Btrbill;
This is an interesting point you have again highlighted.
I have heard this point raised on several occasions.
You talk with conviction on it, so I can only assume there is substance to it. Personally I was unaware of any such restriction and did not know that QCAA had employed such a policy. The only reason I say this is about 3 yrs ago I interviewed a prospective controller, who at that time was working in Bahrain, originating from the USA. I recommended him and if I am not mistaken, a contract as dispatched to him. The communication between him and the QCAA broke down, reasons I am not sure of (it may have been this very reason) ... but everything seemed to point in the direction that further interest from FAA licenced controllers were welcomed??
If indeed it is the policy of the QCAA, then I agree, a potentially lucrative market is being glossed over. It is worth making further inquiries about, primarily to establish if in fact such a policy does exist or was it for whatever reason, seen as appropriate for that particular route through Serco. Here I can only offer ignorance, but admit I am now more than intrigued and will try and establish any validity there-to.
That said, I on a personal level still cannot see any major hurdles as we normally asses candidates prior to employment for suitability to train further ... and it can be relatively quickly established if in fact any major issues arise that under dual training will seem impassable. We also have a talented and qualified pool of Instructors that can underwrite, promulgate and I am sure deliver a bridging course (extrication from normal rostering duties aside) ... however, that is all subjective speculation on my part. Ultimately, if indeed it is the policy of the QCAA, however any of us see it .... only they can change it, and it is their right in terms of sovereignty to enforce it.
It is almost a dyshemism default for a person on rejection to assume the worst or paint speculation with credibility ...
In general, the factual revelation that normally evolves from some simple questions has over the years here proven near Machiavellian in the contrast to what was seen before as 'fact'. There is either the Faulker like cryptic approach to information or the over-played McKeon clarity and assured perspective, that as with the cryptic approach .... once simple and basic questions are asked .... is normally proven incorrect. Asking colleagues or buddies at ATSU's for information is I believe very important, especially if it is a countryman ... as there is a way that issues are communicated that are easily understood based on your common heritage. However, the ever present flaw there is this ... although what is being conveyed to you is important, it is riddled with subjectivity .... inevitably. There is nothing wrong with that at all ... quite normal , ... but it does not allow objectivity a chance. That is why I always maintain ... ask many questions, of colleagues and buddies working there .... but ensure you also start closing loops in your own validation by ensuring you speak to the recognized management at the unit you wish to work ... on more than one occasion.
Final point .... again, seems silly that this needs any sort of affirmation ... but it does. If something is NOT offered in writing and it IS important to you ... recognize that if you accept the offer, despite your perception of verbal contracts being binding ... they are not. Unless you want to start your career off by recording surreptitiously what is being said to you (I would never ever recommend this ... for obvious reasons) .... what is written is binding, what is mentioned as probable is not .... so DONT make the career decision based on the fulcrum of a verbal promise. From my experience and I am only talking for myself here, all issues that were verbally promised to me did materialize ... however, again ... that is my experience, I am NOT talking for my colleagues.