I dismiss them because they are fallacy and don't actually oppose my argument.
Maybe you didn't call me an asshole, but you did directly insult me.
I get that the fact you immigrated here and work here now, and this topic is a sore spot... for the record I don't think you stole anyone's job, I think people like you are what we need in this country, and I think the pressure put on the government and Sunwing to hire more Canadians (or PRs) perhaps before you arrived or were aware of it, is likely the reason you work there today.
It isn't just me, my factual statement aren't made up, and they are the views largely shared by the largest pilot association in the world.
They are also being addressed to an extent in a game of whack-a-mole, as circumvention by your employer is closed, another loop hole is exploited.
Here's some more reading for you:
ALPA wrote:Some Canadian airlines use foreign pilots to augment their rosters on a seasonal basis. At times, some airlines have had more foreign pilots on their rosters, seasonally, than Canadians. This puts Canadian flightcrew members at a competitive disadvantage right in their own domestic market.
The issue of foreign pilots operating in Canada touches upon several different government departments. It is a complex issue that is not amenable to a single solution. A change of policy and/or procedure in one department may still leave the airline piloting profession vulnerable to the other government departments. Canadian airlines have several approaches or combinations of approaches by which they may employ or otherwise use foreign nationals to fly their aircraft.
The three main avenues are:
1. The Temporary Foreign Worker Program
(TFWP) administered by the Employment and
Social Development Canada (ESDC);
2. Reciprocal agreements administered by
Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC);
and
3. Wet-leases, i.e., providing aircraft with foreign
crews, under the Transport Canada policy
administered by the Canadian Transportation
Agency (CTA).
Temporary Foreign Worker Program
The Temporary Foreign Worker Program was designed to allow foreign workers into Canada, on a temporary basis, when required to fill genuine job shortages. For example, TFWP is used to import seasonal agricultural workers and bring in a very large number of highly skilled workers to fill positions in the oil sands projects.
Airlines seeking to hire foreign pilots under the program formerly stipulated that they sought only pilots type-rated on Boeing 737 Next Generation airplanes. As few unemployed pilots in Canada possessed that particular rating, the airlines were able to show that there was a labour shortage, enabling them to hire foreign pilots
under the program.
Recent positive reforms to the TFWP have eliminated that problem. New guidelines were announced in the government’s 2014 report, “Overhauling the Temporary Foreign Worker Program: Putting Canadians First.” The labour market test that allows employers to bring temporary foreign workers into Canada has been transformed from a Labour Market Opinion (LMO) to a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA). Under the LMIA, employers must provide additional information, such as the number of Canadians who applied for the job, the number of Canadians interviewed, and an explanation of why Canadians were not hired.
The issue of foreign pilots in Canada is explicitly addressed. Beginning July 1, 2014, a number of changes have been implemented for airlines requesting foreign pilots through a LMIA:
Effective July 1, 2014, airlines must:
>> meet the minimum advertising requirements for high-wage occupations, and specify the following criteria in their job posting:
» no more than a maximum of 4,000 flight
hours for a first officer and 5,000 hours for
a captain as required experience;
» possess a valid commercial pilot’s licence;
» require English and/or French language
proficiency;
» include industry-standard medical testing
requirements for commercial flight; and
» state both the legal and common names of
the airline operating in Canada.
Additionally, airlines:
>> must not include as an essential requirement the necessity of holding a type rating;
>> must indicate when training bonds will be applied;
>> must negotiate a transition plan with ESDC documenting the airline’s future efforts to decrease reliance on foreign pilots while increasing its Canadian pilot contingent; and
>> must submit LMIA applications at least three months before the first day of work.
In the first test of these guidelines, the ESDC refused a sun destination airline’s application for temporary foreign worker pilots for the 2015–2016
season. ESDC cited the LMIA, which determined that sufficient recruitment potential existed
in Canada for the hiring of Canadian pilots. Therefore, resort to the TFWP was unnecessary. The labour minister announced in March 2016
that a complete review of the TFWP would be undertaken during the coming year.
Reciprocal Agreements
This program was designed to allow a foreign worker into Canada if that created a reciprocal opportunity for a Canadian to be employed abroad. ALPA discovered that far more foreign pilots were employed in Canada than Canadians were flying abroad under reciprocal agreements—no effective reciprocity existed.
Immigration officers now vet the agreements for appropriate reciprocity. However, they do not enforce reciprocity on a one-to-one basis, but follow guidelines that allow an exchange in the 75 percent range—i.e., for 100 foreign workers in Canada, there should be 75 employment opportunities for Canadians abroad.
Foreign Licence Validation Certificates
A foreign pilot entering Canada with an appropriate work permit must obtain a Canadian licence or have his or her foreign flight crew licences validated by Transport Canada for use on Canadian aircraft.
Under the regulation, Standard 421.07 identifies a number of purposes for which a foreign licence validation certificate (FLVC) may be issued. This list of specific, narrow purposes was intended to restrict the types of operations for which FLVCs may be issued. However, none of the purposes listed correspond to normal airline operations. Thus, the only possible exception is if the minister of transport finds the issuance of an FLVC to be in the “public interest and not likely to affect aviation safety.” That exception should also be read restrictively in light of the language that precedes it. The French version of the CAR standards is even more restrictive, adding words to the effect of “in exceptional circumstances.” Normal, everyday airline operations are the rule, not the exception. Although the minister may issue FLVCs in the public interest, ALPA contends that no public interest is served by issuing FLVCs to foreign flightcrew members operating for airlines in Canada.
Some justification for the issuance of FLVCs has been that Canadian pilots are able to enjoy similar privileges when flying abroad on a seasonal basis. Recently, however, the legitimacy of that rationale has come into question. The EU appears to be in the process of requiring an EU licence after an initial, one-time issuance of an FLVC. In addition, we see an inconsistent application of that regulation between EU countries.In the United States, a newly instituted licensing program is in effect. An applicant for a U.S. air transport pilot licence (ATPL) who currently holds a Canadian ATPL must now take additional instruction from an authorized training provider for the ATP certificate. This illustrates that there is no reciprocal recognition of credentials.
Wet-Leases
Foreign pilots also enter Canada as crewmembers on wet-leased aircraft. The Canadian air transport regulations place no restrictions on the number of aircraft or crews that a Canadian airline can lease, nor on the duration of the lease. The airlines can and do seasonally supplement their fleets with many aircraft and flight crews on wet-leases.In 2013, after consultations with stakeholders, Transport Canada formulated a wet-lease policy that limits the number of aircraft that an airline may wet-lease to 20 percent of the number of Canadian-registered aircraft on the airline’s air operating certificate (AOC) at the time of application.
The Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) administers the wet-lease policy and approves or denies applications. It has now administered the
policy for some time, and the airline industry has experience with the application and the policy’s unintended or anomalous consequences. The policy provides that, for wet-leases of more than 30 days, a number of aircraft equal to 20 percent of the number of Canadian-registered aircraft on the lessee’s AOC at the time of application may be leased from foreign lessors.
However, in its first decision—made just three months after the new policy was announced—the CTA departed from the clear wording of the policy by basing the 20 percent on the number of aircraft that were proposed to be used rather than those on the AOC at time of application. That had the effect of inflating the number of aircraft that could be wet-leased. The minister of transport then issued a directive to the agency instructing it to strictly adhere to the policy language.
Nevertheless, the mischief wrought by the misinterpretation of policy—the inflation of the number of wet-leased aircraft—continues. The air transport regulations (ATRs) at 8.2(2) stipulate that an application must be filed at least 45 days before the first planned flight. Now applicants are filing far in advance of that time frame. For instance, an airline may apply in March, when it uses the most aircraft for southern sun flights, for a wet-lease to be conducted November through April of the following winter.
In this example, the fleet in March is greatly supplemented by seasonally dry-leased foreign aircraft put in Canadian registry. These aircraft are most often flown by foreign pilots obtained through the TFWP; that has the anomalous effect of inflating the number of foreign pilots allowed under wet-leases based on the success of obtaining foreign pilots through the TFWP. \
As noted, Transport Canada formulated the wet-lease policy after consulting with the Canadian airline industry. Any sound public policy must be based on a thorough understanding of the issues and the reasons behind the creation of the policy. That concept has become problematic with CTA decisions.
The backgrounder to Canada’s wet-lease policy, which was issued in August 2013, provides some of the possible rationales for wet-leases:
“Wet-leasing is largely used by air carriers to accommodate unforeseen shortfalls in aircraft availability due to technical or mechanical issues, or to manage aircraft fleets between affiliated companies. It is not uncommon for wet-leased aircraft to be used to acquire aircraft for temporary or seasonal services. Such longer-term wet-leases can provide a cost-efficient way of introducing supplemental capacity into an airline’s fleet in order to meet fluctuations in demand. At the same time, the introduction of seasonal capacity in Canada through wet leasing has implications for the wider Canadian market for international air services.”
The ATRs at 8.2(3) (j) stipulate that the lessee provide an explanation of why the wet-lease is necessary. However, perusing CTA’s decisions reveals that the agency does not provide any rationale other than a rote statement that the applicant “meets the requirements of 8.2 of the ATRs.”
As it stands, it is impossible to ascertain why wet-lease applications are being approved. From a policy perspective, Transport Canada cannot make
a reasoned policy to cover wet-leasing without knowing the purpose for which the applications are granted. The reason for a wet-lease may vary from technical or mechanical issues to seasonal services, but CTA decisions consistently omit that critical aspect.