Inability to access 457 Visas, potentially big holes in some ATC rosters, up to 5 in SYD and maybe 20 across AUS.

We fly 40,000+ hours per year training our cadet pilots at Jandakot and Merredin in WA. They end up with a CPL, Command IR, and a jet endorsement, prior to commencing further training in China. And the cadet pilots get paid a training allowance throughout their course. We also hire experienced foreign national pilots to work in China. Australian operators should be required to train Australian pilots in a similar way before importing experienced foreign pilots.

There is a float operator in Broome who does only seasonal flying and isn't having any issues finding aussie pilots. He does pay well above award for these pilots.

I hope the irony is not lost on a certain operator who has a very lucrative business training up float pilots to operate seaplanes overseas yet only wants experienced drivers for themselves.
Flying floats in Canada is also very much seasonal. The norm in Canada to get into floats is
to spend 1 or 2 seasons working the ramp before moving into a seat. What's so wrong with doing this in oz? Yet some operators here will have someone work the ramp, maybe give them some ICUS and then send them off to work for another operator to get that experience. Again, rather ironic, yet typical of some operators.

In regards to living in the Whitsundays, to say that living costs vary significantly from those of Sydney (or Broome for that matter!) would be a gross understatement.

Flying seaplanes is a very specialised field and there are more than a few accidents caused by inexperience, with a good number locally and overseas being at the hands of pilots with many 1000's of hours on large aircraft, which unfortunately means buccas when flying floats.

The maldives, while nice, will not take ex-pat pilots with no experience.

To quote Richard Branson; Train people well enough so they can leave, treat them well enough so they don't want to

gulliBell, Just a guess but I think if there were population and or hours flown commercially comparison between Australia and China. That 40,000 plus training hours may not look very good.

Australia has probably been doing about enough training, but I think we will find far more Australia pilots are working overseas than 457 pilots in Australia. We have been loosing our pilots to other countries for a long time now.

The answer is "why do they leave"?

Does anyone have access to numbers of 457 Visas in the Aviation Industry? I'd love to see a breakdown of those working RPT and GA, perhaps even further broken down in Charter, Instructing, Floats, Survey etc...

And Band a Lot, how is that a "Right", he runs a business, there are expectations that come with that, he goes on about earning over $8million a year in Profit yet can't seem to put much of that back into training? If he wants to run his business that way, so be it, but it seems like now with the change to 457 Visas he'll have to find a new way to run it and hopefully that new way of running will include spending a bit more on training new Pilots and giving first timers a bit of a chance. Also interesting to read on the Sydney Seaplanes website their big speech about "Investing in the Community", but not in their own training apparently...

Is there no way to go about campaigning for a change to the Pilots Award to allow for Bonding? Surely it shouldn't be too difficult to put in a section that allows Employers to Bond Employees for reasonable costs for "New Type Training" (Can't say endorsements as that would leave out the lower end of town, ie C310s, Barons, 402s etc... as they are no longer endorsements). It would put an onus on the Employer to only bond for reasonable costs and for the employee to actually be willing to give that time to make it worthwhile. How would this get done?

Dick Smith, is this not something you could perhaps put some words out about as from this thread it seems to be a common theme?

My point was, the employer is paying for that 40,000+ hours of ab-initio training, at no cost to the trainee. And that is just one airline, of several in China that do the same. How many employers in Australia, apart from the military, recruit an applicant off the street and pay for all of their training to Second Officer on Airbus, Boeing, or Embraer? Before an Australian employer can hire a foreign pilot, they must be obligated to invest in training Australians to do the job as a condition of being approved to sponsor a 457 visa.

Pretty sure one of the big flying schools down south tried to have this pushed through the last time they looked at the award. It was rejected as the Award is considered to be the absolute minimum package that a pilot should receive, if you go down the bonding for training path were do you stop?
How much can you bond someone for? What can you bond them for? Does their instrument renewal mean you can bond them for the full year?
Raptor090 You have already suggested 5 year bonds, even the airlines don't bond for that long.

If a company can not bond!


Then they have a right to employ only qualified persons they need at not less than award rate.

Here is the justification for such visa types as 457!


And it wont be GA that brings in the 457 replacement visa but the regional and airlines! but why don't you train? We do but the run to high paying countries, so we wont now for a while- we will steal some back.

It's cheaper.

Not saying it is a bad idea but how would that work for a situation where an employee found a bonded employee was not up to scratch after their training?

eg you have a pilot apply for a position who lacks a particular training qualification but on paper and interview seems reasonable so you agree to pay for his/her training and he/she agrees to work with you for a year to repay the investment you are making in them. All good.

A few months later you realise they are seriously not working out as an employee/operator, they are a liability to your operation and you decide you made a big mistake employing them.

If you sack them, you have invested money in their training but have not received any benefit. They meanwhile walk away with qualifications you paid for. If you keep them on the job they are a practical liability (and will be costing you money or reputation as well due to poor performance).

What would the obligations be on a pilot employed under a training bond?

(And if that involved the employee being liable for costs could that be exploited by unscrupulous employers?)

Not saying it is a bad idea just wondering about practical details. Both employers and employees will need to feel they are not going to be exploited in any arrangement if it is to get traction.

Jonkster, I've only worked in GA myself so obviously bonding is something that doesn't happen but the Airlines I believe employ a bond for training, can anyone enlighten us as to how they handle this sort of situation?

I'd suggest there will be unscrupulous employers who try to take advantage of this sort of thing, they'll inflate the cost of "Training" and when they get rid of someone reap the rewards of doing so by having them pay back a ridiculous amount of money. But this is not really any different to Pay or Condition issues already existing in GA, we have a balance in play through the Fair Work Ombudsman, it would be a "relatively" simple case of someone complaining that they been unfairly Bonded, the Fair Work Ombudsman would require a break down of how the Employer came to their costs of the training and this would show whether it has been done fairly or not.

In the first creation of such an amendment to the Pilots Award allowing for Bonding, I'm certain guidelines would be created after some industry consultation on the types of costs that can be included and fair amounts that can be charged and what for.

I'm in agreeance with Raptor though, Bonds would be kept for things that would have once been classified as "Endorsements". Your initial training is fairly comprehensive and covers you for most Basic Singles, training for that in a new company can be accomplished on the job in ICUS, but more complex endorsements that require seperate and independent Training Flights because of demonstration of Emergency Procedures for example should be costs that can be covered under it.

Of course it would not be as simple as a statement in the Pilots Award that Bonding is legal or some such, it would require a fair amount of industry consultation as to what costs they believe should be able to be included and then decisions made based on what the majority want and what is fair, but in the end it would be an advantage for all I believe. Employers gain trust in the knowledge that if they take on new guys and offer to train them they have a lowered risk and Employees now have greater access to people willing to give them a go without all the upfront costs.

So its OK for hundreds of Australian pilots to move to other countries to fly but not OK for o/s pilots o come here. Please explain...

The explanation is, foreign pilots working in Australia displacing Australian pilots from jobs is not OK, which is fundamentally different to Australian pilots working in foreign countries not displacing anybody so qualified out of a job.

TBM-Legend, There's nothing wrong with Australian Pilots having jobs in other countries, there's essentially nothing wrong with Foreign Nationals having jobs in Australia either, but IMHO there is something wrong with not doing whatever can be done to try and make sure our own Citizens are gainfully employed before we go seeking overseas!

I doubt there are many countries that willingly and easily allow Foreign Nationals to take jobs in their countries without good reason.

Why not add politicians to the 457 visa ? I'm sure we could find plenty who would work for far less than we pay the current bunch, and the generous entitlements could be cut back as well.

Plenty of foreigners would be willing to be an MP for $50 000 a year if it led to permanent residence and citizenship.

must be a lot of Alitalia pilots now looking for jobs, now that that airline is history. They could apply on 457s couldn't they ?

Don't forget there will be a number of the pilots on 457 visas because their partner got the 457 visa.

If a doctor has a family including a husband pilot, her whole family get the 457 visa. He has no work restrictions, but she the doctor has work restrictions and employment requirements to meet while she is on that visa.

* Also once here in Australia he could claim "Domestic Violence" against his wife and then be issued with a permanent visa. They could then reconcile a while later and sponsor her for a Partner Visa. :- a good chance this tactic will be used with the new changes.

I think the biggest issue with the 457 program, is the ease of access.

Whilst it isn't that easy, when compared to some other countries it is a walk in the park.

Gaining work visa's in other countries can be quite difficult.
Under the 457 you can apply simply under your qualification, nominate your sponsored employer and you are away.

In some countries, you need your qualification, your employers sponsorship and the reason you should be given permission....i.e 10k hours as check and training captain.

Case by case rather than carte blanche by job title.

Your comment is with no merit. Any Australian visa is no ease of access except a ETA, A evisitor or some other visa's seldom used. But they have no work rights - I am happy to be corrected. I do know the Australian visa system very well!.

Band a Lot, I think he's comparing it to other Countries. I have not had much experience with many other countries but from what research I've done in the past Australia does seem to be on the slightly easier scale for getting in and obtaining Visas.

Took seven years to get mine :( was a 126 visa, independent skilled migrant.

I only know about the 408 (formerly 420) visas and they are certainly not easy.