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.