Wages of Aircraft Maintenance Tecnician

[Enrique Lobo]

Dear colleqeues.
How do we can let the aviation industry see that they cannot go around us?
Should we call of a day of ground engineers (c.q. licenced personal)?
They know we are getting scarce, but does the public now??
Do the public know because of the low wages no one is interested in the job.
The result is that it is getting getting riscier everyday to get in to an a/c .
We should form an international organisation of Licenced Personel to get some answers and/or to seek the publicity.
What a group of people is trying now is to discover the difference of wages of Licenced Personel on the most important airports.
We need your help for this data.
So we can show the public and airline companies that we are underpaid for what we do.
Help us send data about wages to me.
And perhaps we can do something about it together.

[reracker]

In the UK some of us are represented by The Association of Licensed Aircraft Engineers. The ALAE is a member of an organisation called Aircraft Enginners International.

To be quite honest I don't know what they do, I can't find a web-site, who they represent and who they lobby on our behalf but they do exist. I presume they would be able to give you this information if you could locate them!

Anybody any ideas ???

[spannersatcx]

AEI Link http://www.airengineers.org/

[SchmiteGoBust]

Helo Enrique,
We need an e-mail address to send you info my friend.
This seems a very good idea to me!!

[Tallbloke]

ALAE http://www.alae.co.uk

[Enrique Lobo]

Sorry that i didn't put the e-mail adress to it. I thought it was included.
please mail to [email protected]

[Blacksheep]

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).]

[Enrique Lobo]

Blacksheep i agree completely with you.
A lot of Lae's cannot stand the pressure and will somehow release the aicraft even if they know the a/c was maintained by people with liitle or no training at all.
The employers however say if you don't like the situation go elswhere.
If the Lae goes to the NAA he will get problems a with the NAA (because he took an illegal action ) but also from the side of his employer (who will get a warning and a fine from the NAA).
The person himself can lose its licence and the employer will laugh because there are still enough licenced personel who can sign off without making problems .
The good guy has to leave.
The thing is we have to obey the rules,if the employer likes it or not.
I think by getting more interested people for the job (in the end its the salary that counts) we will get more time and safer aircraft.
And yes it will cost more for the company and more for the passenger.
If we can give an idea to the companies that they cannot go around us and let them now whe won't it for less they simply have to go with it.
The few people who go and sign off a complete c-check will soon fall.
Let us communicate and don't lose our heads.
Talk about it and convince the others to work only acc. Maint Manual.

[roo 2]

i tell you what the ALAE are into in Australia reracker.There into doing deals with the airlines to take work away from them and set up there own hangers where the wages are so poor that they can only employee people from the auto industry that assembly cars.This is going on without the approval of it's members and much to the detrement of the quality that these aircraft were once maintained too for the world's safest airline.They too have now become a greedy industry(the ALAE) ,which is only interested in making a profit and not looking after the interests of it's members,which in the long term will only be hurt by this betrayal.

[This message has been edited by roo 2 (edited 18 November 2000).]

[The Weasel]

Enrique, I fully agree with you about working to the manuals and company procedures at all times. However I have always tried to uphold this standard and found some serious brick walls.The management always seem to fail to get the aircraft washed properly for inspections and for corrosion inhibitor application,they seem unable to provide an adequate and timely supply of spares and tools/equipment etc. They never give you enough time to clean the aircraft to the required standard yourself. When you do record a significant defect which is fully justifiable they still argue that its within limits. When you dig your heels in and refuse to action a job which cannot be done to the published standard, they say they will get night shift to do it.There is always someone who will cut corners to get in favour with the Managers because thats how they get first options for overtime and improved chances for promotion.If you continue to uphold the standards you soon make a bad name for yourself and some of the shop floor cowboys then refuse to work for you for fear of being reported for substandard practices.I have even found that some of the union officials unofficially support cutting corners as they say the only way to keep jobs is to stay competitive and if you work to the book you will never get an aircraft out of the hangar.When discussing possible action for a pay rise the union officials will not consider a work to rule as they say nobody would be able to stick to it as they dont even know the full extent of what that would entail.I still havent worked out how we in the business of preventative maintenance should ever NOT be working to rule! Basically we are stuffed from above and below in the position of an LAE.

[The Weasel]

Enrique, I fully agree with you about working to the manuals and company procedures at all times. However I have always tried to uphold this standard and found some serious brick walls.The management always seem to fail to get the aircraft washed properly for inspections and for corrosion inhibitor application,they seem unable to provide an adequate and timely supply of spares and tools/equipment etc. They never give you enough time to clean the aircraft to the required standard yourself. When you do record a significant defect which is fully justifiable they still argue that its within limits. When you dig your heels in and refuse to action a job which cannot be done to the published standard, they say they will get night shift to do it.There is always someone who will cut corners to get in favour with the Managers because thats how they get first options for overtime and improved chances for promotion.If you continue to uphold the standards you soon make a bad name for yourself and some of the shop floor cowboys then refuse to work for you for fear of being reported for substandard practices.I have even found that some of the union officials unofficially support cutting corners as they say the only way to keep jobs is to stay competitive and if you work to the book you will never get an aircraft out of the hangar.When discussing possible action for a pay rise the union officials will not consider a work to rule as they say nobody would be able to stick to it as they dont even know the full extent of what that would entail.I still havent worked out how we in the business of preventative maintenance should ever NOT be working to rule! Basically we are stuffed from above and below in the position of an LAE.
Human factors and lack of integrity may pay a part in our percieved low value to the operator, but more on that later.

[jetfueldrinker]

I did hear from a bloke in the pub (that's where I get all the good gen from) that a certain operators aircraft was bounced down a certain runway recently. When it went for heave landing checks done by a certain maintenance organisation, the CAA survayor poped his head in to look at a few of the bits that got bent. On looking through the paperwork, he noticed too many lapses, went away and filed a level 1 NCR, which basicaly meant that they had a week to sort themselves out or they would be shut down. Now I don't know how true this is, but if it is, surely everyone can and must do their job 'by the book'. It only takes a snap inspection by the nice men from the CAA to trip someone up and they may find themselves broardening their horizons elsewhere.

2 questions:-

1/ did the incident really happen and to whome?

2/ would management really stick by you if you found yourself being picked up by an official for taking short cuts on management's instructions?

Let's know

JFD