iarapilot

Just received an email from our MEC Chair relating to the HKG housing allowance. I dont know Scott, and have nothing against him personally. I do have to say though that this is the first email I have seen regarding the HKG pilots who have run afoul of the Companies interpretation in the contract concerning the HKG FDA and the housing allowance and requirements to receive the allowance.

He starts by saying that he is giving an update on the situation and states that "as you are aware, there are 5 pending discipline cases..." . I dont remember being made aware of this before by any official Union correspondence. Quite a few guys have been suspended, with pay, since November, so this "problem" has been going on for a long time. And knowing a few of the guys that are on the wrong side of the Company and listening to their side of the story, the Union has been anything but proactive in the situation, in my opinion.

The contract seems pretty nebulous with reference to the definition of relocation. In the contract under Mid Term Discussions Letter 2011, which is the LOA that covers HKG, in paragraph 4 the relocation package is explained and section d covers the housing allowance. In section d. v. it explains that if a pilot fails to maintain timely contact and completion of required documentation with respect to the tax equalization, the Company can suspend their allowance.

The question I have is what is the "required" documentation, and did the Union know that answer when the LOA was first presented to them, and does the Union even know the answer to that at this point in time.

I am wondering if the requirements have anything to do with the paperwork that PWC needs to have when filling out the pilots taxes, so as to allow the Company to receive the benefits for the foreign earned income exclusion. If that is the case, our previous leaders certainly should have investigated what those requirements were. And if our present leadership doesnt know the answer to that question, they need to find out. It might be possible that the Company is not able to "collect" on the foreign earned income exclusion, and they may not be able to take a deduction for paying the pilots housing because the "requirements" which were not spelled out contractually, therefore the crews not knowing exactly what those requirements were, were not met. Which in turn, does not allow the Company to benefit with the tax equalization.

Those requirements that a pilot has to meet, if it interferes with their freedom to go where they want on their days off, need to be scrapped. If the Company isnt able to "collect" on our foreign earned income exclusion and deduct the housing allowance that they pay us, I would say that is the cost for them doing business. A persons freedom to do what they want on their days off should not be hampered because FX cant collect on some tax deductions. Just my opinion, if this is indeed the case.

Back to my first paragraph....our Union needs to drop everything and put 100% of their effort into solving this problem for our guys over there.

Nightflyer

Perhaps you know more about this than I do. If you do, please enlighten me.

I guess an individual's interpretation depends on which "spin" you believe. Here is my interpretation.

I have heard a rumor that these individuals took the move package, and then didn't move their families. I heard this from some jumpseaters who were on the way to their Hong Kong domicile. My point is, I didn't hear this from the company, I heard this from fellow domicile crewmembers. I also know one crewmember, who didn't take the move package, because he knew he was not moving his family. He told me he is not in trouble with the company.

Now people are discussing the definition of "move". Is that the same discussion as the definition of "is"?

If these people did not fulfill their obligation to move, after they took the move package, then they are in the wrong, and my union dollars are being wasted in defending them. I say let them buy their own lawyers.

You say you want their grievance to go to the head of the line.

I disagree.

My grievance goes back to before last July. Why should my grievance be put on the back burner, so the union can put 100% of their resources behind someone who tried to game the system and got caught?

I have not heard anything about my grievance for several months, yet the union leadership is putting out a special message, that frankly told us nothing, about their grievance.

Where is the special message about the status of my grievance?

As usual, it seems that some union members' needs are more important than others.

FDXLAG

This is how I see it.

Prior to the FDA LOA the foreign income exclusion was a matter between the Pilot and the IRS. The Subic Pilots probably had about $30K riding on their decisions on how they spent their off time. After we granted the company "tax equalization" the exclusion is a matter between the company and the IRS with a third party (PWC) as the referee. FDX has about $60K (the $30K extra since the housing allowance is eligible for the exclusion) riding on how crewmembers spend their off time. I hope we arent counting on the standard FDX MEC grievance attorneys to fight this battle.

Huck

I'm telling you, it just ain't that black and white. Talk to more HKG people.

golfandfly

It's never that black and white. Some paid the money back, others want to fight it. That's fine, I hope they win. I've talked to a couple of HKG friends too, sounds like greed and stupidity rather than black and white.....

Nightflyer

If it is greed and stupidity, then why am I paying to defend them?

Nightflyer

If it is not black and white, perhaps you could explain it to me.

Feel free to PM, if you don't want to post.

I just want to understand why I am paying to defend them.

golfandfly

I am simply relaying information that I was given by 2 HKG guys. Both stories were very similar. Despite the reasons, black and white or grey, they are entitled to a very capable representation.

Nightflyer

When was the last time we won a grievance?

a300fr8dog

The Chairman makes reference to one case pending as an "HHAAP case".
I'm not familiar with the HHAAP acronym.
Anyone?