Just curious. Is Michael Moore's latest movie Capitalism: A Love Story playing on your side of the pond?

I saw it the other day and he touches on the subject of the poor rates of pay given to commuter plane pilots here in the U.S. He interviewed a couple of them -- one guy was on food stamps and another one admitted selling his blood plasma to supplement his meager earnings as a pilot. I knew things were bad but I didn't know they were that bad. The co-pilot on that Continental Express plane that crashed near Buffalo, NY a few months ago was making something like $17,000 (US) and had a second job as a waitress.

I'm on his mailing list, and the other day I received this:

Sunday, October 11th, 2009

Pilots on Food Stamps

By Michael Moore

We're on the descent from 20,000 feet in the air when the flight attendant leans over the elderly woman next to me and taps me on the shoulder.

"I'm listening to Lady Gaga," I say as I remove just one of the ear buds. I know not this Lady Gaga, but her performance last week on SNL was fascinating.

"The pilots would like to see you in the cockpit when we land," she says with a southern drawl.

"Did I do something wrong?"

"No. They have something to show you." (The last time an employee of an airline wanted to show me something it was her written reprimand for eating an in-flight meal without paying for it. "Yes," she said, "we have to pay for our own meals on board now.")

The plane landed and I stepped into the cockpit. "Read this," the first officer said. He handed me a letter from the airline to him. It was headlined "LETTER OF CONCERN." It seems this poor fellow had taken three sick days in the past year. The letter was a warning not to take another one -- or else.

"Great," I said. "Just what I want -- you coming to work sick, flying me up in the air and asking to borrow the barf bag from my seatback pocket."

He then showed me his pay stub. He took home $405 this week. My life was completely and totally in his hands for the past hour and he's paid less than the kid who delivers my pizza.

I told the guys that I have a whole section in my new movie about how pilots are treated (using pilots as only one example of how people's wages have been slashed and the middle class decimated). In the movie I interview a pilot for a major airline who made $17,000 last year. For four months he was eligible -- and received -- food stamps. Another pilot in the film has a second job as a dog walker.

"I have a second job!," the two pilots said in unison. One is a substitute teacher. The other works in a coffee shop. You know, maybe it's just me, but the two occupations whose workers shouldn't be humpin' a second job are brain surgeons and airline pilots. Call me crazy.

I told them about how Capt. "Sully" Sullenberger (the pilot who safely landed the jet in the Hudson River) had testified in Congress that no pilot he knows wants any of their children to become a pilot. Pilots, he said, are completely demoralized. He spoke of how his pay has been cut 40% and his own pension eliminated. Most of the TV news didn't cover his remarks and the congressmen quickly forgot them. They just wanted him to play the role of "HERO," but he was on a more important mission. He's in my movie.

"I hadn't heard anywhere that this stuff about the airlines is in this new movie," the pilot said.

"No, you wouldn't," I replied. "The press likes to talk about me, not the movie."

And it's true. I've been surprised (and slightly annoyed) that, with all that's been written and talked about "Capitalism: A Love Story," very little attention has been paid the mind-blowing stuff in the film: pilots on food stamps, companies secretly taking out life insurance policies on employees and hoping they die young so the company can collect, judges getting kickbacks from the private prison industry for sending innocent people (kids) to be locked up. The profit motive -- it's a killer.

Especially when your pilot started his day at 6am working at the local Starbucks.

ONTPax :eek:

Total bolleaux. No pilot that I know of would invite a 25 stone lard-arse up front to spoil his CofG calculations.:}

If Micheal Moore told me the time and it agreed with my watch, I would change my watch...it's obviously wrong.

Moore should be shot. He's a one-man money making machine that doesn't care one jot for anyone else. He's dim, and writes rubbish, but the trots and pinkoes in a number of countries read and listen to his rubbish.

He deserves immediate execution.

Maybe that's too good for him? A slow death listenning to the collected speeches of Stalin and lenin, with no remission?

It's so ironic. M. Moore is a very successful capitalist, raking in $million$ from his anticapitalist flicks. :rolleyes:

When he's given every penny he's ever earnt to some good cause, then I might read more of his crap.

However, he's a multi-millionaire who cons other people out of their hard-earnt money.

The trots and pinkoes in Hollywood - multi-millionaires them selves, love him.

Maybe that's too good for him?


How about a government mandated and supervised diet for him?

He's all about healthcare reform. Let it start with him.

I think Team America portrayed him about right. Observe the hot dog in his right hand.

http://hollywoodhubbub.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/team-america-michael-moore.jpg

Team America rocks my world

This discussion comes down to the basic question ; Is Mr. Moore anti - establishment or is he part of the ( now seemingly corrupt ) establishment. I tend to believe he is anti establishment. He`s a documentary film maker , he`s not a slum lord or loan shark. Sure he`s making money , but unlike the airlines , banks , investment houses , insurance companies , mines , tire manufacturers , oil companies and just about every other purely capitalist enterprise , he is doing it without blatantly taking advatage of someone else. Those people that say they are being conned into watching his movies and then demanding refunds when they disagree with the contents should therefore stay consistent and demand a return on every movie they dislike or disagree with . People that retort, " but he`s a millionaire and therefore a hypocrit..." , well some people just don`t get it. Fools don`t have a monopoly on the truth.

Fair go guys!!! He does have some bad qualities as well.

Michael Moore said:

...and he's paid less than the kid who delivers my pizza.

I should hope that a kid delivering his pizza is at the top of pay scales. Imagine the amount of pizza that is being delivered to this fatso.





Please do not take my comment as being flippant about industry's real compensation problems.

Sure he`s making money , but unlike the airlines , banks , investment houses , insurance companies , mines , tire manufacturers , oil companies and just about every other purely capitalist enterprise , he is doing it without blatantly taking advatage of someone else.

And every one of those enterprises provides a product or service at a mutually-agreed price. To the extent they fulfill the terms of a contract, they ARE NOT "blatantly taking advantage of someone else".

It's when government intervenes, fixing prices or limiting competition or imposing extra requirements, that the ripoffs occur.

unlike the airlines , banks , investment houses , insurance companies , mines , tire manufacturers , oil companies and just about every other purely capitalist enterprise , he is doing it without blatantly taking advatage of someone else.

That's not true, though. He's taking advantage of the people he stitches up. What about his cynical interview with Charlton Heston? I'm all in favour of gun control, but that was beyond the pale.

tg-rWqcV9oE

Please do not take my comment as being flippant about industry's real compensation problems.

No - I'll just take it as a sign that you can't get past the messenger to see the actual issue.

Curious Pax, Even Michael Moore admitted that the reason it was glossed over is because the press focus on him more than his movies.

If Michael really cared about getting his message across, rather than his movie sales, he would be less about antics and more about substance.

He does have some valid points, though they are all overshadowed by his antics, and that serves no-one but his ego, and takes away from the importance of the message.

And in your statement against Dushan, well, he did get past the messenger and get the message, hence his explicit comment. Does this mean he is not allowed to voice his comments about the messenger?

Curious Pax's statement to Dushan, yes, that was shooting the messenger...

Dushan making a critical statement of Michael Moore, well, last I checked he was not part of this debate, merely the subject there of.

Do Jet Blast ROE apply to those not participating?

Reading the gist of what Moore is saying here seems to ring a few bells and is borne out by some facts.

Attacking his argument or point or view by sneering at his weight seems to be the tactic of the mentally decrepit.

Personally I don't much care for Mr Moore but that is irrelevant when what he is saying is susbtantially true.

MB
1. I'm glad that someone else makes typos.
2. You'll need to edit it, or Sprogs will be along to complain.

I'll let Dushan speak for himself....

I on the other hand don't recall attacking Mr Moore (in this thread), merely pointing out that the way he delivers his message detracts from the message, particularly in this case.

I am happy to go on record though as saying I have and will continue to criticize Michael Moore as long as he continues to use cheap publicity stunts to promote himself. As it is "all about him" he makes himself fair game, as has been pointed out by countless others, including those that set out with the objective of supporting him (like the Canadian documentary couple).

Though seeing that you opened the door, so to speak; if he really cared about Pilots and this issue he would make it an issue of itself, and rally up support and publicity to make this a national issue.

What did he do? He wrote a paragraph on his blog, and a 5 min segment in his movie that covered a thousand other topics. Hardly promoting the issue, but just enough to be able to claim credit for addressing the issue.

His behavior is equal to that of someone else who is the topic of another thread, all talk and no action, wanting to get awards for rhetoric and not achievements.

If he gets pilots the pay increase that the lower rung so desperately deserve, I'll be the first to praise him.

Attacking his argument or point or view by sneering at his weight seems to be the tactic of the mentally decrepit.


Are we talking about Moore or the messenger? If the latter, then we have definitely jumped from the ball to the player, and we all know where that leads to.

You are right Dushan ad hominem attacks are weak aren't they!


@<hidden>

Dare I risk the wrath of the Sproggmeister? :ok:

Hey, I'm Spartacus and I made fun of Michael Moore for his weight.

He's a fat b@<hidden>. If he wants to use his pulpit to preach for government run healthcare, then I want a say in how those funds (my tax dollars) are used. His obviously unhealthy lifestyle is going to cost me money.

Damned if I'll pay to see his "documentaries," although I thought those vehicles were supposed to present both sides of an issue, not just the filmmaker's, so why should I pay for his lack of discipline when it comes to donuts?

I was talking to a senior pilot with a big American carrier the other day and admitted that I envied commercial pilots and their lifestyle.

He told me to shut up and I listened for about 45 minutes and what I heard was not a million miles from what is in the Moore article noted in post #1.

He was not suggesting he was struggling but noted that T&C's across the industry were becoming less and less amenable for many in the industry, with some extreme examples of hardship among the regional and smaller carriers and their staff.

Under "Airline Profiles" the salary figures are fairly accurate.

http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/

because MM beleched about the issue forth from his cakehole, we can't give credit to Mike Moore as being "the messenger" on such an issue.

As we all know we have watched several documentaries and news stories highlighting the issue over the past couple of years, it's even been addressed in greater context too.

messenger or drumming up self publicity ?

Now that I've perused the Michael Moore thread more carefully I'm kind of happy that I opened this thread for the reason Michael Birbeck mentions: mine is supposed to bring out the point about pilots' poor pay as opposed to what one might think about Micheal Moore. I was actually aghast at the whole idea of pilots and poor pay.
I used to think differently about that issue. (ie, pilots earn big $$$$$) To think that is not the case is sobering. At a minimum.

One doesn't live on air and sentiment alone but the fellow I was talking to answered one question fairly bluntly. I asked him whether he'd rather be doing anything else? The simple answer was 'no'. Kind of says it all to me!

I would be interested to hear what some of the hard nosed, battle scarred aviation veterans might think of my naive and perhaps rose tinted view of the industry?

i can definately account for being battle scarred from this industry.

knowing what i know now, if i could wind the clock back, i would still be in this industry.. the only difference being i would have sat the bar before hand, that way i could least make some good money in it ! :E

There is an inherent fallacy that if your father made good money in a given field, you can do likewise. If your father sold Oldsmobiles, you'd better find a different line of work!

@<hidden>

I salute the wisdom of what you are saying.

What I fear is that we are going through a model/paradigm change right now in multiple industries and the results are disturbing to say the least.

Surely they could have waited until I had sold all my Edsels!

.....the other night I stood outside the motion-picture palace (in the freezing cold) just to see "Capitalism - A Love Story" but they would not let me in for free.
********************

Nor should Capitalism expect a pilot to work for virtually nothing V2!

MichaelB., I agree. Many young pilots are exploited. A couple of years ago a regional airline crashed here, killing the pilot and most of the pax.

The parents of the pilot talked a lot about this; how their son had dreams of flying for a major airline, and would work for peanuts with a shoddy company just to build his hours.

Maybe I am wrong in saying this, but the retired major airline pilots seem to be indifferent about this plight: "I paid my dues too; no one helped me." I have seen this attitude in my own family - have kept my mouth shut - but it is something I do not understand. How much time can anyone spend on a golf course without giving back something to someone someday?
In fairness, what could they do? I don't really know, but there has to be something.

But kudos to Captain Sullenberger for bringing this to the public's attention.....and as much as I hate to say it, some credit to Michael Moore too.

I was talking to a senior pilot with a big American carrier the other day and admitted that I envied commercial pilots and their lifestyle.

...

He was not suggesting he was struggling but noted that T&C's across the industry were becoming less and less amenable for many in the industry, ....

Last I checked, life at a big American carrier and life at one of the regionals is a million miles apart.

You raise some interesting points there V2, particularly about giving something back. :ok:

I guess that the view that "I am all right Jack" or "hell, I had to pay my dues, let these youngsters learn from adversity" applies in many industries and may have some validity, however when it comes to the point of making a profession untenable then I say the pendulum has swung too far!

When pilots and crew are having to commute hundreds of miles, or living in motor homes, and are still not making a living wage then something has gone wrong.

Maybe passengers are going to have to give a little more too!

Michael... with all due respect to your previous posts, Moore produces one sided documentaries as if they are the Gospel and sadly, the world sees his films and boosts his bank account. He's a much a fraud as Al Gore.

If he bothered to include several perspectives, he might earn greater respect. But from my point of view, he does nothing but incite and for that, he's a sloppy hag. :=

Let's not forget that it is very difficult for pilots to go on strike in the US. The lengthly process is called the Railroad Labor Act.

@<hidden>

I have not seen Moore's documentary and have never seen one and probably never will.

However one only has to look at many industry sources (not least PPRuNe), the news and sadly some accident reports to see that in certain areas of the industry something rotten is afoot.

I am a keen private pilot at field that has a school training propsective ATPLs and the stress and strain these guys go through only to be pushed aside or led into servitude with some airlines beggars belief!

How far can this trend go I wonder?

If he bothered to include several perspectives, he might earn greater respect. But from my point of view, he does nothing but incite and for that, he's a sloppy hag.

Or more to the point, does he just not reinforce your frame of reference?

Was this thread strated to trash Moore's weight or to talk about Pilots on food stamps?:=


For the record, I don't care much for Moore's films either. But you won't catch me trashing his weight just as you won't catch me trashing brick's political views.:sad:

I agree that Moore plays fast & loose with the truth, but then so do Fox, that nutter on talk radio Liddy? so, hey ho. One of the great things about being a grown up is you get to hear this stuff & make your own mind up. It is cheap to point out that he's a fat git though.

Typo's permitted, I don't want you lot taking one for the new Rainboe...:uhoh:

I don't want you lot taking one for the new Rainboe...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/worry.gif

God forbid Sprogget but I, for one, appreciate being kept on my toes! :ok:

Sprogget, I don't think the references to his weight are because of prejumeters going off of the scales because of his obesity (excuse the pun)...

It is because if you look at Michael Moore the person, it is a complete contradiction to Michael Moore - the message.

He "complains" about Health reform and Capitalism, yet if you look at him, he is the symbol of unhealthy capitalism.

He is a living walking breathing contradiction.

I don't think anyone ever taught him that phrase "People in glass houses.....".

I don't think it is unfair to point out these contradictions; provided that is the intention.

I don't think it is unfair to point out these contradictions; provided that is the intention.


Fair point but some here seem more interested in making very cheap political points and risk throwing the baby out with the bath water!

If the devil himself actually tells the truth, is it not still the truth?

With the exception of Canadian Bacon (which was funny by the way), all his films are based on actual events.

My sentiments. given the form of some, doubts manifest themselves. Me, I prefer my polemic from Morgan Spurlock. McDonalds, the great Satan!:)

If the devil himself actually tells the truth, is it not still the truth?

If you don't trust the devil, how would you know he is telling the truth?

(this is a response to the question posed, not undermining the one of the two topics contained in the thread title)

I would request that ONTPax decides which of the two topics he wants to discuss, as they are two very separate issues, and I think linking a publicity piece by Moore detracts the serious issue of Pilot pay.

BTW... my reference to Moore being a "sloppy hag" was not about his weight, but about his documentary style.


And I don't mean to take away from the rapidly changing world of ATPL pilots, God knows I love 'em, but I have yet to understand why a pilot, these days, would live "hundreds of miles" from his base operation if his income no longer supports this. Surely one can find a home and school district closer to the airport? Can someone shed some light on this? :confused:

If you don't trust the devil, how would you know he is telling the truth?


By trusting myself and those around me who I respect.

Are we not able to take a proposition and debate it without becoming hung up on the personality or whatever of the source.

I humbly suggest that you make a proposition Birddog on this very relevant aviation related matter and we will relate to that and not MM if that makes it easier!

With the exception of Canadian Bacon (which was funny by the way), all his films are based on actual events.


So was Titanic featuring the delectable Kate Winslet.

Doesn't mean it was the truth.

My ire at Michael Moore, girth and all, is based on his hypocrisy.

His films are not documentaries. They are opinion pieces. I'd be fine if he presented them that way and could, in a way, admire him for being able to paint his view so well.

But he presents himself as a documentarian.

Like his weight is hypocritical for government provided healthcare, so too are his films in regards to presenting the facts.

but I have yet to understand why a pilot, these days, would live "hundreds of miles" from his base operation if his income no longer supports this. Surely one can find a home and school district closer to the airport? Can someone shed some light on this?

Let's see, hope to get picked up by a major down the road but first they must build hours. Flying at minimum wage is probably cheaper than actualy paying to fly, although...

Also when flying at minimum wage home ownership is a very long term goal.

His films are not documentaries. They are opinion pieces. I'd be fine if he presented them that way and could, in a way, admire him for being able to paint his view so well.

But he presents himself as a documentarian.


That is correct. MM uses hired actors and has script writers for the dialog, by his own admission. Therefore by definition they are not documentaries.

@<hidden>:

How is MM's weight hypocritical of government provided health care? I fail to see the correlation.

They are opinion pieces.

Kind of like what you see on Fox from the Fox clowns? And the MSNBC clowns for that matter, just to be balanced!

Are we not able to take a proposition and debate it without becoming hung up on the personality or whatever of the source?



Apparently not! :)

@<hidden> diner:

The mainstream media, or popular media as it is often referred to as, is filled with clowns. Clowns, talking heads and lots of fluff. And no substance at all. Nothing new there.

How is MM's weight hypocritical of government provided health care? I fail to see the connection.


It's related to a previous post of mine which drew some indignation.

He, Moore, wants government run healthcare.

If he wants that, then he couldn't object when that system put him on a strict diet in order to lessen the drain on the system due to complications inherent in obesity.

He couldn't very well complain about that logic, could he?

Or, being one of the 'elite,' despite his protestations of being an 'everyman,' would he?

And would the system treat him differently than it would you or I?

Politics will tend to stifle debate and aviation ultimately I guess.

I am off the watch the 2nd part of Kill Bill (not Clinton). :)

Point taken Brick. However, if you really believe those who are obese put a drain on the health care system (whether government or privately run) then you must admit then
that the current drain is huge. (pun intended) Because if you've ever read some of the statistics out there (for whatever they're worth) then you'd realize that the rate of obesity in this country is mind boggling. And if you don't believe these same statistics - I take 'em with a grain of salt - then one needs only use one's eyes for verification.
It is truly mind boggling and disgusting at the same time.
My point: maybe we do need a health care system which places the obese, or soon to be obese, on a strict diet. Seeing the same can't manage to do that themselves.

I can't abide Moore, but he raises some interesting questions. He messes it up by supplying his own answers, which are well spun to suit his own odd agenda. People tend to attack the messenger (how often have we heard that before), but there are times when I think his questions have to be addressed.

So was Titanic featuring the delectable Kate Winslet.

I saw an interview with the DKW where she discussed the wet nightie scene. Apparently, just as they were about to roll, she asked "Stiff willies, lads?". Ye have to love the gal. Brits will recall the episode of "Extras" in which, dressed as a nun, she was miming 'phone sex. Wonderful.

Obesity is sad.

My problem with Moore's credibility is divorced from his weight problem.

Michael Moore loves to lambaste the elitists, but his films have made enough from the "fat of the land" to enable him the luxury of closeting himself at the Pritikin Health and Longevity Centre at $3,800/week.

SEX.

Well, now that I have your attention . . .

Michael Moore employs similar tactics in his movies. He shocks to get your attention. Is that a crime?

I've run across quite a few people who absolutely refuse to watch anything made by Michael Moore, regardless of the subject matter. My stepfather is one of them. In his opinion, Michael Moore is the Devil Incarnate. At the same time, he stays glued to a constant diet of Fox News and certainly can find no fault in the way they report things.

These are people who have such a resolute hatred toward him that, if you were to tie them to a chair and force them to watch "Capitalism: A Love Story", they'd probably clench their eyes shut (to escape the visual) and scream at the top of their lungs (to avoid the audio).

I don't necessarily agree with everything that a Rush Limbaugh or a Glenn Beck preaches, but if I'm spinning the radio or TV dial, I'll stop and have a listen. I'll give them an opportunity to speak their piece. I'll take in what they have to say and then formulate my own opinion.

Why can't people who disagree with Michael Moore extend the same courtesy toward him?

What are they afraid of?

His opinion? :confused:

And, in my opinion, if a person has to pick on the man because he's overweight, well, that just illustrates the depths to which they'll stoop to find a fault, ANY FAULT, of the man. They've totally lost focus of the message he's trying to present.

None are so blind as those who will not see.

ONTPax

I have never said I would never watch anything by Micheal Moore, I just said I'd never pay any money to watch anything he made.

Shoot, I even listen to most of President Obama's speeches.

I guess it depends on how easily you want to get your message across.

Less contentious issues, and or less contentious the messenger, the more weight the message carries, and the harder it is for people to attack it.

My issue with Mikey, is he appears more concerned about his publicity rather than the publicity of the message.

I'm not saying that's not true for any of the contentious ring winger presenters, but then you probably apply the same filter to their messages as we do to Mikey.

It works both ways.

Hey con, what did you do after listening to GWB's speeches: reach for the dictionary?

Sorry couldn't resist. but you just knew I had to add something with GWB in it, didn't ya? You betcha!

<takes hat, gloves, scarf and coat and quietly goes into the night>

While I did find Moore's earlier doco "Roger and Me" interesting (but heck, I was more of a lefty in those days too) how far can a "documentarian" with a megaphone and a trucker's hat go?

Few are lining up for "Capitalism: A Love Story." Does this reflect what they really think of Michael Moore or has Moore's latest folly become a flashing marquee for those who bought into the great theatre of "Hope" and "Change" last November?

Hey con, what did you do after listening to GWB's speeches: reach for the dictionary?

Sorry couldn't resist. but you just knew I had to add something with GWB in it, didn't ya? You betcha!


I guess you did not get the memo the rest of the world received.

Bush is not President anymore, Obama is.

I was slightly disappointed with this thread as I thought it was going to have a lot of discussion about pilots' pay so I doubt if anyone here is interested in the original matter in hand - unfortunately I have no opinion whatsoever on Michael Moore so I cant contribute to that part of the argument.

I did however meet a pilot flying in a small airline down here in the South West a couple of years back who had taken a sustantial salary drop from his previous job as a London tube train driver to pursue a career in aviation. Bearing in mind that PPL, CPL and ATPL, plus ratings, had probably cost him something like £50k of his own money to obtain, it shows just how far from the truth the myth of big money to be made in aviation can be in many cases. Sure if you are a senior captain with a transatlantic carrier you will probably be pulling in a pretty decent salary, but there are plenty others just scraping by.

Sorry couldn't resist. but you just knew I had to add something with GWB in it, didn't ya? You betcha!

<takes hat, gloves, scarf and coat and quietly goes into the night>

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm107/APC11Fan/BBBush1.png

Man, anybody noticed how skinny that Bush guy is! :)

@<hidden>

I guess I was just naive trying to pursue a serious aviation related question here on JB.

I share your disapointment!

birddog wrote:

(this is a response to the question posed, not undermining the one of the two topics contained in the thread title)

I would request that ONTPax decides which of the two topics he wants to discuss, as they are two very separate issues, and I think linking a publicity piece by Moore detracts the serious issue of Pilot pay.

Blame it on the Mods. :=

I originally entitled this discussion thread, "Michael Moore Feels Your Pain". Had it remained under that title, it probably would have brought in only those participants who wanted to discuss Mr. Moore.

ONTPax

ONTPax

I was pursuing the aviation thing as were some others. I shall avaunt me now.

You might have just entitled the thread, Michael Moore fat :mad:, for all the sense we got though!

I refer you back to post #27 in this thread... there's a salary link for many pilot jobs worldwide... $18,000 per annum is pretty much what a FO for a regional carrier makes in Year 1... and not much more later.
While things vary, time to captaincy for legacy carriers in the US is typically greater than a decade at present, though salary figures (if one can get a job) are a little more acceptable, even for FOs.
Well north of $200K/annum was the norm for international captains ten years ago, very few approach that figure these days. Fedex and UPS pay higher than any US carrier... and, as I've been told... "Boxes don't b*tch."

Happiness of the long distance Freight Dog eh!

Um Lifting, I read your interesting link last night. The discrepancy between the regionals and the internationals is big though!

How does a young buck or buckess make it up the ladder these days, without buying a seat?

Prefixing any thread title with "Michael Moore," a flamist documentarian if there ever was one, is like pouring kerosene onto any discussion, never mind the kind of kindling many JB threads begin with.

Isn't R & N the place where all non-flammatory "hard wood" is supposed to be discussed anyways? And if there are any flare ups, the R & N mods are quick to extinguish it.

The bonfire of the vanities, pour on the fuel V2. The flyers have left Michael Moore to roast. :ok:

probably got that 'fact' from Pprune's R&N from a MSFS expert:rolleyes:

From M. Birbeck.


How does a young buck or buckess make it up the ladder these days, without buying a seat?


MB should'nt that be 'young buck or doe'?

I know...taxi please.

Um... lifting is correct. FedEx and UPS are among the last of the decent paying gigs. (worked there for 13+yrs and still have friends there) UPS is union, FedEx is not.

I was told by a senior capt with A/A, that the pilots at FedEx negotiated their salaries with management to prevent as many pilots from being furloughed as possible. Never would happen anywhere else, IMHO. I told the A/A pilot who shared this with me, that it made me proud to see FedEx still had the company spirit when it counted and he pretty much told me I was an idiot. Union, union, union, right? Who would you rather work for and work beside?

I have no reason to believe he was in error with these details , but I didn't back down from my position.