I don't know for certain but I suspect UK subjects would be viewed positively because they are at least has comprehensive as those in Australia...people I respect who hold both licences (having passed all exams in each country) report one is really no harder than the other...despite what some Brits may claim...the UK one is more expensive, frustrating and time consuming but not actually 'harder'.
I am not suggesting that a US pilot operating within the US system (in it's entirety) is less 'qualified',
but the US ATPL written exam as a stand alone entity is vastly less comprehensive and testing than commonwealth exams are...that is self evident...the mere fact that you can pass it by spending 20 hrs memorising answers makes it so....that is rote learning and that completely circumvents understanding....the parts of the US system that promote understanding and application are missed by those merely taking the written and then using that to obtain, for instance, a Ozzie licence...sometimes/usually via further 'laundering' the FAA through a third party licence such as PNG.
That, for me, is the bottom line...if you get a Oz licence based on essentially, a FAA written + Oz Air Law, you have circumvented BOTH systems.
I agree with the stance taken by QF,
VB etc.
That doesn't man I think someone who has operated professionally as 737/NG crew within the US domestic scene for an extended period, define that as you will, is in any way, shape or form less qualified than than his Australian counterpart...but those who have circumvented the system here have spoiled it for the few people who didn't circumvent the system there.