More Than the Money

Thanks to all of you that participated in the recent questions that were posed. Interesting, there were no responses that I saw related to what regulations might be changed for the better. Question three drew the most responses, all of which were clearly informed and represented the true opinions of the writers — including Bob M., who is happy at what he does and his position in life. Bob, you are truly blessed, but I do not think most of your peers share your feelings. After reviewing the comments to question three I spent some time on the Department of Labor site —  and while admittedly not an exhaustive study — I did become more informed about the numbers holding a position with a certain title, what the median pay is, how the position is defined, schooling needed, opportunities in the future, etc. What I learned, and this is probably not any news to most of you, is that the aviation mechanic or technician is for the most part one of the better paid “mechanics or technicians,†compared to others so defined. The difference comes when you designate someone an “engineer.†Nuclear engineers, aerospace engineers, etc., make much better money. Yet it is true that in Canada and Europe the aviation mechanic is an engineer — so it would seem a rose by any other name would not smell as sweet. So, if it’s money or the opportunity to make more money that is the issue, then there appears to be something amiss. If, as I suspect, it is more than money, then what might be needed is a better packaging of the profession. Such might not only relate to a title that engenders the respect it deserves, it might also include a campaign to make the general public and business leaders and politicians more aware of the contributions to safety and efficiency made by the profession. A good idea might also be to make such a campaign first within the profession itself, with the objective of generating core values and esteem that flows outward. Am I being realistic or fantasizing?