Dozy - I would personally define somebody with a 4 year apprenticeship and an ONC as a technician. Certainly, they should qualify for Eng.Tech status with appropriate work experience.
Blacksheep - I agree with you in general, but some of your facts are wrong. I think that anybody should have the potential to reach any level if they've the ability and experience. The RAeS uses the term "corporate members" for Members and Fellows, but has other grades, postnominals, etc. all levels of qualification from the Chairman of BA to an aircraft spotter.
The RAeS grading guide states that appropriate qualifications for Associate includes a LWTR and for Associate Member (ARAeS) a Licensed engineer holding full CRS approval - which is the Eng.Tech level. There is a sliding scale of experience .v. qualifications - more experience, less qualifications you're deemed to require and visa versa. A hangar chief with 15 years experience and all the normal licenses should qualify as a Member (corporate) as I read the RAeS grading guide anyway.
I do not agree with the EngC on many things - they are too obsessed with full time education rather than practical experience (you need a bit of both - but I'd argue that the latter is always more important). However they are there to represent us. I don't think we should regard ourselves as fundamentally apart from the rest of the Engineering profession, and in this context - they publish a bloody useful salary survey.
Please don't take me as an apologist for the Eng.C / RAeS system, there's a lot wrong with it. I've spent the last 2 years attending meetings at Hamilton place to get greater recognition of GA & non-academically qualified people - which I find the more constructive approach than just criticising.
Genghis CEng