A minor technicality, I believe:

If corporate taxes work the way personal taxes work, your statement is accurate only if the cost of the seat is a tax credit: $1.00 of write-off=$1.00 of reduction in tax liability. But, if they must write off the cost as a business expense -- reduce the net profit by the cost of the seat -- the airlines only get back a piece of the dollar (like itemizing your deductions). Also, reduced profit (or a larger loss) will have a negative effect on stock prices and the investment rating. It looks good on paper, but I can't imagine that the airlines are making money giving up first class seats to FAMs. Providing upgrades is an investment, even though airlines don't appear to make money on those seats, either. But, their business strategy is to build customer loyality, and providing upgrades is one way to do it.

My background is one of almost 30 years in the USAF and civil service, so I know of whence I speak. I need to calibrate one more thing:

Yes, they do. The DOD Joint Travel Regulation permits purchase of "premium class" tickets (mostly business class, but could be first class) for these circumstances that come to mind:

1. Continuous travel in excess of 14 hours; (ex: US-Sydney or Hong Kong)
2. To accommodate a handicapped employee who needs a larger seat, more legroom, etc;
3. More situations that I can't remember without spending the time to look it up.

Authorization for premium class travel is delegated to a reasonably low management level, so it's actually used. (I have authorized it fairly frequently.) I assume the parent organization of the FAMs has a similar regulation. Some agencies have found out that it's cheaper to make people travel over two days in coach and pay the extra day's hotel and per diem than it is to pay for a premium class ticket. A three-class aircraft is preferred, but the individual can ride in first class if only a two-class aircraft is available.

Concerning FF miles, are you prohibited from accepting them or has the airline refused to enroll FAMs in their programs? (or both???) When you're flying non-mission status, I also assume you have to book using the approved GSA city pairs, correct?

No hidden agenda -- just curious...

You're 100% correct. Whether it's a self-serving jerk like Michael Moore who compares the terrorists who behead people in Iraq to this country's Minute Men in the 1700s (apparently Moore equates our system of government to the radical Muslim society in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, where women, among others, were without rights and beaten on a regular basis for minor "infractions") or folks like Ted (campaign slogan "a blonde in every pond") Kennedy and Diane Feinstein who whine about a relatively miniscule number of U.S. troops putting panties on prisoners' heads while never appearing horrified or critical about the terrorists. Then, in an attempt to cover their butts, they say that Americans are held to higher standards and that's why they aren't that critical about the radical Muslims. Yeah, right. Even the father of Nick Berg, who I truly feel sorry for, blames GWB for his son's beheading, not Michael Moore's "freedom fighters". The liberal left has, and always has had as far back as I can remember, a "blame America first" attitude. I don't quite understand why they continually find fault with this country and, in some respects, appear to hate it.

Thank you for the slant.

I think the post from our new former FAM was very helpful in many ways, and I thought the tone was well-handled. However, I am just about sure that (s)he is wrong about the tax deduction. I do not believe that there is any industry in which you get to "write-off" revenue that you didn't get. That is, the following:

Hypothetical Statement for flight (sorry, I dont' know how to make it line up)

Income from passengers, mail, cargo $100,000
Costs (airplane lease, crew, gas, overhead) $ 92,500

Taxable profit (income less cost) $ 7,500
Less: 2 First class tickets we would have
liked to sell for $2,500 each, but a
flying FAM sat there instead $ 5,000

Taxable profit $ 2,500

That just doesn't sound right. You don't deduct "money you didn't get" as an expense. Nor is it likely that the airlines actually get a "tax credit" for that seat (if they did, they would be fighting to have 5 FAMs on every flight). Because taxes on $2,500 are, let's say, 25%, or $625. So if you got a "tax credit" of $2,500, that would be like selling the seat for $5,000.

My post was already getting pretty long, and I didn't want to get bogged down into all the details, so I do understand the reason for your questions. I'm definitely not an accountant, and I'm not sure which method the airlines are allowed to use. I was attempting to express that even if They do not receive the full price back in taxes (i.e. only a portion) that that portion is of a much higher value than that which they would receive from a paying First Class customer. Airlines (except for the super-savers) price the value of their fares much higher than what they actually sell the fare for. This has become so built-in to the system that poeple seldom realize it is done anymore. Best explained if I give an example. If a military member calls an airline and asks for a seat under the Military Discount which most airlines offer, the agent will inform him that it will cost less if he/she purchases a normal ticket. The way it works is this - (these are just hypothetical costs just to show how the system works) Airline X sets its full-price coach fare at $800, but every seat is always sold at a discount so that the price comes out to be $250. Built-in discount does not count for other discounts, hence the half-off Military Discount would put the fare at $400. Hence it is cheaper to just buy a normal ticket. This has made the Military Discount offered by most airlines absolutely useless. The airline is never going to sell a seat for what it claims the full value is (this allows them to tell virtually everyone they are getting a discount) yet when they write off a FAM seat, they are able to write off the FULL value (as they claim it to be). This is drastically higher than the price they would quote you if you called and asked for a First Class seat. My opinion is that even if they on receive a portion of this FULL price back in taxes, it will be a substantial amount. (Even without the above price markup, I believe it is the dollar for dollar tax-credit they receive, but did not want to state this as fact since its been a while since I learned about this - and I'm only fairly certain I remember that correctly).


Also didn't fully address this due to how lengthy my post was getting. Suffice it to say that, although you are absolutely right in that this CAN be done, it is NEVER done for the run-of-the-mill FAM (what we call a Flying FAM). The Service is not going to pay more to put a non-mission-status Flying FAM in First Class for any reason - even though they could. I'm sure its done all the time for high level FAM Sups, but definitely not for Flying FAMs.

Its not the airlines, its Government policy. Remember that, up until the recent past, Gov't employees were not allowed to accept FF miles for Gov't paid fares. It was originally viewed as an unallowed gratuity, but that view has changed and employees are now allowed to accept FF miles. The seats assigned to FAMs for missions are non-revenue seats and so the collection of FF miles is strictly forbidden. The airlines are well aware of this and would refuse should a FAM attempt to get FF miles 'on the sly' for a mission seat, as well as file a complaint on said FAM. Other than that, I really don't know if the airlines would grant FF miles if it were left to them - but I would think not.

As for the GSA city pairs, we (I keep saying we due to context, even though I have left the Service...) are bound by all Federal Travel Regs for non-mission flying.

Hope this answers your questions, and is not too foggy (I've been up for about 24 hours...)

AP2001

Here are relevant excerpts of the actual law which would seem to indicate that:

1. The seats are provided for free (with no tax benefit - although the tax code may have something added, and I will look further)

2. Deadheading FAM's are entitled to free travel (but space available) to get home

This is a direct cut/paste (nothing changed) from the Aviation Security Act:

��(4) shall require air carriers providing flights described
in paragraph (1) to provide seating for a Federal air marshal
on any such flight without regard to the availability of seats
on the flight and at no cost to the United States Government
or the marshal;
��(5) may require air carriers to provide, on a space-available
basis, to an off-duty Federal air marshal a seat on a flight
to the airport nearest the marshal�s home at no cost to the
marshal or the United States Government if the marshal is
traveling to that airport after completing his or her security
duties;

I am relating the tax-break information as officially provided to me by FAM Service, when I began my service with them. If this is untrue, it would be a blatant lie from FAM Service, and although little about the Service would surprise me, I don't believe they were lieing about this.

Just another tidbit, although they wrote in Sub 5 (above) as a 'dead-head' right for FAMs, it is not utilized. The mission leg on which a FAM returns to his home base is just that - 'mission', therefore covered by the mission-status reg. (Sub 4). Sub 5 is redundant, and to my knowledge has never been used. I don't believe they had hammered out all of the detail of how the FAM Program would work when they made this passage. I can tell you that all non-mission seats are indeed paid for out of the Service budget.

AP2001

I had posted this once already earlier in the thread, and I have not found anything in the tax code about the "credit." Everyone on who claims to be a FAM, or know a FAM states that full credit is given for the seat, yet not one of them has provided a credible source to back the position.

Ok, let me try it this way. I have posted the facts regarding the tax-break as they were officially explained to me. It would really surprise me if it was absolutely untrue - and I fear that only an airline accountant could answer it for certain.

It really doesn't matter as this is not the heart of my post. I simply wanted to explain that although I realize there is a perception that folks are getting bumped out of First Class by non-mission FAMs, this is not the reality.

There are a hundred perceptions about the FAM program which are not reality. (The most popular being that FAMs can fly anywhere they want for free...).

All I'm saying is whether or not you agree with the program or its need, try not to let perceptions become reality without being proven. We don't always see what we think we see...

AP2001

Please don't insult our intelligence by telling us that the tax break (of which you have zero firsthand knowledge) makes the airlines better off than if they had sold the seat.

Airlines that offer F are, for the most part, bleeding cash and cash is what they need right now, not make-believe tax breaks. Sky marshals sit in F seats, that means the airlines can't sell them (for any amount of money). Since they (those offering F) all have cumulative losses that will negate any income tax for years to come, even if a tax break existed (which it doesn't), it does nothing to compensate them now for the occupied seat.

Not the heart of your post? You spent a lot of paragraphs explaining the hearsay your bosses told you.

Why don't you focus instead on telling us things that you do know something about?

And here is the flame I tried so hard to avoid (sigh). Well, I guess I should just chalk it up to 'you can't please all of the people...'

I agree with you wholeheartedly that the airlines are in trouble. I realize that you are of the opinion that there is absolutely no need for the FAM program, and that it should be abolished. My opinion differs, but I have made no attempt to even debate the issue with anyone since I know what that will lead to. I only offered certain facts.

Well, let me attempt to head off the next flame by stating that the first fact is simply one I believe to be true, while the others are facts I have personal knowledge of. Its sad that we live in a world in which disclaimers such as this are necessary. Otherwise people, who know full well what the intent of our words are, will make every attempt to twist them around and throw them back at us.

That being said, I would like to add two more facts to the list. First, irregardless of whether the FAM program should exist or not, it is not to blame for the current state of affairs concerning the airlines. The airlines were in financial trouble long before the FAM program ramped up, and this trouble became even more dire after the events of 9/11.

Second, if the FAM program were abolished tomorrow it would have not have any positive effect on the airlines financial situation. Whether or not it would have a negative effect is a debatable issue which I am not offering an opinion on.

Although it is still considered classified, most of you have a pretty good grasp of how many FAMs there are, and how many flights are covered. It is ludicrous to state that the loss of fares from two first class seats on each of these flights is going to make or break the airlines. As was previously pointed out in this thread (and a valid point), this would save pennies for a company which is bleeding millions (yes, yes, much more than pennies, but labeled pennies for comparison - yet another sadly required disclaimer).

What I'm getting at is that if you believe the FAM program to be defunct and that it should not exist, you have every right to voice your opinion. You have every right to take any and all legal action to attempt to affect change. Just don't bash people for doing a job which many people believe to be necessary. Its considered rude, impolite, and morally offensive in any civilized place. And that is something I know.

AP2001

"Remember that, up until the recent past, Gov't employees were not allowed to accept FF miles for Gov't paid fares. It was originally viewed as an unallowed gratuity, but that view has changed and employees are now allowed to accept FF miles. The seats assigned to FAMs for missions are non-revenue seats and so the collection of FF miles is strictly forbidden."

Somewhat off-topic, but I feel compelled to clear up a misconception myself. I've lived through every era of FF miles versus the government. Here's a brief history:

1. We were forbidden to join FF programs and accrue miles earned on official travel;
2. We were advised it was OK to enroll, but you could only accrue miles for personal trips;
3. It was OK to enroll and earn miles for official trips, but you should have two accounts -- one personal and one for government trips;
4. You were "encouraged" to use your earned government miles for government trips. Some people tried, but government travel offices couldn't figure out how to book the trips;
5. You could use your government miles for business-class upgrades on official travel (no first class permitted, so the experienced government traveller always flew on 3-class aircraft);
6. Finally, Bush II decided you could use your miles for free tickets -- no restrictions.

For many years, lots of us were earning miles that expired because we couldn't use them. There was always the argument over who owned the miles. The government said they did; the airlines said the traveller did. Rumors in the late 1980s were that the airlines were going to force some sort of confrontation with the government over the ownership issue as a means to get out from under the tremendous financial liability of FF programs.

I believe FAMs, like any other federal employee, are permitted to enroll in FF programs. It's purely a business decision by an individual airline to decide to award a passenger -- FAM or not -- miles for a given trip. For example, I doubt a FAA inspector will earn miles for a trip they take while doing an inspection. This is one example where I could see a prohibition on joining a FF program for conflict-of-interest reasons. I don't really see a COI for FAMs.

Just putting in my two cents. Thanks for the job that you and the other FAMs do. And sitting in FC (whether on duty or not) makes me feel safe, as the integrity of the cockpit door is VERY d**n important! Anyway, thanks for keeping our flights safe, and also thanks for dealing with the unruly passengers who sometimes act up on the flights. I don't envy your job, so thanks for doing that which I could not do. ^

Alan
http://poopdeck90210.com

Good points. My Federal travel history doesn't go back nearly as far, lol. The conflict of interests for FAMs is that the seats are non-revenue seats. Therefore, any FF miles acrued on them would be a gratuity for something which was forced on the airline (i.e. they have to provide the seats). It wouldn't be extortion, but it wouldn't be too many shades of gray away, either.

I did not mean to imply that any of this applies to non-mission seats. They are handled just like all other Government seats, and FAMs are allowed to acrue miles on them (we just don't use that method of travel enough to really accomplish anything with FF miles).

AP2001

I have heard that FAM's are now traveling "in cognito"... they no longer necessarily wear suits 100% of the time. Has anyone else heard about this? Perhaps the sweet old lady from Pasedena sitting next to you is a FAM!

-Alan