Norwegian Malaga Roster and new bases
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contract pilots have to pass through all the hoops/background checks mandated by the Norwegian CAA, and are trained /tested to the same standard.
Many Contractors were paying taxes/social charges in their country of residence (as was legally allowed for anyone "employed" before the implementation of the new EU regs on 25th June)
They will now be forced to pay both social chgs & tax at their "home base", some domiciles will make it easier than others to pay the correct amount of tax, some have no bilateral agreement with Spain.
In spite of spending less than 183 days a year at this base, Norwegian require this, to make their "concealed employment" look whiter than white for the very puritanical Norwegian public.
That is the fact of the matter & the motivation for the change, spurred along by some stirring in the press by the SAS pilot union (none of whom ever "resided" abroad when convenient for tax purposes.)
Many Contractors were paying taxes/social charges in their country of residence (as was legally allowed for anyone "employed" before the implementation of the new EU regs on 25th June)
They will now be forced to pay both social chgs & tax at their "home base", some domiciles will make it easier than others to pay the correct amount of tax, some have no bilateral agreement with Spain.
In spite of spending less than 183 days a year at this base, Norwegian require this, to make their "concealed employment" look whiter than white for the very puritanical Norwegian public.
That is the fact of the matter & the motivation for the change, spurred along by some stirring in the press by the SAS pilot union (none of whom ever "resided" abroad when convenient for tax purposes.)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I told you that many of my colleagues were Danish & you consulted your list you would find that
This is not the case. Spain has double taxation agreement with every EU country.
is not 100% correct.
Many? I understand this to mean that not everyone was paying taxes. Taxation is not a volunteerly issue.
Have you heard of countries like Andorra perhaps ? there are perfectly legal ways of reducing ones tax burdens.
You are right about this, but this is not the issue I am trying to address. I am addressing the issue pointed out by NTSB that CAA's oversight is made much harder when airlines outsource most of their services.
And also that the legal bonding between the AOC holder and the flight crew member is done by a contract agency of which the CAA has no oversight. And that this contract states that the flight crew member can not disclose this contract to anyone.
Don't really get your point here. If Contractors are subject to the same recruitment/selection/training/testing/disciplinary standards, which part of our operational performance is not under the company & local CAA's oversight . Not disclosing your contract is a Red Herring. .the contract is a commercial agreement between you and your agency , which will contain no clause asking you to disregard/exceed what is stipulated in your Ops manual. . .so, don't really see your point here. Tell me anyhow, what interest have for example the IAA shown in Ryanair trampling all over & changing at will the pilots (permanent as well as Contractors) T's & C's over the years . Not a lot that I saw.
I think you are trying to make something out of nothing & I would suggest Ryanair for example (now 70% contractors AFAIK) has never had a problem with "supervision or control" of its workforce.
This is not the case. Spain has double taxation agreement with every EU country.
is not 100% correct.
Many? I understand this to mean that not everyone was paying taxes. Taxation is not a volunteerly issue.
Have you heard of countries like Andorra perhaps ? there are perfectly legal ways of reducing ones tax burdens.
You are right about this, but this is not the issue I am trying to address. I am addressing the issue pointed out by NTSB that CAA's oversight is made much harder when airlines outsource most of their services.
And also that the legal bonding between the AOC holder and the flight crew member is done by a contract agency of which the CAA has no oversight. And that this contract states that the flight crew member can not disclose this contract to anyone.
Don't really get your point here. If Contractors are subject to the same recruitment/selection/training/testing/disciplinary standards, which part of our operational performance is not under the company & local CAA's oversight . Not disclosing your contract is a Red Herring. .the contract is a commercial agreement between you and your agency , which will contain no clause asking you to disregard/exceed what is stipulated in your Ops manual. . .so, don't really see your point here. Tell me anyhow, what interest have for example the IAA shown in Ryanair trampling all over & changing at will the pilots (permanent as well as Contractors) T's & C's over the years . Not a lot that I saw.
I think you are trying to make something out of nothing & I would suggest Ryanair for example (now 70% contractors AFAIK) has never had a problem with "supervision or control" of its workforce.
Last edited by captplaystation; 13th Dec 2012 at 09:03.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeingisgoing
I think you have a very simplistic view of the law with regard to social tax, Norwegian have done nothing illegal simply because the contracts issued before the changes in EU law have a ten year implementation period.
New contracts are subject to the EU regulation but if you are resident in another EU state you can choose to pay these taxes in your state of residence ( for this you need to file an A1 form with your state of residence ) once this form is accepted by the authority's in your state of residence it authorises the company to pay your social taxes to the state of residence.
If you should have to use the Heath services in the EEC state you are based in then they can recover these costs from your state of residence via the European Heath Insurance Card program.
I hope this makes the situation clear because as always the headlines do not always convey the full details of the law.
New contracts are subject to the EU regulation but if you are resident in another EU state you can choose to pay these taxes in your state of residence ( for this you need to file an A1 form with your state of residence ) once this form is accepted by the authority's in your state of residence it authorises the company to pay your social taxes to the state of residence.
If you should have to use the Heath services in the EEC state you are based in then they can recover these costs from your state of residence via the European Heath Insurance Card program.
I hope this makes the situation clear because as always the headlines do not always convey the full details of the law.
Last edited by A and C; 13th Dec 2012 at 12:31.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:-You are mixing taxes and social security contributions. Social security can be paid in your country of residence. Taxes depend on double taxation agreements.
That is what I said !! Please read and understand the post before rushing to disagree.
That is what I said !! Please read and understand the post before rushing to disagree.
Last edited by A and C; 14th Dec 2012 at 00:51.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: monaco
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New contracts are subject to the EU regulation but if you are resident in another EU state you can choose to pay these taxes in your state of residence ( for this you need to file an A1 form with your state of residence ) once this form is accepted by the authority's in your state of residence it authorises the company to pay your social taxes to the state of residence.
One Example?The Irish Finance Act 2011 of which I give you one interesting link to demolish your cast in stone beliefs:
FINAK - The Guide to Finance Act 2011 - 16. Tax treatment of flight crew in international traffic.
Of course I could post other links from other EU countries solely about tax and air crews but you would have to be able to read and understand another language apart from english....
But let's move to social security now: you say that your employer based in A country can pay social security for you in a B country.....well not correct for most EU countries because in order to be able to pay into a system your employer must be registered as an EMPLOYER in the country where it is to make social contributions.
What does it mean being registered as an EMPLOYER then?Well it all starts with abiding by the national labor law for instance which include things like pension, national healthcare but also things like maternity/paternity leave (how does that go along your company's contract and roster practices for instance?), unemployment benefits (this has to be requested by your employer and how can a foreign employer ask for unemployment benefits from a different country?), study special permits (try tell your English or Irish employer that by law you must have specific days off due to university exams) and other conflicting issues along these lines.
Another interesting piece of EU legislation that no one seems to know about is dated 2008, therefore well before the new EU law about social security and the well known 28 june 2012 date, which is this one:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...03:0020:EN:PDF
Please note paragraph 9 on page 1.
Based on the above law there are a few countries that are going after companies and individuals who thought that the bilateral agreement is the only piece of legislation that applies.
The story is unfolding as we speak but a word of warning is necessary to those like A&C who think that one can freely work in one country while not paying taxes there, not contributing to social security there, not abiding by labor laws there and so on in a medieval escalation of social dumping.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dannyalliga
Lets just stay with the social tax or as it is called in the UK national insurance (NI).
You quote EC regulation 1008/2008 para 9 on page one, briefly it states that airlines should abide by the regulations with regard to social tax (NI). That far we agree on employment regulation !
What you don't seem to understand is that there are a number of ways for this to be done and as an employer who has staff in a number of EU states it can get complicated when someone starts work in one state and is resident in another, after all what call is a French national who lives in Perpignan going to have on the Spannish state if he starts and finished work in Gerona while having his home and family resident in France ?
For this reason the EU published article 16 of EC regulation 883/2004 that allows the social taxes ( both employee and employers contribution) to be paid in the EU state of residence NOT the state in which the employee is based. To enable this to be done the employee has to file a form A1 with the tax authority's in the state he is resident in. This is common practice in other industry's and my accountant has been using this EC regulation with regard to clients in the entertainment industry for some years, I can only think that because this practice is new to aviation your advisers are unaware of the wider application of these regulations.
From what you have said I can only conclude that it is you who need to seek advice from sorces that are well versed in international employment law as is clear that your advisers have taken a very parochial view to the EU regulations on the subject rather than taking an EU wide view of the subject.
You really should be of one mind with me on this after all this application of the rules results in the employee paying the social taxes in the EU state were he is going to get the benifits, do you really want to also have your social taxes paying for government administrators to shuffle the tax you have payed from the EU state you start work in to the EU state you live in just so that you can get the social benifits in your state if residence........ It seems to be that you are proposing a very expensive way to do business, and whats more it is you and I who will pay for it !
You quote EC regulation 1008/2008 para 9 on page one, briefly it states that airlines should abide by the regulations with regard to social tax (NI). That far we agree on employment regulation !
What you don't seem to understand is that there are a number of ways for this to be done and as an employer who has staff in a number of EU states it can get complicated when someone starts work in one state and is resident in another, after all what call is a French national who lives in Perpignan going to have on the Spannish state if he starts and finished work in Gerona while having his home and family resident in France ?
For this reason the EU published article 16 of EC regulation 883/2004 that allows the social taxes ( both employee and employers contribution) to be paid in the EU state of residence NOT the state in which the employee is based. To enable this to be done the employee has to file a form A1 with the tax authority's in the state he is resident in. This is common practice in other industry's and my accountant has been using this EC regulation with regard to clients in the entertainment industry for some years, I can only think that because this practice is new to aviation your advisers are unaware of the wider application of these regulations.
From what you have said I can only conclude that it is you who need to seek advice from sorces that are well versed in international employment law as is clear that your advisers have taken a very parochial view to the EU regulations on the subject rather than taking an EU wide view of the subject.
You really should be of one mind with me on this after all this application of the rules results in the employee paying the social taxes in the EU state were he is going to get the benifits, do you really want to also have your social taxes paying for government administrators to shuffle the tax you have payed from the EU state you start work in to the EU state you live in just so that you can get the social benifits in your state if residence........ It seems to be that you are proposing a very expensive way to do business, and whats more it is you and I who will pay for it !
Last edited by A and C; 14th Dec 2012 at 09:31.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dannyalliga/boeingisgoing (or are you one & the same ? you certainly sing the same hymn from the same hymn sheet & both of you possess an uncanny ability to divert threads in your chosen direction, whilst simultaneously failing to read/understand what others have written.)
I am no tax expert, but have been forced to take an interest in it due to my agency being forced by the airline to change our employment status. I would remind you that this thread is titled "Norwegian Malaga Roster and new bases" although this does not of course prevent us deviating toward related subjects. Anyhow, I shall try & take us vaguely back on track by discussing your pet subject (tax & social charges) with respect to "Norwegian Malaga" developments.
boeingisgoing
The list you posted of countries having a double tax agreement with Spain does NOT (as I stated) include Denmark. Danish colleagues assure me (and they would know I guess, as it is their money !
) this unfortunately to be the case. Contrary to your slur I know for a fact that the great majority of Danish people do not mess around with taxation. This is pursued very vigorously there, and the penalties fairly severe.
The advice they have taken has made very clear that they are liable to Danish taxes, however, living as they do in Denmark, and probably spending less than 183 days a year in Spain, they are NOT liable to Spanish taxation, and will derive no benefit from anything thay pay into the Spanish system. Can you give me one viable reason why they should be forced to pay anything in Spain whilst being compliant in their own home country (much like A&C's situation in the UK, who Danny seems to have a bit of a fetish for lambasting, tiresome in the extreme Danny give it a rest )
If you are resident in Andorra (and that is not so cheap/easy. . . ) you may "avoid" - not "evade"- taxes perfectly legally by fulfilling several residency requirements. I am sure the EU politicians so beloved of you would never stoop to such depths . . . Oh no, wait a minute, as EC employees they are "tax-free" anyhow. .so no need then. If you have worked/been registered for taxes in Spain you must wait 5 years to benefit from this option,if you never paid taxes in Spain the alleviation is immediate.
You insist on labouring the point about Aviation Regiulator oversight of a Contract employee. I remind you that despite any secrecy on the part of agencies to allow sharing of contract details (most of which is naively directed to stop us comparing & swapping agencies. . .which in the day of internet is cloud-cuckoo -land stuff of course) has absolutely nothing to do with the airlines day to day operational control over us as employees. Although employed via offshore agencies, in all other respects (particularly operationally) we are used/treated like normal employees. . . . except. Our contract may (indeed often does) have less generous terms when it comes to Annual Leave/Days Off, however, these must comply with normal duty/rest time legislation. . . if they are not good enough, complain to EASA for making/proposing them, not to the agencies for selling us to the max to the airline. Even in a regime as Draconian as Ryanair, going sick certainly did not oblige one to find/nominate a replacement pilot. . .that is total horlicks !
and I don't really know where you dreamed that one up from. Of course if you are sick in Ryanair, you are paid nothing. . . a much bigger issue, but not the one we are discussing here.
danny,
one interesting point you make is that an "employer" in country A cannot pay social security for you into a system in country B without being registered as an employer in country B. This is something many of us are queryiing with our agencies (one of whom has seen enough of the implications to pull out of the contract. . the other 3 are moving forward without perhaps realising the implications for themselves)
The Irish paper you publish seems to support the Ryanair "system", in that, if the pilot ( & his employer I.E him
) pay social charges at "home base", taxes can be paid where the business (again HIM) is domiciled. . strangely enough in the case of Ryanair contractors Ireland.
Regretably (perhaps) Danny, what you have posted in your last paragraph is easily possible & totally legal. It is entirely possible to work in Spain whilst paying taxes & social charges elsewhere. The labour laws that must be respected are those of the country of your "employer" - not Spain up to now. . . may be in the future, & of course the laws relating to the AOC holders base country. This is primarily demanded , if you remember , by the AIRLINES , not the PILOTS, so I think it is to them you should direct your ire & frustration, not those of us forced to exist in this quasi-compliant sphere.
A tangled web indeed, but please stop shooting the messengers. Contrary to what you 2 (?) gentlemen think , the great majority are not seeking to evade tax, but are quite justifiably seeking to pay it where they stand to have something in return ,& NOT just stump up in Spain primarily to make an airline (that you are leased to by an offshore contract agency) look whiter than white.
Justifiably , we want some value for our money. . . anything wrong in that ?
I am no tax expert, but have been forced to take an interest in it due to my agency being forced by the airline to change our employment status. I would remind you that this thread is titled "Norwegian Malaga Roster and new bases" although this does not of course prevent us deviating toward related subjects. Anyhow, I shall try & take us vaguely back on track by discussing your pet subject (tax & social charges) with respect to "Norwegian Malaga" developments.
boeingisgoing
The list you posted of countries having a double tax agreement with Spain does NOT (as I stated) include Denmark. Danish colleagues assure me (and they would know I guess, as it is their money !
) this unfortunately to be the case. Contrary to your slur I know for a fact that the great majority of Danish people do not mess around with taxation. This is pursued very vigorously there, and the penalties fairly severe.The advice they have taken has made very clear that they are liable to Danish taxes, however, living as they do in Denmark, and probably spending less than 183 days a year in Spain, they are NOT liable to Spanish taxation, and will derive no benefit from anything thay pay into the Spanish system. Can you give me one viable reason why they should be forced to pay anything in Spain whilst being compliant in their own home country (much like A&C's situation in the UK, who Danny seems to have a bit of a fetish for lambasting, tiresome in the extreme Danny
give it a rest )If you are resident in Andorra (and that is not so cheap/easy. . . ) you may "avoid" - not "evade"- taxes perfectly legally by fulfilling several residency requirements. I am sure the EU politicians so beloved of you would never stoop to such depths . . . Oh no, wait a minute, as EC employees they are "tax-free" anyhow. .so no need then. If you have worked/been registered for taxes in Spain you must wait 5 years to benefit from this option,if you never paid taxes in Spain the alleviation is immediate.
You insist on labouring the point about Aviation Regiulator oversight of a Contract employee. I remind you that despite any secrecy on the part of agencies to allow sharing of contract details (most of which is naively directed to stop us comparing & swapping agencies. . .which in the day of internet is cloud-cuckoo -land stuff of course) has absolutely nothing to do with the airlines day to day operational control over us as employees. Although employed via offshore agencies, in all other respects (particularly operationally) we are used/treated like normal employees. . . . except. Our contract may (indeed often does) have less generous terms when it comes to Annual Leave/Days Off, however, these must comply with normal duty/rest time legislation. . . if they are not good enough, complain to EASA for making/proposing them, not to the agencies for selling us to the max to the airline. Even in a regime as Draconian as Ryanair, going sick certainly did not oblige one to find/nominate a replacement pilot. . .that is total horlicks !
and I don't really know where you dreamed that one up from. Of course if you are sick in Ryanair, you are paid nothing. . . a much bigger issue, but not the one we are discussing here.danny,
one interesting point you make is that an "employer" in country A cannot pay social security for you into a system in country B without being registered as an employer in country B. This is something many of us are queryiing with our agencies (one of whom has seen enough of the implications to pull out of the contract. . the other 3 are moving forward without perhaps realising the implications for themselves)
The Irish paper you publish seems to support the Ryanair "system", in that, if the pilot ( & his employer I.E him
) pay social charges at "home base", taxes can be paid where the business (again HIM) is domiciled. . strangely enough in the case of Ryanair contractors Ireland.Regretably (perhaps) Danny, what you have posted in your last paragraph is easily possible & totally legal. It is entirely possible to work in Spain whilst paying taxes & social charges elsewhere. The labour laws that must be respected are those of the country of your "employer" - not Spain up to now. . . may be in the future, & of course the laws relating to the AOC holders base country. This is primarily demanded , if you remember , by the AIRLINES , not the PILOTS, so I think it is to them you should direct your ire & frustration, not those of us forced to exist in this quasi-compliant sphere.
A tangled web indeed, but please stop shooting the messengers. Contrary to what you 2 (?) gentlemen think , the great majority are not seeking to evade tax, but are quite justifiably seeking to pay it where they stand to have something in return ,& NOT just stump up in Spain primarily to make an airline (that you are leased to by an offshore contract agency) look whiter than white.
Justifiably , we want some value for our money. . . anything wrong in that ?
Last edited by captplaystation; 14th Dec 2012 at 09:32.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Link to cancellation of double taxation
Link to the cancellation of the Danish-Spanish double taxation agreement in
2008.
SKAT: Opsigelse af dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst med Frankrig og Spanien
2008.
SKAT: Opsigelse af dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst med Frankrig og Spanien
Last edited by JumpinJackFlash; 14th Dec 2012 at 11:20.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers, I knew I wasn't imagining it & reckoned a Dane would have a better take on it than boeingisgoing. . . . with an agenda and an inability to read the list HE posted ffs
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gone very quiet !
It would seem that all has gone very quite from the boeingisgoing/ Dannyagilla camp!
Perhaps it is dawning on them that the laws of the EU are now taking presidence over their own very parochial view of the world....... welcome to the United States of Europe guys !
Perhaps it is dawning on them that the laws of the EU are now taking presidence over their own very parochial view of the world....... welcome to the United States of Europe guys !
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: monaco
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A&C,
My interest is in the collective good of fellow pilots and in the fairness of this business, not interesting at all in who is right but what is right.
Having crews and aircraft based in one country and exploiting that country's business potential while not contributing to that country's social system nor paying taxes there is immoral and plain wrong.
This is not called competition but social dumping.
I can guarantee you that big events are unfolding as we speak about these issues but the likes of you need the truth to slap them across their face so I can only advise you to watch this space and wait until February.
My interest is in the collective good of fellow pilots and in the fairness of this business, not interesting at all in who is right but what is right.
Having crews and aircraft based in one country and exploiting that country's business potential while not contributing to that country's social system nor paying taxes there is immoral and plain wrong.
This is not called competition but social dumping.
I can guarantee you that big events are unfolding as we speak about these issues but the likes of you need the truth to slap them across their face so I can only advise you to watch this space and wait until February.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dannyalligua
I don't think that it is right that I should pay any social taxes to a social system that I can't use of the next five years and don't use at all at the moment. If I have call on the Healthsystem it will reclaim the cost of my treatment from the health system in the UK were I pay the NI.
As to the income tax......well I am not surprised that the governments of Southern Europe are clutching at straws to get money.......some say " socialism is a very good system untill the other persons money runs out". So it is hardly surprizing that following the way the governments spent money that did not have that the place is in the mess it is, just don't expect me to pay to bail them out.
Well it is the type of money grabbing from the governments that you support that will drive business away, it is totalt unreasonable to expect me to pay tax in an EU state that I spend only a few hours a week in and would have no say in how my tax was spent.
My contribution is to the local economy were my use of hotels & restaurants keeps locals employed during the low season, as well as flying the money spending tourists to these places to help keep the economy afloat.
But Danny this is hardly the concern of a Monoco resident !
Boeingisgoing
As far as I was aware I was addressing one of the issues that are part of the legal questions that you raised, any how I am glad that you now see things my way in that social taxes should be paid in your state of residence.
While I am not in a position to comment directly on the Norwegian situation I am told that they have aircraft based in AGP and crews start and end work cycles in AGP so it is hard to see what you are driving at with this line of criticism. Likewise you seem to have some sort of issue with the changes in the Norwegian contract, I am told that contractual conditions have changed but what you seem to have missed is the pay increase of IRO € 10,000 per annum so it is not all one sided.
I don't think that it is right that I should pay any social taxes to a social system that I can't use of the next five years and don't use at all at the moment. If I have call on the Healthsystem it will reclaim the cost of my treatment from the health system in the UK were I pay the NI.
As to the income tax......well I am not surprised that the governments of Southern Europe are clutching at straws to get money.......some say " socialism is a very good system untill the other persons money runs out". So it is hardly surprizing that following the way the governments spent money that did not have that the place is in the mess it is, just don't expect me to pay to bail them out.
Well it is the type of money grabbing from the governments that you support that will drive business away, it is totalt unreasonable to expect me to pay tax in an EU state that I spend only a few hours a week in and would have no say in how my tax was spent.
My contribution is to the local economy were my use of hotels & restaurants keeps locals employed during the low season, as well as flying the money spending tourists to these places to help keep the economy afloat.
But Danny this is hardly the concern of a Monoco resident !
Boeingisgoing
As far as I was aware I was addressing one of the issues that are part of the legal questions that you raised, any how I am glad that you now see things my way in that social taxes should be paid in your state of residence.
While I am not in a position to comment directly on the Norwegian situation I am told that they have aircraft based in AGP and crews start and end work cycles in AGP so it is hard to see what you are driving at with this line of criticism. Likewise you seem to have some sort of issue with the changes in the Norwegian contract, I am told that contractual conditions have changed but what you seem to have missed is the pay increase of IRO € 10,000 per annum so it is not all one sided.
Last edited by A and C; 16th Dec 2012 at 09:30.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
danny & boeing
posts @0206 & 0217. . .you on the same roster ? or is the "synergy" a bit closer than that.
I guess you will now accuse me & Aand C of the same ,but ( although we may indeed be known to each other) we are assuredly not the same person. . . not so sure about you "two"
As regards Denmark, I was also taken by surprise, but that is how it is, extra nausea for anyone to pay their fair share, & no more than.
I am glad you agree with me when you state -
It would make sense that you paid this in the country were you have your residence.
In reference to social contributions.
I believe that equally applies to taxes, as your contributions should surely be where you expect to derive benefits, and where (via voting etc) you have at least a modicum of say in how they are spent.
When you say
A contract pilot would very likely not report unfit for flight for fear of loosing his/her job. The authorities will only get an insight of the fatigue problem if there is an incident where a report has to be filed. Only then will the fatigue issue surface.
I think the point here is not so much fear of being let go, the main motivator in a company like RYR is, if you didn't fly you weren't paid. In NAS we are not paid by the block hr, in the new contract it will attract a small , fairly inconsequential, supplement, but I doubt anyones decision will be swayed by that.
The NAS bases in AGP/LPA & indeed the 1st one (in HEL ) have indeed been set up (well not entirely in the case of HEL) purely as cheap off-shore alternatives. Machinations between the company & the Union have probably resulted in much of that saving being squandered due to inefficient rostering, but that was undoubtedly the motivation. Having said that, at a certain time in the morning in Summer in AGP, there can be up to 8 or so NAS flights to Northern destinations (the same for ALC/LPA/BCN) & LGW like HEL will also make sense from an operational point of view. This "Contracting Out" of labour is happening in every industry. . . .doesn't mean we have to like it, but to compete these days it is difficult for companies not to join in this sh1tty trend. . look at SAS if you want to see the alternative to doing so.
The announcement did not require fluency in a Scandi (or Spanish) language, it was merely a desirable extra. Most of my colleagues are however Scandis, and until the Base acquired aircraft & ones presence on merely positioning flts was tightened up, it was an arrangement that worked very well for them. The initial deal/roster was very commutable. . sadly other forces have intervened in the meantime & the initial deal altered.
I have to concur with your distaste for this trend, but NAS are merely doing what is required to cope with the rot started by Ryanair & continued by the likes of Easy /Wizz et al. Most industries (I.T. & the motor industry spring to mind) are equally or more guilty.
No-one likes it, but. . . . . if the lovely politicians are happy to continue taking back-handers in return for allowing it to continue/propogate what to do ¿? 
posts @0206 & 0217. . .you on the same roster ? or is the "synergy" a bit closer than that.
I guess you will now accuse me & Aand C of the same ,but ( although we may indeed be known to each other) we are assuredly not the same person. . . not so sure about you "two"
As regards Denmark, I was also taken by surprise, but that is how it is, extra nausea for anyone to pay their fair share, & no more than.
I am glad you agree with me when you state -
It would make sense that you paid this in the country were you have your residence.
In reference to social contributions.
I believe that equally applies to taxes, as your contributions should surely be where you expect to derive benefits, and where (via voting etc) you have at least a modicum of say in how they are spent.
When you say
A contract pilot would very likely not report unfit for flight for fear of loosing his/her job. The authorities will only get an insight of the fatigue problem if there is an incident where a report has to be filed. Only then will the fatigue issue surface.
I think the point here is not so much fear of being let go, the main motivator in a company like RYR is, if you didn't fly you weren't paid. In NAS we are not paid by the block hr, in the new contract it will attract a small , fairly inconsequential, supplement, but I doubt anyones decision will be swayed by that.
The NAS bases in AGP/LPA & indeed the 1st one (in HEL ) have indeed been set up (well not entirely in the case of HEL) purely as cheap off-shore alternatives. Machinations between the company & the Union have probably resulted in much of that saving being squandered due to inefficient rostering, but that was undoubtedly the motivation. Having said that, at a certain time in the morning in Summer in AGP, there can be up to 8 or so NAS flights to Northern destinations (the same for ALC/LPA/BCN) & LGW like HEL will also make sense from an operational point of view. This "Contracting Out" of labour is happening in every industry. . . .doesn't mean we have to like it, but to compete these days it is difficult for companies not to join in this sh1tty trend. . look at SAS if you want to see the alternative to doing so.
The announcement did not require fluency in a Scandi (or Spanish) language, it was merely a desirable extra. Most of my colleagues are however Scandis, and until the Base acquired aircraft & ones presence on merely positioning flts was tightened up, it was an arrangement that worked very well for them. The initial deal/roster was very commutable. . sadly other forces have intervened in the meantime & the initial deal altered.
I have to concur with your distaste for this trend, but NAS are merely doing what is required to cope with the rot started by Ryanair & continued by the likes of Easy /Wizz et al. Most industries (I.T. & the motor industry spring to mind) are equally or more guilty.
No-one likes it, but. . . . . if the lovely politicians are happy to continue taking back-handers in return for allowing it to continue/propogate
what to do ¿?
Last edited by captplaystation; 16th Dec 2012 at 10:19.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
boeingisgoing wrote:
And on the same site you would find that this did not come true.
If you have any more truths on the Danish tax system, please double check them or have your Captain look you over, he probably does that quite a bit on any regular flight anyway I would suspect....
Genindførelsen af ligningslovens § 33 A - Ernst & Young - Denmark
However, the Danish parliament has the 13th of September 2012 cancelled Tax Law § 33A.
Previously foreign income could completely be exempted regardless of how much taxes were deducted in the country of employment. If, according to double taxation agreements, the foreign income could not be taxed in the country of employment, the Danish tax would be reduced by half.
From now on, all foreign taxes will be taxable in Denmark. Taxes paid in the country of employment will be deducted towards the Danish taxes. This regardless whether there is a double taxation agreement or not.
So it does not really matter whether there is a double taxation agreement between Spain and Denmark or not.
Vedtaget lov: Ophævelse af ligningslovens § 33 A - Ernst & Young - Denmark
Previously foreign income could completely be exempted regardless of how much taxes were deducted in the country of employment. If, according to double taxation agreements, the foreign income could not be taxed in the country of employment, the Danish tax would be reduced by half.
From now on, all foreign taxes will be taxable in Denmark. Taxes paid in the country of employment will be deducted towards the Danish taxes. This regardless whether there is a double taxation agreement or not.
So it does not really matter whether there is a double taxation agreement between Spain and Denmark or not.
Vedtaget lov: Ophævelse af ligningslovens § 33 A - Ernst & Young - Denmark
If you have any more truths on the Danish tax system, please double check them or have your Captain look you over, he probably does that quite a bit on any regular flight anyway I would suspect....
Genindførelsen af ligningslovens § 33 A - Ernst & Young - Denmark
