This is because the FAMs are not on every flight. If there was a FAM on every flight, it would be fine to have them uniformed and overt. However, many flights don't have FAMs, and it would be astronomically expensive to put them on every flight. The point of staying covert when they're there is to avoid attracting attention to the number of flights they're not on.

I am ambivalent about the FAM program, but it annoyed me greatly when one stole my confirmed seat assignment next to my husband on one of the rare occasions when I got to fly in First. This is another way in which FAMs are totally obvious: an airline would never bump me out of my paid, confirmed seat in First with no explanation and no accomodation except for a FAM.

GradGirl:

The government, the system, the airline, or whomever may have taken your seat for whatever reason. But please remember that the FAMS are just people who applied for a job, wanting to help protect their country, or for whatever other personal reason, just as anyone takes a job. FAMS follow the policies that they are told to follow.

As far as explanations go, I don't know about you, but I have seen airline personnel come up with some pretty far out reasons to bump people, and some of the excuses I have heard are crazy. And I am talking about situations not having anything to do with FAMS. My point being just because you loose your seat does not "for sure" make it a FAM thing....it may or may not have been in your case, but don't rely on that being the reason everytime.

Ok,

Then you guys need to mix it up and take a variety of flights at different times on different routes.

Like clockwork I see my DCA FAM every Monday morning.

Can't really discuss schedules, but think about the city, and why you might be seeing what you are seeing. Otherwise your thoughts are correct.

My Message Was Only A Little Sarcastic
 

My message, about the fact that FAM's are not intended to be undercover, was only partially sarcastic.

The concept of being undercover, in this context, is really more like "The Emperor's New Clothes." The FAM's try to pretend that they are undercover because their management tells them to pretend that they are undercover.

But they actually are not (more correctly, substantial portions of them are not), AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE in order to accomplish 100% of their goals. No one is going to plan a terrorist takeover of a plane which is dependent on: a) disabling 2 FAM's (with the possibility of other armed individuals on board); or b) boarding a flight just hoping that FAM's aren't on that one. Before 9/11 the probability of FAM's on board was under 1%. And, further, the training of everyone involved was to "stay cool" and to allow the hijackers to give instructions (cockpit takeover wasn't in the formula). Now, with a 10%+ chance of FAM's (depending on destination, etc.), airlines will not be the targets of non-nut-case takeovers. So, the presence of the FAM's on some flights, even without invisibility, is sufficient.

As pointed out, if the FAM's were *really* supposed to be undercover: a) they would not board before other passengers; b) they would not disclose their identity to the airline staff; c) they would not have a dress code of *any* type; d) if necessary, they would order and sip alcoholic beverages (because 1/4 of 1 drink isn't going to disable anyone - it is all appearances - and, if they are really undercover, who will complain about them drinking??).

That's great that you're "in the know" but let's not post everything you know on a public forum please.

Why not? Are you actually afraid that the ubiquitous terrorists will learn something that they don't already know? :rolleyes:

Bruce

It's essential that airline staff know the good guys' identities so they know who to come to or what their alternatives are in emergencies.

And as for drinking, if the FAMs have to take any sort of action be it shooting bad guys or arresting some rowdy pax, how long will they have their jobs when they smell like Jack and Coke?

They may know some things already but there's no need to keep throwing info out there. :rolleyes:

Oh, please. Stop thinking that obvious facts are somehow secret.

Bruce

:confused:

Is this a serious post or are you being facetious? I'm serious. I assume it's a facetious or sarcastic post, but I could be wrong.

The point is, I'M NOT IN THE KNOW. I'm not a rocket scientist. I just fly a lot. Usually in F and when not, usually near the front of the plane. And I'm not brain dead.

The only passengers who probably can't make the marshals at least half the time are the Mr and Mrs Fly Once A Years. And they are not the potential terrorists the marshals must fear.

I've never seen anyone whom I suspected was a marshal in a non-aisle seat. Ever. Process of elimination makes spotting them really easy. Only half the seats in F are aisles, far fewer than that in coach.

When there's only a few seats on the aircraft that meet the operational requirements of the armed protectors, the marshals' presence just ain't no secret. Everybody already knows that.

Quibbling about the "dress code" with the hated Mr Quinn is pointless. It's not the dress code. It's the tiny freakin' fishbowl in which the armed marshals desire to hide.

The key to blending in would be to hire some people who resemble frequent flyers (many marshals do) and who don't resemble DEA agents or Border Patrol escapees or SWAT team members or Sheriff's Deputies. If the marshals included some paunchy old people or fat women or loud boors or youngsters, anonymity might be possible. Maybe. Ordering (and maybe nursing) an alcoholic drink (or a fake pre-arranged with the FA alcoholic drink: like ginger ale in a Heineken can, etc.) would help. The FAs know who they are - so a vodka tonic could be ordered. The FA could just splash some vodka in the glass and then pour it out if necessary so the glass would smell like alcohol. That would help fool the terrorists.

Anyway, I'll say it again:

If I can spot the marshals, so can the terrorists. They may be evil, but they ain't stupid. In fact, if I can spot them, ANYONE can. I'm not special.

They Can't Be Undercover
 

Jaguar, you are missing my point, in a sense.

As others have said, it isn't really possible for a FAM to be undercover when there are only 8 or 9 possible seats they might be occupying. It is *impossible* for a FAM to be undercover when they board the plane before it is legal to board the plane. (If you tried to board when they did, you would be arrested.) It is *difficult* to be undercover when other people on board (the flight attendants, other armed LEO's) know your identity. It is *difficult* to be undercover when you are using a PDA in a suspicous manner. It is *difficult* to be undercover when you are studiously ignoring the only other person on the plane who looks like you (along with the person next to you), but staring at everyone walking in the aisle and using the lavatory. It is *difficult* to be undercover when you don't look like: a) a hollywood weirdo; b) a sales person; c) a harried executive. (There are other people in first class, but that makes up a large percentage.) It is *difficult* to be undercover when you are trying to conceal not just your deep carry, but also some handcuffs, a special PDA, etc.

Do they need to be in the aisle seat? Do they need to be in first class? Do they need to have handcuffs? Do they need to avoid alcohol? No, because they won't actually be called upon to perform any duties that require otherwise. So, the fiction goes on. They pretend to be wearing clothes, and the only reason it works, is because other people on the plane don't say "Hey, he is naked!!"

Good suggestions overall. But I tend to think that if a potential terrorist decided to sniff a FAM's drink that he/she would be taken down in a heartbeat.
Hell, if a terrorist decided to sniff MY drink, he/she would wish they hadn't...:).

There are many things that the FAMs are required to do that makes no sense in the face of common sense. But these things are required by people high above in the bureaucracy who don't have to be out there putting their asses on the line everyday. I'm sure some of these political brainiacs would have the FAMs carrying compound bows with a quiver full of arrows all while wearing sport coats. The fact is that these men and women are trying to do their jobs, and yes, sometimes their presence is like the proverbial elephant in the corner. But we could all respect their privacy and not point and make comments while they do the preboard "walk of shame" down the jetways. If it were up to the actual troops to make some policy, the flying public might not ever know they were there. But in the meantime, let's stir some noise to our congressmen and senators who can really make a difference for these guys and gals and stop blaming the FAMs themselves for missing out on some cush seat for an hour and a half in the name of national security.

Well, since you fly enough to "know the deal" with FAMs, then you could consider yourself "in the know." You said it yourself in the beginning of your post that not everyone knows what's going on, but that frequent flyers can figure out who the FAM is. The point is that there's no reason to spell out every little trait of theirs on a public website. What if someone didn't know so much but now come away with more info that they in turn pass on? Let's respect the anonymity a little more that these guys and gals try to preserve despite their agency's ridiculous policies.