British Airways is currently looking to hire a wide body pilot, but not to actually fly planes. This is as niche as pilot jobs get…
In this post:
British Airways’ Chicago O’Hare ground taxi pilot job
British Airways currently has a job opening for the position of “ground taxi pilot,” to be based at Chicago O’Hare Airport (ORD), with a base salary in the range of $90K-100K per year. Here’s how it’s described:
The role:
B777 & B787 taxi pilot
You will operate as Pilot in Command or Second Pilot during ground taxi operations at Chicago O’Hare Airport
What you’ll do:
You’ll play a critical role in helping achieve On Time Performance by safely ground taxiing British Airways Boeing 777 and 787 aircraft between terminals at Chicago O’hare airport.
What you’ll bring to British Airways:
You’ll be an experienced Airline Transport Pilot (or former Airline Transport Pilot) with a solid track record of safety and a high degree of familiarity with procedures at Chicago O’Hare airport. You will operate diligently with an uncompromising regard for safety and security at all times.
Your experience:
You will have recent experience of operating the Boeing 777 or 787 as Captain or First Officer and a willingness to learn and adapt to the British Airways Standard Operating Procedures.
You must have employment authorisation to work in the United States.
I’m sure many people are thinking “wait, why does British Airways need to hire pilots to taxi planes at Chicago O’Hare?” Well, British Airways operates up to three daily flights at the airport, and there’s a bit of a quirk to the service.
The aircraft arrives at Terminal 5 (the terminal for all international arrivals), but then departs from Terminal 3 (which is primarily occupied by American). So the one crew clocks out after passengers disembark from Terminal 5, and another crew clocks in before passengers board from Terminal 3. That leaves the issue of getting the plane between the two terminals, given crew duty hour limits, etc.
What a unique and confusing “pilot” position
Keep in mind that American and United also need to get their planes out of Terminal 5 at Chicago O’Hare, though it’s my understanding that the actual taxiing of planes can be done by some specialized ground tech ops employees, and not actual pilots (or is my understanding incorrect?).
So does anyone know what’s going on here? Is the airline erring on the side of caution (as it views it), and trying to hire as experienced of a person for the role as possible? Is there some union rule that requires this to go to a pilot? Or what’s the logic here?
Some people might be surprised to learn that tugs typically aren’t used to get planes between the terminals. The reason (as I understand it) is that they’re slower, and given the maze of taxiways at O’Hare, it’s more efficient and safer to just taxi planes under their own engine power.
I do wonder how easily British Airways will find a recent 777 or 787 pilot to accept a role where they never actually fly, but instead, use their experience for a few minutes per day of taxiing.
I have to imagine most people who are passing all their medicals, not at retirement age, etc., would actually want to be flying planes, racking up hours, and making more money. But I suppose if you’re recently retired, didn’t pass a medical, etc., this could be an interesting role.
Bottom line
British Airways is looking to hire a 777 or 787 pilot. Not to be based in London and to fly around the globe, but to be based in Chicago, and to taxi for a few minutes per day. It’s an unusual role, for sure, and I’m curious what kind of a candidate ends up applying.
What do you make of this “ground taxi pilot” job, and does anyone have the background for why this is necessary?
I've been looking for 10 days or more about this position. I can assume they've already been filled
This is interesting. I never thought about this situation. It makes me wonder what other airlines do. Also as others ask why only ORD? What does BA do at other airports?
It’s an interesting gig but it won’t be around for forever.
The Global Terminal replacing T2 will house international gates for United and American and all their alliance partners, thus eliminating the need to dump arrivals off at T5, then tow back to T1/2/3
I work for ANA Ops at ORD. We have our planes arrive at T5 and depart out of United's T1. The crew that taxis the plane in between terminals are United mechanics who've trained a few weeks in United's simulators. They just specialize in taxiing planes all day.
mechanics that have been trained for taxi operations frequently are the ones that move planes. they have to add on training esp. in ATC radio operations among other things.
What is unique is that BA doesn't accept that system.
having a large partner do the work is part of what makes alliances good
It kind of reminds me of cruise ship harbor pilots.
Why only ORD ? Why not LAX ,SFO, DEN, DFW and so on ?
At the airports you listed (and unlike ORD), all gates are accessible once airside so making a domestic to international connection doesn’t require going through security again. In addition, the inbound and outbound flights typically arrive and depart at the same gate with a 2-3 hour layover. The planes don’t need to be towed anywhere unless they have unexpected maintenance needs.
It does make me wonder if Qantas have pilot positions like this at LAX...
At the airports you listed (and unlike ORD), all gates are accessible once airside so making a domestic to international connection doesn’t require going through security again. In addition, the inbound and outbound flights typically arrive and depart at the same gate with a 2-3 hour layover. The planes don’t need to be towed anywhere unless they have unexpected maintenance needs.
It does make me wonder if Qantas have pilot positions like this at LAX where they have many planes which often have 14-18 hour layovers. On the other hand taxiway congestion at LAX, especially near TBIT, is nothing like at ORD.
Do they need a uniform? And do freight crew need a uniform?
So if a current licenses pilot takes the job, would not the time spent taxiing count towards flight hours?
Does the concept of time spent taxiing on the GROUND not counting towards FLIGHT hours confuse you? Really?
You don't have to be a pilot, but you need certification. I know this because Joe Patroni (played by George Kenedy in Airport) had the certification and told us the rules. And, of course, movies are always 100% accurate and nothing changes in 56 year.
Brings back memories of when TWA used to fly 747s on the daily ORD-LHR run through the end of the 80s before they sold the route to AA.
There was an article in the Chicago Tribune about one of the guys who taxied the 747 from the international arrival terminal to the TWA gates for departure. He wasn't a pilot, and I want to say he was simply one of TWA's ground staff. I remember being jealous of that job. Still am, 30+ years later.
This feels like it would be a good role for someone to be able to waive some medical/age requirements. It wouldn't be a bad gig for someone who had just "aged out" to hold for a year or two if that was allowed.
Surprised they don't use the SuperTugs like we had/have at ATL. Those things haul ass. Fascinating to watch them pick up the front gear and mount them in the cradle behind the driver.
To watch a L1011 zip around the taxiways is a sight, back in the day. I think ATL has 6+ of the SuperTugs, and a whole slew of the regular slow pokes.
And apparently this can't be done by just one pilot? "You will operate as Pilot in Command or Second Pilot"
My question is why did BA move departing flights to T3? For years, they arrived and departed T5, so not sure what changed. Unless they decided it was easier for connections in T3 from AA?
@ David -- Yeah, it's definitely about trying to create a more convenient connection for passengers traveling between airlines. Whether it's a net positive is open to debate.
Speculating ’Walter Mitty’s’ might like to consider the following:
BA must use only rated pilots at ORD if the aircraft is being moved under its own power. Likewise, to meet the legal requirements under FAA regulations.
BA crews operating long-haul flights to ORD may be:
Out of flying duty time.
In need of mandatory rest periods.
Not authorized for ground repositioning duties at ORD.
Not forgetting that the aircraft may need to be...
Speculating ’Walter Mitty’s’ might like to consider the following:
BA must use only rated pilots at ORD if the aircraft is being moved under its own power. Likewise, to meet the legal requirements under FAA regulations.
BA crews operating long-haul flights to ORD may be:
Out of flying duty time.
In need of mandatory rest periods.
Not authorized for ground repositioning duties at ORD.
Not forgetting that the aircraft may need to be repositioned at a different gate/terminal for a return flight.
Apparently, FAA regs do *not* require any special qualifications to taxi an airplane when NOT for the purpose of flight - no type rating, no medical, no pilot license (whether ATP, commercial, etc). So all those requirements are arbitrary and purely at BA's and their insurance company's discretion.
This is correct!
Simon, you must have posted your contribution as I was writing mine. It is interesting what you say about FAA regulations not being required. One has believed for some time that the FAA insisted upon such. I stand corrected sir.
Every day is a school day.
“Aero”, you really are a fascinating chap. Begin nearly every post with a thinly veiling insult at everyone here, then have the honor to tip your hat and admit a mistake. The former takes no character at all, yet the latter takes quite a bit.
And then I make a typo… “veiled” was my intent. ;)
Trust me Tim, my real insults are never “Veiled” …. :-)
I do enjoy a good laugh and look for the humour in most articles and posts. It is regrettable if my cosmopolitan humour, acquired over decades of exposure to some extremely funny military comedians, from numerous countries, is lost on a civilian audience.
I would never poke fun at anyone and then exclude myself when it is me who commits the faux pas....
Trust me Tim, my real insults are never “Veiled” …. :-)
I do enjoy a good laugh and look for the humour in most articles and posts. It is regrettable if my cosmopolitan humour, acquired over decades of exposure to some extremely funny military comedians, from numerous countries, is lost on a civilian audience.
I would never poke fun at anyone and then exclude myself when it is me who commits the faux pas. It is true that I will always stand up for the bullied and be counted for my own mistakes. As you quite rightly point out, it is the only honourable thing to do.
Perhaps my extensive use of irony and sarcasm is lost in translation. One can hardly convey that ‘look’, ‘curled lip’ or ‘wink’ in words, which would be an aid to assessing my true meaning. I’m quite simply not that literately competent.
"...is me who commits..."
Actually, it's "...is I who commits..."
Just sayin'.
I say again Willy ….. “I’m quite simply not that literately competent”. Bleeding dyslexia rules kO!
This has been an existing set up for many years, and many of my recently retired colleagues have gone on to do this for a few years. It’s a great way to get British Airways nonrev benefits too.
If I recall correctly, they have a team of 10-15 retired AA guys that move jets 10 days a month each. Insurance requirements prohibit farming the service out to AA mechanics/move teams. Sweet retirement gig.
If i were United or American, id just pitch doing this for BA with the move teams they have on staff for $90k a year and call it a win.
That would make too much sense. As the posting shows, the pilot needs to be familiar with BA SOP. There’s the United/American way to taxi a plane and then there’s the BA way. (In all seriousness perhaps BA planes have some quirk in their cockpit equipment that really does require specific training. But that’s just me grasping for an explanation for why this might make sense).
Lucky, did you see the China Eastern flight 5735 NTSB report? It was requested via FOIA and was posted a few days ago.
He posted about it, separately.
Sounds like a lovely gig for a Chicago based pilot who wants to have a nice transition into retirement.
Might also be good for a pilot who's just started a family and wants to be around the kids while they're young and will transition back into long haul flights in a few years
They need more than one pilot because of days off, vacations, etc.
And I would have to imagine that operational disruptions would factor into the manpower needs.
I'm also surprised that BALPA would consent to this.
Why BA doesn't use tugs is beyond me and I am not sure that AA and UA don't use tugs including at ORD.
other airlines use super tugs to move airplanes around congested busy airports because they can move as fast as airplanes can taxi.
Still, it is unclear why BA needs to use pilots unless it is a union requirement.
Also, the job posting says a retired pilot with 777/787 familiarity and...
Why BA doesn't use tugs is beyond me and I am not sure that AA and UA don't use tugs including at ORD.
other airlines use super tugs to move airplanes around congested busy airports because they can move as fast as airplanes can taxi.
Still, it is unclear why BA needs to use pilots unless it is a union requirement.
Also, the job posting says a retired pilot with 777/787 familiarity and I suspect they can find retired pilots that had an ATP.
this issue does highlight how expensive and inconvenient the current setup at ORD is with a terminal change required not just for passengers and crew but also for airplanes. ORD will spend billions to fix this design that has been in existence for years - perhaps why AA and UA both have pretty small international operations at ORD compared to other hubs - but it is doubtful that the cost will really be worth it.
The irony, of course, is that US carries a far smaller share of international traffic at ORD than at any other large US carrier hub.
Littered with RJs and foreign carrier dominance of international ops, ORD is one of the least economical and inefficient hub airports in the US.
Timbits: the reason why ORD has lower international flights is because it's in the middle of the freakin' continent. Even you aren't stupid enough to improperly read a map.
Conversely ORD, few non U.S. citizens need to visit such a destination …. Yes?
No. We are a desirable destination, Fake Tim/Saxon Scum. Now go fellate your neighbor and never talk of it again like all you Britfgs do.
Too bad you are not living in the mayor's mansion in Chicago. You would be an improvement over the current gasbag.
ORD …. you really are a very sad representation of a jarhead grunt …. a bog trotters mentality …. such a joy to behold ….
Proof that Tim Dunn doesn't read or gives a uck on what other people say but only objective is to argues with rest of us.
They are looking for rated not retired pilot, Tim. And don't blame it on auto correct. You said it twice.
If you actually even read this.
the only proof that you are wrong is the post above yours that says that BA has hired a number of retired AA pilots to do this.
It isn't a good gig for someone that is too old to fly but has the experience.
and homeless at O'Hare clearly doesn't know geography.
DL has a higher percentage of international flights at both DTW and MSP and both are within a couple hundred miles of...
the only proof that you are wrong is the post above yours that says that BA has hired a number of retired AA pilots to do this.
It isn't a good gig for someone that is too old to fly but has the experience.
and homeless at O'Hare clearly doesn't know geography.
DL has a higher percentage of international flights at both DTW and MSP and both are within a couple hundred miles of ORD.
In fact, DL has a far larger international operation in DTW and MSP combined than any US airline has in the Midwest. in fact, only AA at DFW rivals the size of DL's Midwest international widebody operation among "mid continent hubs"
ORD's layout and UA's focus on its coastal hubs to the exclusion of its mid-continent hubs for international operations is precisely why DL does so well from its "core four" hubs.
Proof that Tim Dunn doesn't read or gives a uck on what other people say but only objective is to argues with rest of us.
TD Fluff:
"Also, the job posting says a retired pilot with 777/787 familiarity"
Fact:
Job posting says "experience of operating the Boeing 777 or 787"
Job posting used the term "retired" or equivalent ZERO times.
Yet Tim is still trying to argue.
Proof that Tim Dunn...
Proof that Tim Dunn doesn't read or gives a uck on what other people say but only objective is to argues with rest of us.
TD Fluff:
"Also, the job posting says a retired pilot with 777/787 familiarity"
Fact:
Job posting says "experience of operating the Boeing 777 or 787"
Job posting used the term "retired" or equivalent ZERO times.
Yet Tim is still trying to argue.
Proof that Tim Dunn doesn't read or gives a uck on what other people say but only objective is to argues with rest of us.
and yet no CURRENTLY type rated and working 777 or 787 pilot will work for that salary.
Retired is exactly what they are willing to hire and a post above this confirms it is a nice gig for retired AA pilots.
The argumentative nature is yours. ALL yours
Basic reading comprehension for 6 year old.
Statement:
Looking to hire a retired DL apologist.
Situation:
Only person that shows up is a retarded DL apologist.
Facts:
1. Looking to hire someone retired.
2. Retarded still an apologist, retired or not isn't mentioned nor relevant.
Conclusion:
1. Doesn't mean retarded gets hired
2. Regardless of who is hired. The retarded is still a retard.
Excellent idea . And also a first officer to do the radio .