Anyone too lazy to do the reading/research on Regional Wages...

I doubt if Horizon is recruiting outside of the USA...yet, They are just a little better than the average regional here in the US and I believe they have a quasi flow through to Alaska Airlines which is a very desirable airline here in the US.

Skywest is not bad and while the wages are not stellar they are better than mst of the other regionals. They do have a base in Seattle as well if that's important, A friend of mine got an unsolicited card from Skywest urging him to apply for a position so they must be on an active hiring campaign.

Most if not all major airlines here in the US will not consider you without a four year degree. That may change but I would not hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

Love Doctor,

Come now, you're just being a 'naysayer'. :} (note sarcasm)

Slugga

I posted the original on page 2. I'll do it again here for ease of access. The really scary thing is that if you look at the wages overall, they almost haven't moved. Maybe a couple of grand in 10 years. 10 YEARS. Thats scary.

http://www.veoh.com/m/watch.php?v=v15759358A7a6kYTA

Very true.

However at entry level jobs you are never going to get much more than that anyway. If you are in the sub 1500TT market you are scratching around on poor salaries anyway.

If you then had the option to fly in a an airline with the opportunity to fly jets for that sort of money which would you pick? The busted arse single flying around Arnhem land or a regional in the USA?

Love Dr, I wondered that while I was prostituting myself for a lot less than 29k a year in GA for the first 7 years. First job flying a 182 - $18,200/year on a station, meatbombing in a cresco paid about late 25k/year, $50/MR hour on a baron for my first twin job eating baked beans 3 times a day hoping some work would come in. Hardly raking it in.

This was mid 2000's and not uncommon. I loved my GA time, but I certainly never got paid well. From what I hear it hasn't improved a great deal since then. Before you bash other countries, go and ask a 210 or baron driver what they're on. I'm more than happy to be corrected, as I'd love to see a station (or stationair) driver get paid reasonably.

Even United removed the requirement for a US passport or green card some time ago, BUT I doubt if you will get a job without getting an FAA ATP first unless you are a US national.
The US regionals have simply run out of pilots in some cases, so have resorted to the graduate visa game rather than the pay more one.

To get an FAA ATP, once you have the 1500 hrs et al requirement, it will cost 5K plus hotel for the CTP one week course, then a multi IR renewal and the actual ATP course (About another 5K). So budget for about 15 to 20K usd if converting from an EASA license.

A cheap motel room is about 50 usd if your airline has the right connections for a good discount and that includes breakfast.
If you fly 5 hours a day at 20 usd per hour, that means you can just about afford an evening meal and a few cold ones!
Many drivers buy an RV, BUT make sure you know where to park it first and don't buy a big one, as they are more problematic unless you know a few Sheilas who will pay rent.

PS: Still a good deal compared with P2F or P2type etc.

Gone pretty quiet.

Anyone actually got the gig?

KRUSTY,

Kinda wonderin' about that myself. :-)

Atpcliff

A Part 135 carrier can operate with a maximum of 30 seats. I am of the opinion most would know this as it is fundamental.

Not in scheduled passenger operations, which is what is being discussed here. In scheduled operations the maximum number of seats allowed under part 135 is 9 seats, just like I said earlier.

This obviously requires the roll out and launch of a Test Aussie who'll apply and provide a reconnaissance assessment. ;-)

Send Vince.

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/crash...mmy-527710.jpg

Give him an ANZAC hat and a didgeridoo and send him over.

I can assure you that Australians are always welcome in the USA.

A job to highlight your resume.....
 

....and an interesting change from Ayres Rock scenics.
DC6 First Officer

http://www.evertsair.com/pdf/job_descriptions/DC6.pdf

Yeah, that would be an interesting change, be careful what you ask for though.

Regardless, you must have missed the requirements for US citizenship and US passport at the bottom of the advertisement.

And non slip shoes. :}

:) Took me a minute. :p

Look up DOT Part 380. Scheduled operations with turbojet airplanes of up to 30 seats is just fine with DOT and FAA for a Part 135 carrier.

DOT 380 addresses charters. charters, by definition are not scheduled operations.

Scheduled operations are when you, as an operator, tell the public that you will be operating an airplane from XXX to YYY, Departing XXX at 11:45 every weekday morning and you will sell people tickets to ride on that airplane.

As has been correctly stated here, more than once, the maximum seats in scheduled transportation for a Part 135 certificate holder is 9.

Since you mention Part 380, I have to ask, did you read it yourself? in Part 380 you will find the following:

Semantics.

A public charter under 380 allows anyone who can pay for a ticket to book a flight between two (or more) city pairs with a pre-defined departure date/time of a frequency not limited by Part 135 rules.

As a passenger, tell me how booking a ticket on flyviaair.com differs from southwest.com.

Via is a direct air carrier under Part 135. Southwest is scheduled airline service under Part 121.

The only difference is the number of seats, maximum of 30 (or payload not more than 7500 lbs) for Part 135.

No, "viaair" is *not* a direct air carrier, the are an indirect carrier That is how they are able to do what they do.

A direct air carrier may not provide scheduled air transportation in aircraft with more than 9 seats under part 135, which is what is under discussion here. That's why Great Lakes removed all but 9 seats from their 1900's.


I will agree that Viaair has managed to bend the definition of "Charter" to look a a great deal like "scheduled service", but they are not a direct air carrier as is Great Lakes. Viaair is an indirect carrier which charters flights from the direct air carrier "Charter Air Transport". They are both owned by the same holding company, but legally, they are separate entities. As far as how it differs from flying on a airline, on a "charter" you sign a contract agreeing to carriage on a specific flight or pair of flights. You are not able to book an open ended return, nor can you change your reservation with a phone call, like you can with the higher fare class tickets on an actual airline. It's also not permitted to have code share arrangements with other airlines with public charters through an indirect carrier like via air.

The Part 135 certificate holder, Charter Air Transport" is not providing scheduled air transportation. They are chartering their aircraft to ViaAir for a predefined set of flights.

"Via Airlines" is a DBA of Charter Air Transport. "Via Air" is the part 380 organization selling the seats. When I said "Via", I did not differentiate between the two. My mistake.

Code shares are not mandatory for 121 ops, granted most take advantage of the marketing opportunity.

Not sure where you are getting the no-phone-call-for-ticket-change policy.

I stand corrected and agree the open-ended ticket restriction is a material difference between 380 and 121 ops. So, from a passenger perspective, it appears that is the the only major practical difference between Public Charters and Scheduled Airline Service.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that literally you could not change your flight dates over the telephone. What I meant was if you have a higher fare class ticket with a direct carrier, you can purchase an open ended return, you can change the departure, or the return with minimal effort, and it remains the same ticket. When you purchase a ticket on a public charter, you sign a contract for a seat on specific chartered flights. Changing your travel schedule requires having that contract cancelled, and a new contract signed for a different specific flight (s). The indirect carrier may make this process fairly painless, but it's still a distinction between how an airline ticket works and how a ticket on a charter flight works.

So back a little more on topic, has there been any update on this lately? Has Skywest brought in any Australians on work visas? Are they going to continue this? Are any other regionals thinking of doing the same?

Marinth,


Kinda wondering the same thing. The OP seems to have disappeared and he had direct contact with SKW HR.

You've probably seen the same regional hiring ads I have...all still say "US citizen or have the legal authority to work in the US"....or words to that effect.

So, I guess this means none of the regionals is taking advantage of that visa option for Aussies.

I've been told some of the regionals are having a tough time filling classes here.

Skywest
 

Who was the recruiter that said they taking on aus pilots. I have spoken with their HR and they quiet bluntly said they are not in a position to sponser the E3 visa.

I have not spoken to the recruiters at Skywest again to get further info but the last info I had was that they had been interviewing Australians but at the moment it was on hold. Dont know why but I am guessing that some kinks were found in the process TSA/IACRA?? that need sorting out.

Probably because they've worked out that whilst the E3 Visa only takes 2-3 weeks to process and be issued, the TSA/FAA conversion is a whole different story taking upwards of 6-8 months depending on how long it takes to sort out fingerprints, medicals, verification of foreign license etc. One piece of paperwork not quite right, add another 2-6 months on top.

havick,

"Probably because they've worked out that whilst the E3 Visa only takes 2-3 weeks to process and be issued, the TSA/FAA conversion is a whole different story taking upwards of 6-8 months..."

If that's the case, the entire E3 visa is useless to an American employer in this context. One would think Skywest would've investigated the nuts & bolts of the process before even considering/interviewing Aussies as oicur12.again describes.

Perhaps already having FAA tickets would streamline the process ? Must be a few Aussies who hold FAA tickets...

It can be done a lot faster than 6-8 months if you know exactly what to do. Most people (myself included) dont really know what to do and most companies dont know what to do. There is no master document that helps you out.

Has anyone got a link to how this is?

I put the feelers out to several US regionals, incl. Skywest, Envoy etc. Mostly out of curiousity.
Every single one came back to me and said that they were currently not in a position to sponsor pilots.
It's curious, as the shortage over there is real, every regional is hiring, and most of them are having a lot of trouble filling their ground schools...but there you have it.

As far as converting a CASA license to FAA, it doesn't take 6-8 months. It takes 6-8 weeks to get your license confirmation done by the FAA. After that you need to make an appointment at an FAA field office, this needs to be done about 2 weeks in advance. Then you do your FAA CTP (which includes FAA ATP written) followed by flight test, which again takes about 2 weeks. So around 10-12 weeks (3 months) all up.

Aus Aviator,

" I put the feelers out to several US regionals, incl. Skywest, Envoy etc. Mostly out of curiousity. Every single one came back to me and said that they were currently not in a position to sponsor pilots."

Well, that pretty much tells the story, does it not ? Short of pilots but not fatally short ?

When the regionals state they're short of pilots, they mean 'short of pilots who are willing to work for low wages and/or poor conditions'.

Tinstaafl,

Yes, that's part of the puzzle for sure. Some are addressing it albeit very slowly.


Kathryn's Report: Compass Airlines gives first-year pilots 40 percent raise: Agreement raises first year, First Officer pay to one of the highest in the regional airline industry

This is probably just the beginning.

When "Sully" addressed Congress in the aftermath of the Colgan crash, all went well until he described the woeful pay and conditions of American pilots, and in particular the Regional pilots. Many of the Congressmen with vested interests simply got up and walked out! Such was the level of denial.

The current situation was born in the dark days following 9/11, but has since been exploited by corporate shortsightedness and greed. The decision by the FAA to mandate minimum experience levels for Airline pilots has been as much about putting the value back into the profession as increasing expertise in the flight deck.

The announcement by Compass may prove to be the watershed for what has been overdue for years. Addicted to cheap labour, the American airline industry has resisted almost pathologically, the changes to aircrew minimum requirements, for no other reason than their reticence to compete for what is a finite resource.

Whether or not they can source enough experienced pilots remains to be seen. It's possible they may have killed the "golden goose". Maybe they will need to look seriously overseas. For those of you following this thread, opportunities may come. You will however have to be an experienced pilot. Something that may have been overlooked by some of the more enthusiastic first posters! I suspect that many of the pilots who meet the FAA mins will probably have other irons in the fire closer to home.

Good luck USA.

KRUSTY,

I'm not a financial guy and can't defend or condemn the financial arrangement between majors and their regional partners. But, someone who is knowledgeable can address the "fee for departure" financial arrangement between the two levels of carriers.

I found this on another forum:

"It's the majors who refuse to pay more for their feed, the regionals aren't withholding pay out of greed, their slim margins make it almost impossible.

Until it actually starts affecting the mainlines it won't change anything, musical airplanes, shuffle pilots around, stick some duct tape on the gaping hole to slow the leak. Eventually they'll have to address it, whether it be pay the regionals more or bring it back in house, probably a bit of both. If it gets to the point where regionals are no longer cost effective to farm out to then they'll dry up anyway.

I just don't know where the money is gonna come from."

Your absolutely correct bafenguy.

The race by the major airlines to "buy up" their regional affiliates was a calculated move to exploit and benefit. The problem for the majors now is that a significant source of their revenue is generated by regional flying, even though much of this transcends state borders.

They'll either have to take ownership of the situation they created or ponder going back to chapter 11!

Reap/sow, common story for clever bean counters.

The lower tier regionals in the US have has stunningly low wages since well before 9/11. If you take a look at the airlines operating in the 1990s, you'll find that there were more than a few which not only paid poorly, but required new hires to pay the airline for their initial training. There was even at least one which after training *charged* pilots to operate their aircraft on revenue flights. Yes, you read that correctly, pilots paid the company to operate the planes on scheduled Part 121 revenue flights.

I doubt any person would qualify as a "specialty occupation", since "people" and "occupations" are quite different entities.

The question is not whether prospective visa applicants (people) hold a degree, but whether the jobs (occupations) that they hope to obtain require a degree. If the job doesn't require a suitable degree "as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States", then the applicant's education is irrelevant, since the occupation does not qualify as a "speciality occupation" for the purposes of the E3 visa requirements.