You are entitled to your opinion. Thats what makes America Great. Thats why I am proud to be an American, as well as a peace officer in this country. My opinion is that you are wrong. We can agree to disagree. I will still go to work everyday and do my best. I will continue to train hard and keep myself ready. If the program is flushed tomorrow, so be it. I am experienced, educated, and have worked both in government and the private sector so I will not worry about "where is my next job". Because I am a professional I would go board the plane and do my job even if told its a charter flight full of Frequent Flyer FAM Haters of America, and if a couple of these FFFHA members were actually terrorists or other criminals who were masquerading as FFFHA members and started slashing, maiming, or whatever I would still defend these FFFHA'ers, because they are entitled to their opinion, but do not deserve to be the victim of a criminal, terrorist, nutcase or whatever.

I realize thats approaching over the top, but just wanted to make my point that I (as well as my co-workers) will do the job to the end. Whatever that end may be.

No we do not. Those that tried (after being told upfront not too) were fired.

That is the quickest way to get fired from the Air Marshal Service. As I posted elsewhere, the Airline Corporate Offices monitor this very, very diligently.

I've been a gov't guy for about 30 years -- military and civil service -- and there's no excuse for these guys not following government ethics rules. In these examples, these guys clearly violated the restriction against using one's government office for personal gain. Perception of abuse counts just as much as an actual violation. I'm sure that's what got those guys canned and what ought to put the guy in this example in the hot seat.

I really take this "humble servant of the taxpayers" thing seriously from myself, the President, and down to the gun-slunging FAM. I assume initial and recurrring ethics training is part of your training program? Do you guys even have an ethics official?

What data or evidence can you provide that would even suggest that the threat of another 9/11 style hijacking is unrealistic? None? Ok then, I guess that it's your gut instinct telling you that it's an unrealistic threat. Unless you are the sole international terrorist expert or intelligence analyst with that opinion, I hope you don't mind if those of us who know better tell you that you are completely incorrect. The threat is real, and the data to prove it is well known.

Denial and complacency thrive within and feed upon their own inertia, and since we do not live in a vacuum, denial and complacency will come to rest one way or the other. Which way do you prefer?

I agree with you. And yes their is frequent ethics training requirement, as well as the full complement of Human resources officials (for example ethics officials)

Those that do not follow get fired or as appropriate under the disciplinary rules.

As far as this thread goes, I think it was just taken for granted that the individuals in the first post were "off duty".

Hey Spiff,
Do you honestly believe that the airlines lose money when they have Air Marshals in first class. Do you think they don't claim the occupied seat as lost revenue at tax time. THE AIRLINES DO NOT LOSE A DIME! I am glad those guys are there. I would rather have an Air Marshal next to me than to sit next to your sorry azz. They are there to do a job. You are in FC to boost your own ego. I don't care how many medallion clubs you are in or how wealthy you think you are. It's impossible to shine a turd.

God Bless the Air Marshals!

Uh-huh. You know so much more than I do.

Thanks for the laugh.

At least your posts have become marginally more civil since yesterday.

The post above (by new member NonPreten), in addition to being a likely(?) violation of the rule against multiple handles on FT, demonstrates a significant understanding of tax rules. The airlines (like most taxpayers) do *not* get to deduct money they don't make. You pay taxes on the money you do make, minus the costs. If a FAM sits in a seat, you don't get a "deduction" for "I would have liked to sell that seat for $2,000."

Is the risk of an airplane again being used 9/11 style about 100,000 times as high as the risk of a bus being bombed? Because between the pointy object agency and the FAMs and the National Guard at the airport (remember that joke - no mission, no rules of engagement) I assume we are spending about 100,000 times as much (add the lost productivity of air travelers) to protect airplanes as we are to protect busses.

What about if 10 busses were all bombed on the same day. Would that have a psychological impact? Are we spending an equal amount to protect them? If it happens, will people say "My gosh, I didn't know that we let busses operate without police escorts." I want to see the FAM's reassigned from First Class on Delta to 8 hours a day on busses in downtown areas. At least they would have some actual crimes to deal with and they would be protecting people in need, while waiting for the terrorists.

I have not been uncivil in any post at any time on this forum. I have read some other posts made by other posters that were more than enthusiastic, but they were not mine. So you might want to check your facts before you go and accuse me of incivility.

Steal? What am I stealing? Your precious first class seat? Did you know that the entire FAM program would be impossible w/o the tacit cooperation of the airline? They got a huge bail out and tax write off for those 2 seats. Let the terrs hit the airline industry again and see how many freaky flier miles you get. You better get ready to drive everywhere after that. The airline knows it, I know it and apparently the only people in the world who don't is you and your compadres.

FAM

Would you bet a loved one' s life that it will NEVER happen again? Are you privy to all the FBI and CIA reports on terrorism? I guess so since you have no idea what plots are in the works or have been foiled except what you see on CNN. I can see why many people believe in home-schooling, Teach.
FAMIAM

It all boils down to money. The Gov gave the airlines a bailout and it asked for something in return. Quid Pro Quo. I learned that in middle school Spiff.
The money the Gov gave the airlines allows you to continue to earn your precious freaky flyer upgrades and continue to annoy the other pax with your incessant whining that you didn't get your cocktail before take-off.


Back to by binkie and stroking my pistol....in what *was* your first class seat.

FAMIAM

If what is meant by '9/11 style hijacking' is taking over a commercial plane and using it as a missile -- well the threat of that is quite unrealistic today. Not only is such a plan virtually impossible today, it was impossible by the 4th airplane on the morning of Sept 11. Once word got out what the purpose of the hijacking was -- and no one is under any illusions today -- it is clear that a handful of hijackers could at worst blow up an airplane or crash it into a field somewhere. Use it as a bomb to blow up something else -- that is extremely unlikely.

And while an exploded plane is obviously not something to be desired, it is also true that Air Marshals quite useless in defending against this 'threat'. I'm not sure what exactly they are supposed to do about someone who gets a bomb onto a plane in his checked luggage, for instance, gets on the plane and blows himself up along with all the other pax (and air marshals). And as people have pointed out, air marshals are simply a misallocation of resources when it comes to protecting ports, nuclear facilities, chemical plants, etc.

The real purpose of post-Sept 11 security measures, I've always thought, has much more to do with reassuring people -- esp those who don't fly a lot -- that airline travel is safe. As I see it, the whole purpose of these measures is pr, entirely linked to the importance of keeping the airline industry solvent -- and politicians in their jobs -- and, for many of the reasons pointed out in this thread, has almost nothing to do with actually making flying safer.

Of course to blame air marshals for all this is kind of silly.

Just my 2 cents.

I bet my own life and that of my loved ones every time I drive, fly, go out in public, etc. Life is risky. You don't lessen those risks in any substantial way for me at all.

We have all seen plenty of botched security and plain stupidity being passed off as "security." We have all seen "security" based on "the sky is falling" Henny Penny stuff. I think we can wisely resist your invitation to just trust you without question. No thanks.

Your phony baloney stance that you are privy to oh, such important data (like a flying FAM would be in the loop - don't think so) is nothing more than a rhetorical device to dismiss others.

If there really was capability to sow terrorism in this country, we would see lot's and lot's and lot's of it. It is not possible to stop it. We cannot defend everything and everywhere. Look at the Israeli experience - a situation where a force that has more control over an occupied people than perhaps anywhere else in the world. And they cannot stop dedicated low tech terrorism.

If there was real capability to commit terrorist acts in this country, we would see sporting events (where security "experts" such as yourself now bunch people up at the entrances making a much more inviting target than the spread out crowds inside the stadia) attacked. We would see buses attacked, shopping malls attacked, financial offices attacked, post offices attacked, police stations and police cars attacked. We would see Amtrak trains derailed along the thousands and thousands of miles of tracks that we cannot guard. We would see bridges, tunnels, etc. blown.

There is no reason to believe that airports and airplanes are so very special that they would be the single and only target of terrorists. That's plain stupid.

Maybe you shoot well, maybe not. Maybe you'll merely be the next superbly trained and highly informed FAM to leave your weapon in an airport lav or to get b*tch slapped by a passenger who won't turn off her cell phone. I doubt that I'll be reading of any real protection afforded by you or your lot anytime soon.

As to your original question: you are a bad bet placed in the wrong venue.

As for assuming that I am a classroom teacher or that what I do can be replaced by "home schooling": a mighty leap to a wrong conclusion based on thin data - but then that is a well documented speciality of "security" "experts."

As Ted Williams said, "If you don't think too good, then don't think too much."

Best wishes,

Teacher49