management is in HK and that the aircrew are still, in every respect, employed in HK. This could then have been used to stop HMRC in their tracks.
For reasons that few of us understand the previous GMA, who has scuttled off to Canada, acquiesced to the demands of HMRC without consulting HKIRD and allowed the current mess where we are caught between two governments. The international conventions are set up to avoid this eventuality, but don't ask the incompetents at HMRC to observe international conventions. They don't even seem to understand them.
You only work in the tax office when no other employer will take you. It is a form of welfare.
Joined: Jul 2007
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 1,953
Likes: 172
From: with the ex-CX pond scum (a zoologist was once head of Flight Ops)
Yes Mach, my post was more reflective of the onshoring of the Australian base; the geniuses at CX telling us to do a HKG tax clearance.
For all the 'suits' you see in Hello Kitty City at lunchtime, I would have thought that they would have had an idea of the tax regime in Hong Kong, their home.
Your comments about taxation office dogsbodies are seconded.
For all the 'suits' you see in Hello Kitty City at lunchtime, I would have thought that they would have had an idea of the tax regime in Hong Kong, their home.
Your comments about taxation office dogsbodies are seconded.
Last edited by Captain Dart; 7th June 2013 at 23:55.
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
From: UK
Loopdeloop
Those 2 guys have been fired by the company. Court case is due soon and they're feeling rather optimistic!
Pretty sure there are 2 guys still there on unpaid leave as they refused to move and the company dare not fire them.
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
From: nowhere
Big Mach,
Sorry, but your thinking is wrong. Just because CX is a HK based company doesn't give it the right to base crew wherever they like and disregard local labour laws or tax law. Your idea shipping companies base crew how they please and ignore the host country is rubbish. You'll find they fly the crew to whatever country they are picking the ship up from, they don't reside in-country as CX crew did/do.
There are no international conventions as you claim if the crew are to reside in that country. In the past all that happened was the host countries ignored the situation (aviation) as overall it was minor, which it now no longer is. There are Australian crews commuting to Japan for three airlines and a bloody whole host of companies in China. The ATO is very keen on this.
Sorry, but your thinking is wrong. Just because CX is a HK based company doesn't give it the right to base crew wherever they like and disregard local labour laws or tax law. Your idea shipping companies base crew how they please and ignore the host country is rubbish. You'll find they fly the crew to whatever country they are picking the ship up from, they don't reside in-country as CX crew did/do.
There are no international conventions as you claim if the crew are to reside in that country. In the past all that happened was the host countries ignored the situation (aviation) as overall it was minor, which it now no longer is. There are Australian crews commuting to Japan for three airlines and a bloody whole host of companies in China. The ATO is very keen on this.
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
From: Noo Yoik
ANCPER; Sorry, but your thinking is wrong. Just because CX is a HK based company doesn't give it the right to base crew wherever they like and disregard local labour laws or tax law.
REALLY!!?
It seems to work just fine for Ryanair - right on HMRC's own soil!
Last edited by Meccano; 10th June 2013 at 03:58.
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
From: nowhere
Meccano
Sounds like you've been hitting the booze. First off CX has vacated the AMS base due to labour laws it didn't like when it looked into onshoring that base which it appeared to have ignored for years, it's now closed ORY due to the same considerations as well as social security/tax issues, and also having to change their employment methods on its Australian and Canadian bases. I believe CX also lost a court case against a former employee where the company tried to claim that its UK employees were not subject to UK law. As well as your beloved RYR seeming to be having troubles in France on one or more of its French bases.
You still think companies can do as they please? I suppose they can if they employ lay down and rollover types such as yourself.
If a company has a presence where it bases its employees it's likely to be subject to that countries employment law, not always depending on the circumstances, but mostly.
You still think companies can do as they please? I suppose they can if they employ lay down and rollover types such as yourself.
If a company has a presence where it bases its employees it's likely to be subject to that countries employment law, not always depending on the circumstances, but mostly.