The Aussies are coming [Archive]

bafanguy

7th Sep 2015, 14:37

ike,

I'd guess you're right about the small(ish) number of Aussie applicants but what makes this story unusual, if accurate, is that any US airline actively sought expats. While I may have overlooked some event in history, I don't recall this happening before. Someone will no doubt correct my memory if needed.

The ad from the Skywest website seems to indicate a CPL is good enough to get the ball rolling if the applicant has the necessary flight time. Am I reading that right ? :

Pilot » SkyWest Airlines (http://www.skywest.com/skywest-airline-jobs/career-guides/flight-jobs/#/career-guide)

It's more likely that younger expat applicants might have an FAA CPL than an ATP.

As for seniority, wouldn't the Aussies just drop off the list when their visas expired/weren't renewed ( to the pleasure of those junior to them) and go elsewhere ?

I guess this gets complicated.

flyboyike

7th Sep 2015, 22:27

As for seniority, wouldn't the Aussies just drop off the list when their visas expired/weren't renewed ( to the pleasure of those junior to them) and go elsewhere ?

I guess this gets complicated.

The issue would be whether or not they would be full voting members while here. Would they be on the list at all? There would have to be a provision for such pilots, I would think.

cf680c2b

8th Sep 2015, 05:29

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.

lee_apromise

8th Sep 2015, 06:47

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.

Oh my god, this statement cracked me up so much. :E

But anyhow, I don't think Aussies will stay in U.S permanently. I just don't see anyway of getting green card whilst being employed in US on E-3 via (visa of non-immigrant intent) unless they find some skinny American girls. Americans won't have any competition from Aussies when joining US majors. If I were to go there, I'd go to the states just to get free CRJ type rating and some hours and get outta there asap to work in Asia.

We do not even know 100% that Skywest actually has hired Australians. Does anybody actually have a confirmation?

cf680c2b

8th Sep 2015, 08:27

At least we don't think the world revolves around us.

This is another thing that shocked me when I gained some exposure. We Americans consider the Aussies, Brits, and canucks our brethren, friends and allies. The fact is they hate us just the same as the rest of the world does. The running joke around at my airline is......" whats the difference between an Aussie and an American?......The American know that we hate them....":} Unfortunately, that's just the way it is.....don't know why.

For the ones that think they will just bang in some time and leave for Asia. Well, once you figure out why the Asians are paying $300k/yr and still can't get enough punters, you will realize there is no better place for aviation than the US. Trust me, once you get a taste of it, you will park it. How can I be so sure. For the past 10 years I've flown for 2 Asian airlines, 1 European, and 1 Middle Eastern.

Don't take offense ya'll, Im just tellin it like it is.

MartinCh

8th Sep 2015, 08:52

While I do NOT see it likely that principal applicant/holder of E3 would manage green card through employment (airline), do not forget that their married spouse can work without restrictions and can later be the principal 'green card' visa or H1 initially, with right skills and employer/job.

Those who think USA is only fat females, need to actually stop watching movies taking place in SE US and go to NW US in person. True, past 30 it is less likely due to lifestyle, but get over that cliche. Nevermind the amount of Asian females that do not seem to inherit the 'fat gene' Native American and African descent people do.

cf680c2b,
why not going to certain Asian carriers to even out the crap regional pay? After all, once Aussies get to their domestic/regional, they get more take home pay for the cost of living/market than equivalent in US. The main issue for them is bridgeing piston GA to airline with the hiring/market as it is there. I met 1000hr+ guy with UK ancestry near London not long ago, talking 'space shuttle requirements' to join Aussie regional. So he went to UK to get some 737/320 time before going home.

We're talking pilots who can't get ahead due to silly job market/high criteria for jobs, who'd go for the E3 option, make the most of it for 2 or 4 years and then likely head back. Yes, not being apologetic regarding the T&Cs and need to improve them. Aviation is global and for the vast majority part the US pilots went to work all over the world, depending on coin and passports, of all sorts of experience when furloughed etc,

so please do not be so hypocritical 'defending own patch' when you've been conquering jobs successfully all over the world.

Why is newhire/junior-ish FO at regional more of an issue, moving countries, than experienced PIC or senior FO going out of US to work abroad? It'd not be more than tip of iceberg, as the 1500hrs (no other R-ATP would cut it for non ERAU, non US exmil pilots) are guys who already have worked in GA in Australia (or NZ, Africa, Indonesia etc, forced to relocate for early jobs). If anything, it'd improve newbie job market, vertical movement across Pacific - the job market is much smaller and those who actually venture on E-3 path, would be drop in ocean on US job market.

lee_apromise

8th Sep 2015, 09:17

It'd not be more than tip of iceberg, as the 1500hrs (no other R-ATP would cut it for non ERAU, non US exmil pilots) are guys who already have worked in GA in Australia (or NZ, Africa, Indonesia etc, forced to relocate for early jobs). If anything, it'd improve newbie job market, vertical movement across Pacific - the job market is much smaller and those who actually venture on E-3 path, would be drop in ocean on US job market.

Spot on. :D This E-3 visa with regional opportunities might be my saviour. Holding FAA certs, been flying turboprop in South East Asia, can't go back to Aust because of the economy heading south. Being an ethnic Korean, it's gonna be either Korea or U.S. Bad T&C, never mind. Somebody giving me a chance with a regional CRJ job in U.S, I wouldn't think twice about it. It's the best place for flying.

cf680c2b

8th Sep 2015, 12:48

Martin

I beg to differ on the assertion that aviation is global. Aviation has always been a protected realm and still is. Can I go work for Qantas, BA, Air Canada, Air France, South African, JAL (not alter ego JALways). No, I cannot if I do not hold the passport or the license (Now, what the Queen’s commonwealth do with each other, I’m not too sure about). There are small pockets within various regions that have opened their doors for foreign Pilot for one reason only, supply. Once they procure that supply domestically, guess what will happen to the expat?

That deficiency in supply has driven up the wages, which is the primary reason I ventured out. It was not to obtain experience. My presence did not cause the depression of wages nor did I take anyone’s job. In an aggregate, I was part a very small minority of American Pilots who left for overseas opportunities.

This leads me back to the #1 argument of my original post. For decades the US market had settled on an imbalanced supply side stagnating wages to poverty level making the ROI for Pilot certificates negative. Those market forces have finally caused a shift in the supply curve forcing airlines to struggle with the status quo wages. American Pilots finally see the light at the end of the tunnel and adding 1 drop in the bucket of the old structure is not in the best interest of the indigenous.

If bridging gaps in Australia is a big problem, perspective new entrants should take that into account and avoid. Only then, will that structural failure be rectified.

flyboyike

8th Sep 2015, 12:56

I'd be curious to know just how serious Skywest really is about this. Granted, the process seems much easier than the whole H-1B mess, but still it seems to me it would be hardly worth it to sponsor and train people most of whom will likely bolt at the very first opportunity. This is true of the natives also, hit at least they didn't need sponsorship.

Reverserbucket

8th Sep 2015, 14:33

I've heard that Pay-to-Fly with some form of bonding has been suggested.
Reminds me a little of this but without the layoffs...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html?_r=0

captbod

8th Sep 2015, 14:54

The American Revolutionary war of 1775-83 notwithstanding, have we Brits ever upset the Americans??? We never seem to get these gigs. Apparently we're one of the few countries ineligible to play the green card lottery, just wondering why?:confused:

bafanguy

8th Sep 2015, 15:09

Reverserbucket,

"I've heard that Pay-to-Fly with some form of bonding has been suggested."

Suggested by whom and in what context ? This Skywest thing ?

zondaracer

8th Sep 2015, 15:25

We do not even know 100% that Skywest actually has hired Australians. Does anybody actually have a confirmation?

I don't know if any have been hired yet, but so far there are none in any recent new hire class or on the line that got here under the E3 visa.

lee_apromise

9th Sep 2015, 00:20

I don't know if any have been hired yet, but so far there are none in any recent new hire class or on the line that got here under the E3 visa.

That's the thing. Until someone actually has a proof that Australians got hired by Skywest, this is at the moment, a complete utter :ugh:

Matvey

9th Sep 2015, 04:10

Captbod,
The lottery is for countries that do not traditionally send a lot of emigrants to the US. If a country sends over a certain threshold number, then they're ineligible. A lot of Brits come to the States on employment preferences and as spouses, so there are enough to kick the UK out of the lottery. Northern Ireland is counted separately, and people from NI are eligible to apply.

Luke SkyToddler

9th Sep 2015, 07:44

You know it's funny what you guys are saying about American girls, way back in 1999 I was part of a group of 6 young CPL/FIs from New Zealand, who all went to flying school together. Times were hard finding jobs in NZ, so we all kind of simultaneously found ourselves with the same plan of going to the UK on "working holiday" visas (which are pretty easy for kiwis to get).

At the time, we all kind of had the intention of padding our logbooks for a couple of years and then heading back home down under.

But life happened as it does, and every single one of us ended up falling in love / getting married to a Brit. 15 years later we've all got British passports and kids now, every single one ended up flying heavy jets in the UK (although a couple have now moved on to Emirates and Cathay).

Eyes only

9th Sep 2015, 12:48

I beg to differ on the assertion that aviation is global. Aviation has always been a protected realm and still is. Can I go work for Qantas, BA, Air Canada, Air France, South African, JAL (not alter ego JALways). No, I cannot if I do not hold the passport or the license (Now, what the Queen’s commonwealth do with each other, I’m not too sure about). There are small pockets within various regions that have opened their doors for foreign Pilot for one reason only, supply. Once they procure that supply domestically, guess what will happen to the expat?

The reason the E3 visa bill was passed by congress was that Australia already had given the right for Americans in professions the right to work in Australia. The bill is reciprocating what is available to Americans, except the USA put a cap on the number of visas issued to 10,500. Australia does not have a cap. Australia will also issue a visa to a skilled technical trade (eg a welder), the USA requirement is college degree or equivalent.

Australian organisations have employed American pilots with this visa class even for positions that due to national security reasons would normally only be available to Australians.

There are Americans working for Qantas and Virgin. Many high paid defence support roles are also filled by Americans, not just flying jobs.

Please stick to the facts that you have direct knowledge of.

bafanguy

9th Sep 2015, 14:44

Eyes only,

"There are Americans working for Qantas..."

As cockpit crew ? If so, would you have any details about how ?

[I'm not job hunting...just curious]

Eyes only

9th Sep 2015, 15:54

As cockpit crew ? If so, would you have any details about how ?

There is no requirement in Australia to have an Australian passport, birth certificate, or citizenship to be a pilot. You can be American. There are still only four forces on the aircraft in Australia, money, bills, beer and sleep, in New Zealand the forces are different bro, money, bills, beer and sheep.

I would suggest that today as a flying instructor or pilot you can get a temporary long stay visa (Australian version of the E3), work in the industry, and then gain residency.

Why you would leave the US and go to Australia to fly is beyond me, unless it is to get yourself home.

USMCProbe

9th Sep 2015, 22:42

I can't imagine any qualified foreign pilots coming to a US regional for 20 bucks an hour. For all but the PTF types, it is a pay cut. I do see lots of foreign pilots wanting to work at a major US carrier, starting at 50-60 dollars an hour, and getting on a seniority list of a major airline.

I think the solution that is coming, is the US majors will bring a lot of the RJ flying in-house. Then, and only then, will they be able to attract qualified pilots from around the world.

I think this is coming. All of the majors are hiring far more than they need for the replacement of retirements. I can't think of any reason they are doing this, other than bringing more regional flying in house.

Converting to an FAA license is usually much easier than converting FROM an FAA license, at least for Europeans. Aussies, I don't know.

EMB-145LR

10th Sep 2015, 12:07

This is another thing that shocked me when I gained some exposure. We Americans consider the Aussies, Brits, and canucks our brethren, friends and allies. The fact is they hate us just the same as the rest of the world does. The running joke around at my airline is......" whats the difference between an Aussie and an American?......The American know that we hate them...." Unfortunately, that's just the way it is.....don't know why.

For the ones that think they will just bang in some time and leave for Asia. Well, once you figure out why the Asians are paying $300k/yr and still can't get enough punters, you will realize there is no better place for aviation than the US. Trust me, once you get a taste of it, you will park it. How can I be so sure. For the past 10 years I've flown for 2 Asian airlines, 1 European, and 1 Middle Eastern.

Don't take offense ya'll, Im just tellin it like it is.

This is a truly laughable statement. While I enjoyed my time in the US and have a great fondness for the country, it has a toxic aviation industry, at least in terms of the airlines. I am now happily flying for my national carrier back home in Europe; my first months pay cheque was as much as I made in six months at my last airline (yes, it was a regional). I have no desire to ever go back to fly, not even for a major. I love the country and the people, but aviation is a putrid business in the US.

cf680c2b

10th Sep 2015, 14:41

EMB-145LR

10th Sep 2015, 14:59

Congratulations on finding your path.

I'm guessing you did a couple of thousand hours on the RJ ( not competitive for the U.S. majors), making you a good candidate for your national carrier. Now making the "big dough"

However, I'm pretty sure that putrid environment got you to where you are now. Right or wrong?

Indeed it did, and I will always be extremely grateful for the chances afforded to me by the US. I got a job at BA with 3,000 hours total time. Not much by US standards, but by no means 'low hours', especially here in Europe.

However, something has to be done about the crippling terms and conditions on offer at the regionals. Hopefully the increasing shortage of qualified and willing candidates will put pay to the worst carriers. It was good to see the Republic pilots turn down the new contract, even though it effectively doubled first year pay.

However, while things are good for pilots lucky enough to be at a Major at the moment, both you and I know that history repeats itself. The US majors hire until they furlough. Although this industry is cyclical the world over, it is even more so in the US. During the boom years things are great, but look at the rates the L-UAL pilots were working under until just a couple of years ago. Senior Captains were making a little over $120 an hour on the A320.

The likes of Smisek (thank God he's gone) have made the industry awful in the US. Not just for pilots, but also for passengers. I was embarrassed to offer the product we had at my United Express carrier, and it wasn't any better at mainline. The industry seems to be one of the few in the US that has deserted one of the best aspects of America; great customer service. The whole industry needs massive revamp, and ALPA protectionism isn't going to do much to save it.

It is no accident that out of the most hated brands in America, United was in the top five, with American not too far behind. At least Delta is making some forward progress, but the Middle East Big Three are breathing down their necks.

cf680c2b

10th Sep 2015, 15:34

I agree. However, the current demographics may negate historical precedence, theoretically. Only time will tell.

I believe, the pressure from the ME3 is a good thing for the U.S. Legacies. Competition breeds innovation and dynamism. They will step up to the plate once they consolidate and solidify their structure after the recent mergers. Delta got a head start hence the notable progress. AA still doesn't have single list. UA, well, you said it best...

discus2

10th Sep 2015, 17:30

Aussies moving abroad to get jobs ???

Mmmm... Where are gone the days where the Aussie pilot community was outraged at 457 sponsored pilots who were coming to take over the local pilot jobs...?
But an available E3 non immigrant visa is now just SO right?
I seem to remember the rage ...A very short memory from down under.

No jobs available anymore at home : "mate" ? Times are getting harder at home "mate" ?

Still not happy to take a $20job/hour ? Not good enough for an Aussie ?
Just wait, you might be begging/crying for it soon.

Eyes only

10th Sep 2015, 21:58

discus2,

There are lots of Americans working in Australia on 457 visas, how many of the 3000 Boeing employees in Australia do you think are on those visas ? Northrop Grumman, Lockheed, GE, PW, IBM ? The aerospace/defense industry is full of them, on wages way above the Australian average.

Across all industries, 457 visa holders earn 34% more than local staff on average. With an average annual base salary of $94,000, the average 457 visa holder sits comfortably above the 75th percentile of Australian full time salaries.

Please stick to the facts.

lee_apromise

12th Sep 2015, 10:20

Out of curiosity, what other countries' pilots may qualify for E3 visas to fly for regionals in the states?

None. E-3 visa is only for Australian citizens.

A Squared

13th Sep 2015, 04:56

Why you would leave the US and go to Australia to fly is beyond me, unless it is to get yourself home.

[I'm not job hunting...just curious]

There ya go. :E

West Coast

13th Sep 2015, 05:24

not competitive for the U.S. majors

You're either joking, detached from reality or poorly phrased it. I work for SkyWest, we are losing many, many RJ pilots a month to the majors. Friends at other RJ operators are reporting the same.

pilotchute

13th Sep 2015, 05:40

Skywest replied that they aren't sponsoring pilots for visas at this time.

bafanguy

13th Sep 2015, 11:56

West Coast,

"... I work for SkyWest, we are losing many, many RJ pilots a month to the majors. Friends at other RJ operators are reporting the same."

Exactly !! With the demand only increasing at the legacy level. The peak of the mandatory-retirement bell curve doesn't come until 2028...and remains strong for years after 2028 but with decreasing annual numbers.

Which is why it wouldn't have surprised me to find a regional sponsoring expats. I'm a bit surprised to find they apparently aren't doing that after all.

Oh well...

bafanguy

13th Sep 2015, 20:33

flyboyike,

I have no idea what it'd take for a regional to set up this process. Perhaps just some time with an immigration attorney to set up the company process for advertising for candidates and processing their visas ? Maybe then a knowledgeable secretary could run it from there using intermittent contact with the attorney thereafter for snags ?

zondaracer seems to have seen this from the inside and reports no such activity.

oicur12.again, the person who kicked this off in the Aussie forum with some pretty definitive statements, and pilotchute, who just heard from Skywest directly, tell rather different stories. I'M NOT INCLINED TO DOUBT EITHER ONE OF THEM.

After all, they were both talking to a regional HR department, so...

The proof is in the pudding; if Skywest aren't availing themselves of a process likely to turn out a number of applicants, perhaps they're not all that hard up (yet ?).

[I get the impression Expressjet is hard up and yet clearly states they want nothing to do with sponsorship. They're not losing pilots...they're bleeding pilots.]

And, "...(discrimination claims ?)..." ? Surely you aren't suggesting that our beloved Imperial Federal Government would devise and implement a plan that could later be deemed discriminatory by its very structure ?

Fun to watch...still wouldn't surprise me if some regional started using this process to circumvent the damage done by the vote trollops in DC. We'll see...

bafanguy

14th Sep 2015, 08:12

ike,

You're probably right...

bafanguy

17th Sep 2015, 13:17

I've tried not to contribute to thread drift since I think this thread (and it's companion in the Aussie forum) is pretty interesting. But, I remembered I've got a link to an academic study of the US pilot shortage issue that may (or may not) be relevant to the conditions that prompted this thread.

It's written as a PhD thesis, I believe, and is therefore strictly a data-based treatment of the subject by an apparently impartial author.

Being a hardcore cynic, I view any study of the US pilot supply done by a person or party with even a remote chance of financial and/or political gain from seeing the data show one conclusion or another as suspect at least. This makes studies done by government, labor groups and industry representatives have potential bias.

Here's the link:

Air Transport Pilot Supply and Demand: Current State and Effects of Recent Legislation | RAND (http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD351.html)

Click the button in the upper right to download the PDF. The study is a bit long with lots of charts and data but worth your time if you've a bit of a geek like me.

The author pointed out to me in private correspondence that his data runs out for about 15 years +/-.

A Squared

17th Sep 2015, 19:22

Interesting study, bafanguy. wading thru some of it now. One minor detail which jumped out at me, in section 2 the author reviews other previous related studies. In the discussion of a MITRE report he notes that the MITRE report cites 8000 pilots who were issued an ATP in the US and are now working abroad as a potential source of pilots for US airlines. The RAND paper dismisses this explaining that they are foreign pilots who came to the US for flight training and thus not potential pilots for US airlines.

I think that they are mistaken here. I don't know what the criteria was in the MITRE report, but I do know the there are a lot of US citizens flying for airlines in Asia and the Mideast. Not sure hoe any, but I don't think that their numbers are inconsequential. I would imagine that many of them could be persuaded back to the US with decent pay and conditions.

A Squared

17th Sep 2015, 19:30

From a General Accounting Office report referenced in the RAND Report.

Historical labor market data from 2000 through 2012 provide mixed evidence as to whether an airline pilot shortage exists. The unemployment rate for the pilot occupation—a key indicator for a shortage—has been much lower than for the economy as a whole, which is consistent with a shortage. On the other hand, wage earnings and employment were not consistent with the existence of a shortage, as data for both indicators showed decreases over the period. In looking forward, to meet the expectation of growth in the industry and to replace expected mandatory age-related pilot retirements, projections indicate the industry will need to hire a few thousand pilots on average each year over the next 10 years. Data indicate that a large pool of qualified pilots exists relative to the projected demand, but whether such pilots are willing or available to work at wages being offered is unknown (GAO 2014).

Cliff's notes: Airlines are paying less and less. Astonishingly, pilots are less willing to work for decreasing wages.

bafanguy

17th Sep 2015, 19:49

A Squared,

Yes, I think I remember that number also. I don't see how one gets a clear breakdown of how many Americans are working in the expat world since there's no central collection point for that data...or their age demographic since that'd be a critical factor in their employment chances with US legacies in the broad scheme of it.

Who can say whether that 8,000, if employable here, would want to leave an expat captain slot, come back here and be a junior MD80 FO, in a crash pad and on reserve in NYC covering 3 airports...at a fraction of what they were making ? A handful of anecdotal opinions here won't answer that question, I'm afraid.

I sure don't know how anyone can begin to answer that particular question.

I've heard a very knowledgeable American guy say he put the number of US citizens working in the expat market at 1,000+/-. He wasn't making a definitive pronouncement but rather an educated estimate.

Many of that 8,000 probably are foreign nationals who aren't candidates for US carriers due to citizenship issues...probably...

In any event, even 8,000 won't solve the problem (if it is a problem) of replacing legacy retirement attrition. Delta alone is aging out 8,000 pilots between Jan/2014 and Dec/2028. The annual numbers peak at the end of 2028 but continue at a pretty good, but annually-declining clip after 2028.

UAL and AA have similar circumstances (UPS and FedEx are also losing people but not such large percentages).

Hiring a bunch of 50+ y/o people from the expat market would help but to a limited extent as they'd age out about the time the attrition peaks. What then ?

I've been watching this stuff since the late 60s..and still don't feel I have a grip on it.
Mike McGee's study is a really good one.

My opinion, on the other hand, is worth exactly what you paid for it !!

A Squared

17th Sep 2015, 19:56

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.

bafanguy

17th Sep 2015, 20:03

A Squared

17th Sep 2015, 20:39

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.

Luke SkyToddler

18th Sep 2015, 01:25

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 (http://www.eaglejet.net/Pricing.asp) 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.

Captain Biggles84

18th Sep 2015, 01:31

I'm gonna have to agree with cf680c2b (http://www.pprune.org/members/170700-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 (http://www.pprune.org/members/170700-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... :ok:
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

Luke SkyToddler

18th Sep 2015, 03:36

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 :hmm:

homoeconomicus

18th Sep 2015, 07:06

#3 couldn't be more correct !

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.

bafanguy

18th Sep 2015, 10:34

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/Pilot-Job-Posting-Pilot-Opening-Pilot-Job/6494/USA/First+Officers/Boeing+%26+Airbus+Fleets/United+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.

gtseraf

27th Sep 2015, 23:56

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!

Arewerunning

28th Sep 2015, 11:02

as much as I would love to work for us majors...

I could not agree more with gtseraf

rmcdonal

28th Sep 2015, 22:59

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/documents/modern_awards/pdf/MA000046.pdf B 1.2

gtseraf

29th Sep 2015, 01:56

but it will be to a fly a shiny (well almost) jet.:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

boofhead

23rd Oct 2015, 19:18

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.

bafanguy

23rd Oct 2015, 19:41

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 ?

boofhead

23rd Oct 2015, 19:55

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.

A Squared

24th Oct 2015, 15:23

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.

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.

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.

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 " .

boofhead

26th Oct 2015, 18:02

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.

A Squared

26th Oct 2015, 19:01

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

boofhead

26th Oct 2015, 19:57

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.

bafanguy

12th Dec 2015, 17:53

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.

wishiwasupthere

13th Dec 2015, 00:49

Definately know of one guy who's recently left a GA job in outback Aus and managed to get a gig flying jets in the U.S. (with a sponsored visa). And no, I don't know which airline.

bafanguy

13th Dec 2015, 14:16

wishiwasupthere,

I have no reason to doubt what you said about your friend...so I don't doubt it.

Without knowing the company in question, it's hard to tell if there is actually a US "airline" using that visa program to hire expats (plural) or if there was a one-time special deal by one company, under unique circumstances, to get one guy in here.

I doubt an "airline" would go to the considerable expense and bureaucratic complication to get just one guy in here.

Where is the news of others being hired ? This couldn't be kept a secret for long.

bafanguy

20th Dec 2015, 19:59

updown,

No horn blowing...just kickin' around a rumor. So far, I don't see anything concrete indicating very many Aussies will be faced with the decision by way of that visa arrangement. But, every day is a new day. :-)

A Squared

21st Dec 2015, 00:28

Don't toot your own horn fellas!

Not many Aussies would come to the great U S of A for the sub-standard pay packages!

Like bafan said, I don't think it's a case of horn tooting. And I don't see why anyone over there would be too excited about this, or anyone from the US br too worried about Aussies flooding the market. The US regionals aren't offering anything that's worth moving to another country for.

bafanguy

21st Dec 2015, 08:32

AxA,

As for me, I'm not at all concerned about any Aussie influx to the US regional airline world. It might ruffle some feathers but that'd just be part of the fun.

I've been watching the US pilot supply/demand issue since the mid 1960s (now from the Peanut Gallery). Just curious...

If a US carrier(s) turns to the expat market, it'd be a turning point in that supply/demand equation here. This country has always had pilots running out its ears; I say it still does even if the flow has slowed just a bit...maybe just temporarily. Some of the regionals seem to be addressing the deplorable pay scales.

This whole rumor was kicked off with a rather definitive statement about regionals recruiting expats so I'm just following it to see where it leads. So far, only bits and pieces of info with nothing public from any US carrier. If they were formally turning to that special visa to fill seats, there'd be no reason to keep it a secret.

We'll see...