Non Active Sky Marshall clears first AGAIN
Jun 20, 2005 | 12:33 am
#376
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: QLA
Programs: SBUX Gold
Posts: 14,508
Originally Posted by Cholula
Since one couldn't enter the cockpit with a battering ram nowadays, I'm not too sure we need anyone guarding the door.
I see the FAM's function as monitoring the pax and, as has been said ad infinitum, they could monitor the pax better from the rear of the plane IMO.
I see the FAM's function as monitoring the pax and, as has been said ad infinitum, they could monitor the pax better from the rear of the plane IMO.
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.
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. ^
Last edited by IceTrojan; Jun 20, 2005 at 12:37 am
Jun 20, 2005 | 7:54 am
#377
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 47,227
Originally Posted by IceTrojan
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. ^
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. ^
Jun 20, 2005 | 8:13 am
#378
In memoriam
Join Date: May 2005
Location: DAL
Programs: SWA A list preferred and CP, Hilton Lifetime Diamond, Hertz President's club
Posts: 9,803
Man are there a lot of assumptions on this board, I particularly love hearing that the FAM's havent had to do anything at all. How do we all know that, because something didn't happen may mean that just their presence is doing something!!! That or the issue that do come up just arent being broadcasted to the masses. The more we DONT see a plane bombing on the evening news the happier we should be, not condemning the people trying to protect us.
The people whining and moaning that the seats they feel ENTITLED to were given to someone whose sole purpose is our security are really over the top, and probably the same people who after 9/11 were up in arms that the government wasn't doing enough to protect us. YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS FOLKS.
As for the isue of 'non-active' I cant imagine ANY sky marshall who if an emergency happened wouldnt jump into action regardless whether on the clock or off.
I love upgrades as much as anyone, but it is time a lot of people realize that the airlines upgrade their empty stock at THEIR discretion, not ours. If they feel the FAM's deserve the seats that is not ours to question. You can choose who rides in an empty seat you may have in your car, the airlines get to do the same!
The people whining and moaning that the seats they feel ENTITLED to were given to someone whose sole purpose is our security are really over the top, and probably the same people who after 9/11 were up in arms that the government wasn't doing enough to protect us. YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS FOLKS.
As for the isue of 'non-active' I cant imagine ANY sky marshall who if an emergency happened wouldnt jump into action regardless whether on the clock or off.
I love upgrades as much as anyone, but it is time a lot of people realize that the airlines upgrade their empty stock at THEIR discretion, not ours. If they feel the FAM's deserve the seats that is not ours to question. You can choose who rides in an empty seat you may have in your car, the airlines get to do the same!
Jun 20, 2005 | 8:54 am
#379
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 47,227
Originally Posted by Lehava
...The more we DONT see a plane bombing on the evening news the happier we should be, not condemning the people trying to protect us.
No one is condemning the FAMs...this thread is only discussing the concerns of a customer who felt he was denied an entitled benefit because an airline employee "might" (we don't know for sure what happened or who the pax really was) have re-written the rules to his own liking. Again, FAMs have nothing to do with preventing the 'bombing' of an airliner. There is no way to keep things secret about an inflight incident with hundreds of pax on board - every incident has so far been published in the press. There is no evidence a FAM has risked his/her life or actually thwarted an attack. Making the FAM program and passenger screenings the only cornerstones of aviation security will eventually lead to another tragedy, unfortunately.
The people whining and moaning that the seats they feel ENTITLED to were given to someone whose sole purpose is our security are really over the top, and probably the same people who after 9/11 were up in arms that the government wasn't doing enough to protect us. YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS FOLKS.
By the definition of the airlines' own rules, elite customers are entitled to those seats. If anyone is up in arms about the government not doing enough to prevent 9/11, that is a valid argument given the plethora of incompetence that still plagues the intelligence community and continues to place us at risk. Placing a FAM in FC offers absolutely no quantifiable evidence that the flight would be safer - in fact, I can offer a reasonable argument that the flight and the FAM are both less safe given the number of passengers outside his/her field of view when sitting in the forward cabin. The flight deck door is sufficiently protected to give a FAM in the rear of the aircraft plenty of time to act should someone actually try to gain entry.
As for the isue of 'non-active' I cant imagine ANY sky marshall who if an emergency happened wouldnt jump into action regardless whether on the clock or off.
I would not debate this point, however, it is not upto the employee of the airline to rewrite the rules according to his personal preference because of it.
I love upgrades as much as anyone, but it is time a lot of people realize that the airlines upgrade their empty stock at THEIR discretion, not ours. If they feel the FAM's deserve the seats that is not ours to question. You can choose who rides in an empty seat you may have in your car, the airlines get to do the same!
No one is condemning the FAMs...this thread is only discussing the concerns of a customer who felt he was denied an entitled benefit because an airline employee "might" (we don't know for sure what happened or who the pax really was) have re-written the rules to his own liking. Again, FAMs have nothing to do with preventing the 'bombing' of an airliner. There is no way to keep things secret about an inflight incident with hundreds of pax on board - every incident has so far been published in the press. There is no evidence a FAM has risked his/her life or actually thwarted an attack. Making the FAM program and passenger screenings the only cornerstones of aviation security will eventually lead to another tragedy, unfortunately.
The people whining and moaning that the seats they feel ENTITLED to were given to someone whose sole purpose is our security are really over the top, and probably the same people who after 9/11 were up in arms that the government wasn't doing enough to protect us. YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS FOLKS.
By the definition of the airlines' own rules, elite customers are entitled to those seats. If anyone is up in arms about the government not doing enough to prevent 9/11, that is a valid argument given the plethora of incompetence that still plagues the intelligence community and continues to place us at risk. Placing a FAM in FC offers absolutely no quantifiable evidence that the flight would be safer - in fact, I can offer a reasonable argument that the flight and the FAM are both less safe given the number of passengers outside his/her field of view when sitting in the forward cabin. The flight deck door is sufficiently protected to give a FAM in the rear of the aircraft plenty of time to act should someone actually try to gain entry.
As for the isue of 'non-active' I cant imagine ANY sky marshall who if an emergency happened wouldnt jump into action regardless whether on the clock or off.
I would not debate this point, however, it is not upto the employee of the airline to rewrite the rules according to his personal preference because of it.
I love upgrades as much as anyone, but it is time a lot of people realize that the airlines upgrade their empty stock at THEIR discretion, not ours. If they feel the FAM's deserve the seats that is not ours to question. You can choose who rides in an empty seat you may have in your car, the airlines get to do the same!
Jun 20, 2005 | 10:32 am
#380
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: QLA
Programs: SBUX Gold
Posts: 14,508
Originally Posted by bocastephen
Incorrect. Most doors are reinforced with kevlar.
You're kidding, right? No offense, but please tell me how a FAM will prevent someone from blowing up their shoe...
I don't know about you... but I've made it through a couple times without my shoes being checked, and it only takes one time...
Would you really rely on TSA for all of our airport security needs?
No offense to the FAMs themselves, but please tell me the last time a FAM risked his or her life for anything.
I also don't remember the last time I saw a lifeguard save someone, nor a bank security guard do anything but stand there, nor an FA assist passengers out of a crashed plane. I guess they don't do crap either.
It's like insurance... you pay for it, hoping to never have to use it.
How do you know their pay is 'crappy'?
Because the last time I looked at an FAM's pay scale, I said, "Wow, that's crappy." It's especially crappy considering they're doing a hazardous job (though according to you they're essentially useless), and that when they're on duty they spend a good 12-16 hours straight flying in a metal tube (with no real guarantee of a return flight to their home airport) because of a thankless job.
I dont have a problem giving a perk, however, no perk should be given at the expense of a paying customer.
If an agent pre-emptively upgrades a FAM, or any other non-entitled person, ahead of an entitled customer, that is wrong:
Anyway as federal employees, dont FAMs need approval before accepting a gift-with-value? A free first class upgrade certainly has value and should be declared and documented.
Has value to you... to the government, it's just another seat on a plane (which really, it is). Using your logic, the FAM would have to sit in the middle seat of row 99 all the time... because, of course, aisle seats, window seats, bulkhead seats, exit row seats, seats according to FEBO, seats in lucky row number 7, etc., all have value. Hell, why even give the FAM a seat at all? He can just hang on.
Jun 20, 2005 | 10:52 am
#381
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 47,227
Originally Posted by IceTrojan
Oh, I don't know... by tackling them...maybe... perhaps?
I don't know about you... but I've made it through a couple times without my shoes being checked, and it only takes one time...
Would you really rely on TSA for all of our airport security needs?
The whole shoe thing is a silly nonsense - but for the purpose of this argument, I doubt a FAM or anyone else for that matter, would have any advance notice if a knowledable person is about to denote a bomb - Richard Reid was a lunatic who was not conducting an organized operation - no one is realistically going to pull out a match and light a fuse on their shoe, unless they are a character in a Bugs Bunny cartoon. I would certainly not rely on the TSA or the FAM program for our airport security needs, which was the point I was trying to make. Yet, that seems to be 99% of the government's focus
I also don't remember the last time I saw a lifeguard save someone, nor a bank security guard do anything but stand there, nor an FA assist passengers out of a crashed plane. I guess they don't do crap either.
It's like insurance... you pay for it, hoping to never have to use it.
For the purpse of this thread, I am not debating whether or not FAMs should be on board, I am only debating whether or not an offduty FAM should be upgraded ahead of a paying customer.
Because the last time I looked at an FAM's pay scale, I said, "Wow, that's crappy." It's especially crappy considering they're doing a hazardous job (though according to you they're essentially useless), and that when they're on duty they spend a good 12-16 hours straight flying in a metal tube (with no real guarantee of a return flight to their home airport) because of a thankless job.
I never saw the pay scale...sounds like you did. Perhaps you can share it with us? Maybe I would agree with you - then again, if the pay is too low, logic tells me the program administrators might have some difficulty recruiting and retaining quality candidates. Which seems to be the case so far, based on various news accounts of FAMs holding passengers hostage, threatening to shoot over a parking space, or leaving guns in the lavs.
What about the perk the customer gets for having the FAM onboard? People don't pay more money to fly on El Al for the food or the smiling faces... they pay for the guaranteed security presence, double-reinforced cockpit doors, rigorous screening process, and an armored personnel carrier to escort the plane to the runway, so they don't get their flying be-hinds blown out of the sky or flown to who-knows-where.
I don't see having a FAM onboard as a 'perk'. If they are mandated to be there, it is not my decision...I feel no safer with them there, nor less safe with their absence. FAMs will not prevent an airplane from blowing up. Bombs have almost always been detonated from the cargo hold - given the lack of screening conducted on cargo, I see that as an exponentially higher risk than the absense of a FAM in the cabin.
I don't know about you (well, I guess I do), but I think an FAM is very-much entitled. Perhaps AA should do away with the fare sale and AC access specially for the military... they're not entitled, are they? Of course not, because you're better than them.
Everyone is entitled to the benefits which the airlines have created and made available to us. If AA has created special benefits for military customers, that is great - they are entitled to them. If the airline wants to make a rule that states a FAM, offduty or not, is entitled to a FC seat, that is their choice - the seat belongs to the airline, not me. This thread was about an agent who violated a policy. No where in any of my posts did I ever claim to be better than anyone, so I think that was abit out of line.
Has value to you... to the government, it's just another seat on a plane (which really, it is). Using your logic, the FAM would have to sit in the middle seat of row 99 all the time... because, of course, aisle seats, window seats, bulkhead seats, exit row seats, seats according to FEBO, seats in lucky row number 7, etc., all have value. Hell, why even give the FAM a seat at all? He can just hang on.
Jun 20, 2005 | 11:09 am
#382
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: QLA
Programs: SBUX Gold
Posts: 14,508
PAY SCALE (excerpts from FAA job annoucement)
I'm guessing most of the FAMs out there are newbies, so are in the lower salary range (which also entails crappier routes because of seniority status, or lack thereof).
So what if these "perks" aren't part of company written policy (Elite challenges lean towards this too). I'm sure "angels" do things that are undocumented as well.... should we berate them for accomodating "important" passengers?
In conclusion, you see no value of an FAM, and I see so much value that I say give them all the perks in the world. We're not gonna budge, so let's agree to disagree, so I can take a nap ^
Salary Range: $35,100 to $80,800
Location: Various
Organization Location: Federal Aviation Administration, Associate Administrator for Civil Aviation Security
PCS: Expenses are not authorized for relocation/moving expenses.
Area of Consideration: All Sources
Duties: Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) respond to criminal incidents aboard U.S. air carriers, as well as other in-flight emergencies. FAMs are authorized to carry firearms and make arrests, while preserving the safety of aircraft, crew, and passengers.
....
NOTES: 1. The basic salary range is reflected above. The salary range for each pay band is G - $35,100 to $54,300; H - $42,800 to $66,200; and I - $52,200 to $80,800. In addition, positions are covered by the 25% Law Enforcement Availability Pay. Salary will be adjusted to include locality pay based on the duty location of the position.
2. FAMs perform regular and extended travel, both foreign and domestic, for several weeks at a time. They work irregular hours and shifts, and are on call 24 hours per day. While deployed, they have limited personal contact with family and limited time off. FAMs travel to and spend time in foreign countries that are sometimes politically or economically unstable, and may pose a high probability of terrorist or criminal activity against the U.S. Government. In addition, some locations may present health hazards such as poor sanitation and unsafe water.
3. FAMs must be eligible for and maintain a TOP SECRET security clearance based upon a favorably adjudicated special background investigation as a condition of employment.
Location: Various
Organization Location: Federal Aviation Administration, Associate Administrator for Civil Aviation Security
PCS: Expenses are not authorized for relocation/moving expenses.
Area of Consideration: All Sources
Duties: Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) respond to criminal incidents aboard U.S. air carriers, as well as other in-flight emergencies. FAMs are authorized to carry firearms and make arrests, while preserving the safety of aircraft, crew, and passengers.
....
NOTES: 1. The basic salary range is reflected above. The salary range for each pay band is G - $35,100 to $54,300; H - $42,800 to $66,200; and I - $52,200 to $80,800. In addition, positions are covered by the 25% Law Enforcement Availability Pay. Salary will be adjusted to include locality pay based on the duty location of the position.
2. FAMs perform regular and extended travel, both foreign and domestic, for several weeks at a time. They work irregular hours and shifts, and are on call 24 hours per day. While deployed, they have limited personal contact with family and limited time off. FAMs travel to and spend time in foreign countries that are sometimes politically or economically unstable, and may pose a high probability of terrorist or criminal activity against the U.S. Government. In addition, some locations may present health hazards such as poor sanitation and unsafe water.
3. FAMs must be eligible for and maintain a TOP SECRET security clearance based upon a favorably adjudicated special background investigation as a condition of employment.
So what if these "perks" aren't part of company written policy (Elite challenges lean towards this too). I'm sure "angels" do things that are undocumented as well.... should we berate them for accomodating "important" passengers?
In conclusion, you see no value of an FAM, and I see so much value that I say give them all the perks in the world. We're not gonna budge, so let's agree to disagree, so I can take a nap ^
Jun 20, 2005 | 11:30 am
#383
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Originally Posted by IceTrojan
In conclusion, you see no value of an FAM, and I see so much value that I say give them all the perks in the world.
Jun 20, 2005 | 12:16 pm
#385
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Originally Posted by IceTrojan
Well, maybe not a red phone direct to Vladimir Putin or a map to the Holy Grail 
That "perk" would be the end of the FAM program as we know it. 
Jun 20, 2005 | 12:25 pm
#386
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
Originally Posted by IceTrojan
I'm guessing most of the FAMs out there are newbies, so are in the lower salary range (which also entails crappier routes because of seniority status, or lack thereof).
Jul 7, 2005 | 10:36 pm
#387
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 63
I am a FAM
I will not lie. I only read the first page and a few other posts. I am a FAM and have been for 3 plus years. As noted most are in the "I" pay band at this point. Most of the time our pay is not hard pay to earn. However, when we earn it it will be in about a 15 second period. And if it is as bad as we have been led to believe one of us will die for our money.
I have flown about 10 times not on duty. I have NEVER been upgraded to first class. I have NEVER asked to be upgraded. Rest assured that I will always fly armed. Just because I am in 28D instead of 2B does not release me of my duty to you and the others in that plane. I get no discounts of any kind. I pay full fare and ride in coach when on personal travel.
The government does pay for the tickets. They pay "C" class which is as high as it gets. No one pays higher.
As far as bumping people off standby,,,, yes, that does happen. Why,,,, the airlines over sell as well as let people get onto the stand by list in all cases. If people do not show up then the stand byers get a ticket. Many times we (FAMS) do not show up due to delays or an incident that delayed us from getting to our next flight. In those cases the airlines re-sells our tickets.
There are some issue I can not comment about due to security. Trust me when I tell you the above info is correct.
I have flown about 10 times not on duty. I have NEVER been upgraded to first class. I have NEVER asked to be upgraded. Rest assured that I will always fly armed. Just because I am in 28D instead of 2B does not release me of my duty to you and the others in that plane. I get no discounts of any kind. I pay full fare and ride in coach when on personal travel.
The government does pay for the tickets. They pay "C" class which is as high as it gets. No one pays higher.
As far as bumping people off standby,,,, yes, that does happen. Why,,,, the airlines over sell as well as let people get onto the stand by list in all cases. If people do not show up then the stand byers get a ticket. Many times we (FAMS) do not show up due to delays or an incident that delayed us from getting to our next flight. In those cases the airlines re-sells our tickets.
There are some issue I can not comment about due to security. Trust me when I tell you the above info is correct.
Jul 7, 2005 | 10:43 pm
#388
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Southern California
Programs: DL: 3.8 MM, Marriott: Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 24,575
Originally Posted by Coastiejoe
I will not lie. I only read the first page and a few other posts. I am a FAM and have been for 3 plus years. As noted most are in the "I" pay band at this point. Most of the time our pay is not hard pay to earn. However, when we earn it it will be in about a 15 second period. And if it is as bad as we have been led to believe one of us will die for our money.
I have flown about 10 times not on duty. I have NEVER been upgraded to first class. I have NEVER asked to be upgraded. Rest assured that I will always fly armed. Just because I am in 28D instead of 2B does not release me of my duty to you and the others in that plane. I get no discounts of any kind. I pay full fare and ride in coach when on personal travel.
The government does pay for the tickets. They pay "C" class which is as high as it gets. No one pays higher.
As far as bumping people off standby,,,, yes, that does happen. Why,,,, the airlines over sell as well as let people get onto the stand by list in all cases. If people do not show up then the stand byers get a ticket. Many times we (FAMS) do not show up due to delays or an incident that delayed us from getting to our next flight. In those cases the airlines re-sells our tickets.
There are some issue I can not comment about due to security. Trust me when I tell you the above info is correct.
I have flown about 10 times not on duty. I have NEVER been upgraded to first class. I have NEVER asked to be upgraded. Rest assured that I will always fly armed. Just because I am in 28D instead of 2B does not release me of my duty to you and the others in that plane. I get no discounts of any kind. I pay full fare and ride in coach when on personal travel.
The government does pay for the tickets. They pay "C" class which is as high as it gets. No one pays higher.
As far as bumping people off standby,,,, yes, that does happen. Why,,,, the airlines over sell as well as let people get onto the stand by list in all cases. If people do not show up then the stand byers get a ticket. Many times we (FAMS) do not show up due to delays or an incident that delayed us from getting to our next flight. In those cases the airlines re-sells our tickets.
There are some issue I can not comment about due to security. Trust me when I tell you the above info is correct.
Coastiejoe...welcome to Flyertalk and The Travel Safety/Security Forum.
We hope you'll stick around these parts and add to the travel safety and security issues that are debated in this Forum.
Jul 7, 2005 | 11:34 pm
#389
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Midwest
Programs: AA, UA, DL, LUV, SPG, HHonors, Avis, Hertz
Posts: 3,033
Security
There's been a LOT of debate in this thread about whether one particular kind of security makes sense when another type is ostensibly present. And while a few posters have mentioned EL AL, it's not clear to me that the underlying thesis behind that airline's system has ever been brought up.
Airline security, EL AL style, is about trying to cover as many bases as possible, and make up for potential holes by having a backup plan. I'm not going to get into the middle of this nearly one-year old argument about whether we should or shouldn't have FAMs. I do think there's a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation about the rationale for the program, though. So if you really have a strong opinion, perhaps you might benefit from reading something more detailed. I don't know the author of this piece, nor whether he's particuarly reputable. I do know a little about EL AL and its security, though, and what I've seen in the article seems pretty on target.
Strategies for Countering Terrorism:
Lessons from the Israeli Experience
I would draw particuarly attention to the sub-section marked: Commercial Aviation Security. It discusses in some detail, the concept of concentric rings of security.
Airline security, EL AL style, is about trying to cover as many bases as possible, and make up for potential holes by having a backup plan. I'm not going to get into the middle of this nearly one-year old argument about whether we should or shouldn't have FAMs. I do think there's a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation about the rationale for the program, though. So if you really have a strong opinion, perhaps you might benefit from reading something more detailed. I don't know the author of this piece, nor whether he's particuarly reputable. I do know a little about EL AL and its security, though, and what I've seen in the article seems pretty on target.
Strategies for Countering Terrorism:
Lessons from the Israeli Experience
I would draw particuarly attention to the sub-section marked: Commercial Aviation Security. It discusses in some detail, the concept of concentric rings of security.
Jul 8, 2005 | 7:48 am
#390
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
Originally Posted by Coastiejoe
...The government does pay for the tickets. They pay "C" class which is as high as it gets. No one pays higher.
Bruce