Originally Posted by
bbc1969
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.
Fair questions.
To me, it's mostly government waste. The FAM program isn't implemented nearly wide enough to be effective, or even be a deterrent. Yet we're throwing millions of dollars at something on the off chance that some bad person tries to pull something on the same plane that a FAM just happens to be on. The odds are so small of that happening, it's a waste IMO.
Granted, it's not a billion dollar program, but with the state this country is in with fighting in Iraq, etc, I don't know that we really have the money to waste. It's not limited to TSA and the FAM program ... at the particular agency I worked at I never saw so many plasma TV's. They're there largely because of accounting practices: if you dont' spend the money you'll get your budget cut, so waste it on unneeded stuff. I know it's how the game is played, but it doesn't make it right.
I wouldn't care so much if they were sitting in F if the gov't was actually paying for the seats. They have contract fares for everything else ... why can't they cut a deal so the airlines get at least something tangible out of it. I'm not expecting that they'd pay full fare F for the seat, but at least they could pay what the contract rate is for an unrestricted YCA fare.
As to your "if we all screw the customer, they can't gripe" comments, I suppose in theory that would work. Maybe for the short term though. If flying is made distasteful enough (and TSA has gone a long way to furthering that) then businesmen will eventually seek other means. Hell, my IT dept doesn't have a travel budget because they say "we can just do everything remotely." And with video conferencing and high speed data links getting cheaper all the time, that can easily become more of a reality.
Super