EI said at an LEC99 meeting that the ALPA reps only transited HKG on the way to CAN. They never looked at apartments, hospitals or schools in HKG. They only did that in CAN and Zuhai(accross from Macau).

 

Only the Good looking ones....

 

The ride to Guangzhou is, according to our HKG hotel desk staff, more like 5+ hours, maybe less in the early-morning hours, and worse at night, when the roads are clogged with trucks. So our "fact-finding tour" by union people, and their 3-hr. estimate, was based on what ... eye-balling a map and figuring 60 MPH, like I-95 goes through there or something? That's about 6 hours' travel prior to show time. The FAA would have a field day with that, don't you think? Any an arbitrator sure would have something to say about the low-ball housing allowance, since "similar class and craft" expats (ie, Cathay pilots get so much more ... US $5K to buy, $6.6K for an FO's rent, $8.2K for a Capt., and $3K for anyone who lives anywhere else. Why should we get any less than they do? And if you say it's because our larger paycheck makes up the difference, then you're saying the suit trash with the big expat paycheck and move package must be paying ALL his own rent -- and we know for sure that that isn't true. We're getting screwed on this LOA, and I urge you all to vote NO. We deserve better.

 

We should not get a dime less than they do. According to APC, max Captain pay at Cathay (HKG based) is $17,440. Isn't that more than max Captain pay is here in a 4 week bid month? Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and VOTE NO.

 

Herky,

Good info, but I doubt that both the company and the union aren't aware of this already. As you know the LOA removes the surface transportation restrictions in 8.B.1. We have all focused on the purported 3hr ride being the reason, because it's what stands out and that is what our union and company leadership have told us is the reason. It's all just part of the 'luxury' of living in HKG v. CAN. What has always bugged me about this portion of the LOA however is that the SIG already had the ability to approve this longer transportation via 8.B.1.b in the current deal, so why put it in the LOA. They haven't said it lately, b/c the focus has been on putting out fires over STV and housing/schooling costs, but when they did talk about it they said it was to ensure that we got paid for the transportation. That still didn't make sense, b/c the we get paid .5CH per hour of surface transportation up to a max of 2.5CH per deadhead. A three hour trip to CAN would give 1.5 hours of pay one way, 3CH round trip which is no where near the 2.5 pay limitation. Your info from the hotel in HKG makes it clear though that at least the NC and the company knew that it would take longer than 3 hours and thus the negotiation to remove the max credit hour restriction to ensure that proper pay credit. The FAA isn't a problem as the travel isn't local in nature(FAR definition) and therefore will be considered duty to them, and it's already covered by the hours of service portion of current agreement. It just means that RSV will be week long hotel stretches that won't be easy to move with likely travel days on each end and that the trips will probably be short on the first day or involve a DH out of HKG. I don't have an issue with the drive as long as we get paid for. I don't have an issue with the company not telling us the truth about the ride, the pairings will. What I do have an issue with is my union leaving out the specifics on this portion. I personally don't think it affects this LOA much, but that is my opinion only not everyone else and I don't think my leadership should be making decisions on which info to talk about and which not to. Give the pilots all the info and let them decide themselves what it means to them.

 

Good question. If that is a calender month and you multiply by 12 to get their annual salary, then no, it is less that our w/b capt's make. What kind of tax rate are the Cathay pilots coughing up? Anybody know?

 

My question is: What is considered an equal tax burden and what is it based upon? Say for example a crewmember sells his home and relocates to an FDA. His biggest tax deduction is gone. He now has a fairly high income and no large deductions. Most likely his taxes are now computed using the AMT tables since his AGI is now higher. Since he falls under the AMT he loses additional deductions. This has put him in a very unfavorable personal tax situation with substantially higher taxes. Is this the tax basis that Price Waterhouse will use to calculate his comparable US tax burden? I can't see them going backwards and saying, "Well you used to be a homeowner and you used to have xx thousand in mortgage interest and xx thousand in property taxes so your tax burden is this". I believe it will have to be based on your current tax situation.