Norwegian Malaga Roster and new bases

[A and C]

aozc

I commute home on the first flight I can find from the EU state that I start and end my work cycle. Occasionally I might take a hotel room if the first flight home is the next day.

[aozc]

How is that possible on a NAS roster?

[A and C]

aozc

I did not say it was on an NAS roster I was talking generally about taxation in the EU.

[dannyalliga]

A and C,
it is obvious that you have a personal agenda here but you will have, probably sooner than later, follow the very same laws you like to mention....."if you only read the parts of the regulation that support your case and not the parts that don't."

Here is what your beloved EU regulations clearly state:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...04:0010:EN:PDF

A few extracts:

The concept of ‘home base’, for flight crew and cabin crew members, under Union law is defined in Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonization of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation ( 4 ). In order to facilitate the application of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 to this group of persons, it is justified to create a special rule whereby the concept of ‘home base’ becomes the criterion for determining the applicable legislation for flight crew and cabin crew members. However, the applicable legislation for flight crew and cabin crew members should remain stable and the ‘home base’ principle should not result in frequent changes of applicable legislation due to the industry’s work patterns or seasonal demands.

‘(18b) In Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonization of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (*), the concept of “home base” for flight crew and cabin crew members is defined as the location nominated by the operator to the crew member from where the crew member normally starts and ends a duty period, or a series of duty periods, and where, under normal conditions, the operator is not responsible for the accommodation of the crew member concerned. In order to facilitate the application of Title II of this Regulation for flight crew and cabin crew members, it is justified to use the concept of “home base” as the criterion for determining the applicable legislation for flight crew and cabin crew members. However, the applicable legislation for flight crew and cabin crew members should remain stable and the home base principle should not result in frequent changes of applicable legislation due to the industry’s work patterns or seasonal demands

(4) The following paragraph is added to Article 11:
‘5. An activity as a flight crew or cabin crew member performing air passenger or freight services shall be deemed to be an activity pursued in the Member State where the home base, as defined in Annex III to Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91, is located.’.

For the purposes of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, an employed flight crew or cabin crew member normally pursuing air passenger or freight services in two or more Member States shall be subject to the legislation of the Member State where the home base, as defined in Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonization of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (*), is located.

I would start contacting SEPLA for tax and SI information if I were you......

[Binder]

There is a risk here of confusing taxation legislation and the requirements for paying social security as pointed to in the above link.

The two are different.

On tax if you have to pay in Spain this will be credited against your UK liability (there is a double taxation treaty as with most Eu countries) and so broadly speaking you won't be any worse off....just more paperwork!

As always no substitute for professional advice.

Binder

[A and C]

Dannyalliga

As usual you are half correct and ( like a number of impecunious southern europan governments) pushing the agenda that you favour by only quoting part of the regulations.

I also think that you are probably correct about the EC member states getting tough on those evading tax but it will be much more difficult for them to try to tax me if I am already paying tax in my EU state of residence. I can't help thinking that if the tax is split between two or three EU states it will cost more to administer than the money they collect !

While I can't get the link that you have posted to download I suspect that it is not an official government website so I will direct you to the UK government website on the subject, please note the second and third paragraphs.

HM Revenue & Customs: National Insurance: New EU rules for flight and cabin crew working in two or more Member States

As to the income tax I find myself in agreement with Binder.

[dannyalliga]

Binder,

there is a much finer and educated analysis you should make: in many countries paying social security (what the above links refer to) does not simplistically mean that you pay in one country or another but it involves LEGAL aspects.
An example?In most countries you cannot pay social security from abroad without having a locally based and compliant structure.
How would your relationship to this structure be now?Employee?Director?In any case you would have to have a locally legal bond to this structure that is paying social security for you, therefore some sort of contracts that complies with local laws and regs.
Now how does that go together with your Brookfield/Storm/Parc/Rishworth contract?

I will give you a simple example from the UK system with a quote taken from their website (Social security benefits: statutory maternity pay: summary) about maternity pay:

Employers are responsible for administering the scheme and paying their employees the amount to which they are entitled. The Inland Revenue is responsible for ensuring that employers correctly administer the scheme and for providing employers with the funding to which they are entitled.

Let's assume you are based in the UK but resident in Spain while working for an Irish agency that is subcontracting you to a Norwegian carrier: you now pay SI in the UK as per the new EU law but cannot apply a basic benefit like maternity pay because the UK HMRC does not have the authority over a foreign employer.
This issue is being dealt with as we speak already by a few EU states and the solution they are talking about is not innovative at all but a simple and old one: local contracts.

[dannyalliga]

While I can't get the link that you have posted to download I suspect that it is not an official government website

How come you are so suspicious?I have understood very well the type of pedantic person with a selfish agenda you are so I only post links to official websites and agencies......

[captplaystation]

Au contraire Danny, it is you who appears to harbour an agenda. A&C is merely pointing out that he complies with the regulations pertaining to anyone whose contract existed before the cut-off of 25th June (? ) being compliant by paying his social charges in either his country of residence (or country of his employer) which choice he may exercise for the next 10 years.

Liability for income tax is quite another subject, and may also be complied with in many innovative ways.

To answer the previous question, the current Norwegian roster in Malaga will very easily facilitate the scenario aozc queried.

[dannyalliga]

captplaystation,

I have no problem in admitting that I have an agenda, the difference between mine and A and C's rests in his selfishness.

[captplaystation]

I don't see wishing to pay your social charges in your country of residence, where you may partake of social services etc (in preference to a bankrupt Southern European basket-case, where schools/hospitals etc are woefully underfunded . . . . particularly if you don't even live there) as being selfish, I would categorise it as prudent expenditure of income.

[dannyalliga]

I would categorise it as prudent expenditure of income.

Not if a huge chunk of income is generated by your airline in that bankrupt basket-case carrying southern europeans often on domestic routes, same airline that pretends to be based in what once was Saxonia (nowadays a Pakistani colony) but then we all know where they base most of their aircraft and crews.

If we then want to open a discussion about the concept of "permanent establishment" please be my guests....
The following investigation started well before the new EU regulation:
Ryanair accused of avoiding tax - The Irish Times - Tue, Oct 16, 2012

[spanner the cat]

....and let's face it, if you are resident in one EU country, commuting to another and are likely to go back home should your job finish or to use healthcare facilities or retire why should you pay SI on the basis of a notional base? If the centre of your life's affairs is in one country why should another state get the benefit of you paying, what is essentially, a tax for no benefit.

Just sounds like a massively over-complicated way of ensuring more jobs for government employees in both countries sorting out cross-border entitlements. Thank you Brussels.

It'll probably turn into a massive nause if either one of the countries ceases to remain within the EU too.

[dannyalliga]

spanner the cat,
the following is a quote from the EU website....

The amount of your pension will be calculated in accordance with the legislation of the country where you worked in exactly the same way as for its own nationals.
It does not matter whether or not you live there when you reach the pensionable age, you will still be paid a pension.
You should claim the pension in the country where you last worked if you have never actually worked where you live.

[Zoyberg]

Good news about the LGW base....shame its only three going up to four this year. They could fill ten times that with unhappy STN RYR crew alone!

[captplaystation]

danny, that is a bit "broad brush/disingenious" the number of years you must have worked in Spain to achieve a "full pension" ( & that is NOT a lot of € ) increases every year.

If you think you can work 20 years in (say) UK & come to Spain, work 5, and claim a full pension. . .well.

I think you are well intentioned, but you are coming across as a sort of "EEC apologist". With the greatest of respect, please look at the efforts the EEC have made to harmonise things that may benefit us (healthcare/pensions/sick-pay/acceptance of academic qualifications ) & compare it with the effort devoted to things like harmonisation of speeding fines etc . . .and draw your own conclusions.

I am totally with you in the discussion about Ryanair making loads of dosh flying as a "Spanish airline" whilst contributing Nada to Spain (well except the small matter of several million extra tourists ) but, please stop muddying the waters of the "discussion" on this thread, with what, is actually, YOUR agenda. You are correct, but stop hijacking threads. A and C is 100% totally correct in his assertions, & if you really think that he (and me too) are responsible for the problems in Spain, could I suggest you turn your attentions to the "Manana" philosophy that has existed here for the past couple of decades in relation to building/ public expenditure/banking . . . . you are a little bit "Red Robbo", this isn't maybe so bad, but direct your criticisms /vitriol accurately & lay off A and C (your posting history doesn't lend you much impartiality here ) as I am in a similar situation & find your "Socialist/Brussels knows best" rantings misguided at best. In all seriousness, have you ever actually been in Spain, unemployed , and tried to claim something based on your years of "service" in (for example) the UK, or France ? nope ? me yes. . . . believe me, I will only pay if I "may" get something in return, and I fully respect the views of anyone holding the same opinion.

Your "idealism" is trumped by the "reality" of the failure of the EEC countries to even begin to harmonise the things that actually matter on a day to day basis , to those of us living here ( as spanner the cat alluded to in a slightly less verbose manner)

Go away, try being unemployed in "another" EEC country & then come back & tell us all to "PAY UP". . . . . . . Nah, don't think you will shout so loud

[C195]

London Gatwick base

Does anyone here know if Norwegian's London Gatwick base will require employees or contractors and, if contractors, how the UK tax and social security contributions will be paid? Is direct employment an option with Norwegian or must you serve your time as a contractor via one of the agencies first?

[LeftHeadingNorth]

It will be contract through one of the agencies...

[A and C]

Dannyalliga

Please can you tell me why you think that I am selfish ? I think you should at least give a reason for this abusive statement.

I pay my taxes in the EU state I am resident in and if I require any help from the state for unemployment or sickness I will use the resources of that state.

As for retirement pensions if I paid into another EU states social tax system that state would have to pay me a retirement pension, this would more than likely be a small sum ( due to the few years I would be paying the social tax ). However it would cost the same to administer as for a resident who had made lifelong contributions. This would put an unfair burden on that states social security system, surely it would be better for me to keep paying into the system in my country of residence and avoid the unnecessary burden that I would on one or more EU states ?


It is my guess that this whole social tax thing was set up by EU officials who think that airline crew bases are permanent things that last for years and that people always live near their base, over the next ten years it will slowly dawn on these clueless EU administrators what an administratively expensive monster they have set up when they have to sort out the pension payments to people who have small pots of money in the social systems in three or four EU states !

[dannyalliga]

Please can you tell me why you think that I am selfish ?

Because you only consider your personal interests, your own personal situation and your own personal view of the future.
I am more interested in what this job is becoming and in trying to stop it rotting.
If my type of mentality wins then those like you will also benefit from the changes it will bring, if your mentality prevails instead then the rot will spread and in the long run you too will pay the price.

It is immoral and soon proven illegal to set up a permanent business in one country while enjoying the friendlier tax/SI of another country.
It is immoral and illegal to employ workers in a country where labor law favors the employer and then permanently base them in another where they cannot enjoy any local rights.
It is immoral and illegal (in many jurisdictions) to employ huge percentages of workers as fake contractors forcing them to set up LTDs in one country and then deploying them permanently in another one.
It is immoral to base large numbers of aircraft and crew in a country different from the one the business is based therefore conducting unfair competition.
It is immoral to claim jobs are created by this system while other companies shrink or go bust due to unfair competition.
It is immoral to do illegal business abroad making local airlines go bankrupt and then not paying the unemployment benefits to the 1000s workers who lost their jobs.
It is immoral to do illegal business in a foreign country where competitors went bust dur to unfair competition and then not hiring those who were left without a job because it is more convenient to make money out of 200 hours cadets.

I know you probably don't have a clue of what I am talking about, no problem I just hope you guys are the minority....otherwise this profession is over for good.