Air marshals?
Sep 1, 2005 | 6:11 pm
#91
Join Date: Aug 2004
Programs: UA, SWA, HA, Qantas
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by bocastephen
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.
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.
Wherever a FAM sits on a plane, front, middle or back (and we sit in all locations popular myth notwithstanding) is assigned long in advance. It is not a FAMs particular whim as he or she shows up to work that day. Even if a FAM feels for a legitimate reason he or she needs a different seat that FAM has to go thru the hoops and get it approved by Headquarters.
Sep 2, 2005 | 6:25 pm
#92
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by bocastephen
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.
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.
Sep 3, 2005 | 11:24 pm
#93
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by robodeer
read: give me my free upgrade!