Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Fragrant Harbour
Reload this Page >

Relevant to Paris base closure?

Fragrant Harbour A forum for the large number of pilots (expats and locals) based with the various airlines in Hong Kong. Air Traffic Controllers are also warmly welcomed into the forum.

Relevant to Paris base closure?

Old 2nd Jun 2013, 15:49
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 341
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
Starbear is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2013, 16:18
  #2 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 341
Relevant to Paris base closure?

Ok just saw been addressed earlier. RTFQ.
Starbear is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2013, 05:05
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,167
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...nfiscated.html

Cathay next???
nitpicker330 is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2013, 05:59
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 358
"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.
Loopdeloop is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2013, 13:23
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Out there
Posts: 289
Yes, but the Paris based crews did not have lockers or even a "check in" room!
Baywatcher is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2013, 07:22
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 128
Crews had use of the office and were 'observed' there during one of the Labour Inspector's visits. 'nuf said.
BalusKaptan is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2013, 10:53
  #7 (permalink)  
711
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Up in the air
Age: 53
Posts: 195
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.
711 is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2013, 01:34
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: with the other ex-CX pond scum (a zoologist was once head of Flight Ops)
Posts: 0
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.

Last edited by Captain Dart; 5th Jun 2013 at 03:03.
Captain Dart is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2013, 02:00
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,132
Just as a matter of interest.

How many Paris based flight crew decided to leave rather than move to HKG?
Frogman1484 is online now  
Old 5th Jun 2013, 02:54
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 358
Pretty sure there are 2 guys still there on unpaid leave as they refused to move and the company dare not fire them.
Loopdeloop is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2013, 07:07
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Krug departure, Merlot transition
Posts: 536
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.
main_dog is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2013, 09:59
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Out there
Posts: 289
Two guys who are now no longer on the payroll. The relevant court cases will take time!
Baywatcher is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2013, 21:47
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1998
Posts: 62
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.
BIG MACH is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2013, 00:54
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: with the other ex-CX pond scum (a zoologist was once head of Flight Ops)
Posts: 0
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.

Last edited by Captain Dart; 8th Jun 2013 at 00:55.
Captain Dart is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2013, 23:03
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 155
Loopdeloop
Pretty sure there are 2 guys still there on unpaid leave as they refused to move and the company dare not fire them.
Those 2 guys have been fired by the company. Court case is due soon and they're feeling rather optimistic!
joebanana is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2013, 05:43
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: nowhere
Posts: 154
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.
ANCPER is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2013, 04:57
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Noo Yoik
Posts: 126
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.
**SNORT!!** (tea comes shooting down nose)

REALLY!!?

It seems to work just fine for Ryanair - right on HMRC's own soil!

Last edited by Meccano; 10th Jun 2013 at 04:58.
Meccano is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2013, 08:39
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: nowhere
Posts: 154
Meccano,

Can't be French tea your drinking!
ANCPER is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2013, 20:34
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Noo Yoik
Posts: 126
It ain't your Kool Aid.
Meccano is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2013, 11:23
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: nowhere
Posts: 154
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.
ANCPER is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.