Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > North America
Reload this Page >

The Aussies are coming

North America Still the busiest region for commercial aviation.

The Aussies are coming

Old 17th Sep 2015, 19:56
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
All that is true, especially the part about leaving a captain slot for the lowest spot on the seniority list. My commend were more about the superficial way the RAND report dismissed them. Certainly there are not enough to provide a sustained source. The MITRE report presented them as such, a temporary measure.
A Squared is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 20:03
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 3,367
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 11 Posts
A Squared,

With a lack of data, I don't know how McGee could have dealt with the expat factor any other way. As you've seen, his report is highly data driven.

The regionals here, on the other hand, are having a serious issue with pilot supply.

I say that's an artificial problem created, to an extent, by the recent action of the government. Not sure how that'll be overcome.

Maybe more Aussies ?
bafanguy is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 20:39
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bafanguy
A Squared,

With a lack of data, I don't know how McGee could have dealt with the expat factor any other way. As you've seen, his report is highly data driven.

The regionals here, on the other hand, are having a serious issue with pilot supply.

I say that's an artificial problem created, to an extent, by the recent action of the government. Not sure how that'll be overcome.

Maybe more Aussies ?
Yes, no doubt it would be hard to quantify accurately. How many US ex-pats still have a US address on their FAA data? A lot of them I bet.

No, not more Aussies. And that is not a position based in xenophobia. Here's my take on it: The regionals are weeping and gnashing their teeth about how *hard* it is to hire pilots because there is a *shortage* , yet they are still offering starvation wages. Seriously. as someone pointed out in the mirror thread on the Oz forum (maybe it was you) Starting Salary at Great Lakes is less than $16,000/yr. (and you train for free and sign a $7500 training contract) Granted, this is an entry level position, but it's not an unskilled entry level position, it's an entry level position that requires as a minimum, an fairly expensive level of certification, and the ability to perform a certain set of relatively complex skills. My point is that it's not like some entry level jobs where you show up with no skills, no training and no relevant experience. This exists because of supply and demand. historically, there was a greater supply of people who wanted pilot jobs, so salaries and working conditions were pushed downward. Now the airlines find themselves on the wrong side of the supply/demand equation, but they don't want to face the reality that when supply is down, you have to pay more for that commodity, whether it is barrels of oil, or pilots. I say too bad, until you're willing to do what the laws of supply and demand say you have to do, you can park planes, lose money, go out of business, etc, until you start responding to the current economic realities of the pilot labor marketplace. I have nothing against Australians, but I don't favor importing a bunch of them as a means of perpetuating regional airlines paying poverty level wages for pilots.
A Squared is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2015, 01:25
  #44 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
I agree with you completely A-squared. The airlines need to, and must, start paying decent wages that reflect the responsibility of the position and the high cost of training.

I seriously think though, there will be very very few Australians that qualify, in terms of meeting the hours requirements and also having a college degree to meet the visa requirement. College / university is just not a big deal down under, there is only a couple of universities with flying related training courses, most pilots don't have degrees therefore won't meet the visa requirement.

What you really want to be scared of though, is your countrymen like these a-holes finding some way to cut a deal to get their hordes of European/Indian/Asian pay-to-fly muppets, into the right seat of US regionals.
Luke SkyToddler is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2015, 01:31
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Planet Earth
Age: 39
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
calling it how it is

I'm gonna have to agree with cf680c2b on this one. Being an Aussie as well!!!

In my shortish career (10yrs) i've seen nothing but complete arrogance in Aus Aviation and that is also probably reflected across the board in the global sector to a degree as well from Aussies and other nationalities...

It probably goes hand in hand with supply and demand. But I'm assuming your poor experience was most likely in the middle east with some of my compatriots. These are prob from individuals who have had to move over there due to 89 strike and collapse of Ansett etc... all undesirable situations but for some reason there is a small minority in there that carry this chip and ego on their shoulders as if they were owed the world.

The problem lies in when these individuals get into positions of power training departments or management.
I don't know if i know of any other profession where we get people so hell bent at times and being most unhelpful to their fellow collegues in furthering all the attributes required for professional aviators.

I tend to agree with you in regards to how the effect of Aussies might not progress any change in the regional's in the T/C department.

Personally i would just like to see a consistent approach in regards to the ability to gain a licence and the rights to work in any country across the globe with a linear recognition of credentials

cf680c2b in fact you would easily gain the legal right to work in Australia in a process alot easier than what the USA affords Aussie's at present...
The licence conversion is also a little simpler as well.. So working for QF/JQ/VA or Aussie regional's is def not a hard process if you so desired.

CB
Captain Biggles84 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2015, 03:36
  #46 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
So working for QF/JQ/VA or Aussie regional's is def not a hard process if you so desired.
Except for the inconvenient fact that QF/JQ/VA are not actually recruiting, and they have a few thousand CVs already waiting in the pile
Luke SkyToddler is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2015, 07:06
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: north pole
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
#3 couldn't be more correct !


Originally Posted by cf680c2b
This is a really bad idea. 3 reasons just of the top of my head.

1- the airline industry in the U.S. Is in the process of establishing equilibrium of supply and demand. The value of a Pilot is finally beginning to gain recognition. We don't need imported labor to continue the artificially low wages at the regionals.

2- these Aussies will ultimately gain residency/citizenship through longevity, marriage, etc. and will compete with American pilots for the coveted jobs. Who wants more competition for AA, UA, DL, UPS, FX....please raise your hands. I'm sure these folks have no interest in flying for regional making squat for the rest of their career.

3- When I lived and worked back home in the U.S., my perception of Aussies was, well, crocodile Dundee-ish laid back with a shrimp on the barbi style. Well, that can't be further from the truth. Ask anyone in EK or any other airline with a substantial number of them. Of course not all are the same and I've met some good guys but the overall majority are not easy in the cockpit.

Anyway, you RJ folk back home better get with your unions on this. Regionals need to start paying for its talent. Import labor will diminish this effort.
homoeconomicus is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2015, 10:34
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 3,367
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 11 Posts
A Squared,

I was more or less tongue-in-cheek by saying "...more Aussies...". Although, I really don't care too much if a regional hires them. And they aren't likely to constitute numbers that solve the problem for even one regional.

I'm sure there are obstacles involved, e.g., having the willingness to relocate for substandard pay, having required hours and an FAA ticket.

As for the degree requirement in the visa language:

"...and at least the attainment of a bachelor's degree, or its equivalent, as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States."

What does, "...or its equivalent..." mean ? The Imperial Federal Government will decide. I'd put money on a pretty liberal interpretation of that. The regionals would probably prefer a degree but don't require it. The day will come when the big legacies don't either. UAL already lists it as "preferred" and as of Sept. 15th says this:

https://www.pilotcareercentre.com/Pi...Airlines+-+UAL

If Skywest is actually recruiting expats of any origin, it's a new wrinkle for US airlines. That's what would make it remarkable even on a small scale.

I'd expect them to fit in just fine culturally. As for any flying mindset differences, that can certainly be adjusted when/if necessary. I'd expect younger people to be more amenable to that.

And, your remarks about the conditions at regionals are correct but regionals are an unquestionable steppingstone to bigger & better.

Last edited by bafanguy; 18th Sep 2015 at 16:21.
bafanguy is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2015, 23:56
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: between 20 & 30 000'
Posts: 80
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I reckon there is a simpler solution to the "pilot shortage" these regionals are experiencing.

PAY MORE and treat the pilots with the respect they deserve.

There are many American pilots scattered around the world who would be quite happy to return home IF the conditions were right.

This visa deal is just another way the race to the bottom is being supported.

Sadly the people who make the decisions will more than likely be swayed by the "lobbyists".

I wonder where the bottom is? Every time we appear to be near it, new depths are found!
gtseraf is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2015, 11:02
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Reup
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
as much as I would love to work for us majors...

I could not agree more with gtseraf
Arewerunning is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2015, 22:59
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Not Syderknee
Posts: 1,011
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Just to put things in perspective as far as pay goes.
The Australian Air Pilot Award (minimum pilot wage) for a Single Engine aircraft <1360kg (2998lb) is $23,839USD for an FO. That does not include any of the additional items you could expect such as an IF rating allowance. This is the lowest amount you can be paid as a full time pilot in Australia, and because it is the bottom of the award rates you can't be charged a training fee or be bonded while on that pay rate. So don't expect anyone to head on over for the Great Lakes job paying $16,000USD.
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/doc...f/MA000046.pdf B 1.2
rmcdonal is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2015, 01:56
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: between 20 & 30 000'
Posts: 80
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
but it will be to a fly a shiny (well almost) jet.
gtseraf is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2015, 19:18
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I work in management at a Part 135 company and also as a flight instructor and I see a severe and very real shortage of pilots. The only active flight training is by those companies set up to train future airline pilots for Asian carriers. Who would go into the business when they now require a 4 year degree and 1500 hours, taking some 10 to 15 years, and $300,00 or more investment, only to get paid $25,000 a year?

I lose pilots to the majors and to regional 121 carriers all the time, at present I have only 1 full time pilot when I am used to having 5 or 6, plus a bunch of part time pilots. I am competing with the Regionals and cargo carriers because I need pilots with 4000 hours, an ATP and lots of PIC time especially twin and turbine time. Exactly what they want too.

I have had 80 percent of my pilots poached this year to the regional airlines and cargo carriers. Even the medical companies and Fractionals have taken a bite. I am spending most of my time training new pilots and many of them will only have a short time with us because they are already over 65 or are obviously attractive to the bigger operators.

Until recently most of my pilots had been here for more than 10 years, one was over 25 years. Now nobody has more than 4 years experience with us and training new people is a constant need.

I cannot pay enough to attract them or keep them. Increasing the pay, which is reasonable for the job, does not help. Most pilots want a life and will sacrifice pay for more time at home. If I increase the pay even 25 percent it will bankrupt the company. That is not an opinion, it is fact.

I used to fly in Asia and my copilots on the Boeings might only have 400 hours total. That has not changed to my knowledge and yet they don't seem to have a problem. Why does the US now need their SICs to have such a huge amount of flying time? What value is it if the flying they get is banner towing or flight instructing?

It is my opinion that the FAA has set out to destroy aviation. I will admit that most of them do not know what they are doing but the decision to accept the knee-jerk decision by Congress without argument had to have been seen as being something the industry just cannot accept without severe financial damage and a high risk of reducing the number of smaller carriers. So obvious that it had to be part of the plan.

Many Regional carriers have been parking airplanes because they cannot man them due to the pilot shortage. This leads to reduced scheduling and to reduced movements in smaller airports, which rely on FAA subsidies to operate. Those subsidies are taken away if there are not enough daily flights so that airports are being closed to scheduled carriers as well. A perfect storm and again something that could have been anticipated by the FAA and used as a basis to refuse to raise the bar that high. Instead they went along with it and all of aviation will suffer. If it is as bad as it is now, what will happen in a few years when the shortage continues to bite?

I have it on good authority that there are new rules coming down the pike concerning SMS that will effectively shut down all small 135 carriers too because of the increased compliance costs...Well done, FAA!

And all this for no good reason. The Colgan pilots had more than 1500 hours and an ATP so it obviously had no bearing on the accident. Creating a pilot shortage means that the airlines will not be able to do extra training because they do not have the resources any longer and they will be extremely loath to fail/fire any pilots they now have, for cause or any other reason. I can easily see that standards will fall and the overall safety of the industry will suffer. Those pilots who remain will be flying longer hours, maximum duty time and less days off simply to keep the airline operating. Add to this the new duty time limits and it will be lucky if we even have an industry.

The FAA adage "we are not happy until you are not happy" is true, believe me.
boofhead is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2015, 19:41
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 3,367
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 11 Posts
Boof,

Do you see expats coming here to the US (if they even CAN come here) as even a partial solution to what you describe ?
bafanguy is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2015, 19:55
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am from Aus. I have been working in the US for over ten years now. I would welcome anybody who could do the job, however I am in Alaska and I require Alaskan flight time for the PICs. There are places in the world that have similar weather, terrain, size and lack of facilities but nowhere I know of that has all of these at the same time (maybe Siberia or Northern Canada). When I send a single pilot twin turbine pilot out to the Western villages, the North Slope or to the Aleutians, especially in the middle of the winter when any error could cause extremely serious problems (need I explain?) I have to know he has the skills and experience to handle it without assistance. More importantly, he or she should know when to pull the plug.

I can use SIC pilots but we don't generally work more than 300 hours in a year so there would be no chance of advancement and I always recommend a pilot get some PIC time before he comes to see me. Even flying in the bush in a Warrior or PA31 would be better than riding in the right seat for years.
boofhead is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2015, 15:23
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by boofhead
Increasing the pay, which is reasonable for the job, does not help.
Saying it's "reasonable for the job" doesn't make it so, the evidence (which you've presented yourself) is overwhelmingly indicating that in today's market, what you're offering is *not* reasonable for the job, otherwise all your pilots wouldn't be leaving. You see, it's not what *you* consider "reasonable for the job", it's what your pilots (and prospective pilots) think is reasonable for the job. And according to you, their actions are speaking pretty clearly about whether *they* think what you're offering is "reasonable for the job".

I have more than your minimum hour requirements and plenty of Alaska time, maybe I'd be tempted to hire on there if it was reasonable for the job. Why don't you post what you're offering and we can see how reasonable it is.


Originally Posted by boofhead
If I increase the pay even 25 percent it will bankrupt the company. That is not an opinion, it is fact.
That may be, I certainly wouldn't presume to argue the point. If true, it simply means that you have a business model established in a pilot market when you could hire and retain pilots for low wages. Now you can't. I've seen far too many part 135 operators ruthlessly exploit an oversupply of pilots to feet too much sympathy for them now that there isn't an oversupply. Figure out a way to make your job attractive to pilots given today's conditions.


Originally Posted by boofhead
It is my opinion that the FAA has set out to destroy aviation.
That's an absurd statement. I certainly don't intend to defend the FAA but the notion that they are intentionally and consciously choosing to do things which are detrimental to aviation is just silly.


Originally Posted by boofhead
I will admit that most of them do not know what they are doing but the decision to accept the knee-jerk decision by Congress without argument had to have been seen as being something the industry just cannot accept without severe financial damage and a high risk of reducing the number of smaller carriers. So obvious that it had to be part of the plan.
I don't think that you have a very clear understanding of how the US government works. Not to argue the merits of the mandates in the act passed by Congress, but when Congress passes a law which says "The FAA WILL do : X,Y and Z " , The FAA doesn't really have the option of saying "Nah, I don't think that we will do X,Y or Z " .
A Squared is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2015, 18:02
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The pay in most smaller Part 135 outfits in Alaska is comparable and set by the need to make a profit, even if only a small one, or go out of business. I have not seen any of the operators raising pay yet nor expanding. It might happen, and I hope it does, but the cost will have to be passed on to the customer. The company I work for is not a low pay company nor one that tries to cheat the pilots. We pride ourselves on having an experienced, conservative group of pilots and our reputation is the main reason we are still a successful business.

Your assumption that all companies are set up to oppress the pilots is silly.

I have seen a drop in the number of flights over the last few years, the gravy days are over I fear.

I admit that I am a conspiracy theorist and the federal government attacks on Alaskan business, especially oil and gas and mining, has been relentless. The effect has been to depress the economy and thus take away the money needed to increase wages, as well as other valid uses for money one makes in excess of that needed to cover costs, and aviation is an integral part of this. If there is no money, where does the extra come from to give the pilots more? If there is no demand for the service as provided, surely it makes more sense to cut back on operations?

The pilots I talk to rarely say that the money offered is not enough. They will leave me for other opportunities where they get more time off, a more reasonable schedule (we are on-demand) or the chance to live in town instead of in the bush. Some of the guys who leave come back because the outfit that poached them goes out of business, or the promises of pay were lies, or the work schedule was not as advertised. I always welcome them, I have been there too and understand.

I do not agree with the type of pilot who claims that the only thing needed is to increase pay. That type of pilot does not fit in here. We are a great company to work for and the flying is outstanding. The airplanes are in exceptionally good condition and we cut no corners. We pass audits from the largest oil companies as well as the DOT, DOD and FAA. Either the pilot accepts the pay and conditions or he does not hire on. Alaska is an at-will state and he is free to come or go as he pleases.

I suppose that your statement that it is absurd for the FAA to set about to destroy aviation is true, but it is happening. I have lots of buddies in the FAA and I speak openly to them about the 1500 hour requirement and the effect it has had. Most will agree with me and none say their hands have been tied. When I heard about the changes I commented on the proposal, but my comments were not accepted, obviously. The FAA could have stood their ground if they had the welfare of the industry in mind, but they did not. The Congress are not aviators, have no knowledge of aviation, and made a bad decision. Who else to change their minds but the FAA? Now we have a situation where foreign pilots with 400 hours total are operating into and out of the US in the right seat of B747 and similar, but a US pilot who wants to be a SIC on a SAAB in regional part 121 has to have a degree, the written ATP and 1500 hours. Anyone with only a lizard brain can see that this is not only stupid, it is unworkable. Who had the final say? Me? No, it was the FAA.


How much damage will be done before the rule is changed? It has already been altered, with cutouts for special cases, due to the damage it has been doing to flight training schools, and eventually it will be rolled back to the point that it would be still in effect but weakened enough to save part of the industry, but the damage is being done right now and the effect is being felt right now.

Bringing in a bunch of Ockers might be just the thing needed to show the American public what their own government has been doing to them.
boofhead is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2015, 19:01
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by boofhead
Your assumption that all companies are set up to oppress the pilots is silly.
I didn't say all, now did I? But a whole bunch of them do, or have. Look around you at some of the practices at some of the bottom feeders over the years. They don't get away with that sort of thing if the pilot labor market isn't favorable to them. Now it isn't

FWIW, I'm pretty sure I know which company you represent, and except for an ummm .... interesting period a few years back, it generally has a pretty good reputation.

Originally Posted by boofhead
The pilots I talk to rarely say that the money offered is not enough. They will leave me for other opportunities where they get more time off, a more reasonable schedule (we are on-demand).
Yeah, but all that gets back to money, doesn't it? Not necessarily money in the pilot's paycheck, but it's still money. All else being equal, a job where you're on call on a 12 hour rotation is a better (more reasonable) schedule than one which has you on call 24'7, but it costs about twice as much money to provide that as your pilot staff has to be doubled.

Originally Posted by boofhead
I do not agree with the type of pilot who claims that the only thing needed is to increase pay. That type of pilot does not fit in here. We are a great company to work for and the flying is outstanding.
Yes, but by your own admission, you're having trouble keeping pilots. Sure, it's not just the money, it's the total package of money, schedule, time off, benefits, work conditions, opportunities for advancement, etc. And right now, the total package you're offering isn't attractive in today's market.



Originally Posted by boofhead
but a US pilot who wants to be a SIC on a SAAB in regional part 121 has to have a degree, the written ATP and 1500 hours.
I don't believe there's any requirement for a college degree. An aviation degree will allow relaxing some of the requirements to get your ATP, but there's no requirement for such.


Originally Posted by boofhead
The FAA could have stood their ground if they had the welfare of the industry in mind, but they did not. ..... Who had the final say? Me? No, it was the FAA.
OK, you keep saying that. You're mistaken. The FAA really cannot "stand their ground" against an act of Congress (nor should they, that's how our government works) The FAA does *not* have the final say, Congress does. Understand that I'm not defending the ATP rule as a wise thing, I'm just explaining how our government works, as you have a pretty persistent misunderstanding going here.

Congress passed a Public Law which said in part:

(B) ALL FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS
.—Rules issued under paragraph (1) shall ensure that, after the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, all flight crewmembers—

(i) have obtained an airline transport pilot certificate under part 61 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.
Once that requirement is in a bill which is voted into law and signed by the President, That *is* what the FAA is going to do. They have no choice. There is no "Stand your ground". Prior to the bill becoming law, there may have been some opportunity to convince the authors of the bill that this requirement is not a good idea, or will have unintended bad consequences. But if it can't be removed before it becomes law, it's a done deal. The FAA is required to do exactly what the law requires them to. And that means amend the Part 121 regulations to require an ATP for all 121 pilots. Period. Done deal. If you're angry at the FAA for that requirement, you're angry at the wrong people.



Originally Posted by boofhead
Bringing in a bunch of Ockers might be just the thing needed to show the American public what their own government has been doing to them.
If the answer is "more Australians", you're asking the wrong questions. (that's a joke)
A Squared is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2015, 19:57
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sure you have good points and I agree that once the Congress has spoken it is a done deal. The time to argue was prior to that and that is also the period of public comment but surely the experts should have had more to say instead of rolling over. Sequestration has made it difficult for honesty and integrity because of the fighting for the public purse that has become necessary.

The needs of a pilot are not driven exclusively by money. Some things cannot be changed, such as schedules. Money does not compensate in most cases so raising salaries will not necessarily make any difference. I don't blame a pilot for wanting the gold ring, and if he chooses the big iron, more power to him. In the old days there were plenty of pilots who did not aspire to an airline career, and wanted a local job. Not many of those left.
boofhead is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2015, 17:53
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 3,367
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 11 Posts
Well, I see no public evidence of this happening.

I've looked at every job site & listing from US regionals, TP freight feeders and large Part 135 operators over several weeks (some that should be absolutely desperate for pilots based on what they offer an applicant). Not one is admitting to using this visa to get Aussies in here nor does my Aussie contact whose finger is on the pulse of stuff Down There find any evidence.

I don't see a reason why a US carrier would NOT admit it if they were doing it...beyond ruffling a few feathers. But then when did any airline worry about ruffling a few feathers.

Highly suspicious of this based on the lack of evidence so far.
bafanguy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.