Would it? I thought the regulation already nominated the CAA as the competent authority to issue licences. They could take a decision to issue/recognise/validate just like the channel islands, IOM and countless smaller countries do.

Bollocks. I have flown in all 7 continents, from bases in 5 of them at different times. CTAF and uncontrolled airspace is not unique to Australia, where I did a few domestic sectors a long time ago. And done it all on my original licence which pogressed from a National licence through JAA to EASA.
Weather? Nothing in the Australian or Asian weather you can´t find somewhere else. Was based in Oceania flying to both Australia and several destinations in Asia.

I must disagree on weather. The ITCZ in both Asia and the Caribbean is not anything like in Europe summers.

Yes the weather is different, but you (should) get a basic worldwide weather understanding with any of the issuing authorities.
Apart from that you better get comprehensive training when you join a new operation in a different continent. And a proper line check for that matter.
To expect this from a basic ATPL course is not realistic, hence it shouldn’t make a difference.

Many on here feel that it is 'wrong' to need to fly an aeroplane registered in another country with a licence issued in that country. It has been that way in some way or other for over 100 years. If that is 'bothering' you, you just need to get used to it. That is the way things are.

However, the question that this Thread is all about is "Are UK airlines pushing for the UK CAA to recognise EASA licences."

My answer to that would be that airlines employ pilots who are licenced to be able to fly their aeroplanes. Airlines don't licence pilots, they expect the pilots to come to them licenced. (Unless of course they have programmes to train pilots. but in that case it will be tailored towards the licence that they require.) So, why should any airline be pushing the UK CAA to recognise any other licences? It is entirely up to the pilots to ensure that they have the licence required to work for any airline. Should "UK airlines push for the UK CAA to recognise" any other licence? That is the pilot's "problem", not the airline's. The regulator sets the requirements, not the airlines.

^This post above. A load of bilge to be honest.

1. It hasn’t been that way for 100 years. EASA came into being in 2002. (I actually didn’t realise it was that old). Any EASA certified pilot or engineer can work on any aircraft from another member state other than their own. Right now, UK certified staff cannot without the equivalent conversion. It’s frankly a nonsense.

2. Although not necessarily relevant, the JAA preceded it. There has been international cooperation since the beginning of the liberalisation of the European travel market.

3. Many regulators automatically recognise/validate licences from other authorities without further certification other than a paperwork exercise.

4. The only difference in the extreme scenario can be on a 737 from another could be a decal on the back and a different reg cert in the folder.

5. Many third country operators and their regulators follow the state of design (Airbus/CFM being French for instance) and/or EASA guidance anyway. The significant majority are not certificating authorities.

6. I would guess that it wasn’t the U.K. CAAs decision to pull out of EASA. I suggest it was the BoJo administration which forced their hand just because it had EU in the name. They certainly weren’t prepared for it. The UK CAA literally helped write the regs and supplied the staff.

7. This is more politics than common sense.

And I have “enjoyed” the ITCZ in flying in Asia, Africa, from EUR to SAM and within the Caribbean. In all seasons. Good briefing initally goes a long way. Doesn´t mean you have to retake exams in each region. Actually got “lifetime” validations in two countries based on pretty straight forward Air Law exams, following a day of Ground School at each place. But this is thread creep.

Well yes, that's kind of the problem. The regulator is setting unnecessarily onerous requirements for the transfer of an EASA license acquired after a specific date to a UK one, especially considering the content of the syllabus and the way they are examined is identical. And that proves detrimental to UK airlines who are trying to hire pilots. I hold only an EASA license, yet I work and am based out of the UK. I am restricted therefore to working for only a select few employers in the UK, despite the fact that I'm doing exactly the same job in exactly the same place as a CAA license holder. I have colleagues who have moved to countries outside FAA/CAA/EASA land (whose aircraft operate into those jurisdictions all the time) and all they needed was to sit an airlaw exam, and presto, their licenses were converted. Why would I bother to stay in the UK, resitting 13 exams I passed years ago in order to work for a G-reg airline when I can (and will) do the same? I would suggest that's a problem for UK airlines and a reason why they might want to pressure the CAA. This isn't an issue about protecting British pilots job prospects, or the British training environment. I have seen plenty of ads stating visas can be provided, and read plenty of posts on these forums of pilots having work visas sponsored in the UK because through one route or another they have been able to get a CAA ATPL. The issue is not regulatory in the sense of standards and practices, it is just a political optics exercise (and quite possibly a money making excercise and jobs for the boys at the CAA, plus an entrapment of aspiring pilots not lucky enough to score one of the incredibly rare fully funded cadetships into the ridiculously expensive training ecosystem of the UK).

Classy response.
So you have done a “few” domestic sectors - that doesn’t make you an expert champ. CTAF is about more than uncontrolled airspace. The weather and remoteness of airfields across a huge continental land mass is very different from, for example, Europe.
As someone (who is smart enough to have a conversation without swearing) has already mentioned, one would not need a ‘local’ licence if flying into other countries on own reg aircraft. But if you are going to base yourself there, and work for a local airline, then you do need a licence from that country.
If nothing else, it will mitigate against issues when being checked by local examiners.

Happy to continue the conversation, but only if you are able to grow up and keep it civil.

Spot on. The seemingly protectionist attitudes of some regulators does little to foster aviation safety and efficiency.
The only thing they seem to foster is their own empires

In my very humble opinion and in an (unrealistic) ideal world there should be one ATPL globally recognized. I respect the fact that perhaps a local Air Law exam might be appropriate. The Emirates 777 captain landing @ LHR has broadly the same academic and operational background as the BA captain landing in Dubai. The whole licensing debacle surrounding EASA / UK licenses is mired in politics and probably seedy back room deals. It is beyond nonsensical to expect qualified and experienced crews to sit 14 exams in either direction. At great expense and time to the individual. Hopefully some sensible compromise can be achieved.

The general theme on this Thread seems to be that many EASA licence holders are wanting UK CAA licences and are 'grumpy' about not being able to 'have it given to them on a plate'!

What is it that makes UK CAA licences so highly attractive??!

Fully agreed. That is how it has been for decades and decades throughout commercial aviation throughout the world. Some countries may 'make it easy' to change, others not. That is the way it has always been. (One of the best that I heard decades ago was that the requirements to gain a Canadian licence from another country's licence was exactly the same process that it would be for a Canadian licence holder to gain a licence in that country!! I.e., make it easy for our people and we make it easy for you, but make it difficult for our people and it will be difficult for you!!)

So many of those on here saying "yes, but EASA" were probably only learning to read and write when EASA became fully functional? A lot happened in the aviation world before then!

Probably the closest we have come to that being able to happen was the JAA. That was scuppered by EU 'protective' politics when they did not want a non-EU organisation (the JAA) directing working time rules for EU citizens when the JAA had moves towards common Flight Time Limitations. EASA was the way to ensure that that say would be entirely under the control of the EU. No mention on here of the several countries (Turkey, Macedonia, Moldova, Georgia, etc.) that were completely excluded from the joint licencing process with the formation of the protectionist EU's EASA? If the JAA had not been scuppered by the EU and the 'candidate' countries had all been able to become full members it would have been a very big organisation and closest to achieving olster's desires.

Yes, the UK CAA could join EASA. Why should it when it would have absolutely no say in what happens in EASA?

But, getting back to the topic, it is not the airlines' position to be "pushing for the UK CAA to recognise EASA licences". The airlines just employ pilots who have the correct lidence.

Although this is thread creep, there is nothing unique about Australia except the tall poppy syndrome, extreme parochialism and 'austronauts'. Having flown in Aus 'in the bush', ADF, RFDS and domestic jet RPT, there are far more numerous challenging environments throughout the 'rest of the world'. I am saying this from a 'been there/done that' perspective, who didn't realise how parochial and incestuous Australian aviation as an industry is until I got out and experienced 'the rest of the world'. Way too many 'self perceived' big fish in what is in actuality a very small puddle.

Except I live and am based in the UK, flying EI and 9H - reg aircraft out of the UK on a daily basis, with no problems. But apparently am unqualified to go near a G-reg aircraft without resitting all the theory exams again, on the basis of the fact my ATPL theory passes originate from after an arbitrary date when nothing materially changed in terms of the licence or exam content. This is nonsensical. Especially as, if I want to go and fly an A6 or 9V or a large number of other jurisdictions aircraft from their countries of registration, all I need is to sit an airlaw exam and meet some minimum experience criteria. Many people might well see this as just being a 'me' problem, but I think its telling that UK airlines are more than happy to sponsor visas for non-Brits who hold or are able to get a CAA license. It makes sense to me that airlines in the UK would want to have a more accessible talent pool.

To be honest, in my opinion, not much really. I'm hoping to leave CAA land in the nearish future and not come back to it. The one thing that might convince me to stay is if it were easier to make my EASA license a CAA one. There are pilots who would consider staying or coming to work in the UK if the license conversion process wasn't ridiculous, but it is, so those pilots will go and work elsewhere. Which is possibly why UK airlines might have an interest in changing the status quo?

By knuckling down and sitting the required exams?

(As I once did.)

With the same effort, you could do so too.

All those who hold or 'are able to get' a CAA licence do so by putting in the effort to sit those exams.

The reward is the ability to apply for flying jobs in the UK.

As pointlessand unnecessary as the process is, I don't actually see the big deal in doing the exams again for an experienced pilot who doesn't need to impress anyone with first time passes and a 95% average. Put in minimal effort, use the QBs and try to scrape 75%. Then maybe study a bit harder for any that you fail.

EASA and UK CAA argument is merely political antics, nothing to do with the ATPL exams or the sim checks it’s all the same. Would be good if licences would be recognised bilaterally. As well as letting UK boys and girls work in Europe as Pilots just like VA and BA are letting European citizens in under special waiver program so I’m led to believe. Would put an end to that being all one sided

Richpea, we work in the second most regulated occupation in the world, the first, Nuclear.
It is up to the regulator to decide what they require from prospective license holders. The USA you have to sit the exam. Same with CASA in Australia.
Of course this poses a problem for your employer, Ryanair, who have a majority of Third Country Registed aircraft based in the UK, this will change at some point, meaning UK license holders will be in demand.

There is no level playing field, there never was, if you want to work for a French/German/Spanish etc airline you have to be fluent in the local language.
It's the way of the world

From the CAA itself: "Theoretical knowledge examinations completed prior to 1 January 2021 may be credited within the validity of FCL.025 (i.e. for 7 years from last validity date of the IR on the EASA licence as of 31 December 2020, subject to you submitting application to us within that 7 year time period of this IR. We are unable to provide any credit toward the examinations, where an instrument rating on an EASA licence, was initially issued after 31 December 2020 or was renewed after this date. In all instances, we will require evidence of valid IR on EASA licence on or before 31 December 2020."

This is the CAA admitting that essentially, there is no difference in examinations taken. Any pilot who earned an EASA ATPL theory pass before Jan 1 2021 can right now simply swap their EASA license for a CAA one (with some paperwork and a hefty fee). Yet anyone who passed exams after that date magically is not competent and must resit the exams. Whilst I'm not arguing that, as it stands this is the case and if you want to work for a G-reg airline you have no choice but to resit exams if you fall on the otherside of this cutoff, I still think it is both both unnessecary and ridiculous to demand it. I also think it would be in the best interests of British airlines and the CAA to remove it... IMHO.

Sure, but as mentioned above, if I want to work for Emirates, Singapore, Cathay, Korean Air etc etc etc., I do not need to fully requalify myself. At most I need to sit 3 or 4 exams. Given the arbitrary nature of the CAA cutoff date and the fact that they will still convert EASA licenses to CAA ones if you passed before a certain date, one can't help but feel like its a bit of an exercise in pointlessness.

Anyway, this is turning circular.... I'm not coming back to this, so I'll just finish with saying its a stupid situation that needn't be, it only makes it more expensive and complicated for early career and new pilots from the UK entering the profession. Especially it punishes a small number of pilots whose training and exams were impacted by the effects of COVID. But it is what it is. I think it's in the interests of UK airlines to push for some kind of relaxation of the demands for conversion, fair play if you don't.

S o you keep saying. The world is not fair, you choose EASA over CAA, it was your choice, I now realise your a Brit, by choosing EASA you pretty much locked yourself into Ryanair and no one else.
No one forced you.down this road, you pays your money and you.takes your pick.
You have a nice shinny jet job with the Irish Airline, if your a SFO, pretty good money, enough to give Alex a call at Bristol GS, get the exams done then license. I had to sit the FAA when I wanted my N reg, it's no different.
anyway I'm done debating with you, there is no point me continuing