FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post - Non Active Sky Marshall clears first AGAIN
Old Jun 4, 2005 | 10:31 am
  #279  
bbc1969
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Programs: UA, SWA, HA, Qantas
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by sbtinme
Folks --

I first stumbled onto this thread a few days back and was just checking in to see if DL had issued any statements or advisements on the OP's reported observation.

To my disappointment, I find that this thread has gone way over the deep end. Everyone is yelling at everyone else over tertiary issues and personal opinions that, in large measure, have nothing to do with the core of what the OP wrote.

I hate it when FT postings do this. The issue is that someone claims to have witnessed an AM get comped (off duty) into F displacing some elite pax who were playing by the standardized DL rules and in the "UG queue." Isn't that what this is all about?

Why don't we just focus on that? I'm outta here.

At the risk of getting this fired up again, just thought I would make some comments as one of the folks who admits being a FAM on this board. Just for clarification if someone unfamiliar "surfs" in and starts reading.

The airlines would NOT stand for this. We have a pretty good working relationship, but they would not stand for off duty FAMS getting "FREE" upgrades. If a FAM is off duty and flies in first he or she has either used private FF points (no not accumulated on duty-people get fired for that, and they do check) or paid the upgrade fee, just like anyone else.

Does that mean that some FAM somewhere doesnt have a friend who slipped them some extra bennies? Who knows? Not likely as both the employee and FAM would have some questions to answer, and likely job losses because of it. I dont think this is the case, but I will acknowledge it "could" happen. Just as it could with anyone who has a "friend" working behind the counter. Only in this case both parties would get in trouble. And as I said before, the airlines watch for this stuff, and it is reported direct to HQ. People have been fired over such actions (several violations of policy of this type reportedly took place just after 9-11 during the buildup when many "temp" FAMs from other agencies were working), and word gets out quick. So if this complaint was given to the airline, and it was real, they would have taken action in my experience. So I don't think the observation that started this thread was an actual off duty FAM in the first place.

Last edited by bbc1969; Jun 4, 2005 at 10:33 am Reason: additional thought
bbc1969 is offline