First off, I think a lot of planes still have that 1/2" bar across the flimsy door, and nothing else.
Incorrect. The regulations have been in place for a long time now that set standards for flight deck door construction, which include specific requirements for locking, framing, bullet resistance and ramming resistance. Most doors are reinforced with kevlar.
And even with a reinforced door, I would still prefer an FAM there to stop someone from, say, standing behind the door and blowing up their shoe.
You're kidding, right? No offense, but please tell me how a FAM will prevent someone from blowing up their shoe...please tell me how 'blowing up a shoe' is even a realistic possibility? Isn't the TSA Shoe Carnival suppose to prevent these so-called 'shoe bombs' from getting on board in the first place? The whole shoe thing is beyond silly.
The fact is, whether or not they're active, they will do what's necessary to stop a hijacking, and for people who are involved with flying as much as the GAs or crew, I understand giving some perks to the FAMs, who otherwise get crappy pay for risking their lives when needed, in exchange for keeping them safe.
No offense to the FAMs themselves, but please tell me the last time a FAM risked his or her life for anything. Other than a couple passenger disturbances, no FAM has so far had to do anything - on one DL flight last year, the passengers subdued the crazed person before the FAMs even got out of their seats. How do you know their pay is 'crappy'? They might be earning quite alot of money for all we know. I dont have a problem giving a perk, however, no perk should be given at the expense of a paying customer.
We're talking about the non-active FAMs, so if they're off duty, why not let them have available F seats? I believe if there were active FAMs on board, and there were 2 of them, one sits in F and the other sits in Y somewhere. Who's to say there aren't active FAMs on board the same flight as the non-active ones? Our system is based on randomness. ^