Simply cannot win.

How many of you are actual U.S. CITIZENS?

What do you mean by Simply cannot win. What does it matter if you're a U.S. CITIZEN?

my levity was not directed at the pre-boarding issue.

I agree with posts by coastiejoe in regards to the fact that we only can go by what we have been told. I also have "heard this" from both management and airline personnel. I would also like to see it in "writing" so to speak.

One opinion I have, (if the information is indeed false) is that the "paid seats" idea is a leftover from the pre 9-11 era. Back when there were only "33" FAMS working only select flights. There could have been some budget item or procedure that took care of the airlines at that time. Just an Idea.

As far as CEO's testimony before congress, I wouldnt bet on their comments one way or the other. Even if right I would not use Airline CEO's as poster children for common sense, honesty, or any other virtue (as a group-I know there are a couple out there who seem ok). Many have helped run their businesses into the ground, and FAM seats would not be the reason that made, or broke them. There arent THAT many of us out there.

It's just one of many elements driving airlines into the ground (pardon the expression!). And anybody who believes that airline CEOs would intentionally provide false testimony under oath to a congressional committee is over-the-top paranoid.

Bruce

I'm so afraid that you're right and that security relaxes in a wrong sort of way. We should stay on alert in a sensible way. It sickens me when measures are introduced using a false sentiment or people attack things on sentiment. Actually people are abusing the grief of other's for their own benefit.

I am sure several would say we see "over the top paranoid" folks take issue here all the time. (not directed at you, just a statement).

With the many scandals both inside government and private industry that involve high level politicians as well as executives, I would not call it paranoid to think that someone would lie to congress "under oath". Lying under oath is nothing new unfortunately. Not saying it has or has not in the case at hand. But in general, I would not be surprised to learn that some CEO's (of any business) or some politicians lie under oath.

True and even then. This things aren't black and white so people can testify to the 'best of their knowledge' and surely 'not lie'.

I still don't feel like doing the search. But as has been previously posted here, the *law* which authorizes the FAM program *says* that there is *no* payment to the airlines. This isn't a close one . . .

Well regardless there is a law or not: The airlines got a substantial amount of money and this has been so for years. In Europe this is common as well. I'm not saying it is nice. To add insult to injury: European ISP's will most likely be faced with the requirement to store all internet traffic (not the content but who does what and when) for years. The government to pay totally nothing. I guess this is a new trend

I do not think that anyone is disupting the language of the bill passed right after 9-11. something along the lines of "shall provide seats as directed by the administrator........without charge" or some closely related wording. (Don't have it here in front of me).

The explanation I have alway's heard was that was for direct billing so to speak. Nothing preventing a "tax break" or whatever it could be called on the back end.

As stated before this is info that has proliferated not only from hearsay within the agency, but from airline personnel themselves. I would love to be able to track it down in writing, with references. If I ever get that satisfaction I will refer it here. I am not holding my breath, but we'll see.

Regardless, its a government program. The individual FAM who goes to work and does his or her job has no control over it. That point has been made here many times, and agreement has been posted by many. I would just point out that sometimes the postings still fall back on the "bash" the individual FAM, when the post is really about the government or the government program in general. Most peace officer's, in any capacity realize they will bear the brunt of disagreement with a government program, or agency, but it should be recognized it's not the individual employee, whose is out there doing the job's fault.

OMFG!, if you believe that, I've got some mountain top real estate to sell you in New Orleans.

RJR CEO: "No sir, Senator. To the best of my knowledge, cigarette smoking is not habit forming. I swear."

Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, Arthur Anderson, etc. CEO's: "No sir, Senator. I knew nothing about it. I swear."

Oh, stop it. I wasn't referring to an issue on which opinions might differ; I was talking about facts! Either the airlines get paid for air-marshal seats or they don't. This is a factual question with a definite answer. It is way beyond inconceivable that an airline CEO -- let alone two of them from competing carriers -- would lie about something like this.

Suppose they were lying. How long would it take before some government bill-payer stood up with the cancelled check and said, "Didn't your company receive this payment for air-marshal seats, Mr. CEO? You cashed the check." You just can't lie about something for which the facts are easily determinable.

Face it, already. The airlines do not get paid for air-marshal seats. The law doesn't provide for payment. At least two airline CEOs have testified that their companies are not paid, and the cost of carrying air marshals for free, usually in premium seats, is a serious financial burden. Some here may want to believe that this is some sort of unsolved mystery, just like some people insist on believing in "intelligent design" or even that the Earth is flat. It just ain't so. End of story.

Bruce

Bruce! Tell us how you really feel! Come on! Open up to us!

Folks, we are all paying for air marshall seats. The airlines are forced to give them up for free and we travelers pay for them a second time with the security fee which is collected as part of our ticket tax (or what's left over after TSA management lines its pockets)

What I want to know is who makes the decision where the FAM sits - the agency when the seat is taken, or the FAM when he/she shows up at the airport?

Giving a coach seat that would have probably gone empty is one thing - but taking FC seats on a narrow body flight when the FAM could get the identical viewpoint from the first 1-2 rows of coach (and the second FAM should be seated towards the rear of the main cabin anyway), is wrong and if requested by the carriers, should be stopped.

If the law empowers the FAM to demand any seat he/she wants from the carrier without there being logical, understandable and demonstratable evidence that the seating choice offers a security benefit, then the law needs to be changed, or the carriers should be compensated for the loss of the seats.

There are plenty of not-thought-through post-9/11 knee-jerk decisions that need to be analyzed, changed or revoked.