FAMed Again, but maybe a solution
Oct 31, 2007, 4:10 pm
#136
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
Sorry, Law Dog, I wasn't generalizing this time. I was just observing that on a particular transcon on AA leaving BOS, ever Aisle FC seat had alcohol except the two individuals I mentioned, which means either: a) no FAM's in FC on that flight; or b) the FAM's were drinking (no implication here - I am sure they don't - so my conclusion is "no fams").
Nov 2, 2007, 8:07 am
#138
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: 42,214
That's one reason why their FAM system works, and ours doesn't. Just one reason, mind you.
Nov 2, 2007, 8:42 am
#139
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
Disagree. Our system works fine, the purpose is different. Their purpose is to actually defend the flight, which is why they have people on every flight. Our purpose is to deter someone from even attempting a hijack, which is why ours are intentionally "visible" to the trained observer.
Nov 2, 2007, 8:51 am
#140
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: BOS
Programs: Recovering AA flyer, LT PLT 2.6 MM
Posts: 1,543
Disagree. Our system works fine, the purpose is different. Their purpose is to actually defend the flight, which is why they have people on every flight. Our purpose is to deter someone from even attempting a hijack, which is why ours are intentionally "visible" to the trained observer.
Seriously. The "trained" person you're talking about would know that FAMs randomly ride flights and would otherwise not be "observable". If that is not sufficient deterrent, "observability" does nothing except enable the bad guy to factor the FAM into any given plan.
Nov 2, 2007, 9:18 am
#141
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: 42,214
Disagree. Our system works fine, the purpose is different. Their purpose is to actually defend the flight, which is why they have people on every flight. Our purpose is to deter someone from even attempting a hijack, which is why ours are intentionally "visible" to the trained observer.
They are not visible by choice - they are visible by mismanagement and sloppiness.
Nov 2, 2007, 9:24 am
#142
Join Date: Sep 2006
Programs: CO Plat, Priority Club Plat, HH Diamond, Avis First, Hertz #1Gold
Posts: 720
Disagree. Our system works fine, the purpose is different. Their purpose is to actually defend the flight, which is why they have people on every flight. Our purpose is to deter someone from even attempting a hijack, which is why ours are intentionally "visible" to the trained observer.
Nov 2, 2007, 9:41 am
#143
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
Sorry, Law Dog, I wasn't generalizing this time. I was just observing that on a particular transcon on AA leaving BOS, ever Aisle FC seat had alcohol except the two individuals I mentioned, which means either: a) no FAM's in FC on that flight; or b) the FAM's were drinking (no implication here - I am sure they don't - so my conclusion is "no fams").
Nov 2, 2007, 9:45 am
#145
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
A "trained observer"? Like my grandmother? "Oh! There's a policeman on our plane!"
Seriously. The "trained" person you're talking about would know that FAMs randomly ride flights and would otherwise not be "observable". If that is not sufficient deterrent, "observability" does nothing except enable the bad guy to factor the FAM into any given plan.
Seriously. The "trained" person you're talking about would know that FAMs randomly ride flights and would otherwise not be "observable". If that is not sufficient deterrent, "observability" does nothing except enable the bad guy to factor the FAM into any given plan.
I think some of the old management thinking was it was a win-win situation for them. They really thought that the bad guys would see them and move onto another plane and do the job. Then they could say, "Well, if we'd had more manpower maybe we could have covered that flight too and averted this tragedy." The FAMs I know are enraged by this kind of thinking. If it happens again, they want to be there.
Nov 2, 2007, 10:09 am
#147
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 253
As Law Dawg stated, those of us in the seats have brought this point up. Fortunately, our new Director is open to suggestions from the field, and has made many improvements in how we operate. Hopefully we will be able to resolve the last few problems we have.
Last edited by mmartin4600; Dec 1, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Nov 2, 2007, 10:30 am
#148
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
As Law Dawg stated, those of us in the seats have brought this point up. IF the FAM's were allowed to do the job the way we want to, you would have a more difficult time picking us out. The problem is individuals who have never done the job manage us. Most of them are ex-Secret Service, and we all know how covert they are. I remember our first Director telling us we were not covert, we were semi-covert. 
Most of the guys I work with go directly against policy to protect our anonymity. Fortunately, our new Director is open to suggestions from the field, and has made many improvements in how we operate. Hopefully we will be able to resolve the last few problems we have.
Most of the guys I work with go directly against policy to protect our anonymity. Fortunately, our new Director is open to suggestions from the field, and has made many improvements in how we operate. Hopefully we will be able to resolve the last few problems we have.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover
Nov 2, 2007, 10:49 am
#150
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: BOS
Programs: Recovering AA flyer, LT PLT 2.6 MM
Posts: 1,543