BE hiring in from abroad?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dragon - wrong. I am reading it, and understanding it. Perhaps, though, I am not explaining myself well enough. I fully accept that these particular pilots may have the right already to live and work in the UK, as many do. Furthermore, I have nothing against Australians.
What I am concerned about is whether the various hoops we have to jump through to work over there are the same as the hoops they have to go through to have the right to work here. Fair question?
What I am concerned about is whether the various hoops we have to jump through to work over there are the same as the hoops they have to go through to have the right to work here. Fair question?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: where the licence is easiest
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well having spent most of my career abroad and now in the uk i think the industry here needs more aussie and immigrant pilots to dilute the old boy net stangle hold on the industry. (as an example the non qualified airtours chap who got where he did before being found out as he put a certain military flying organisation on his resume. That must have automatically exempted him from a background check.)brit pilots are disadvantaged more by that than immigrants.
As for Balpa well nuf said
As for Balpa well nuf said
PPRuNe Handmaiden
Hugmonster... believe me, the difference is chalk and cheese. Converting a UK or JAR ATPL to an Australian one is relatively simple and inexpensive. (a couple of exams + a IR renewal in any multi engine aircraft, + medical) From Australia to the UK is a different thing. Now, I don't know what validation these guys are on. However, either way, if they want to stay on beyond the 6 months I would say that they would have to do the 14 exams (minimum).
The usual 12 month validation that has been used in the past still meant that they had to do the UK exams, settle in a new country, learn new procedures and often a/c type. That ain't easy.
I am sure BE looked around for current CRJ pilots that they could employ quickly and for a 6 month contract.
The usual 12 month validation that has been used in the past still meant that they had to do the UK exams, settle in a new country, learn new procedures and often a/c type. That ain't easy.
I am sure BE looked around for current CRJ pilots that they could employ quickly and for a 6 month contract.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: ex EGNM, now NZRO
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said BIK!!
BTW Huggy - getting over here is cheaper to NZ - 3yrs on a residency visa and you can apply for citizenship, which because of the Trans Tasman agreement, means you can freely work in either NZ or Oz (so long as you don't want to claim benefits)
Perhaps you should have a look somewhere more opem minded than the UK (and I am British!) - the Euro springs to mind here....
BTW Huggy - getting over here is cheaper to NZ - 3yrs on a residency visa and you can apply for citizenship, which because of the Trans Tasman agreement, means you can freely work in either NZ or Oz (so long as you don't want to claim benefits)
Perhaps you should have a look somewhere more opem minded than the UK (and I am British!) - the Euro springs to mind here....
Why do so many otherwise interesting threads descend into a personal slagging match ? If you were all in a bar having the same conversation you would be much more polite to each other. Just because we are all anonymous on Pprune, should not mean we forget our basic manners.
Right, putting the soap box away now...
The question I have about all this is: is it good for the UK's economy to employ people from abroad ? Not all of the money foreigners are paid will be recycled into the UK coffers. The UK will also have to spend more on paying dole to unemployed brits.
Right, putting the soap box away now...
The question I have about all this is: is it good for the UK's economy to employ people from abroad ? Not all of the money foreigners are paid will be recycled into the UK coffers. The UK will also have to spend more on paying dole to unemployed brits.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote]it would be incorrect to suggest that the UK or EU immigration regulations are any less stringent than the Australian ones<hr></blockquote>I would hope this was the case - thank you for that. There have been several rumours in the past, however, of the rules being relaxed here (some would say over-relaxed). [quote]In particular, and with regard to this case, if you have Australian citizenship, and an Australian passport, then you are free to live and work in Australia without the need to obtain any visas. Just as if you have EU citizenship, and an EU passport, you are free to live and work in any EU country without the need to obtain any visas.<hr></blockquote>Isn't this just a tad obvious? Or, to put it another way, on what basis would an Australian be refused the right to work in Australia? [quote]If I understand you correctly, you seem to infer that because you might not meet the immigration requirements then there is an unfairness in the immigration regulations. I suggest that it would mean nothing more than that one particular individual (you) is not eligible.<hr></blockquote>OK - if you prefer, use any Brit as an example, versus any Ozmate coming over here.
Please don't get me wrong - I'm not opposed to freedom of movement, nor freedom of aircrew to work anywhere they please. But I have heard a lot to suggest that rules are not applied uniformly and evenly across several national boundaries, or, indeed, from one month to the next.
It appears that in the case that started this thread, there is no need for concern. So I wonder exactly what the debate is about, unless I have stirred up a hornet's nest among a lot of Ozmates? Not my intention. I've worked in a lot of areas of the world, and both abroad and here in the UK, I've worked with many nationalities, and all to the improvement of intercultural understanding. But if somebody from St. Helena wanted to work on Ascension Island and couldn't, whilst Ascension Islanders could work on St. Helena while St. Helenans (?) were unemployed, I think you'd agree this was slightly inequitable.
Please don't get me wrong - I'm not opposed to freedom of movement, nor freedom of aircrew to work anywhere they please. But I have heard a lot to suggest that rules are not applied uniformly and evenly across several national boundaries, or, indeed, from one month to the next.
It appears that in the case that started this thread, there is no need for concern. So I wonder exactly what the debate is about, unless I have stirred up a hornet's nest among a lot of Ozmates? Not my intention. I've worked in a lot of areas of the world, and both abroad and here in the UK, I've worked with many nationalities, and all to the improvement of intercultural understanding. But if somebody from St. Helena wanted to work on Ascension Island and couldn't, whilst Ascension Islanders could work on St. Helena while St. Helenans (?) were unemployed, I think you'd agree this was slightly inequitable.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huggy has a point here, which is, unfortunately, undeniable:
[quote]But I have heard a lot to suggest that rules are not applied uniformly and evenly across several national boundaries, or, indeed, from one month to the next.
<hr></blockquote>
A former colleague, French but with a UK licence, is having all sorts of problems trying to get a job in France although it is, to all intents and purposes, a European (JAR) licence.
We are all, to a greater or lesser extent, hoist by own petards; until it is is universally ( maybe that should be globally as I dont envisage many command vacancies in the Starship Enterprise) accepted that we, the aircrew are mobile and that our skill sets go beyond national boundaries, this problem will always exist.
There will always be the case where Mr X is married to a citizen of another country and is therefore entitled to ply his trade there ( my brother being one) but until some great reform comes along is it so unjust to expect any country to limit the number of foreign nationals working within its borders (EU excepted)?
In an ideal world we would all have freedom of movement and the facility to work anywhere; hellfire, we all share the same airspace and belong to the same elite club! It aint us......it's the politicians!
[ 09 January 2002: Message edited by: Vee2 ]</p>
[quote]But I have heard a lot to suggest that rules are not applied uniformly and evenly across several national boundaries, or, indeed, from one month to the next.
<hr></blockquote>
A former colleague, French but with a UK licence, is having all sorts of problems trying to get a job in France although it is, to all intents and purposes, a European (JAR) licence.
We are all, to a greater or lesser extent, hoist by own petards; until it is is universally ( maybe that should be globally as I dont envisage many command vacancies in the Starship Enterprise) accepted that we, the aircrew are mobile and that our skill sets go beyond national boundaries, this problem will always exist.
There will always be the case where Mr X is married to a citizen of another country and is therefore entitled to ply his trade there ( my brother being one) but until some great reform comes along is it so unjust to expect any country to limit the number of foreign nationals working within its borders (EU excepted)?
In an ideal world we would all have freedom of movement and the facility to work anywhere; hellfire, we all share the same airspace and belong to the same elite club! It aint us......it's the politicians!
[ 09 January 2002: Message edited by: Vee2 ]</p>
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know, you take a few days without logging on and look what happens!!! 
Hate to be boring, but here are the facts.
BE has a short term requirement for CRJ First Officers. This is because the eventual disposition of the fleet is as yet undecided, and it is quite possible that any full-time staff that were hired would be redundant within six months.
BE employed PARC to source the crews. The brief was to, if possible, find EU-domiciled and licenced pilots. Failing that, those with the right to live and work in the EU would be considered.
As no EU pilots came forward (two French pilots expressed interest but didn't continue with the process), those with the right to live and work in the EU (ie EU passport holders in this case) were considered.
The result is that several Australian pilots (all ex-Kendall) were contracted. Although some were Captains, all will be flying as First Officers. These pilots will be granted validations by the CAA.
The company did everything within its power to hire EU residents first, but it appears that there are few CRJ-rated EU folk looking for jobs at present.
It is obviously completely impractical to type-rate people for these jobs, by the time they were rated the contract would be half-over.
Concerning other points raised on this thread, I agree that anybody who is currently unemployed, and is not intimately acquainted with the opportunities available, doesn't deserve a job! These vacancies were advertised by a leading agency, who publish their website and telephone details every week in Flight. I can't think of a single valid reason to not be aware of them!
The nationality debate will never stop, suffice it to say that EU nations are the worst offenders when it comes to protectionism. Australia is a far easier proposition!
I think the penny might have finally dropped with Hugmonster, but if not, you really should listen to what everybody is telling you, old bean. They are right and you are, at best, uncertain of the facts.
Finally, I too believe that the aviation job marketplace should be completely international, with no protectionism permitted by any state. Market forces and all that!
Hate to be boring, but here are the facts.
BE has a short term requirement for CRJ First Officers. This is because the eventual disposition of the fleet is as yet undecided, and it is quite possible that any full-time staff that were hired would be redundant within six months.
BE employed PARC to source the crews. The brief was to, if possible, find EU-domiciled and licenced pilots. Failing that, those with the right to live and work in the EU would be considered.
As no EU pilots came forward (two French pilots expressed interest but didn't continue with the process), those with the right to live and work in the EU (ie EU passport holders in this case) were considered.
The result is that several Australian pilots (all ex-Kendall) were contracted. Although some were Captains, all will be flying as First Officers. These pilots will be granted validations by the CAA.
The company did everything within its power to hire EU residents first, but it appears that there are few CRJ-rated EU folk looking for jobs at present.
It is obviously completely impractical to type-rate people for these jobs, by the time they were rated the contract would be half-over.
Concerning other points raised on this thread, I agree that anybody who is currently unemployed, and is not intimately acquainted with the opportunities available, doesn't deserve a job! These vacancies were advertised by a leading agency, who publish their website and telephone details every week in Flight. I can't think of a single valid reason to not be aware of them!
The nationality debate will never stop, suffice it to say that EU nations are the worst offenders when it comes to protectionism. Australia is a far easier proposition!
I think the penny might have finally dropped with Hugmonster, but if not, you really should listen to what everybody is telling you, old bean. They are right and you are, at best, uncertain of the facts.
Finally, I too believe that the aviation job marketplace should be completely international, with no protectionism permitted by any state. Market forces and all that!
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raw Data, I accepted that the facts were as stated some time ago. However, having taken people's word for it, I am now being accused of being too easily swayed. Earlier in the thread I was accused of being too adamant - seems you just can't win.
MOR took several attempts to name the aircraft type that was involved, and stated several times in several different ways that no Australians would be hired, all were EU citizens, and this now appears to be incorrect. BIK seems to think that I am confused over EU citizens needing visas, when any fool reading my post would see that I was (at the time) referring to Australians, and I have also (very helpfully, I thought) been told that Australians don't need passports or visas to work in Australia.
Is it me, or are some people just incapable of reading something straight and giving a straight answer?
Thanks for confirming all the correct details, RD.
[ 09 January 2002: Message edited by: HugMonster ]</p>
MOR took several attempts to name the aircraft type that was involved, and stated several times in several different ways that no Australians would be hired, all were EU citizens, and this now appears to be incorrect. BIK seems to think that I am confused over EU citizens needing visas, when any fool reading my post would see that I was (at the time) referring to Australians, and I have also (very helpfully, I thought) been told that Australians don't need passports or visas to work in Australia.
Is it me, or are some people just incapable of reading something straight and giving a straight answer?
Thanks for confirming all the correct details, RD.
[ 09 January 2002: Message edited by: HugMonster ]</p>
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think you are too easily swayed or too adamant- you just used an unfortunate phrase or two that, in true PPRuNe fashion, were seized upon and turned into a pointless argument.
Unfortunately, you have done it again in your latest post. MOR did none of the things you accuse him of, he got the facts right in his first post. You possibly mean BIK, who was quite correct w.r.t. the nationalities of the pilots concerned- but said it in a different way.
Similarly, it seems that snooze_ya_lose was the main protagonist in the immigration debate.
This may possibly be the crux of the matter, from an earlier post of yours:
[quote] I feel, however, that any out-of-work Brit pilot should be considered before an Australian. <hr></blockquote>
The point that most of your tormentors seem to be picking up on is that these particular Australians are also EU citizens (as many are), and therefore should really be considered equally with out-of-work Brits.
[quote] If I'm not eligible for a job in this, that or the other country, I don't see why their nationals should be permitted jobs here when there are Brit pilots out of a job. <hr></blockquote>
Same thing applies here, as these particular foreign nationals are also EU nationals, equal in law to your good self, and with as much right to a job here as you. That is the ONLY reason they can come here.
[quote] It would have concerned me less had it been made clear that only EU citizens were being recruited, even on a temporary basis. There is, at least theoretically, a level playing field across the EU. That Ozzies were apparently being taken on raised my hackles. <hr></blockquote>
And again... why should it raise you hackles, these "Ozzies" have the same citizenship and rights as you.
[quote] That these posts appeared on the Parc website does not excuse offering the jobs abroad. <hr></blockquote>
They aren't, they are selecting purely on qualification, one of which happens to be EU citizenship. You could therefore infer that the jobs are only actually on offer to EU nationals, don't you think?
Anyway, reading the quotes above, it is quite easy to see how people could assume you were xenophobic (to be extreme), or that you had a problem with Aussies. I say all the above for your interest, not to provoke another argument.
BTW, and off-topic I know, I hear a rumour that we (BE) have apparently taken a bunch of ex-Gill pilots onto the Dash 8 fleet.
Finally, may I just say the Gill cabin crew that we hired are absolutely excellent.
Unfortunately, you have done it again in your latest post. MOR did none of the things you accuse him of, he got the facts right in his first post. You possibly mean BIK, who was quite correct w.r.t. the nationalities of the pilots concerned- but said it in a different way.
Similarly, it seems that snooze_ya_lose was the main protagonist in the immigration debate.
This may possibly be the crux of the matter, from an earlier post of yours:
[quote] I feel, however, that any out-of-work Brit pilot should be considered before an Australian. <hr></blockquote>
The point that most of your tormentors seem to be picking up on is that these particular Australians are also EU citizens (as many are), and therefore should really be considered equally with out-of-work Brits.
[quote] If I'm not eligible for a job in this, that or the other country, I don't see why their nationals should be permitted jobs here when there are Brit pilots out of a job. <hr></blockquote>
Same thing applies here, as these particular foreign nationals are also EU nationals, equal in law to your good self, and with as much right to a job here as you. That is the ONLY reason they can come here.
[quote] It would have concerned me less had it been made clear that only EU citizens were being recruited, even on a temporary basis. There is, at least theoretically, a level playing field across the EU. That Ozzies were apparently being taken on raised my hackles. <hr></blockquote>
And again... why should it raise you hackles, these "Ozzies" have the same citizenship and rights as you.
[quote] That these posts appeared on the Parc website does not excuse offering the jobs abroad. <hr></blockquote>
They aren't, they are selecting purely on qualification, one of which happens to be EU citizenship. You could therefore infer that the jobs are only actually on offer to EU nationals, don't you think?
Anyway, reading the quotes above, it is quite easy to see how people could assume you were xenophobic (to be extreme), or that you had a problem with Aussies. I say all the above for your interest, not to provoke another argument.
BTW, and off-topic I know, I hear a rumour that we (BE) have apparently taken a bunch of ex-Gill pilots onto the Dash 8 fleet.
Finally, may I just say the Gill cabin crew that we hired are absolutely excellent.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I shall retire from this rather pointless thread.
RD, your two last paras are correct. Can't remember which bases the pilots went to - NCL and BHD ring bells with me. And you got some of our best Cabin Crew/ They're all lovely people - say hi and please look after them!
RD, your two last paras are correct. Can't remember which bases the pilots went to - NCL and BHD ring bells with me. And you got some of our best Cabin Crew/ They're all lovely people - say hi and please look after them!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Alba sor
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the aussie immigration web site an Australian citizen cannot hold dual nationality. The aussies I know working in the UK have visas, not UK passports, if they have a UK passport then they are British first and Aussie second, as the UK allows dual citizenship, and the Aussie government does not.
PPRuNe Handmaiden
Meeb,
I am afraid that you are incorrect here. The Australian Government has no problem with dual nationality. I hold an Australian passport and I was born in Sydney, Australia. I also hold a UK passport (Courtesy of my father) and it still says I was born in Sydney, although now I am also a British citizen.
What the Australian govt will not let you do is leave Australia on a "foreign" passport. If you do, you have then deemed to have forgone your Australian citizenship.
I am afraid that you are incorrect here. The Australian Government has no problem with dual nationality. I hold an Australian passport and I was born in Sydney, Australia. I also hold a UK passport (Courtesy of my father) and it still says I was born in Sydney, although now I am also a British citizen.
What the Australian govt will not let you do is leave Australia on a "foreign" passport. If you do, you have then deemed to have forgone your Australian citizenship.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Alba sor
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that Redsnail, I was afraid someone would prove me wrong! I got my information from this: <a href="http://www.citizenship.gov.au/bill.htm" target="_blank">citizenship</a>
but there is obviously ways round the situation.
but there is obviously ways round the situation.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a point of clarification. This is from the link Meeb provided:
[quote] Until such time as the new legislation comes into effect, adult Australians will continue to lose their Australian Citizenship if they acquire the citizenship of another country. <hr></blockquote>
This applies if an Australian emigrates to, say, the USA and becomes an American citizen. It doesn't apply to those who have dual citizenship by descent, as these people have never "acquired" citizenship of another country, it is their right by birth or patriality.
[quote] Until such time as the new legislation comes into effect, adult Australians will continue to lose their Australian Citizenship if they acquire the citizenship of another country. <hr></blockquote>
This applies if an Australian emigrates to, say, the USA and becomes an American citizen. It doesn't apply to those who have dual citizenship by descent, as these people have never "acquired" citizenship of another country, it is their right by birth or patriality.
PPRuNe Handmaiden
Onya RD. Thanks.
Sorry Meeb, missed that point.
Sorry Meeb, missed that point.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: england
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huggy, unless I'm much mistaken you worked for JY albeit for a very short time. (correct me if I'm wrong..F27??) In this light I can't understand what all the fuss is about. You weren't thinking of re-applying were you?