Bruce,
Like you, I can only go with the info that has been provided with to me. I have it in writing. Does that make it true or 100% percent correct. No, it does not. That is like saying "I saw it on the net, it must be true".

I do appreciate the fact that you don't attack me though. Seriously, no sarcasm is meant. The fact you can question my statement and be mature in doing so is a reflection of your character. In the beginning I know the seats were not paid for. Early on the Airlines were able to write the tickets off. Is it the same as cash, no. But it is better than nothing. Maybe some of the Airlines are still that way.

Cholula, I have been surfing for a bit. Have bit my tongue several times reading various posts.

As long as the personal attacks are not too bad I plan on sticking around. I think it is a very nice site and I feel certain that I can have positive input.

Thanks....

Well, "writing off" the costs is not worth too much when you don't have any profits! Yes, the airlines can -- and do -- deduct the cost of operating their aircraft. If they carry FAMs for free, they cannot sell those seats and might get less revenue (this is debatable). But without profits, deductions are worthless. Tax savings are zero.

The congressional testimony to which I referred was a couple of years ago. Things may have changed. But I would be really amazed to learn that the FAM service is paying top dollar for its seats. At best, they would pay government fares. As a former long-time government employee, I know how low those are!

Can any airlines employees shed light on this issue? Does the FAM service pay for its seats now?

Bruce

Let's stay in the realm of facts, not what someone told you. Whomever told you that airlines receive any revenue for FAM seats was incorrect. They were making it up. Completely, categorically, FALSE.

As Bruce said, airline execs have testified under oath that they receive no revenue for those seats.

The federal government can only spend money when Congress (and the President) authorize and appropriate money. In the case of seats for marshals, Congress has done neither. The law provides that marshals fly free in the seats of their choice, and that's the law as of this morning.

Just for grins, add up what you think "C class fare" runs on average (keeping in mind that you guys are over-represented on long-haul widebodies and DCA flights) and multiply it by the number of daily marshal flights. You know the numbers of marshals (as do I) so we don't need to go into specifics here.

Multiply that estimate by 365 and then ask yourself: "Would the airline execs be so pissed about transporting us if they were being paid "C class fare" for each and every ticket??"

The obvious answer is "NO." The airline execs would want more of you guys on each flight, and they'd upgrade the seats and meal offerings (benefitting all of us) if that were the case.

But it just ain't so.

Unlike many people here, I almost never do "search" and "link." But if someone wants to take the time, prior threads have included the language from the law (the one which creates and authorizes the existence of the FAM program) which states that the airlines must carry FAM's with *no* compensation.

(For the benefit of our new member - just about every FAM, who has posted here, has reported receiving the same inaccurate information - that FAM seats are paid for. So I am not disputing what you were told.)

Also, earlier threads have pointed out that the airlines get *no* tax benefit from those "free" seats.

The U.S. government has really sunk to new lows if it is telling air marshals -- who can't be expected to know these sorts of details -- that it pays for their seats, when it seems pretty clear that the government does not pay. (I'd still like some airline employee to confirm this, but I'm pretty confident that I'm correct.)

This is even worse than the time an air marshal told me, when I asked him directly how he had snagged my previously reserved seat, that he "worked for the airline." On the other hand, when I asked him to swap seats with me, he did!!!

Bruce

Low? They are much more than going through Expedia or elsewhere. Government fares must be fully refundable/changeable for official travel in accordance with GSA regs. They also have the CityPairs program that mandates the use of a specific airline between certain cities unless there is undue hardship on the traveller, which must be documented. The same holds true for rental cars, when authorized.

The only time I have ever received an upgrade is when I came out of pocket. I do enough European travel on my time to earn some good points as well.

As far as mission travel, the government pays zip and I don't believe the airlines receive a tax break. The airlines did, however, receive a nineteen billion dollar bailout from the government to stay alive and the security fees were created to help cover the cost of the FAM program and other initiatives.

Just my .02�

Welcome to Flyertalk.

As Hertz commercials say, NOT EXACTLY.

Not all gov't fares are refundable. The nonrefundable government fares are very, very cheap.

Even the refundable government fares, as Bruce pointed out, are very cheap. Much lower than most non-government fares, no matter the distribution point.

The airlines received nowhere near $19 billion.

Following September 11, the airlines were given $5 billion in cash to compensate them for the 3 day shutdown of September 11.

A couple years later, the airlines were given a refund of the September 11 Security Tax plus reimbursed for their expenses of cockpit doors. It amounted to a couple billion, total. All in all, about $7 billion, not $19.

You may be referring to the potential $10 billion of loan guarantees, of which only America West and USAir took advantage, and then only to the extent of a billion and a half.

We like to keep the discussions of facts sorta accurate, when possible.

I think I'm misunderstood. We are required to purchase fully refundable/changeable fares for gov travel. You can check government rates between contract cities at fedtravel.com/gsa. Fares indicated are one-way. Many travel sites are cheaper.

You are correct it was a $15 billion package. I was only $4 billion off. What do you expect, I work for the MAN.

It was originally a $15-billion package, but $10 billion of it was in the form of loan guarantees that came with so many restrictions that most airlines couldn't get them if they tried. United did try -- multiple times -- and was denied every time. They never did get any government loan guarantees and instead shut down their pension plans (and turned them over to the PBGC -- take that, Uncle Sam!).

Bruce