At the 42nd ICAO Assembly, two working papers addressed the same problem, the aviation sector’s acute shortage of skilled personnel, but arrived at starkly different solutions. The European Union called for enlarging the talent pool and making aviation careers more attractive; India sought a global “code of conduct” to coordinate or slow the recruitment of its trained personnel by foreign airlines.
Both arguments invoke the Chicago convention’s commitment to the “safe and orderly conduct” of international civil aviation. But only one is compatible with the International Labour Organisation’s principles of free movement — and the practical realities of today’s workforce.
The Indian position: Protecting domestic workforce stability
India’s submission frames foreign recruitment of its trained pilots, engineers, and cabin crew as a destabilising factor in a fast-growing market. It argues that poaching, without prior coordination, undermines planned fleet expansion and forces carriers to divert resources to replace departing staff. The proposed remedy is an ICAO-led model code of conduct that requires standardised notice and consultation before international recruitment.
India’s civil aviation requirements (CAR) already mandate a six-month notice period for pilots moving between Indian carriers, double the domestic industry norm of three months. This is more than enough time to initiate replacement recruitment and complete type rating or command upgrades.
The EU position: Global shortage, global mobility
The EU views the human capital shortfall as a universal supply-side problem. Skilled personnel are scarce across all domains: flight crew, air traffic management, engineering, and regulatory bodies. The cause lies in:
- Uncompetitive salaries and benefits.
- Poor fatigue management and quality-of-life conditions.
- Pandemic-related workforce departures.
- Competition from other sectors.
- Insufficient diversity and outreach to underrepresented groups.
The EU’s solution is not to restrict movement, but to make aviation more attractive and expand training capacity. It explicitly supports mobility in line with ILO Conventions No. 97 (Migration for Employment) and No. 111 (Non-Discrimination), and ICAO’s next generation of aviation professionals (NGAP) initiative.
No evidence of ‘unplanned departure’
India’s operational stability argument rests on the notion of sudden, uncoordinated exits. But with a legally enforced six-month notice period, there is no operational ambush. Airlines have ample lead time to schedule simulator slots, run upgrade courses, and recruit replacements.
The reality is that pilots are leaving for better pay, more predictable rosters, effective fatigue management regulations, and improved overall quality of life. These are retention issues within the employer’s control, not inevitable consequences of foreign recruitment.
Once a pilot has served the legally required notice, any attempt to block their departure moves into the territory of restricting free movement — a clear conflict with ILO principles.
Global parallels: IT and medicine
In other skilled sectors — information technology, medicine — professionals routinely migrate to global opportunities. India trains software engineers who join firms in Silicon Valley, and doctors who serve in the UK’s national health service (NHS). These sectors do not call for ICAO-style “codes of conduct” to restrict recruitment. Instead, they expand training pipelines and improve retention incentives at home.
If we accept this in IT and medicine, there is no principled reason to treat pilots differently — unless there is a demonstrable safety risk. In India’s case, the six-month notice rule already mitigates that risk.
ICAO’s role: Protect mobility, improve conditions
ICAO’s challenge is to balance national interests with its global mandate. The organisation’s economic and personnel licensing policies favour non-discriminatory access to employment while safeguarding operational safety.
For aviation human capital, the global interest lies in:
- Maintaining mobility so skills can flow to where they are most needed.
- Raising industry standards in pay, rest, fatigue management, and career development to improve retention.
- Expanding training capacity to meet growing demand without cannibalising other markets.
The case for the EU’s approach
In the current context, the EU’s approach is both more aligned with international labour rights and better suited to solving the underlying problem. Restrictions on post-notice movement do not create new pilots; they simply delay departure and may deter future entrants to the profession.
The more sustainable path is to tackle the reasons pilots choose to leave:
- Address chronic fatigue with scientifically grounded fatigue management systems.
- Improve rosters and work-life balance.
- Offer competitive salaries and benefits.
- Modernise training and career progression.
These measures require investment and policy reform, but they also respect the individual’s right to seek the best available opportunity, a right enshrined in both ILO conventions and the ethos of an interconnected global industry.
Conclusion: Mobility Is not the enemy
Aviation’s workforce crisis will not be solved by holding on to people through regulatory barriers once they have met their contractual obligations. With a six-month notice period already in place, India’s airlines have the operational cushion they need. The challenge is not “poaching” but persuasion — convincing skilled professionals that their future is brighter at home.
ICAO must resist the temptation to endorse measures that could become precedents for restricting labour mobility in other sectors. Its focus should be on helping States build attractive, sustainable aviation careers, not on policing where those careers may take people.
The EU’s open-mobility stance is the one that best serves the global interest: a talent pool that is mobile, growing, and motivated, not constrained by borders once its obligations are fulfilled.
Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author’s own.
END OF ARTICLE
Leave a Reply