The problem is aired in several other threads. At the simplest level, if supply is short and demand is high then the clearing price rises. If there is a shortage of a particular type of skill and the need for such skills rises (or even remains constant) then the wages paid to those possessing that skill will rise. This simplified view is true only in what economists call an efficient labour market.
What then, is wrong with the labour market for Aircraft Maintenance Technicians? There are definitely more aircraft needing maintenance. Those who exercise technical maintenance skills find the pressure upon them increasing. On another thread we heard from an Avionics LAE who simultaneously covered two seperate "C" Checks on his own, which would once have been unheard of. The answer is that equilibrium wages remain low, because the shortage in supply is matched by a reduction in demand. Although maintenance needs are increasing, the operators deliberately lower their demand for the necessary skills and do not hire or train additional technicians. They extract more labour for the same pay. This is technically not allowed by the regulations which actually specify that a sufficient number of staff must be employed to carry out the tasks properly. The actual numbers needed are not however, written into the rules. The regulators must therefore be satisfied with the current situation and do not, at least publicly, consider or admit that a problem exists.
Not only are the airworthiness authorites colluding in the practice, WE ARE TOO! As long as we sign certificates that the work has been fully and properly carried out in accordance with all legal requirements we are just as much to blame as the employers and regulators. Did the Avionics chap who covered two "C" Checks on his own sign the release certificates? He ought not to have done, as his situation was clearly in breach of the staffing requirements. By signing regardless, we each contribute to the problem. Only when aircraft stop making it to the gate on time will our position improve. We cannot simply blame our employers and the regulatory authorities that let them get away with it. Carefully implied threats commonly used to get certifying staff to cooperate are no more than bluff.
It is in the end our own responsibility to demand that the minimum standards are adhered to. Remember that the standards laid down in the regulations are not an optimum standard, they are the bare minimum and anything less takes us straight into the danger zone. If we want better conditions and salaries we must earn them. That means standing our ground and insisting on at least the minimum standards being met.
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
[This message has been edited by Blacksheep (edited 16 November 2000).]