This is true. There are plenty of open source documents that discuss the number of flights in the U.S. compared to the small number of FAMs in the service (compared to the number of flights).

I realize that everyone has a right to their personal beliefs about an issue. Thats the way it should be.

But my question is this, if the chance of a FAM being on your flight is so small, why is the uproar over the program so great? I mean there are many other issues out there (even if just limited to the topic of personal or business travel) to get worked up over that directly effect most individuals more. Or is the truth about the matter that the "uproar" is greatest amongst frequent flyers who feel they have lost an upgrade or other benefit? Do most really, really care about the airlines financial health that they firmly believe the airlines are suffering catastrophic damage from the FAM program? If doing away with the FAM program would be the financial golden egg, wouldn't phasing out frequent flyer programs across the board be a financial wonder for the airlines? People (business people in particular) have to fly in this day and age to get things done, if the airlines stuck together they wouldn't have to worry about upset customers, as the choice would be like it or lump it. Everyone would be in the same boat.

If one of the requirements after 9-11 was that the FAMs sat only in the rear most area of the aircraft, would FAM topics have gained as much attention on these forums as they have? Or would the topic only be of interest to those who have intense thoughts or dislikes for government, or law enforcement?

Just wondering.