Ministry shelves proposal to hire local pilots for expats

[blackbirdsr72]

New Delhi: The civil aviation ministry has turned down a proposal by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to make it mandatory for airlines to hire two new local pilots for every expatriate on their payrolls. If accepted, the proposal would have immensely improved the employment prospects of commercial pilot licence (CPL) holders in India.India has about unemployed 4,000 CPL holders. The number of expat pilots in the country stand at around 300, down from 800 in 2010. The total number of pilots in the country is 3,800, out of which 25 per cent are commanders.If cleared, the proposal would have made airlines hire 600 new local pilots.While the DGCA’s proposal says airlines should employ two new locals for every foreign pilot, it doesn’t say entrust the locals with cockpit duty right away. The proposal is aimed at reducing unemployment among CPLs in India.A senior at the ministry said, “The proposal was to extend the deadline for phasing out expat pilots to 2016 for airlines that hire two local commercial pilot licence holders for every expat. But we cannot issue a directive to airlines in this regard as it is legally untenable.” The deadline for phasing out expats has, nonetheless, been extended by three years.11/07/13 Sharmistha Mukherjee/Business Standard-

See more at: Ministry shelves proposal to hire local pilots for expats | Aviation India: Careers (http://www.indianaviationnews.net/careers/2013/07/ministry-shelves-proposal-to-hire-local-pilots-for-expats.html#sthash.weuz6eEW.dpuf)

[Sky Dancer]

If it had been implemented , this would have set India back by another 10 years in aviation. Nice to know that there is someone in the ministry who is using his head .:E:ok:

[3greens 1inthemirror]

sir what do you think would have been the consequences had this been implemented?

[captjns]

Half the flying for the twice the first officers. Twice the time to upgrade to the left seat. Over staffing of F/Os with undue excess expense to the carrier. The requirement would place an undue financial burden on the carrier with additional costs relating to training too.