law dawg

This is spot on.

ND Sol

Okay, 5.5%. It is just not a significant number.

You take the number of FAM's, the number of flights and the number of work hours, and the percentage has to be very low. Here is an indication from a few years ago, but after the FAM program had been ramped up.
If it would have been significant, I would bet that he would not have used the phrase "more than 5 percent." A further question is whether his assertion is even true.

bbc1969

I believe that there is an element in management who would agree (or say they agree with this). But it is not "policy" or a part of any training. I think that many of those who claim to feel this way are only using it as an excuse to cover why certain policies and practices have not been changed to allow FAMs to blend in easier.

As far as the "hypothetical" situations listed in the past several pages of this thread; I do the job everyday. I rarely have anyone make any comments beyond that which polite people exchange on a daily basis.

I have had very few folks trying to "out" me, or trying to show "how smart they are" at picking out FAMs. Even those that have were just basically playing a game with me personally, and not "running up and down the aisles" trying to show everyone else how smart they are.

What did I do? Nothing. I maintained my professional composure, and continued on with my job. No reports written, no one put on a list. Maybe a good chuckle with others during a layover is about it.

I am a professional. While off duty, I will participate in discussions (such as here) about the odds of something happening, why we do this, is the program effective and the like. When on duty I operate in a professional manner. Instead of playing games I conduct myself as if someone who is "really" trying to do wrong by picking me out is there. I interact with my fellow passengers in a normal manner. Of those few times I have mentioned above, about half of them ended with the person telling me at the end of the flight that at first they thought I was the "sky marshal", but because I was "so normal", and had not reacted to their comments (as well as my conduct during the flight) they "knew" they were wrong. I just laugh and agree with them.

Most of my fellow employee's conduct themselves in the same manner. As has been said before, there are still a few idiots left. They continue to fall by the wayside.

People are going to do what they are going to do. Sitting down and playing a little "hello" game is one thing, and will be handled one way. Being loud, pointing out your opinions, telling the whole plane, causing a scene, may (again I say MAY) get handled another way.

Global_Hi_Flyer

First, it's a bit presumptuous of you to say I'd cheer 'em on.

Cops mess with folks all the time, and one person's definition of "mess with" is entirely different than another. Not everything should be reported, not at all. And even if it is, there is some form of process that the cop can fight it - up to and including a grievance procedure.

The cop usually knows when a report has been filed against him.

That's not necessarily the case with a "report" that's filed to some kind of DHS dossier on an individual.

If a cop walks up to a person on the street and says "Morning, crook", I don't think that warrants any kind of report. If, on the other hand, the cop points a gun at a person and says "hey thug, I'm going to follow you and you'll be eating concrete if you so much as say one word", with no reason to believe that the person walking down the street is a thug, I'd think that to be over the line.

"I know it when I see it".

Whether LEOs like it or not, those that are entrusted with our safety ARE role models, and are expected to act with more discretion. It's the same way that politicians are expected to act in a more distinguished manner,as opposed to "do as I say, not as I do".

Yes, I understand the real world, I understand emotional response, etc. etc. I remain troubled that a FAM can file a report on an individual (by name, etc), that builds a dossier, that some anonymous government official can use to deny privileges without due process. Whether or not that happens is not the question, the fact that it can happen speaks volumes about where we've ended up as a society.

law dawg

You are correct. It was a little presumptuous. My apologies.

I don't think, though, that it would be presumptuous to say it would be wildly cheered here in TS/S.

True, but neither is it the case that the LEO knows. I've known LEOs to have been complained upon and the first they hear of it is when they're sanctioned.

If a cop walked up to an undercover, say, loss prevention officer and outed them being a smarta$$ then I'd say that was over the line and I wouldn't be surprised if the LPO responded somehow.

Hey porn!

Again, not saying it's necessarily right but I think it's a little irresponsible to "advise" people to do things without also advising them there may be consequences.

mmartin4600

Excellent post. On an aside. Two weeks ago I had a gentleman sitting next to me pointing out the FAM's to me. They were actually off duty FBI agents heading somewhere. It was good for a chuckle.

sbrower

It works the same way the police cars work. They don't stop every crime, but the possibility that one will drive around the corner any minute limits certain types of crimes by certain types of people. If you want to hijack a plane, but there is 50% chance that your gun/weapon will be taken by TSA, and 25% chance that a FAM will be on your flight, with only a 75% chance that you can "neutralize" the FAM, you might decide to hit a target other than an airline.

sbrower

And there we come to our other disagreement. I contend that it is virtually impossible for the FAM's to be anonymous to a competent observer. There are too few locations (6 to 14 aisle seats in First Class - unless the profile has changed, and FAMS will now accept windows - I haven't seen one there yet), too many discrepancies (over 20, under 70, under 300 pounds, not drinking alcohol, not wearing shorts or a jogging suit), not carrying large amounts of company identifiable data (maybe the FAM's should carry laptops and work on spreadsheets with recent marketing reports from a well-known company). Also, they need to lose "the look" (i.e. - no vigilant scanning of passengers boarding, or approaching the restroom), no "restroom checks" right after usage by certain passengers, no PDA usage (I think FAM's are the only people still using a PDA with a stylus (slight joke)), and NO IDENTIFICATION TO THE CREW who always treat them differently.

sinanju

And, perhaps, Occam should be paid his due here. Perhaps the simplest explanation is best. It is altogether possible that the critical flaw you have observed in the way the FAM program works really is a critical flaw and not some subtlety beyond everyone's ken.

goalie

now that's funny

law dawg

Again, I agree. That's a matter of execution, not of principle. Some are better at this than others, no doubt.

As for the windows, most FAMs I know like sitting there. And some do.

mmartin4600

The best part was how he went into great detail about how he can tell they were FAM's. Where they sit, how they dress, their "look".......

ND Sol

And yet another data point that supports the contention of how few flights FAM's are on. This is from the most recent Consumer Reports: