Your claims to the contrary, here are my standing responses to non-responses, mischaracterizations, misunderstandings and wrong readings:

http://flyertalk.com/forum/showpost....&postcount=318
http://flyertalk.com/forum/showpost....&postcount=320
http://flyertalk.com/forum/showpost....&postcount=323
http://flyertalk.com/forum/showpost....&postcount=324
http://flyertalk.com/forum/showpost....&postcount=326
http://flyertalk.com/forum/showpost....&postcount=328
http://flyertalk.com/forum/showpost....&postcount=330
http://flyertalk.com/forum/showpost....&postcount=332
http://flyertalk.com/forum/showpost....&postcount=336
http://flyertalk.com/forum/showpost....&postcount=339
http://flyertalk.com/forum/showpost....&postcount=342
http://flyertalk.com/forum/showpost....&postcount=345

Back to the original topic:

If the government had and enforced a policy of no first class travel for government employees travelling on government business and also had an enforced policy that government employees are not to accept gifts (including upgrades) from government contractors/vendors (including the airlines and their agents), what would be the result? Far fewer FAMs in first class. One problem solved.

Thanks for supporting my position, and this still stands;

Your claims, statements are unequivocally unsubstantiated. You have provided no evidence that even remotely supports your position.


The policy for flying in first class on business does exist and is enforced. The governement will not reimburse for first class travel, leaving the government traveller to cover the extra expense.

As to receiving gifts for non-business travel or to upgrades during business travel. This occurs in the non-government world just as it does to the government traveller, airlines do upgrade. Why should it be any different for the government traveller than the non-gov. traveller? Non-business government travellers are not given special treatment and the paying customer would always come first.

FAMs are a much more complex issue with different considerations on flights that they are "working", as opposed to flights that they are flying on business, and the flights that they are non business and not "working".

Your claims to the contrary, responses are to be found therein:

http://flyertalk.com/forum/showpost....&postcount=347

... and I did not support your positions, as evidenced by the series of disagreements included in my above post.

The truth is that I have stated that I don't support your position and yet you claim I do support your position. That's truly amusing but not surprising given the prior exchanges. However, it is apparent that you, like all of us, are certainly free to believe that which you wish to believe.

... apparently not, at least not always. Plenty of FAMs are in first class travel. And as a result of accepting gifts from firms (and their agents) who are government vendors/contractors, at least one FAM is apparently travelling in first class on leisure too.

Certainly you are not justifying "kick-back"-type schemes in the public sector using the excuse that there are similar schemes (involving unethical employees) in the private sector. Or is that incorrect and you are excusing such a "take what you can when you can how you can" mentality in the private and in the public sector? I would hope not.

Travellers flying on behalf of the government are not in the same category as travellers flying on behalf of private interests (including their own). That's obvious even in your terminology -- if we were to accept it -- or you would not have needed to start with all sorts of distinctions between: "government travellers", "working government travellers", "non-business government travellers", etc. to justify the kick-back-type schemes.

If you see no difference between the private sector and the public sector, then "Wow!" Amongst the differences between the private and the public sector in the United States of America (not AmeriKKKa, as posted otherwise): ownership; purpose/objectives; decision making processes/authorities, etc.

Shareholders of a private sector firm authorizing first class travel (or even, at the extreme, authorizing the acceptance of kick-backs from vendors) and representatives of the American taxpayers (and the government thereof) authorizing first class travel and the acceptance of kick-backs is indistinguishable? Perhaps there should be a general referendum on government employees flying first class and accepting kick-backs. :D

The above is a set-up to lay out the groundwork for the "we are an exception" excuse, right? And before we had the "we are no different (than XYZ)" excuse, right? So which is it really? Or is it simply "the ends justify the excuses" .... I mean means. ;)

Why the distinction between flying for "work" and flying for "business"? Nearly everyone else in the world that is flying for business will appropriately call it flying for work. (And vice versa). Amongst the few exceptions that may not use "flying for work" and "flying for business" as interchangeably are airline (and airline vendor) employees and certain industry regulators. And the FAMs are generally neither airline employees nor industry regulators --except in the most creative writing sense. ;)

Where do you get this? Is this just a guess on your part, or do you have a "study" that shows this. As I recall, the original post way back when , before the in depth, head to head battle took place, was one person, reporting one incident, which was just a opinion; not even verified if it was a FAM.

I have flown several times while off duty in First class. And guess what, I PAID for it. I also used mileage points once to upgrade (miles that I earn on PAID travel). On that one I had to wait my turn on the upgrade as there were a couple of FF's with higher status than I, and they were taken care of first. Just like normal. I would love to see some "supported" numbers on how the FAMS are monopolizing all these seats even while "off duty".

As I have stated before, this is one of the things that will get a FAM fired quickly-using his position to get an upgrade. Has it EVER happened sure. Never say never. And people have lost their jobs. But remember FAMS are people too, and just like anyone else they travel, have brand loyalty, or have been good customers of a particular carrier or business.

Just anecdotal experience and heresay, FWIW. However, "where there's smoke, there may be fire." Do you really deny that FAMs don't routinely travel for work in first class or alternate with their fellow FAMs to fly in first class?

I've known several FAMs on a certain route I fly often. One lives in my DC-admin's building and has dated her apartment-mate (and may still be). She (and I) see him and a fellow FAM (his personal friend who was allegedly hitting on her) in first class on more than one occassion when we all were flying for work on the same flight.

Maybe there should also be a no fraternizing policy in relation to FAMs and airline employees. We wouldn't want even the appearance of impropriety or a conflict of interest, right? :D

Well if these people you are seeing are flying "for work" then they sit where they sit. Off duty is a different story.

Actually you make many contradicting statements, you have never proved me wrong, you just say I am. Try proving it.



If you were to read the entire post you would have seen I placed the FAMs in a seperate catagory, since they are not "typical" government travellers.


Had you read my post and not put words in my post, such as;


Kick-back, "take what you can when you can how you can", kick-back-type schemes.

Try not to mischaracterize or misquote me, just to prove your point.

The issue is why should the government employee be treated any less than you?

They should be allowed the same upgrades that you are.



I didn't realize the definitions were limited on "flying for work" or "flying for business" to only airline employees and certain industry regulators. And who made you the keeper of the definition? I'll use what I want. You bring the arguement, so you do understand what I meant.

I'll make an adjustment to your quote,

"Amongst the few exceptions that may not use "flying for work" and "flying for business" as interchangeably are airline (and airline vendor) employees, certain industry regulators and FAMs."

Thanks for playing but, you just can't own words.

I seperated this for my usual request, PROVE IT.

I won't hold my breath, since I already know.....

Do you understand the meaning of "amongst the few exceptions"? ;)

Re-read your post, you specifically excluded FAMs. An obvious attempt to mislead.

Wrong.

Where is the explicit limitation therein? I don't see it (and I wrote those words). ;)

And in reference to:

Do you disagree that the FAMs being referred to here are generally neither airline employees nor industry regulators (except in the most creative writing sense)?

If you decide to try to read between the lines of two distinct sentences (and do so improperly), then that's your business. But the fact is you still came to the incorrect conclusion that I specifically excluded FAMs when I did not. If I wanted to specifically exclude them, I would have used language other than I did in that first sentence of mine I mentioned above. ;)

I have highlighted your exclusion.


See above

FAMs are not either.


I have highlighted the conjunction above.

If your not sure what a conjunction is, I suggest Schoolhouse Rock, Conjunction Junction. By using the conjunction you have brought two sentences together. Thus connecting both ideas.

Since you are denying the meaning of your post, then it must have agreed with my original. Thanks.

.. so you claim.

You have not highlighted "my exclusion". You have highlighted that which you mistakenly think was my exclusion.

Next issue.

I edited it please read it again. Thanks for your support, I like it when you know I'm right.

No thanks. I am not playing your game. ;)