Originally Posted by
400_Hertz
You can try queuing up with all the other graduates looking for the same cushy number, designing turbine blades for Rolls Royce, these jobs are just not there any more, not by judging the things that graduates tell me anyway. The trouble is that these guys are a victim of a whole skewed educational system (from 12yo school kids to uni grads) encouraging young people to attend colleges and unis at any cost, with little prospect of a career, enabling massive loans that take years to pay off, especially on the limited salaries they get stacking ASDA shelves (or for some reason, driving delivery vans as many seem to).
Those jobs may or may not be cushy, but they do still exist. If not at RR, at Airbus on the A400M, at BAeS on Typhoon, at WHL on Merlin variants...
But you do make a good point, the country has pushed too many people into degrees who would be happier in technician jobs, and made apprenticeship places too scarce. On the other hand, there are still a lot of jobs which need engineering graduates
Some eager students drop out of these courses early due to the high maths content (they wanted to be technicians in the first place and misguidedly, they took the course thinking it would be aircraft-based but the closest you get to the aircraft is a photo of one at the top of the acronyms page in their notes). When will Unis realise that they should offer the academic with the industry-standard qualifications?
The maths content is tough on any engineering degree, 'tis true, and the lack of content with aircraft during the course can be demoralising. When I was doing my BEng I often escaped to the local aircraft museum to recharge my moral batteries - on the other hand I've been around aeroplanes pretty much continuously since I graduated a couple of decades ago, so it was a temporary snag.
I simply fall on the side of the technician who chooses a different path, studies just as hard but has something the industry needs and wants in the form of both academic and practical experience at the end of all the hard work.
Both technicians and graduate engineers need both academic and practical experience if they're going to get anywhere: the difference is in the proportions.
It's easier financially studying for a degree when you are living on a B1 or B2 salary, so there's nothing to stop these guys go engineering first and then academia. I'm sure you could find a better outlook with employers with your Part-66 qualifications and experienced backed up by a degree.
A part 66 qualification is of probably little more value in the design office or research lab than, say, a long summer of work experience in the hangar. It is the degree that really counts there. Also, since there are virtually no opportunities to study for a BEng or MEng in aeronautical or mechanical engineering whilst working full time - what you propose just isn't possible. More's the pity.
OK, this all helps the OP not one bit, but at least I'm not blowing smoke up his rear telling him things will be rosy in the end.
It wasn't, but I didn't see anybody saying that the job would be easy to find, easy to do, or achievable without a lifetime of continuous further training and education either. Much like becoming a technician.
Dodo's post was useful with the links, might be an idea to include the Part-145 organisations as well next time. What about
this link for Part-145 orgs? Or
This one for Part-M? But to be honest, it's going to take a serious amount of time and effort to even get a reply.
Completely pointless actually, since part 145 organisations are just about as likely to employ aerospace engineering graduates as the design office at BAe military is to employ a B1 technician. Both might have the odd one for their specific experience, but there's no career there.
A further, and less negative note. The various agency websites are pretty poor for aero-eng graduate jobs. The best thing is to specifically target the websites of the employers that interest you, bookmark them, then go back and check regularly. BAe, Westlands, RR, Airbus, Bombardier, Cobham, Thales, Qinetiq would be a good start - then look at the 1001 smaller companies that you read about in Flight, Aerospace International and so-on. In fact, it's often the smaller companies that have the most interesting jobs since you're likely to see much more breadth of engineering than working on wing structures at Warton.
G