Originally posted by publisher
"First, we have not touted or promoted anything. We did do a story on Gulfstream. They do exist, they have a program, whether you like the way they do it, they are a legitimate company, and, hence a legitimate story".
I see. . . How much advertising revenue has your company (including its parent company) received from Gulfstream? Do you think that it could have colored your "reporting" a little?
"Second, AEPS is the Aviation--not airline--- EPS. We sell no materials on how to become one at all. Air Inc is geared specifically to airline pilot careers, not us".
Oh, come on- that's just not being honest! You may not target the pre-Private crowd, but the rest of your statement is pure hogwash.
"Lastly, I am not debating the merits or lack of merit of the fact some people elect to pay to build the time in this manner. In the PM, my point is that in either case, the F/O is going to have the same experience level because these jobs paid or not paid are traditional time builders that pay very little".
What you refuse to see is how your one-sided coverage of companies like Gulfstream helps justify turning entry-level positions into further extensions of flight training programs. This clearly hurts the audience you profess to want to serve. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
"What I do resent is that you are condeming my magazine and company because we printed an article on a company you do not care for".
No, I condemn you and your magazine and company because of your effects on our Industry ("Come be a Pilot!") and because you have the gall to pose as a legitimate magazine when you basically exist to write glowing, breathless articles about your advertisers. Gulfstream is just the most blatant example.
"Last year we printed about 3500 articles. We should have asked you how you felt about these companies first."
Uh, sorry, but I don't have the time or the stomach to wade through any more of your drivel- I get enough of it on this board.
Thank you, Come Again!