Sounds like a bit of axe grinding to me.
I don't know of any CEng type Engineer who has any problem with the fact that a technician type Engineer is a highly trained and qualified professional. The fact is you are trusted to keep them running, I'm trusted to sign the design of the thing off in the first place as fit for service. Neither of these are trivial tasks, and both require a great deal of academic and practical training. The difference, to me, is that you can't be employed in your job without proving you've met the required standards. It is possible to bluff your way into mine without any formal training or qualifications at-all. That is my grounds for a license to practice.
And incidentally, if you inquired you'd find that many senior managers hold your type of qualifications not mine, and that many "white collar" engineers on the design and certification (or management) side at places like BAe, Britten-Norman, etc. make a good deal less money than a good LAME. I used the term "management level", because the American term "professional engineer" implies that I am and you are not, which I find inappropriate and demeaning to fellow aviation professionals who just happen to have a different set of pieces of paper.
Most technicians can't drive or design an aeroplane, most pilots can't fix or design an aeroplane, most designers can't fix, build or fly. Nonetheless, we all trained for a lot of years to get where we are. I find the engineer's "the pilot can only fly it until it breaks", as infantile as the pilot's "grounding an aircraft for maintenance is like the tail wagging the dog" and I've heard both far too bloody often.
G