On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:39:01 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:

On 16 Dec 2003 20:43:41 GMT, nt (Krztalizer) wrote:

Having been a ground pounder, then an aircrewman during the 1980s, my
experience with the term is limited. As jet mechs, we called the "pretty boys"
in flight suits that never had to stand a watch or get dirty by the negative
term "fly boys". Later, when it was my time in the flightsuit, periodically I
would be approached by women that used the term with much greater affection and
appreciation. I think that the term can be used like almost every other term,
either positively or negatively.

v/r
Gordon

While I can understand the jet mechs envy that the aviators never had
to "stand a watch or get dirty", I usually asked them how long the
average jet mech spent in Hanoi as a POW, or how many of them were
lost last week during their shift. It seems to quiet the envy and pull
the plug on the green-eyed monster.

As Art often reminds us, we don't always get to walk a mile in the
other guys shoes, but while I respect the eyeball-to-eyeball
experience of the grunt, I expect that he, in return, will offer me
similar respect for where I've been and what I've done.

I probably have been called "flyboy", but don't worry too much about
it.

I think that the difference between Navy and Air Force is related to
this. Think of the Forrestal fire, the Oriskany fire, or the Enterprise.
A lot of pilots saw a lot of their "ground crew" killed and horribly
burned trying to rescue the "junior birdmen". On a ship
everyone is in combat, from mess cook to Captain. No
remfs allowed.

Al Minyard