They are not overly obvious (uniforms) because of a desire to lower the threat level to the average person, while still being readily observable to a trained observer. That's why they don't need to be there on every flight, just enough to make planning of "another 9/11" something that will not be done. As I stated, just like police patrols, the purpose is to deter. (Police cars are very inefficient for catching criminals - they are there to deter crime.)

The two times that I thought there were FAMs on a flight, the suspected FMAs were not wearing suits.

The first was a Delta ATL-MIA flight in February 2005. I boarded first, but there were two people sitting in the center seats in the last row of F (a 767), wearing short sleeve polo shirts and khakis.

The second was in February of this year on a AA ORD-LGA 757 flight. Two young guys dressed in "hipster" stlye clothes boarded ahead of everyone else and took aisle seats in Rows 2 and 3.

But for their attire, I would have had no doubt that they were FAMs.

A minor distinction but a distinction none the less. There is a difference between being in plainclothes and undercover. Would any FAMs care to comment on how they perceive themselves while working. Are you undercover or on a plainclothes assignment. The level of deception is much greater undercover. Joe Friday vs. Serpico?

IIRC, media and insider complaints about the dress code being such a red flag prompted easing of the dress code a year or so ago, but I could be mistaken.

That's mandated by the airlines, not DHS.

FAMs should be undercover, not plainclothes.

Congress can change the laws to require the airlines to follow any rules the government mandates. The airlines did not create the FAM program and cannot dictate how it is carried out, either. And yes, for the benefit of those who have asked, the FAMs now are allowed to "dress down" by DHS so they are not as obvious (and most of them do), but the boarding procedures and seat locations still give them away.

The airlines wield enormous influence. They are dictating, more than most people think, how things are run. Its not a matter of law. There is no law on the books requiring LEOs to preboard. It is an airline policy, but one they insist on. If you don't do it, then you run into the wounded captain syndrome, which can be painful.

At the last CO IAH Event the topic of FAMs came up and it was pretty clear that CO managment as a whole were not a fan of the FAM program. One of the execs(cannot remember who) actually said something to the effect that CO looses 2-5(something around there)million dollars a year because of FAMs in FC.

He also added that they went ahead and installed those see-through curtains especially for the FAMs so that they could ride in coach but they still prefer to ride in FC.

While I am not a lover of the FAM program(I realize that some form of the program is needed), what bothers me most about it(besides the silly stuff like boarding before the pax, etc.) is their insistance on FC when at least one airline (CO) went ahead and did something that would allow them to sit in coach and the FAMs insisted on sitting in FC.

Dan

See through curtains? That does not have anything to do with FAM positioning on any airline or individual flight. Why would they be a concern one way or the other? They don't help a fam in any way. I personally don't like them, and yes I have sat behind the "sheer blue curtains" on many occasions on the job, popular myths aside.

According to what was said at the CO Event in IAH, they installed the see through curtains on their planes so that the FAMs objections that they could not see through the original curtains were now removed and they could move back to coach.

Dan

Seeing is only part of the issue. The other is time, as in how long does it take to get from where you are to where you need to be.

Yeah, things like reaction time, being alert, etc.

I think they would be more alert and responsive in a less comfortable Y seat eating a snack box rather than being well fed and in a cushy F seat.

Perhaps they would, but it wouldn't do much good, because they'd be too far back to matter.

BTW, do you know how often FAMs fly in C? More often than you think, I bet.

I suspect the difference in time between a FAM seating toward the front of the Y cabin on a domestic a/c and in F on same a/c in getting to "where the action is" (presumably, near the cockpit) is going to be negligible. If the bad guys are able to force their way into the cockpit and barricade it behind them in the time it takes the FAM to make that sort of move, there are other things wrong with the system.

As for 3-class a/c, C seats do make more sense, perhaps, than Y, but the vast majority of flights in the US probably are not 3-class a/c.