QANTAS Singapore Basing
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QANTAS Singapore Basing
Qantas Guys / Girls,
Can anyone please update prospective new hires on the status of the Singapore basing for SOs.
What tax rate will pilots be subject to (Aus or Singa)?
Other than the $15000 one off payment (taxed), will any other financial assistance be provided (schooling allowance, removal, Aus storage)?
What is the prospect of a London Basing in its place?
What time frame is a SO required to remain in Singapore?
I understand that the conditions are still "being established", however any details (factual or rumour) would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance
Can anyone please update prospective new hires on the status of the Singapore basing for SOs.
What tax rate will pilots be subject to (Aus or Singa)?
Other than the $15000 one off payment (taxed), will any other financial assistance be provided (schooling allowance, removal, Aus storage)?
What is the prospect of a London Basing in its place?
What time frame is a SO required to remain in Singapore?
I understand that the conditions are still "being established", however any details (factual or rumour) would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stralya
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole thing is full of holes. The lack of information from both the company and former AIPA was disgusting.
There will be nothing in the way of any other allowance. The one off $15,000 is it.
The new AIPA is investigating some representations made to the pilot body prior to EBA7....Could be interesting. It appears all it not well with this basing... From the public comments it appears there are rostering problems and other problems including taxation problems. Incidentally the lack of concrete information shows the contempt with which pilots and more importantly new hires are viewed.
Sorry I can't offer a little more, but I think the issues are numerous.
Then don't!
Ethereal Woomera
There will be nothing in the way of any other allowance. The one off $15,000 is it.
The new AIPA is investigating some representations made to the pilot body prior to EBA7....Could be interesting. It appears all it not well with this basing... From the public comments it appears there are rostering problems and other problems including taxation problems. Incidentally the lack of concrete information shows the contempt with which pilots and more importantly new hires are viewed.
Sorry I can't offer a little more, but I think the issues are numerous.
Then don't!
Ethereal Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 24th Feb 2006 at 05:51.
Whilst this topic is near the top, haven't things gone very very quiet from the company on this one! Anyone close to the action know what's going on?
Have heard it's turning out to be much harder to set up than originally planned.
Have heard it's turning out to be much harder to set up than originally planned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks L/Down.
The latest rumour suggests that Qantas is struggling to get approval for tech crew to be considered residents for taxation purposes. A basing in Singapore whilst paying Australian tax would be financially very difficult for most, and almost impossible with a family given the cost of health and schooling.
I wonder if the recent government decision regarding SIA has slightly soured relations with QF and SIA ?
The latest rumour suggests that Qantas is struggling to get approval for tech crew to be considered residents for taxation purposes. A basing in Singapore whilst paying Australian tax would be financially very difficult for most, and almost impossible with a family given the cost of health and schooling.
I wonder if the recent government decision regarding SIA has slightly soured relations with QF and SIA ?
Hugh,
With Cathay pilots based in Australia paying Oz tax rates (no thanks to QF) I would have thought that QF (or any other foreign based carrier's) pilots would be subject to Singapore tax rates.
b.
With Cathay pilots based in Australia paying Oz tax rates (no thanks to QF) I would have thought that QF (or any other foreign based carrier's) pilots would be subject to Singapore tax rates.
b.
Grandpa Aerotart
Perhaps QF management neads to get their heads around the fact that when someone is based in a country other than their own they are expats...as such the are non resident for tax purposes.
They are also typically supplied wih accom and school fees for a minumum of 2 children as part of a typical 'airline' package.
When I was based in Sin my 'expatriate allowance' was Oz$65000/annum on top of my wage...NET of tax!!!
That went towards;
$23000/annum (per child, I had one) for the Australian International School
$30000/annum rent for a 3 bedroom appartment...nice but not extravagant.
$12000/annum for transport allowance. Cars in Sin are off the planet expensive due taxes imposed so prohibitive...hence a grand a mth for catching taxies on company business.
What was interesting was the 65k was a fixed amount....whether or not you had children...it was a 'single mans contract'.
If QF is serious about basing new hires in Sin then the above is the minimum they should be offering....on top of their wages!!!
Clearly there is a dissincentive to base married guys with kids up there...but if they do they must be prepared to pay the money...invariably the wife will be unable to work unless highly qualified in a very narrow choice of fields...essentially Nurse Educator and Teacher.
The choice to send your children to a 'free' Public school is unavailable.
If the beanies cannot accept the above then they are just kidding themselves and any pilot given the option would be mad to accept a foriegn basing under any lesser terms.
They are also typically supplied wih accom and school fees for a minumum of 2 children as part of a typical 'airline' package.
When I was based in Sin my 'expatriate allowance' was Oz$65000/annum on top of my wage...NET of tax!!!
That went towards;
$23000/annum (per child, I had one) for the Australian International School
$30000/annum rent for a 3 bedroom appartment...nice but not extravagant.
$12000/annum for transport allowance. Cars in Sin are off the planet expensive due taxes imposed so prohibitive...hence a grand a mth for catching taxies on company business.
What was interesting was the 65k was a fixed amount....whether or not you had children...it was a 'single mans contract'.
If QF is serious about basing new hires in Sin then the above is the minimum they should be offering....on top of their wages!!!
Clearly there is a dissincentive to base married guys with kids up there...but if they do they must be prepared to pay the money...invariably the wife will be unable to work unless highly qualified in a very narrow choice of fields...essentially Nurse Educator and Teacher.
The choice to send your children to a 'free' Public school is unavailable.
If the beanies cannot accept the above then they are just kidding themselves and any pilot given the option would be mad to accept a foriegn basing under any lesser terms.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Down Under
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a very poor reflection on QF management at all levels...
The company's most junior pilots are not being informed regarding the proposed 'Singapore Basing'....
What a way to join a company!... Come on QANTAS....the Terms and Conditions associated with the basing are bad enough.....You have let your most junior down already...at least have the decency to inform your people as to what is happening....
Your employees need to get on with their lives!
The company's most junior pilots are not being informed regarding the proposed 'Singapore Basing'....
What a way to join a company!... Come on QANTAS....the Terms and Conditions associated with the basing are bad enough.....You have let your most junior down already...at least have the decency to inform your people as to what is happening....
Your employees need to get on with their lives!
Grandpa Aerotart
Sounds like they are having trouble realising a big saving by paying a much lower gross than would be acceptable to Oz based crew...crap pay on Oz tax and without a NORMAL expatriate allowance...that will make the Sin basing purgatory.
Single pilots will need to share accom and forget married guys with even one child.
Why would you bother?
Single pilots will need to share accom and forget married guys with even one child.
Why would you bother?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stralya
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it....
$15,000.00 allowance is taxable (not tax free)
Difficulty with respect ot the construction of rosters, legal as well as practical.
Weak Assurances of Singapore taxation rates for the pilots affected was one of the reasons I said NO. The company with its vast array of resources have done nothing. Neither did the old AIPA-A matter bought to the attention of the old AIPA a simple position/ costing from a reputable consultancy would have cleared up. It would appear that the pilot is not considered eligible, due I believe the amount of time spent out of Singapore.
Further there are issues with respect to the availability of training facilities. It has been stated there are not facilities for pilot training available in Singapore.
Many of the guys assigned have to be told by end of June(?) I think of their relocation.
As these issues relates to many of the terms of the EBA 7 the misrepresented or simply error ridden assurances are not standing up to scrutiny. The new AIPA is looking at it; closely...Watch this space or PM me if you would like some additional detail, ..For the record I am not part of AIPA, but i do know a few of them
$15,000.00 allowance is taxable (not tax free)
Difficulty with respect ot the construction of rosters, legal as well as practical.
Weak Assurances of Singapore taxation rates for the pilots affected was one of the reasons I said NO. The company with its vast array of resources have done nothing. Neither did the old AIPA-A matter bought to the attention of the old AIPA a simple position/ costing from a reputable consultancy would have cleared up. It would appear that the pilot is not considered eligible, due I believe the amount of time spent out of Singapore.
Further there are issues with respect to the availability of training facilities. It has been stated there are not facilities for pilot training available in Singapore.
Many of the guys assigned have to be told by end of June(?) I think of their relocation.
As these issues relates to many of the terms of the EBA 7 the misrepresented or simply error ridden assurances are not standing up to scrutiny. The new AIPA is looking at it; closely...Watch this space or PM me if you would like some additional detail, ..For the record I am not part of AIPA, but i do know a few of them
Can any of you people explain to me:
If you RESIDE in Singapore, and EARN your income in Singapore why would you be liable to pay tax in Australia on that income?
Please quote the relevant section from the Income Tax Assessment Act to back up your claims. And remember, it is now Year 2006.
In fact, the Singapore based pilots will pay tax to the Singapore IRAS based on their income earned in Singapore. If they are smart (big call for some you lot who think AIPA and QANTAS should also wipe your bums for you) they could apply for the NOR (Not Ordinarily Resident) scheme where pre-assignment income (i.e. the 15 grand) would tax free.
Just declare yourself a 'non-resident for taxation purposes' in Australia in your final tax return and get up to Singapore and pay their very generous taxation rates on the income you earn in Singapore. It is that simple. Hundreds of thousands of Australians do it all over the world every year.
But, like I have asked. If you can show me how you would be sending money back to the ATO then I will stand corrected.
The basing is a crap idea that will piss off a lot of people for an insignifcant amount of savings (some 3.0 million per year, which is small change for a 12 billion dollar turnover company). Frankly, I think it is not worth the savings or the grief. But it is going to go ahead, so if you are in line for a two year soujorn to Singas you might as well make the most of it.
Chimbu - As an expat I reckon you could send your child to a public school in Singapore - you just have to pay $1000 per year per child because you are a foreigner in addition to the monthly fees (something like $35 per month).
If you RESIDE in Singapore, and EARN your income in Singapore why would you be liable to pay tax in Australia on that income?
Please quote the relevant section from the Income Tax Assessment Act to back up your claims. And remember, it is now Year 2006.
In fact, the Singapore based pilots will pay tax to the Singapore IRAS based on their income earned in Singapore. If they are smart (big call for some you lot who think AIPA and QANTAS should also wipe your bums for you) they could apply for the NOR (Not Ordinarily Resident) scheme where pre-assignment income (i.e. the 15 grand) would tax free.
Just declare yourself a 'non-resident for taxation purposes' in Australia in your final tax return and get up to Singapore and pay their very generous taxation rates on the income you earn in Singapore. It is that simple. Hundreds of thousands of Australians do it all over the world every year.
But, like I have asked. If you can show me how you would be sending money back to the ATO then I will stand corrected.
The basing is a crap idea that will piss off a lot of people for an insignifcant amount of savings (some 3.0 million per year, which is small change for a 12 billion dollar turnover company). Frankly, I think it is not worth the savings or the grief. But it is going to go ahead, so if you are in line for a two year soujorn to Singas you might as well make the most of it.
Chimbu - As an expat I reckon you could send your child to a public school in Singapore - you just have to pay $1000 per year per child because you are a foreigner in addition to the monthly fees (something like $35 per month).
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Down Under
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently, the Bilateral Tax Agreement between Singapore and Australia has a subtle clause in it, which prohibits two distinct groups from utilising it:
1. The Merchant Navy; and
2. AVIATORS....
Why?...I've been told that many within these two groups have abused it in the past....
Additionally, I seriously doubt whether the Singapore Government will make concessions to either the Australian Government or Qantas given recent events....
Once again - Senior members of the last AIPA and QF Management have sold their most junior pilots out!!....for what...They have not only provided a very poor deal...they have also failed to understand the full impacts of such a move!
1. The Merchant Navy; and
2. AVIATORS....
Why?...I've been told that many within these two groups have abused it in the past....
Additionally, I seriously doubt whether the Singapore Government will make concessions to either the Australian Government or Qantas given recent events....
Once again - Senior members of the last AIPA and QF Management have sold their most junior pilots out!!....for what...They have not only provided a very poor deal...they have also failed to understand the full impacts of such a move!
Datum - I suspect you mean the 'Double Taxation Agreement'.
So please quote the relevant section that you claim applies to people earning income in Singapore.
So I could work for a company like Westpac and pay income tax in Singapore, but because I am a tax-abusing pilot I am going to be taxed by the ATO?
What is the difference?
So please quote the relevant section that you claim applies to people earning income in Singapore.
So I could work for a company like Westpac and pay income tax in Singapore, but because I am a tax-abusing pilot I am going to be taxed by the ATO?
What is the difference?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Down Under
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OhSpareMe - Unfortunately I don't have a reference for you....
However, I believe the problem for Pilots and our friends in the ' Merchant Navy' is based on their requirement to spend a large percentage of time OS, that is NOT in Singapore (or Australia).
From what I understand, one of the numerous qualifying tenets of the 'Agreement' is that you must reside in Singapore for '183 days or greater' to be recognised as a 'Resident for Tax Purposes'....
However, I am also equally sure that a Taxation Expert (either based in OZ or Singapore) will know ways around this..
As a suggestion - Any Pilot who ends up being sent to Singapore....As a priority - ascertain independent EXPERT Tax advice prior to leaving Australia. DO NOT rely upon AIPA or QF to answer all your possible questions....
However, I believe the problem for Pilots and our friends in the ' Merchant Navy' is based on their requirement to spend a large percentage of time OS, that is NOT in Singapore (or Australia).
From what I understand, one of the numerous qualifying tenets of the 'Agreement' is that you must reside in Singapore for '183 days or greater' to be recognised as a 'Resident for Tax Purposes'....
However, I am also equally sure that a Taxation Expert (either based in OZ or Singapore) will know ways around this..
As a suggestion - Any Pilot who ends up being sent to Singapore....As a priority - ascertain independent EXPERT Tax advice prior to leaving Australia. DO NOT rely upon AIPA or QF to answer all your possible questions....
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stralya
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I alluded to the treatment of the expatriate pilot as a Singapore local requires a certain amount of time be spent IN Singapore....Coming and going as these chaps(ettes) will be doing does not necessarily qualify them!
It could have easily been cleared up. Both RH (Old AIPA) BW(Old AIPA) and indeed the company failed miserably in that regard..Would not have taken much to clarify all the questions. Plenty of independant consultant, tax specialist types...Most companies do that prior to sending anyone overseas.
But with the management of Flight Ops and the company at present it is bullying and intimidation..Dialogue is not important and stupidly enough 52% believed the crap from management and BW, RH....
As datum said get your own advice, but the new AIPA is very concerned at the devil in the detail
It could have easily been cleared up. Both RH (Old AIPA) BW(Old AIPA) and indeed the company failed miserably in that regard..Would not have taken much to clarify all the questions. Plenty of independant consultant, tax specialist types...Most companies do that prior to sending anyone overseas.
But with the management of Flight Ops and the company at present it is bullying and intimidation..Dialogue is not important and stupidly enough 52% believed the crap from management and BW, RH....
As datum said get your own advice, but the new AIPA is very concerned at the devil in the detail
One thing that is for sure is that if you reside in Singapore, exercise employment in Singapore and are domiciled in Singapore then you WILL NOT be a 'Resident for Tax Purposes' in Australia.
Even if you don't qualify as a Tax Resident in Singapore due to the 183 day in country requirement (I think you will, but for the sake of the argument lets say that you don't) then the worst case is that you will be a Non-Resident for Tax Purposes where you will be taxed at a flat rate of 15% of your assesable income. Considerably better than in Australia.
If 'New AIPA' are concerned about the devil in the detail then they had better get cracking on it! It is already March, and the basing starts in June.
By all means, people in the firing line for this basing should satisfy themselves with professional advice regarding the taxation issue. I think you would find that it really is not as big an issue as some make it out to be.
Finally, wait and see how many Captains take up a voluntary basing in either Singapore or London. Why pay $100,000 of your hard earned to Honest Johnny when you could get away with paying about $30,000 to Lee and his mates. (Tax in G.B. is obviously more than in Singapore)
Even if you don't qualify as a Tax Resident in Singapore due to the 183 day in country requirement (I think you will, but for the sake of the argument lets say that you don't) then the worst case is that you will be a Non-Resident for Tax Purposes where you will be taxed at a flat rate of 15% of your assesable income. Considerably better than in Australia.
If 'New AIPA' are concerned about the devil in the detail then they had better get cracking on it! It is already March, and the basing starts in June.
By all means, people in the firing line for this basing should satisfy themselves with professional advice regarding the taxation issue. I think you would find that it really is not as big an issue as some make it out to be.
Finally, wait and see how many Captains take up a voluntary basing in either Singapore or London. Why pay $100,000 of your hard earned to Honest Johnny when you could get away with paying about $30,000 to Lee and his mates. (Tax in G.B. is obviously more than in Singapore)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Datum pointed out, QF’s poor communication to their front line troops is their worst offence. It is not just with regard to the Singapore basings. The eleventh hour notifications on crucial aspects of crewing (which are too often twelfth hour) especially to the more junior are not necessary and can only be attributed to one of two reasons…
Either organisational and planning inefficiencies are leading to policy lagging behind developments ie the cart is leading the horse, or good communication especially with junior crew isn’t regarded as low priority. Both are unforgivable in a field where human factors are so closely related to work performance.
I suspect it’s a bit of both with moreso the former. Middle management is hamstrung with regard to making specific calls because they have often have no well considered framework or guidance to operate within. No advice re Sim access was available with the release of the other info because it hadn’t been considered in time.
The $15000 is paid into a Singapore bank account after arrival which must be set up beforehand. Can anyone advise if this is for tax compliance purposes?
There are some outstanding public schools in Singapore and I can provide contact details. I could also chase up clarification re expat enrolment if anyone needs it.
Either organisational and planning inefficiencies are leading to policy lagging behind developments ie the cart is leading the horse, or good communication especially with junior crew isn’t regarded as low priority. Both are unforgivable in a field where human factors are so closely related to work performance.
I suspect it’s a bit of both with moreso the former. Middle management is hamstrung with regard to making specific calls because they have often have no well considered framework or guidance to operate within. No advice re Sim access was available with the release of the other info because it hadn’t been considered in time.
The $15000 is paid into a Singapore bank account after arrival which must be set up beforehand. Can anyone advise if this is for tax compliance purposes?
There are some outstanding public schools in Singapore and I can provide contact details. I could also chase up clarification re expat enrolment if anyone needs it.
Basing commences 12 June 06. Basing term is for two years, extendable to three, negotiable to four.
$15000 AUD relocation allowance paid to Sing bank account. Air freight of personal effects. One FOC ticket home whilst on leave. No accommodation allowance, or other type of allowance for that matter.
120 S/O's is news to me, so I can't dispute/confirm that. Original plan was for 90, but would not put it past the Company to increase the numbers as they see fit. I can't remember seeing anything about a numbers cap in the Letter of Agreement setting up the terms of the basing.
$15000 AUD relocation allowance paid to Sing bank account. Air freight of personal effects. One FOC ticket home whilst on leave. No accommodation allowance, or other type of allowance for that matter.
120 S/O's is news to me, so I can't dispute/confirm that. Original plan was for 90, but would not put it past the Company to increase the numbers as they see fit. I can't remember seeing anything about a numbers cap in the Letter of Agreement setting up the terms of the basing.