What's the Job Worth ?
Cunning Artificer
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,125
Likes: 7
From: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Ghengis,
Have you ever considered that the Engineering Council might be part of the problem?
At one time the Engineering Institutes were a route to professional status for engineering technicians that were unable, for various reasons, to attend university. Over the years they have evolved into an exclusive network. By layering the engineering profession into rigid group classifications while increasing the qualification levels retrospectively, they have helped large companies in the "divide and rule" policy that underpins their "human resource" policies. In particular you may note the Royal Aeronautical Society's exclusion from corporate membership of all engineering staff other than Chartered Engineers. At the same time, Cabin Crew with five years in the job are qualified for corporate membership, as are holders of a Commercial Pilots Licence. Licenced Aircraft Engineers are not welcome; those who insist on joining are relegated to non-voting associate membership.
And we wonder why we are poorly paid? With such support from our own kind what can we expect?
The ALAE seems to be the way to go. Unity is strength, we will only move forward when we are united.
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Have you ever considered that the Engineering Council might be part of the problem?
At one time the Engineering Institutes were a route to professional status for engineering technicians that were unable, for various reasons, to attend university. Over the years they have evolved into an exclusive network. By layering the engineering profession into rigid group classifications while increasing the qualification levels retrospectively, they have helped large companies in the "divide and rule" policy that underpins their "human resource" policies. In particular you may note the Royal Aeronautical Society's exclusion from corporate membership of all engineering staff other than Chartered Engineers. At the same time, Cabin Crew with five years in the job are qualified for corporate membership, as are holders of a Commercial Pilots Licence. Licenced Aircraft Engineers are not welcome; those who insist on joining are relegated to non-voting associate membership.
And we wonder why we are poorly paid? With such support from our own kind what can we expect?
The ALAE seems to be the way to go. Unity is strength, we will only move forward when we are united.
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
Cunning Artificer
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,125
Likes: 7
From: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Genghis,
Seems like we are in broad agreement on most things and only differ on minor points. The RAeS does indeed provide lots of useful information such as the salary survey. Their website also carries an interesting Microsoft Powerpoint presentation on Human Factors that is a thought provoking reflection on the decline in maintenance standards.
I observe that wages in engineering in general and our own industry in particular, are declining with respect to wages for people with similar skill levels in other industries. Recruiting levels are down and there is an increasing shortage of qualified people. At the same time increased demand for air travel leads to a demand for more staff (as well as aircraft) in all areas including engineering. Now, according to economic theory in a competitive, efficient market, a shortage of supply coupled with an increase in demand must lead to a rise in market clearing price. In this case, wages.
Since this is not happening, some other factor must be in play. From simple observation of what is going on around me I note that the standards of training of new entrants is declining. Jobs that used to done by trained LAEs are now done by semi-skilled workers, supposedly under the direct supervision of the hard-pressed LAEs. Regulatory bodies, rather than being a public service, are required to pay their own way from funds generated from providing their 'services' rather than from taxation. Can you imagine the situation if the police had to finance themselves from revenues derived from fines? Meanwhile, airline owners and bosses contribute massive amounts of money to political parties and are rewarded by honours and distinction, not to mention the award of routes and slots.
Am I being too cynical? Perhaps, but the fact remains that while aviation safety continues to be stable and the accident rate due to operational causes such as CFIT continues to improve, the accident RATE due to maintenance related causes has more than doubled over the past ten years. From figures provided by the FAA, last year FAR131 operators suffered 7 hull losses due to maintenance related causes, this being 50% of total hull losses. Such figures leave no room for complacency.
Unless the numbers of well qualified, experienced engineers, technicians or mechanics - whatever we choose to call ourselves - increases, we will never halt the decline. The starting point is retaining the existing people followed by making the job attractive to new recruits. The method is to pay better wages and provide better working conditions.
The question asked at the top of this thread is "What's the job REALLY worth?"
My answer is "About 45,000 pounds a year, minimum (in UK anyway.) More for more qualifications and experience." Anyone care to disagree?
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Seems like we are in broad agreement on most things and only differ on minor points. The RAeS does indeed provide lots of useful information such as the salary survey. Their website also carries an interesting Microsoft Powerpoint presentation on Human Factors that is a thought provoking reflection on the decline in maintenance standards.
I observe that wages in engineering in general and our own industry in particular, are declining with respect to wages for people with similar skill levels in other industries. Recruiting levels are down and there is an increasing shortage of qualified people. At the same time increased demand for air travel leads to a demand for more staff (as well as aircraft) in all areas including engineering. Now, according to economic theory in a competitive, efficient market, a shortage of supply coupled with an increase in demand must lead to a rise in market clearing price. In this case, wages.
Since this is not happening, some other factor must be in play. From simple observation of what is going on around me I note that the standards of training of new entrants is declining. Jobs that used to done by trained LAEs are now done by semi-skilled workers, supposedly under the direct supervision of the hard-pressed LAEs. Regulatory bodies, rather than being a public service, are required to pay their own way from funds generated from providing their 'services' rather than from taxation. Can you imagine the situation if the police had to finance themselves from revenues derived from fines? Meanwhile, airline owners and bosses contribute massive amounts of money to political parties and are rewarded by honours and distinction, not to mention the award of routes and slots.
Am I being too cynical? Perhaps, but the fact remains that while aviation safety continues to be stable and the accident rate due to operational causes such as CFIT continues to improve, the accident RATE due to maintenance related causes has more than doubled over the past ten years. From figures provided by the FAA, last year FAR131 operators suffered 7 hull losses due to maintenance related causes, this being 50% of total hull losses. Such figures leave no room for complacency.
Unless the numbers of well qualified, experienced engineers, technicians or mechanics - whatever we choose to call ourselves - increases, we will never halt the decline. The starting point is retaining the existing people followed by making the job attractive to new recruits. The method is to pay better wages and provide better working conditions.
The question asked at the top of this thread is "What's the job REALLY worth?"
My answer is "About 45,000 pounds a year, minimum (in UK anyway.) More for more qualifications and experience." Anyone care to disagree?
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Guest
Posts: n/a
I agree Blacksheep - in fact you seem to have more or less summarised my letter to the boss about an annual payrise.
As a profession we don't help ourselves by and large - we allow too many unqualified people to take engineering management posts and are far from unified. We also don't provide many training opportunities for new people coming into the profession.
I have a personal hope that the current mass employment exercise by BAE / Airbus for the 777 development might well drive salaries up considerably in my sector of the industry, although I doubt it'll have quite the same benign effect upon maintenance salaries.
Incidentally, the RAeS have done one very useful thing recently - they've bowed to pressure and re-opened the members bar at Hamilton Place.
G
As a profession we don't help ourselves by and large - we allow too many unqualified people to take engineering management posts and are far from unified. We also don't provide many training opportunities for new people coming into the profession.
I have a personal hope that the current mass employment exercise by BAE / Airbus for the 777 development might well drive salaries up considerably in my sector of the industry, although I doubt it'll have quite the same benign effect upon maintenance salaries.
Incidentally, the RAeS have done one very useful thing recently - they've bowed to pressure and re-opened the members bar at Hamilton Place.
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
Certain companies seem to be of the opinion that enginners are valuable employees and are almost headhunting people, JMC at Gatwick and I understand Manchester are very nearly 100% LAME's, the wages seem to be heading in the right direction and I haven't heard of them being in a dire financial situation due to paying good money for good engineering. If a company like that can cope paying an average of £36-38k plus O/T(correct me if i'm wrong) a year to its engineers, surely others could too. As has been said the number of people coming into the industry is nowhere near the number leaving, or being promoted to a desk job. (Too many chiefs). This must push up wages by the simple process of supply and demand.
More and more work is being piled on the LAME's at our place as the others drift off to better paid jobs, they are around.
And sooner rather than later something is going to give and an incident will occur. We need more engineers and the only way to attract them is better pay, conditions and more awareness of what we do.
I am of firm belief the only way to raise our profile, wages and status, is together. I know it doesn't have the teeth of BALPA but until anybody comes up with a better idea than all joining the ALAE and turning it into an organisation that represents the whole of our noble profession, then we will still be typing into our PC's moaning in years to come.
More and more work is being piled on the LAME's at our place as the others drift off to better paid jobs, they are around.
And sooner rather than later something is going to give and an incident will occur. We need more engineers and the only way to attract them is better pay, conditions and more awareness of what we do.
I am of firm belief the only way to raise our profile, wages and status, is together. I know it doesn't have the teeth of BALPA but until anybody comes up with a better idea than all joining the ALAE and turning it into an organisation that represents the whole of our noble profession, then we will still be typing into our PC's moaning in years to come.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The job will always be low paid if there is low demand for LAME's as in the current climate. As Blacksheep and Spannersatcx will attest there are plenty to fill all voids in the business. JMC are well equipped due to their realistic salaries offered, BA are up to strength, VS are OK, so the only places short of people are the likes of Britannia, Monarch and FLS and who wants to work there, even for £50K. As previously mentioned there is plenty of cheap labour around who will accept a couple of pounds less so that will always fill the gap.
