PPRuNe Forums


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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 13th Feb 2018, 07:28   #41 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,420
Not to mention having certain based pilots happy to ignore CC in HK, and help the company out with G day flying / discretion / joining training. The ironic thing about all of that is that they are cutting their own throats and those of their colleagues. Undermine the fight in HK (thereby enabling CX towards a cheaper HK cost basis), and you eventually get forced back to HK as they no longer need bases.
Trafalgar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2018, 13:05   #42 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 16
I trust those joining training on a base and returning to Hong Kong will be banned from the HKAOA! Oh, of course not!
Hugo Peroni the IV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2018, 16:02   #43 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: hongkong
Posts: 318
Read the c1D visa... foreign crew 29 days EACH visit... the word base is pure BS no matter what the company says. Nothing to say you can’t own a house and spend a week or so in the USA between trips.
No need to file tax either as days in the USA as a crew member count for ZERO towards tax residency.
They cocked it all up from the get go as usual !
BlunderBus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2018, 18:05   #44 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Nippi
Posts: 173
I have no information on US based guys joining training during the ban.
As far as engaging in CC, It’s against the law. That being said, I don’t know of anyone working G days etc.also as a percentage of the pilot group. They probably have the highest number of resignations. 2018/19 will be a banner year for hiring. I would bet everyone who wants to depart will have a few chances to do just that.
DropKnee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2018, 21:58   #45 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 465
BlunderBus

Ya...I might be careful with that. Developing a 'scheme' of bouncing someone on and off visas often violates OTHER laws that maybe you didn't know about when you came up with your scheme. A prudent employer doesn't ask legal counsel 'how can I get away with this' but asks 'what's the right thing to do and what are the pitfalls in what I'm considering.'

Just like when one fills out his or her taxes. You can claim a lot of stuff, but when you get audited you better have been genuine otherwise you can face significant penalty.

For a hypothetical example,

The L1A visa was designed such it would apply to department heads and relatively high up executives who operate with a great deal of autonomy. Someone coming into the US to open a factory which employs several hundred (or thousand) workers and was necessary to do so. Potentially applicable to THE department head(s) who would set up Cathay's entire operation for the US. It was NOT designed to accommodate middle managers, staff, or minions. And how it would apply to an airline pilot (or captain) who ultimately does have some decision making authority but for the most part operates bridled by regulation, SOP, and company policy during normal operations completely escapes me. Hypothetically, one could probably write the job to sound better than it actually is on the application, but to me that would be dishonest and I would hope my legal advice would tell me that it was so and potentially subject to later scrutiny.

Perhaps things are really on the up and up and I guess in the long run we will see.
Shep69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Feb 2018, 00:19   #46 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: hongkong
Posts: 318
No scheme at all... it’s what every foreign crew member use to enter the USA. They can waffle on about ‘basings’ But the underlying legal fact remains everyone is employed by the parent company in hk... no other entity exists. The labor infraction(s) lawsuits aren’t brought against a non existant ‘branch’ office but the employing parent company. Just to be clear .. nobody is fudging taxes.. the law as it stands is respected.
BlunderBus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Feb 2018, 00:32   #47 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: new york
Posts: 78
Shep69

L1A seems to be defined in law as you describe.

It hasn't been implemented in practice by the INS as you describe.

INS interpretation has led to most anyone who directs staff and can impact profitability or company performance to any measurable degree being qualified.

Pilots do that.

We can choose to believe our own interpretation of US immigration law is more valuable than that of the INS. That doesn't mean we win a prize.

None of this has anything much to do with CX or even airlines.

Last edited by sptraveller; 14th Feb 2018 at 01:27.
sptraveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Feb 2018, 03:59   #48 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 465
Be interesting to see what information contained in the petitions that led CIS to come to the (apparently erroneous) conclusion that they did. Hopefully everything is on the up-and-up. Guess we'll see.

Not sure that I agree at all with YOUR interpretation of how CIS issues L-1s.
Shep69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Feb 2018, 04:32   #49 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: In a van down by the river.
Posts: 47
This could amount to little or nothing, or it could become a RICO (extended criminal penalties) case and anything in between.

For RICO, govco must prove a defendant engaged in two or more instances of racketeering activity. Section (A) covers murder, kidnapping and all that nice stuff.

Section (B) includes any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18,....

And racketeering activity provisions as defined under Section 1546 of Section (B) is one (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents).

Additionally, there is section 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), then there is section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United States).

Seems like there is plenty for the Feds to work with in those alone. There are other provisions/sections they could draw upon as well if they see fit to push this as a RICO issue provided CX is seen as the correct type of enterprise for that pursuit.

So, who rolled this dice....?

Last edited by Vtwin; 14th Feb 2018 at 05:43.
Vtwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Feb 2018, 06:54   #50 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Matz North
Posts: 60
Tony Soprano
ANTIPHOLUS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Feb 2018, 02:16   #51 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: hongkong
Posts: 318
The company just cancelled social security and Medicare for ‘us based’ cabin crew (us citizens) on the declaration that WE (the airline) are a fully foreign registered business entity flying foreign registered aircraft. Thereby screwing the girls out of their decade of 10% contributions of which only the last 3 are recoverable. How then can they now say they are an “onshore” employer? Utter bullshit. They were and remain a hk corporation and have royally cocked up ‘base’ employment in every single jurisdiction. I contest that all base crew in NAM remain employees of a hk Corp offshore.
They can’t have it both ways.
BlunderBus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Feb 2018, 02:57   #52 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 332
Amongst many outrages (where does one start..?), that was particularly immoral. To have staff working for a decade with the expectations that they were accruing their rightful government benefits, then basically use an accounting trick to strip those benefits away a decade later is truly plumbing the depths of corporate malfeasance. Disgusting in every way. Most of those crew have now resigned in disgust. Says EVERYTHING about this company and it's management. How can ANYONE trust the years of their career to people such as that?
mngmt mole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Feb 2018, 01:18   #53 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: new york
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shep69 View Post
Be interesting to see what information contained in the petitions that led CIS to come to the (apparently erroneous) conclusion that they did. Hopefully everything is on the up-and-up. Guess we'll see.

Not sure that I agree at all with YOUR interpretation of how CIS issues L-1s.
You're right. I can only comment based on experience holding an L1A, sponsoring dozens of others and comparing results with competitors.

My point albeit perhaps badly expressed, was simply that reading the law in isolation does not tell us all that much about how it was implemented, or whether CX will end up caught in the current political backdraft in this area.

Last edited by sptraveller; 21st Feb 2018 at 01:37.
sptraveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Feb 2018, 02:05   #54 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2
Per usual a bunch of wrong, misleading and speculating information posted on PPRuNe. But then again it is a rumor network. Truth is, as per the SFO ground staff office. An ex CX ground staff who now works for SA is being investigated. The individual in question worked for CX in 2008 and never had the legal right to work in the USA and has since been illegally working for SA. Nothing to do the Canadians commuting to/from work. Which is yes. Legal.
NYVR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Feb 2018, 10:33   #55 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: az
Posts: 237
Next time you enter the USA for work, make sure to tell the immigration officer that you are going to the USA for work. See what he says after a time or two of doing that, and then tell me it's legal (if you don't have an L1A, green card, etc...).
airplaneridesrfun is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 12:55.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1