Spiff

Terrific. We can put all the guns in the cockpit where they can do the least amount of damage both to passengers and to revenue.

Maybe the flight can be spent normally in F as it used to be and the folks in the cockpit can spend the flight playing "Mine is bigger than yours."

Djlawman

You should stop kidding yourself about this whole FAM program. This was an explicit quid pro quo. Post 9/11, the world-wide insurers [yes, the private free market in insurance, Lloyds, etc.] STOPPED writing aircraft terrorism insurance. Without that insurance, the companies who either 1) own the aircraft (where they are leased); or 2) finance the aircraft for the airlines, did not want to let the aircraft fly.

Congress passed a package of new legislation, which included the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, which provides, essentially, a federal guarantee and forces property insurers to write the terrorism insurance. Part of the quid pro quo for that was placing FAM's on flights to try to reduce the risks which the federal government was now insuring.

Airlines simply could not fly without the backup provided by the federal government through the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. So, airlines have no choice but to give up the seats to the FAM's. They want the government guarantee of their terrorism risk insurance, they have to take the FAM program and give up seats to it. It's as simple as that.

Airlines want the FAMs off the flights? Fine, then they should do without the TRIA protection as well. See how long their banks let them fly their planes without it.

As for me, as a taxpayer, if I am going to be insuring the terrorism risk for the airlines (which most of us are doing -- at least those of us that pay taxes, which not all of us do), then I have no problem with the FAM's being there to limit the taxpayer exposure to potentially catastrophic losses which we would end up paying for.

CPT Trips

Particularly where government bureaucracy is involved.

ralfp

As a taxpayer, I want my money spent on things that deliver the best ROI (among other things). I very much doubt that FAMs provide this.

law dawg

So I'm continually confused here:

Is it an argument of principle or efficacy? People can't seem to make up their minds.

And, since we're on the topic, is it a argument of principle or nice seats? They can't seem to make up their minds on that one either.

osxanalyst

I was FAM'ed about a year ago when flying with my family in 2A,C,D,F on US.
We ended up with 2A,D, 2F, and 3F. With two young kids obviously, this would not work.

However, I noticed the change a couple days before my flight and called to see what could be done. The agent (India?) said nothing could be done. I asked for supervisor. Supervisor told me that there was a Marshal in the seat and that there was nothing they could do. I was shocked to be told this so I called DHS to report that some call center overseas for US Air told me where the FAM would be on an upcoming flight. The next day, 2D was available to select.

Spiff

I severely doubt that the airlines cannot get insurance without allowing the government to steal premium class seats.

Would you be so kind as to back up that statement?

ND Sol

The proffered reason for the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act was to help real estate projects. The Act wasn't enacted until over a year after 9/11 and was meant to be only temporary. It was scheduled to expire at the end of 2005, but now is scheduled to expire at the end of this year. This was not an airline industry specific Act and there certainly wasn't a big rush to get it enacted like other 9/11 measures. Can you show us where this was "an explicit quid pro quo"?

Just last month, the President of one of the largest airlines again expressed his displeasure with FAM's and their authoritarian control over seats and flights. But even so, I just don't see that having FAM's on fewer than 5% of flights is much of a deterrent anyways.

law dawg

I wonder if his response was the nation's displeasure at their aircraft being used as missiles?

law dawg

And it's STILL not theft. FAM costs are just like any other compliance cost. Argue effectiveness if you like, but not the mandatory nature or the cost. The principle is sound. Efficacy can be argued.

scophreak

I rarely, if ever, fly FC, so the FAM seat situation doesn't really affect me in the least. However, I still don't quite understand the logic on seating them so close to the flight deck.

1) If the flight deck is still so vulnerable, why did we go through the trouble of installing the new reinforced cockpit doors? Isn't the purpose of these "reinforced" doors to stop so-called "evil-doers" from entering the cockpit?

2) Wouldn't an aisle seat further back in the cabin allow the FAM to survey more of the landscape of the aircraft, therefore increasing his/her effectiveness? Wouldn't it be easier to incapacitate a FAM or suspected FAM from the rear (i.e. from behind them)?

ND Sol

His response was displeasure with the FAM program. The nation owns aircraft that were being used as missiles?

ralfp

Some people argue on principle, some about the seats, and some probably think the two are one and the same.

I doubt that FAMs provide a good return (reduced terrorism; wrestling a drunkard doesn't count) for the costs (salary, hotels, airline lost revenue, etc.) Of course the people in charge will argue that it would be a security risk to show how effective or ineffective the FAMs are.

Why can't we argue about the mandatory nature and cost of the FAM program?

Why not let the airlines decide whether to allow FAMs on board? If the FAMs are really effective (worth the price of a lost seat), the airlines will want them aboard.

Spiff

Yes, it is theft.

Taxation is one thing, but appropriation of a merchant's goods and services is pure and simple theft ala organized crime.

Djlawman

The TRIA was a follow-up to The Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, which was passed by Congress and took effect on September 21, 2001, so that the airlines could fly again with coverage for terrorist incidents.

The act's general provisions are described here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...:@@@L&summ2=m&

That act was passed because insurers had begun cancelling their terrorism coverage for airplanes:

See, e.g.,

http://www.findaircraft.com/services...e/warrisk.html

"The underwriters in their panic hit the only relief valve they had and exercised the seven-day cancellation provision that was contained in every aviation war risk "write back" endorsement throughout the domestic aviation insurance market. They did not know what to do, but plainly they perceived hazards had changed and it was evident that war coverage could no longer be extended at "give-away" rates. The early loss assessments indicated that, although financially sound now, the entire aviation insurance industry could be devastated by another tragedy of the magnitude of the September 11 attack, forcing some of the underwriters into bankruptcy."

TRIA was a follow-up piece of legislation pushed by the large property and casualty underwriters, who argued to Congress that the P&C underwriters were going to bear the brunt of the September 11th insurance costs, due to coverage on the WTC, and nearby buildings (for coverages like property damages, business interruption coverage, etc.), and therefore deserved to get subsidized terrorism risk insurance coverage as well. So, TRIA included both aviation coverage and P&C coverage within the umbrella of covered risks which the government began subsidizing (or providing excess reinsurance, essentially).

Shortly after 9/11, the number of insurance companies willing to write aviation insurance dropped to 7, as several companies got out of the business entirely.

http://www.hopeaviation.com/terrorismupdate.html

So, within days of September 11th, the US had agreed to shoulder a very significant portion of the burden of possible terrorism losses in the event of more terrorist attacks on airplanes, and had also greatly expanded the FAM program. They went hand in hand.

AS law dawg points out, it's a compliance cost. If they kept the seat open and did not allow you to pre-book it, frequent fliers with their right of entitlement would complain that they were not able to pre-book the seat when there ended up being no FAM on the flight, and someone else beat them to the seat when it was opened up at airport check-in. If they allow the seat to be pre-booked, but them bump someone out when an FAM ends up on the flight, other FF's complain. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

And the idea is for the FAM to prevent pilot cabin incursions. If it really needs to be explained that the first seats are closer, then I'm afraid I can't be of any further help to you folks.

I know that many here (coveting their precious first upgrades) want to get into a debate that the FAM can be just as effective from coach cabin. I'm not going to get into that debate. But I doubt that if the FAM people believe there is a security reason to be as close to the pilot cabin door as possible, that the government is going to agree to put them in coach instead because some twitty FF'ers have their knickers in a knot that they got deprived of their first class upgrade on a particular flight.

But my main point was that, regardless of what seat it is (coach or first), it is most definitely not "stealing" from the airlines. The airlines are getting their insurance heavily subsidized by the government in order to keep flying, and the FAM seats they have to give up is part of the compliance cost for
that subsidy. In any event, since the vast majority of first seats are filled by upgrades, and not sold first tickets, and since the airplanes are flying at capacity levels now far in excess of the levels prior to September 11th, it is hard to argue in any way that the airlines are recovering less revenue per flight because of the seat that a FAM might be taking up. Ultra-competitive fares and fuel costs have everything to do with the finances of airlines these days, and the FAM seats have virtually nothing to do with it.