FAM's now truly undercover, or gone?
#1
Original Member
Original Poster
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
FAM's now truly undercover, or gone?
On 12/14/07 I posted this:
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.
Based on my last 3 flights (all full-size AA planes) into Washington D.C. (historically a FAM rich flight), they have either changed their tactics in *every* way I suggested, or they have *significantly* reduced FAM's. There were NONE in first class aisles on my 3 flights, unless: a) they are allowed to drink alcohol on duty; and/or b) they have females over the age of 65; and/or c) they have FAM's who are POS.
#2
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,661
A fact that TSA doesn't want you to know is that you have a better chance of being on a flight with a FFDO sitting in the cockpit than a FAM sitting in First class.
We had a FAM last month on a flight out of DCA.
We had a FAM last month on a flight out of DCA.
#5
Original Member
Original Poster
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
Forget what I said. Just flew the Delta Shuttle from DCA to LGA. Just before the flight the agent boarded 4 individuals who looked like they had been selected by Central Casting to impersonate FAMs. Being Shuttle there was no first class, but they took the opposing aisles on the 3rd and 4th row of the plane. Several people in line commented on the fact that there were 4. Best guess is that 2 were leftover from the flight the hour before that was cancelled.
#7
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,955
#9
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
Law Dawg has said that procedures have changed recently for FAM's, so perhaps they are now not as noticeable. I hope we are getting something for the FAM's $700 million annual budget.
#10
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
Based on my last 3 flights (all full-size AA planes) into Washington D.C. (historically a FAM rich flight), they have either changed their tactics in *every* way I suggested, or they have *significantly* reduced FAM's. There were NONE in first class aisles on my 3 flights, unless: a) they are allowed to drink alcohol on duty; and/or b) they have females over the age of 65; and/or c) they have FAM's who are POS.
And I REALLY doubt they read this board and operated off your suggestion.
#11
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
there have been changes made in several areas such as pre-boarding and attire (and most from input from fam's themselves) and from what i've been told, it's been met with a positive reaction from most of the rank & file (tho some airlines still want fam's to "pre-board" which kind of defeats the purpose of the changes made. )
#12
Join Date: May 2005
Location: various cities in the USofA: NYC, BWI, IAH, ORD, CVG, NYC
Programs: Former UA 1K, National Exec. Elite
Posts: 5,485
Law Dawg has said that procedures have changed recently for FAM's, so perhaps they are now not as noticeable. I hope we are getting something for the FAM's $700 million annual budget.
That would pay for 2.8 million trips (two trips per voucher, i.e. a round trip, ignoring connecting flights), potentially covering 25% or so of all domestic flights (see http://www.transtats.bts.gov/ ) That's a lot more than the FAM program covers.
Of course this would be a bureaucratic mess (i.e. no change). Problems of officers protecting family members, etc. could be an issue.
#13
Join Date: Apr 2005
Programs: Delta SkyMiles
Posts: 652
Geez, for $700million the US could give LEOs (local cops, FBI agents, Border Patrol, ASPCA officers, etc.) $500 vouchers for domestic vacations on the condition that they fly with their service weapon, in uniform, etc. To prevent Hawaii from being inundated with LEOs, only allow travel on flights with at most one other officer using a voucher.
That would pay for 2.8 million trips (two trips per voucher, i.e. a round trip, ignoring connecting flights), potentially covering 25% or so of all domestic flights (see http://www.transtats.bts.gov/ ) That's a lot more than the FAM program covers.
That would pay for 2.8 million trips (two trips per voucher, i.e. a round trip, ignoring connecting flights), potentially covering 25% or so of all domestic flights (see http://www.transtats.bts.gov/ ) That's a lot more than the FAM program covers.
All cops that fly armed on official business--extraditions, mainly-- have to complete a brief (about two hours, I think--I haven't taken it) course called "Flying While Armed." I am absolutely certain that thousands of cops would attend, on their own time and expense, a course of up to five days on whatever tactics are crucial to engaging an armed threat while in flight and proving that they were sufficiently skilled with their sidearms to do so effectively (and a bunch of cops wouldn't qualify--cops tend to regard their marksmanship skills the way the typical American mororist regards his driving skills) in exchange for credentials that would allow them to carry their concealed weapons on board commercial flights. No special upgrades, no free travel, no companion coupons.
With all due respect to the FAM community, this would provide considerably greater coverage at very low cost.
#14
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
This has been a popular topic in the law enforcement community since 9/11, and to a lesser degree, before.
All cops that fly armed on official business--extraditions, mainly-- have to complete a brief (about two hours, I think--I haven't taken it) course called "Flying While Armed." I am absolutely certain that thousands of cops would attend, on their own time and expense, a course of up to five days on whatever tactics are crucial to engaging an armed threat while in flight and proving that they were sufficiently skilled with their sidearms to do so effectively (and a bunch of cops wouldn't qualify--cops tend to regard their marksmanship skills the way the typical American mororist regards his driving skills) in exchange for credentials that would allow them to carry their concealed weapons on board commercial flights. No special upgrades, no free travel, no companion coupons.
With all due respect to the FAM community, this would provide considerably greater coverage at very low cost.
All cops that fly armed on official business--extraditions, mainly-- have to complete a brief (about two hours, I think--I haven't taken it) course called "Flying While Armed." I am absolutely certain that thousands of cops would attend, on their own time and expense, a course of up to five days on whatever tactics are crucial to engaging an armed threat while in flight and proving that they were sufficiently skilled with their sidearms to do so effectively (and a bunch of cops wouldn't qualify--cops tend to regard their marksmanship skills the way the typical American mororist regards his driving skills) in exchange for credentials that would allow them to carry their concealed weapons on board commercial flights. No special upgrades, no free travel, no companion coupons.
With all due respect to the FAM community, this would provide considerably greater coverage at very low cost.
Of course there's the problem of a LEO with a gun in one state going into another where he's not a LEO, just a civilian. Is that in violation of law? I believe this is state dependent, is it not?
And yeah, from what I've heard, FAM policies have indeed changed and for the better. Their numbers have actually gone up recently, from my sources as well, although in only certain cities.
"Spot the FAM" isn't impossible yet, but it's gotten a wee bit harder.
#15
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,531
No worries: at least for the last two weeks they're still entering via the exits. However, I did see one very attractive lady looking very business-like. If she hadn't been putting away her credentials, she would have fooled me. Vahroom!