But how do you know this, based on what information? You seem to be implying that the US Immigration officials were purposely allowing the Canadians to cross the border illegally. I am sorry but that just doesn't happen. If you don't have the required paper work they just don't let you in. If they've known they were illegal it would havee been stopped immediately. The fact that to this day they are still able to enter the US to operate would indicate to me that there is nothing illegal about it. It's like allowing illegal immigrants to enter the country and then telling them they're there illegally.

If you've read the latest basing newsletter it specifically states that usab is a hkg registered company with jurisdictions in hkg. CX is not the only airline or shipping company that sends crews to pick up foreign registered aircrafts or ships. There is nothing illegal about it from what I can see.


Also where do you read that before issuing an L1 visa the government has to ensure that no American jobs are lost? From what I have read there is no mention of this. Can you back up your statement?

There seems to be lots of misinformation for the purposes of validating ones point. Claiming that they'be been illegal or not paying taxes is irresponsible without knowing the big picture.

I can't think of any other airline that bases pilots in the USA without the legal requirements of employing foreigners in the country.

And Cathay doesn't "send" pilots to the US, they are BASED there. They are responsible for getting themselves there, their place of work.

What Cathay has been doing is illegal. If it wasn't, then we would continue to do the same thing without needing to change anything.

The question is, how much money is it gonna cost to fix things. The IRS does not "forgive" money owed, they demand payment with interest. I would expect that they will demand quite a large tax bill from Cathay, as well as from individuals.

Sqwak

I generally agree with about 99% of your posts, but on this one you are off the mark.

Prior to on-shoring the bases the basings office did not oversee whether individuals had the right to live and work where they were going to be based. This included ANY CX base, so to single out the US base as being different than the others is wrong. All you had to do is sign a letter confirming that it was your responsibility to comply with any immigration requirements in your choice of residence. This was no different than if you were in the past to bid for an Australian base.

I could be wrong, but theoretically nothing stopped a Canadian, American, or European individual from bidding an Australian base in the past and commuting to a place outside of Australia. Obviously no one was stupid enough to do this so it was never an issue. You seem to forget that we had several Captains based in the UK, but living in France which eventually brought about, not immigration problems, but taxation problems.

Unlike Australia/New Zealand, or the European states, North America can be considered unique within the basing circle because there is obviously no unrestricted cross border travel, which is bound to produce certain problems. My opinion and best suited for a different forum, but the US is alienating itself from the rest of the world and only a matter of time before that country implodes within itself.

They would have if it wasn't for on-shoring. You also seem to forget that times have changed, requirements have also changed. Obviously Cathay is changing with the times and on-shoring seems to be a necessity nowadays, but how can you say that what Cathay was doing was illegal?

Also, these guys weren't living in the US, weren't working for a US registered company, so what taxes are going to be owed?

I agree with your description of what basing policy used to be like Flaps. You could bid anywhere.

I can best answer this with what you said in your post. I use the US as an example because I am familiar with its laws the most.

You said Cathay left the immigration issues up to the employee. YOU CAN'T DO THAT AS A COMPANY. If you are going to employ someone based in the US you must ensure they have the right to live and work there. Employment is a two way street, there are two parties involved - therefore two responsible parties when a law is being broken with regards to that employment.

This is why bases need to be on-shored. They need to comply with local regulations to employ people who live and work in those countries.

The US asks you to pay taxes when you work there. They don't care where you live. If you live outside the country then you can get expatriate exemptions after showing you spend sufficient time outside the country. So you would need employment visa (which is what CX is doing now), and then claim that you spend a certain amount of time outside the country (everyone needs to consult a good accountant because US tax law is very complex).

Cathay is now applying for these Visas, in order to comply with the law. There are no other airlines (that I know of) that have US bases without legally employing either Americans / Greencards, or work visa foreigners.

For example, Korean employs foreigners and provides commutable rosters. They are not based in the US - they start their trips by deadheading in and out of their home countries. I think if Cathay wants to save on Housing this is the only way they will be able to employ foreigners without forming very complex on-shored mini airlines that comply with all local regs.

The only obstacle to them doing this is that our current agreements require expat benefits in HKG without mention of commutable exceptions. If they get rid of the full expatriate package or find a way around it, you will see these bases disappear quicker than you can say ayiah...

Again you are making the false assumption that USAB was a US registered company which it never was! I am not arguing the way CX formed the bases, I am only arguing the point that there was nothing illegal about it from the immigration perspective.

Lets assume that Oasis was still in operation with their 400, and lets also assume that they had only one long haul sector, a weekly flight to LAX crewed by mostly Canadians. With their small crew number and their horrible working conditions (layovers forms part of monthly days off) lets make a final, and quite plausible assumption that the same Canadian operates the same sector three times a months, every month. That would be a total of 18-21 days per month that this individual would be in LAX to the point where at times he decides to travel to Canada and back. For scheduling ease crew control then labels this individual internally as LAX "based".

Is there anything illegal with the above scenario?? Is he all of a sudden required to have special VISAs because the company internally has labelled him "based"?? Is there a limitation in how many times the same individual can operate in to and out of an American port? Is he disallowed to fly to/from Canada and his port of entry??? Is there a maximum number of days per year an individual as a crew member can spend in the US??

The answer is NO, so exactly what laws were broken? It really is essentially USAB in a nutshell. For crying out loud I am starting to spend more time in India then Hong Kong with these wonderful Airbus rosters :{:{. Do I now have to apply for an Indian employment VISA???

All this talk about right to live/work in the USA brings to my mind a conversation I had with an American 777 pilot who had bid to be based in the UK for some months. I think he was an AA pilot but he was living in Canterbury and operating USA registered aircraft.
He certainly didn't have a UK working Visa as when Atlas tried to do that in Stansted GSS kicked up a fuss.:confused:

The maximum stay on an L visa is 5 years. This sounds like a short-term solution.

Well then Flaps, can you explain why that standing practice has come to a grinding halt then? I can't explain why it is the way it is, except for maybe that each country is trying to protect their residents. I agree with your argument, but there is the way the world should be and the way that it is.

Using your example, Cathay could base itself in Manila, and claim that we are all just simply "internally based" (to borrow your term) in HKG. Then they would not need an employment visa, as well as not having to pay expatriate benefits. They could just roster you to start and end trips in HKG.

I'm sure the HK authorities would not allow that. It is viewed as trying to circumvent immigration and tax laws, and governments don't appreciate it. Sometimes, they look the other way - as in when the jobs offer such poor pay that legal workers won't accept them. But it is illegal.

While funny, clearly you see the difference in that you are not based in India. If your trips were starting and ending in India I can guarantee you that the DGCA would certainly want to talk to you and Cathay. Not only would you need a work visa but you would need to get your license validated there and converted (which I guess is just a matter of paying off the right people these days. :hmm:)

So clearly, two different scenarios. I agree with you in principle, but I don't write the laws. :O

LOL yes they are all asses!!:D

Lighten up eh! Ya hosers!

I hear an update is in progress from the basings office on this matter shortly.

Go chill
 

American Jobs:= A rethink on that maybe?

If you want an american job, go join an american company:ok: You came to CX to get away from the crap in usa(or was it couldn't get hired:eek:), if you don't like the way they do it, go back and fly for a us company and live in the LAX parking lot....LOL!!!

Apple314, have you found that your Congressman, your local news station, the AOA, the company, US Immigration, US ALPA, the Teamsters Union, California State Tax Agency or Obama has shown ANY interest in this issue?

Just curious, as I've heard that others who have contacted some of the same people/organizations have been met with lack of interest.

The IRS is giving those that turn someone in a cut of the proceeds. Apparently, the immigration department is gathering information on the managers involved, as well as those that are illegal aliens so they can have a full grasp of the situation (more evidence).

Is it just me, or everyone thinks Tornado Ali is talking complete non-sense?

First of all, CX changing their worldwide basing requirements will not impact on how the US immigration looks at Canadian Pilot Commuting to US to work on a foreign registered aircraft. That is totally internal CX policy, so it has nothing to do with anything.

Second, because the US base is not on-shore, the so call US base pilot are not actually being pay in the US, hence to the US authorities, they are not actually employed in the US. In CX, they might be call US base, those pilots might live there, but they are not actually working for any American entity. So the actual "title" of "US Base", is completely irrelevant because it is simply a title. These US base pilot, are in reality employee of a Hong Kong company, they just happens to choose to live in the US. So whenever we talk about US base, it is never really a US base, because CX US is not actually an on-shore company. So I highly doubted any of the US laws apply in this case.

However, having said all that, CX might be dealing with this mess now because they might be thinking of on-shoring the US base in the future, but who knows what the management will do?

To add further comments to this, yes the world government is changing the way they look at basing (compare to the CX view), however, the main reason behind this changing view is TAX TAX TAX... however, since any American living overseas will need to submit tax return to their IRS each year anyway, it makes jack all difference to the US authorities where you are actually working, because they will tax you as required anyway. Hence, this is probably why CX decided to on-share Canadian base and not the US base.

cxhk...makes sense. Along the same lines; Canada is "onshore" and I'm not sure how people are working on these bases without the right to work in Canada????

I bet applying for visas for those pilots based in the USA who do not have the right to work in the USA is a prelude to going onshore in the USA. As it stands now, none of these pilots need the right to work in the USA because they are NOT working in the USA. BUT, if CX goes onshore they WILL need the right to work in the USA.

L-1B Intracompany Transferee Specialized Knowledge

The L-1B nonimmigrant classification enables a U.S. employer to transfer a professional employee with specialized knowledge relating to the organization’s interests from one of its affiliated foreign offices to one of its offices in the United States. This classification also enables a foreign company which does not yet have an affiliated U.S. office to send a specialized knowledge employee to the United States to help establish one. The employer must file Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, on behalf of the employee.

General Qualifications of the Employer and Employee
To qualify for L-1 classification in this category, the employer must

Have a qualifying relationship with a foreign company (parent company, branch, subsidiary, or affiliate, collectively referred to as qualifying organizations); and
Currently be, or will be, doing business as an employer in the United States and in at least one other country directly or through a qualifying organization for the duration of the beneficiary’s stay in the United States as an L-1. While the business must be viable, there is no requirement that it be engaged in international trade.
Doing business means the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services by a qualifying organization and does not include the mere presence of an agent or office of the qualifying organization in the United States and abroad.

Also to qualify, the named employee must

Generally have been working for a qualifying organization abroad for one continuous year within the three years immediately preceding his or her admission to the United States; and
Be seeking to enter the United States to render services in a specialized knowledge capacity to a branch of the same employer or one of its qualifying organizations.
Specialized knowledge means special knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning organization’s product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests and its application in international markets, or expertise in the organization’s processes and procedures. (See 8 CFR 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(D).) Such knowledge is beyond the ordinary and not commonplace within the industry or the petitioning organization. In other words, the employee must be more than simply skilled or familiar with the employer’s interests.

So, YOU read all this and decide for yourself. If those currently based in the US are working abroad for CX (as required in order to be granted an L-1B visa) they would not need visas to continue to be based in the US UNLESS the US is planning to go onshore. THEY would be the ones seeking to enter the US to render services in a specialized knowledge capacity to the NEW branch of CX in the US.

It all sounds very underhanded...