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

Relevant to Paris base closure?
 

Ok just saw been addressed earlier. RTFQ.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...nfiscated.html

Cathay next???

"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.

Yes, but the Paris based crews did not have lockers or even a "check in" room!

Crews had use of the office and were 'observed' there during one of the Labour Inspector's visits. 'nuf said.

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.

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.

Just as a matter of interest.

How many Paris based flight crew decided to leave rather than move to HKG?

Pretty sure there are 2 guys still there on unpaid leave as they refused to move and the company dare not fire them.

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.

Two guys who are now no longer on the payroll. The relevant court cases will take time!

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.

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.

Loopdeloop
Those 2 guys have been fired by the company. Court case is due soon and they're feeling rather optimistic!

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.

**SNORT!!** (tea comes shooting down nose)

REALLY!!?

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

Meccano,

Can't be French tea your drinking!

It ain't your Kool Aid.

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.

I'm pretty sure the UN has less enforcement clout than the nations involved. I'm just saying...

Dear Junior Whopper
 

I don't know what tax CX crews in those countries are paying, I do know that in Australia, Canada and I'm pretty sure in the UK that CX crews are paying resident tax based on their CX income, with credit given for whatever HK tax is payed. If you paid any attention in the past on this you would know about the complaints on this from CX crew.:bored:

As an aside, as cxorcist has stated WTF does the UN have to do with it. In addition, some advice, don't give up your day job to be a lawyer!:eek: Your second last para is sort of wacky, you mean the tax offices don't understand their own laws and whatever international obligations their govs have signed up to?

By the way, I hope you have an assistant to blame your response onto as you sort of shot yourself in the foot when there are CX crew having to pay tax in their based countries. :(

This is a bit of arse sucking after the above, you see I'm having a sort of disagreement with my country's tax office and you may have opened a door for me. If my gov has signed off completely on this UN convention it may be enforceable and therefor I'm not liable to pay tax on my earnings from HK. Big Mach can you state the full title etc of this convention?:ok:

Re: UN
 

What the UN says means jack**** depending!! Which is why I'm interested in whether Australia has signed up to that convention. Reason being is that back in the 80's (this is all a long distant memory) the Hawke/Keating gov signed up to some UN environmental treaty, then decided to ignore it regards any domestic issues that conflicted with said treaty, a number of environmental groups didn't like this and took the gov to court, I believe it went all the way to the high court with the result that it was legally binding on the gov as if domestic law. My memory I add once more!

Re the convention I'd point out the section that starts "Contracting States MAY agree etc. etc. and as you pointed out some countries don't have any tax agreement with HK. According to the advice from a tax lawyer I consulted recently, the ATO considers HK to be not much better than the Cook Islands!! That's his opinion of the ATO's view of course.

What I would add is that the UN doesn't make law as countries are sovereign states, countries may chose to ratify treaties/conventions etc and how that impacts domestically I guess depends on that country's laws.

The UN is a joke that ought to be disbanded for being a total waste of time and space. Just about every country in the world with even the smallest set of cajones is willing to thumb their nose at the UN. As if the planet needs another governing body, aren't our respective national governments bad enough? Why add another layer of BS to the outragiously overpriced layers of bureaucracy already in place? I don't want to pay for that crap. More big government is not the answer, obviously!

Rod,

I like a lot of your posts, but on this topic - I totally disagree.

Who is it with great intentions and objectives?

Great, but I'd rather have that portion of my taxes in my pocket.

UN
 

Is this the same organisation that's debating whether to have blasphemy laws recommended for all signatory countries?