SIA(Mauritius) OZ Jobs
Guest
Posts: n/a
747-436
I don’t know which planet you live on but its not one that SIA has a route structure on. First off it might be better if when you post, you had the facts at hand so you wouldn’t have to write “apparently London based Capts get something like etc, etc”. Secondly, how do you know if what you write is true as you do not state that you are a London based SIA captain (what I state is true – I’m a Singapore based captain) and so presumably you are receiving information second or third hand. And thirdly, you are comparing apples with oranges as a true long-haul operation such as the SIA 744 one, consumes crew flying hours very quickly, whilst a short/medium haul operation such as the SIA 777 one consumes them at a slower rate per 28 days and requires the individual crew member to perform more sectors to reach the 28 day limit (and I’ll tell you right now SIA will use them to the limit) and he/she will therefore inevitably be away from base (Perth or Brisbane) very much more than a London counterpart would be away from LHR.
I don’t know which planet you live on but its not one that SIA has a route structure on. First off it might be better if when you post, you had the facts at hand so you wouldn’t have to write “apparently London based Capts get something like etc, etc”. Secondly, how do you know if what you write is true as you do not state that you are a London based SIA captain (what I state is true – I’m a Singapore based captain) and so presumably you are receiving information second or third hand. And thirdly, you are comparing apples with oranges as a true long-haul operation such as the SIA 744 one, consumes crew flying hours very quickly, whilst a short/medium haul operation such as the SIA 777 one consumes them at a slower rate per 28 days and requires the individual crew member to perform more sectors to reach the 28 day limit (and I’ll tell you right now SIA will use them to the limit) and he/she will therefore inevitably be away from base (Perth or Brisbane) very much more than a London counterpart would be away from LHR.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Captainschlonger
The following refers to you OR the spinally challenged mates you are supporting.
I’ll tell you what’s tragic my friend.
People like yourself talking about your inflated salaries, (re Oz standards) when we all know what you did to be in a position to earn them. By the way, don’t complain about tax, as it is an inevitable part of your decision from 11yrs ago. I know a lot of people that would love to earn the sort of money that would attract 100K tax per annum. I’m talking really good people…….
The other tragedy is that you are unaware that your line re the dispute being over 11yrs ago and needs to be forgotten is even more worn out than the inevitable frequent reference to you and your fine upstanding mates.
Unlike some, I very rarely have cause to think of you and your kind. I’d have to say it does amuse me to read the good old, let’s forget and move on drivel. I guess that sort of thinking is to be expected from many of your contemporaries.
In closing, don’t be so naive as to believe that your perfidy and avarice will ever dilute with time.
No, I’m not bitter and twisted. Actually, from where I’m sitting, things look pretty fine and beaut.
Ciao
The following refers to you OR the spinally challenged mates you are supporting.
I’ll tell you what’s tragic my friend.
People like yourself talking about your inflated salaries, (re Oz standards) when we all know what you did to be in a position to earn them. By the way, don’t complain about tax, as it is an inevitable part of your decision from 11yrs ago. I know a lot of people that would love to earn the sort of money that would attract 100K tax per annum. I’m talking really good people…….
The other tragedy is that you are unaware that your line re the dispute being over 11yrs ago and needs to be forgotten is even more worn out than the inevitable frequent reference to you and your fine upstanding mates.
Unlike some, I very rarely have cause to think of you and your kind. I’d have to say it does amuse me to read the good old, let’s forget and move on drivel. I guess that sort of thinking is to be expected from many of your contemporaries.
In closing, don’t be so naive as to believe that your perfidy and avarice will ever dilute with time.
No, I’m not bitter and twisted. Actually, from where I’m sitting, things look pretty fine and beaut.
Ciao
Guest
Posts: n/a
Contrary to what I had written in earlier posts, I’ve just heard that the 777 pilots proposed to be based in Perth/Brisbane are to be paid within the Australian system, rather than treated as their SIA London based counterparts, who are paid “off-shore” by SIA (Mauritius).
There is only one reason behind any move made by SIA and that is bottom line cash.
One of the very neat things about this latest basing manoeuvre is that any SIA corporation tax liability generated by the OZ revenue stream and payable down-under, can be reduced by off-setting the cost of OZ based pilot salaries against this local liability. Much better if the pilots pay the OZ tax bill rather than SIA!
Pilots who have applied for this number can now properly judge their importance in the scheme of things and be proud of the potential assistance they may be able to make to corporate well being.
If only the flight ops department was so imaginative!!
There is only one reason behind any move made by SIA and that is bottom line cash.
One of the very neat things about this latest basing manoeuvre is that any SIA corporation tax liability generated by the OZ revenue stream and payable down-under, can be reduced by off-setting the cost of OZ based pilot salaries against this local liability. Much better if the pilots pay the OZ tax bill rather than SIA!
Pilots who have applied for this number can now properly judge their importance in the scheme of things and be proud of the potential assistance they may be able to make to corporate well being.
If only the flight ops department was so imaginative!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tosh26, an interesting development. It would appear to add credence to my presumption on the previous page. If the pilot is rendering his services in Oz, and being remunerated in Oz, then he is technically employed in Oz. Maybe by SIA-OZ?!?! (Thus you could possibly ask that your bond be lodged and held in Oz, although I doubt that you would get far on that!!)
I would also be confident that all employees of the Oz Company would have to work within the limits of CASA. If the CAAS limits are tighter, fine; if looser, then the CASA ones would apply. Comments?
You would also have access to the Oz courts in the event of a dispute (something that seems likely with SIA, reading this thread!) and you could cite SIA-OZ (or equivalent). A bit radical?
I don't see much wrong with a company doing things to improve the bottom line, provided the corporation acts in a fair and equitable manner as a normal matter of course (I expect to get picked up on that caveat!). Reducing their tax liability is good business practice. If they offer you a salary of, say 10 000 dollars and you live in Oz, you are legally obliged to pay the tax on it. If they offer you the same salary and they pay it in Oz, you will also pay the tax on it. So your nett salary is identical. The only difference the pilot could claim is that he intended to evade the tax (illegally) by not declaring it if it was paid offshore, thus increasing his nett package. This is clearly a dubious argument at best, and would not hold water in any serious negotiations.
So at this stage, the prospective pilot purely has to decide whether the offered gross salary (taxable) plus offered benefits (if any) are worth it or not. Depending on their current employment and personal circumstances, some will say yes, some will say no.
Obviously this does not make the associated issues (collective agreement, benefits) go away, and from past experiences the SIA pilots have good reason to be skeptical.
Generally, this thread has been an interesting and informative exchange of ideas, facts and speculation. Just as it should be! I understand and acknowledge that '89 was a harrowing and emotional time for some people and their families. However, most of the people reading PPRuNe are not Australian and are not interested in what happened 12 years ago. That topic had a VERY thorough airing here a few years back. It would be sad if a minority engaging in cyber-warfare and the mudslinging and name-calling that inevitably ensue spoiled this thread. Besides, '89 is completely off-topic.
Just my opinion!!!
I would also be confident that all employees of the Oz Company would have to work within the limits of CASA. If the CAAS limits are tighter, fine; if looser, then the CASA ones would apply. Comments?
You would also have access to the Oz courts in the event of a dispute (something that seems likely with SIA, reading this thread!) and you could cite SIA-OZ (or equivalent). A bit radical?
I don't see much wrong with a company doing things to improve the bottom line, provided the corporation acts in a fair and equitable manner as a normal matter of course (I expect to get picked up on that caveat!). Reducing their tax liability is good business practice. If they offer you a salary of, say 10 000 dollars and you live in Oz, you are legally obliged to pay the tax on it. If they offer you the same salary and they pay it in Oz, you will also pay the tax on it. So your nett salary is identical. The only difference the pilot could claim is that he intended to evade the tax (illegally) by not declaring it if it was paid offshore, thus increasing his nett package. This is clearly a dubious argument at best, and would not hold water in any serious negotiations.
So at this stage, the prospective pilot purely has to decide whether the offered gross salary (taxable) plus offered benefits (if any) are worth it or not. Depending on their current employment and personal circumstances, some will say yes, some will say no.
Obviously this does not make the associated issues (collective agreement, benefits) go away, and from past experiences the SIA pilots have good reason to be skeptical.
Generally, this thread has been an interesting and informative exchange of ideas, facts and speculation. Just as it should be! I understand and acknowledge that '89 was a harrowing and emotional time for some people and their families. However, most of the people reading PPRuNe are not Australian and are not interested in what happened 12 years ago. That topic had a VERY thorough airing here a few years back. It would be sad if a minority engaging in cyber-warfare and the mudslinging and name-calling that inevitably ensue spoiled this thread. Besides, '89 is completely off-topic.
Just my opinion!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
No way CASA limits boys. if SIA had to make you guys work anything less than the CAAS of Singapore, than you are not required here in SIA. They wan to increase their profitabily by hiring you there in oz. So you nbetter watch out. I hope you have reffered to other threads where it was high lighted about the Indians. You know what these guys had to go through. A total cheating on SIA's part. Don't think this is a very good offer for you, rather its a golden opportuniy for SIA to hire the fodder at less cost than before. If you want to be begger here in SQ , you qre most welcone.
Hey Guys any update on the CA in the Arbitration Court of Leepublik of Stingapore.
Hey Guys any update on the CA in the Arbitration Court of Leepublik of Stingapore.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tosh26
Re your post of 10 April, I think your source might be a bit off-course in respect of the employment and payment mechanism that SQ would use for pilots at its proposed Perth and Brisbane bases.
Above all else, SQ requires to have absolute control of its pilots, therefore:
1. If employed in and paid from Mauritius, pilots would have a very difficult time pursuing a dispute in a Port Louis court and a much easier time in an Australian court. So for max control, employ/pay through Mauritius.
2. A pilot bond/bank guarantee lodged in Australia would be far easier to litigate successfully in that country, in the event of a dispute, than in Singapore, where it would be virtually impossible to litigate with any measure of success. So for max control, specify in the Mauritius contract that the bond/bank guarantee be lodged in Singapore.
3. An Australian employment contract (including rates of pay and annual pay increments) would be very difficult to unilaterally alter at the whim of the employer, with zero employee consultation. A Mauritian contract …… well you've guessed it.
4. Employees of an Australian registered company could form a local pilots' association/union with the full backing of Australian law. Perhaps not something that SQ would like to contemplate ……. So, you've again guessed the solution to this little problem.
5. Any contractual problems that might arise could be firmly pushed to the SIA (Mauritius) in-tray, to be dealt with by that master of evasion and obfuscation, Captain Maurice de Vaz, supposedly without any slur on the "reputation" of SIA proper
6. Any agreement between ALPAS and SQ in respect of Singapore based pilot productivity can be ignored and the Mauritius contract can specify max flight/duty hours as prescribed by CAAS. Annual leave entitlement can be reduced from the present ex-pat pilots' six weeks to the national pilots' four weeks.
Once absolute control is established and the naïve employees are fully shackled, cynical consideration is then given to saving as much cost of employment as possible, regardless of any resulting detriment to the employee group concerned. So, given that the prime reason for Australian recruiting is to pull in fresh meat that otherwise would not consider Singapore basing, the secondary (only just) reason is to cut cost in the following areas:
1. Ex-pat housing allowance can be dispensed with.
2. Shipping allowance for personal effects also goes.
3. Schooling allowance need not be paid.
4. Provident fund not provided.
5. The annual 4 x ID90's granted to ex-pats can be forgotten.
Now whilst it can be argued that the above may be legitimate, immediate cost savings by SQ, in its drive to recruit Australian based pilots, it must not be forgotten that, very shortly in the future, these savings will be used as levers against the Singapore based, bonded/bank guaranteed ex-pat pilots, who SQ are now attempting to split from ALPAS and the national pilots, in an attempt to further reduce their package costs, which include the above, citing "uncertain economic outlook" as the rational. All pilots ill advisedly considering applying for Singapore based positions may wish to ponder this.
On the point of corporation tax, SQ merely has a liability in Singapore (26%) and can set the cost of Mauritius contracted, Australian based pilots, against this liability - just as it does with the cost of Mauritius contracted, London based pilots. I am unaware of any move to set up SIA (Australia), which company would be liable to conform to the full panoply of Australian law, including the employment protection act and the provisions of the finance act in force for the time being.
Finally, as a contrast in company styles, I'd like to quote Raw Data's post of 11 April on the thread "Bonds. Legal or not in UK Law?" (http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/013345.html)
Quote
"The point is, a good American company will make you want to work for them. A British company will try and prevent you leaving. It is a fundamental difference in approach. Sadly, we (ie the Brits) have a long, long way to go in the area of employee satisfaction. If your employees are happy, they won't leave. Your company will make lots more money with committed, happy employees. The Americans have learned that this is the cheapest and most effective way to run a business".
Readers have only to substitute Singaporean for British.
Re your post of 10 April, I think your source might be a bit off-course in respect of the employment and payment mechanism that SQ would use for pilots at its proposed Perth and Brisbane bases.
Above all else, SQ requires to have absolute control of its pilots, therefore:
1. If employed in and paid from Mauritius, pilots would have a very difficult time pursuing a dispute in a Port Louis court and a much easier time in an Australian court. So for max control, employ/pay through Mauritius.
2. A pilot bond/bank guarantee lodged in Australia would be far easier to litigate successfully in that country, in the event of a dispute, than in Singapore, where it would be virtually impossible to litigate with any measure of success. So for max control, specify in the Mauritius contract that the bond/bank guarantee be lodged in Singapore.
3. An Australian employment contract (including rates of pay and annual pay increments) would be very difficult to unilaterally alter at the whim of the employer, with zero employee consultation. A Mauritian contract …… well you've guessed it.
4. Employees of an Australian registered company could form a local pilots' association/union with the full backing of Australian law. Perhaps not something that SQ would like to contemplate ……. So, you've again guessed the solution to this little problem.
5. Any contractual problems that might arise could be firmly pushed to the SIA (Mauritius) in-tray, to be dealt with by that master of evasion and obfuscation, Captain Maurice de Vaz, supposedly without any slur on the "reputation" of SIA proper
6. Any agreement between ALPAS and SQ in respect of Singapore based pilot productivity can be ignored and the Mauritius contract can specify max flight/duty hours as prescribed by CAAS. Annual leave entitlement can be reduced from the present ex-pat pilots' six weeks to the national pilots' four weeks.
Once absolute control is established and the naïve employees are fully shackled, cynical consideration is then given to saving as much cost of employment as possible, regardless of any resulting detriment to the employee group concerned. So, given that the prime reason for Australian recruiting is to pull in fresh meat that otherwise would not consider Singapore basing, the secondary (only just) reason is to cut cost in the following areas:
1. Ex-pat housing allowance can be dispensed with.
2. Shipping allowance for personal effects also goes.
3. Schooling allowance need not be paid.
4. Provident fund not provided.
5. The annual 4 x ID90's granted to ex-pats can be forgotten.
Now whilst it can be argued that the above may be legitimate, immediate cost savings by SQ, in its drive to recruit Australian based pilots, it must not be forgotten that, very shortly in the future, these savings will be used as levers against the Singapore based, bonded/bank guaranteed ex-pat pilots, who SQ are now attempting to split from ALPAS and the national pilots, in an attempt to further reduce their package costs, which include the above, citing "uncertain economic outlook" as the rational. All pilots ill advisedly considering applying for Singapore based positions may wish to ponder this.
On the point of corporation tax, SQ merely has a liability in Singapore (26%) and can set the cost of Mauritius contracted, Australian based pilots, against this liability - just as it does with the cost of Mauritius contracted, London based pilots. I am unaware of any move to set up SIA (Australia), which company would be liable to conform to the full panoply of Australian law, including the employment protection act and the provisions of the finance act in force for the time being.
Finally, as a contrast in company styles, I'd like to quote Raw Data's post of 11 April on the thread "Bonds. Legal or not in UK Law?" (http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/013345.html)
Quote
"The point is, a good American company will make you want to work for them. A British company will try and prevent you leaving. It is a fundamental difference in approach. Sadly, we (ie the Brits) have a long, long way to go in the area of employee satisfaction. If your employees are happy, they won't leave. Your company will make lots more money with committed, happy employees. The Americans have learned that this is the cheapest and most effective way to run a business".
Readers have only to substitute Singaporean for British.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Like 'Hung like a Horse', (see "SQ006 Revisited" thread), I've always suspected that 'Titan' and 'Gladiator' might have had a not too hidden agenda in their pursuit of SQ. However, I was in Singapore last week, and had arranged to see a friend who works for SQ. He couldn't make it - he'd been called out for a flight. But he wasn't complaining, because he'd worked out that the only way he could get any leave was to fly until he 'max-ed out' on his flying hours for the year - which he was very close to achieving.
It will be interesting to see how and where SQ finds crews for the 14 new 777's soon to join their fleet. You can't help but wonder if something approaching the following scenario hasn't been touted around a Singapore boardroom. (If it has, it might explain the seemingly suicidal tendencies among AN senior managers in their mishandling of their 767 fleet maintenance.)
Let's see... SQ own a big slice of ANZ, who own AN, and SQ own a big slice of Virgin Atlantic, who are run by the same man who owns Virgin Blue, whose staff, (including pilots), come far, far more cheaply than the very well paid AN pilots and the very long term AN engineering and ground staff. How do we (literally) kill two birds with one stone? - ie, get cheap 777 BONDED pilots for our Australia basings AND get to run a domestic operation within Australia far, far more cheaply than we currently are using Ansett?
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean the b*****'s aren't after you.
It will be interesting to see how and where SQ finds crews for the 14 new 777's soon to join their fleet. You can't help but wonder if something approaching the following scenario hasn't been touted around a Singapore boardroom. (If it has, it might explain the seemingly suicidal tendencies among AN senior managers in their mishandling of their 767 fleet maintenance.)
Let's see... SQ own a big slice of ANZ, who own AN, and SQ own a big slice of Virgin Atlantic, who are run by the same man who owns Virgin Blue, whose staff, (including pilots), come far, far more cheaply than the very well paid AN pilots and the very long term AN engineering and ground staff. How do we (literally) kill two birds with one stone? - ie, get cheap 777 BONDED pilots for our Australia basings AND get to run a domestic operation within Australia far, far more cheaply than we currently are using Ansett?
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean the b*****'s aren't after you.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wiley,
Virgin Blue is a completely seperate company from Virgin Atlantic.
Also, I do not believe that the domestic Oz market is big enough to warrant 777 just yet. Pax still prefers higher frequency services between cities where the 767 and 737/A320 is doind just fine.
As for crewing of the new 777, not too many are needed now as quite a number of them will be PARKED in Arizona.
Virgin Blue is a completely seperate company from Virgin Atlantic.
Also, I do not believe that the domestic Oz market is big enough to warrant 777 just yet. Pax still prefers higher frequency services between cities where the 767 and 737/A320 is doind just fine.
As for crewing of the new 777, not too many are needed now as quite a number of them will be PARKED in Arizona.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Burnoff, vigin blue might be seperate to virgin atlantic, but sure has the sponership of the Branson off shore hidden money involved in it, and being part owned by SQ, these boys are in it to make money at any cost: hence the crap pay deals at virgin and SQ's compulsion with screwing its pilots.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wiley
"I've always suspected that 'Titan' and 'Gladiator' might have had a not too hidden agenda in their pursuit of SQ"
Is this a statement or a question?
Are you attacking our arguments or supporting them?
Please try lucidating rather than riddling.
"I've always suspected that 'Titan' and 'Gladiator' might have had a not too hidden agenda in their pursuit of SQ"
Is this a statement or a question?
Are you attacking our arguments or supporting them?
Please try lucidating rather than riddling.
