Engineering Shortage Creating Havoc

The US airlines are experiencing an exhaustive recruitment process, somewhat akin to extracting gold from low grade ore. For example, during 1987 Delta screened 12,000 engineering applicants; of this number, 1,400 were considered worth interviewing. . . 350 were eventually hired. Part of the American problem, apparently, is the failure of technical institutions to keep up with the new technology, such as composite materials, high bypass fan engines and the new generation glass cockpits. It has been suggested that airlines need to invest in the technical institutions in order to bring standards up to their expectations and to put something into the area from which they take so much. In Australia the situation is slightly different. The education factor is not so critical, as licenced aeronautical maintenance engineers (LAMEs) do receive fairly comprehensive theory courses compared with their American counterparts, albeit over a greater period (with the inference that it takes a longer time to qualify and thus makes the initial decision to become an engineer less attractive). It is this long gestation from tyro to veteran that is partly contributing to the problem in Australia.

Australian Airlines was the only major carrier to maintain a full apprentice-engineer recruitment programme during the hard times of the early eighties. As a result, the airline now enjoys a situation where a good number of newly qualified engineers are now coming up to speed and able to provide useful support to more senior engineers. The question. does arise however whether the airline will be able to maintain the status quo with their current remuneration packages.

While Ansett reduced its intake programme during the recession, it has benefited more recently by enticing away a number of Qantas engineers with its offer of substantially more money. At present, it is no secret that Qantas is feeling the shortage-not to a level where standards are affected, but the airline is deeply concerned about its shortage; and certainly about how to retain its existing workforce, especially when government intervention frustrates the airline’s attempts to improve remuneration for engineers. Qantas this year is spending $74m on training alone which will involve at one time or another around 12,000 of the Company’s workforce. In fact, 8% of the airline’s manpower costs this year are being directed at training, that’s four times the national average. (Refer Alan Terrell interview this issue. ) Even the CAA is stressed to the limit in its Airworthiness division. At the beginning of this year there were only 144 airworthiness surveyors as against a requirement for 183. Furthermore 39 of these 144 are due to retire in the coming year and it is expected that this number again will probably defect to industry owing to the present low pay and morale experienced within the CAA. Most estimates put the present CAA engineer/surveyor pay structure at least $15,000 per annum below that of the airlines. (Refer Recce, p. 4) Corporate and general aviation are also, having their difficulties. Some have expressed disillusion with the investment required to train an apprentice-engineer from beginning to end only to have the candidate then defect to another camp where the grass is greener.

One corporate aviation manager expresses what he describes as a realistic view of the situation: “We’ve just recently lost three engineers. It’s disappointing when it happens, but usually comes as no great surprise. They simply don’t get paid enough for what they do in most places. It’s all out of context. It can take 14 years for an engineer to get all of his licences and really be a good operator. How long does it take a lot of other professions- a third of that time? And they end up making three times as much money. We simply have to pay them more to keep them. ” In the corporate sector, there is a growing consensus that it would be far more satisfactory to double LAMES’ salaries in order to retain a full complement of engineers and thus achieve a more rapid turnaround time in the hangar. After all, it is argued, it is cheaper to budget another $500 a day and get a job done in two days instead of two weeks – the latter due to a too thin spread of skilled engineers over too manyjobs-because to have a corporate jet on the ground could be costing $3,000 a day in lost revenue. So where do the missing engineers go? Many simply go to other companies that pay more. Some go overseas. Others leave the hangar floor and enter specialised areas such as sales, consultancies and special project work. Some further their qualifications and move into specialised areas such as avionics and simulation.

For all of the operators it would appear that there is no short-term solution apart from a monetary one. Certainly without making a LAME’s lot decidedly more attractive, the current problem will only continue to grow.