DCA FAM Observations
Apr 11, 2007 | 1:10 pm
#61
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
But then again, if having a FAM meant a plane wasn't going to fall out of the sky, well, we'd have planes falling out of the sky all the time.
Exerda already explained the timing difference and I agree with him.
BTW, do you know how often FAMs fly in C? More often than you think, I bet.
1. On many 747's, upstairs is usually C so by the "view of the cockpit", they'd be useless in F. This is one case where Y generally wouldn't work either.
2. There are international 2 cabin flights (LAX-SIN on SQ comes to mind) that are pretty much C and not F. If there's no F, they have to fly C.
Apr 11, 2007 | 1:52 pm
#62
Join Date: Aug 2004
Programs: UA, SWA, HA, Qantas
Posts: 660
That is misinformation. The curtains were removed just after 9-11 on all airlines as I recall. It had nothing to do with FAMs or the tactics they use. It was to provide the crew with clear views up and down the aisles. Airlines later went to the see thru sheer curtains like CO, and I have seen others with strap type barriers across the aisles. None of which were done for, or at the direction of the FAMS.
Apr 11, 2007 | 2:09 pm
#63
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
That is misinformation. The curtains were removed just after 9-11 on all airlines as I recall. It had nothing to do with FAMs or the tactics they use. It was to provide the crew with clear views up and down the aisles. Airlines later went to the see thru sheer curtains like CO, and I have seen others with strap type barriers across the aisles. None of which were done for, or at the direction of the FAMS.
AFAIK, only AA and UA refused to close their curtains between September, 2001 and their forced removal (ordered by the TSA) in the Spring of 2003. As Time indicated in early 2003:
Pulling the Curtain
Monday, Mar. 10, 2003 By SALLY B. DONNELLY
That annoying curtain separating first class from coach on most airplane flights may be facing its own final curtain. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which oversees aviation security, has told the airlines that it wants the barrier removed permanently, to allow cabin crews and federal air marshals (FAMs) to see the entire cabin. Some airlines are not thrilled with the move, which could happen by the end of the month. Much of their profit comes from passengers paying high first-class fares, and the companies are afraid of doing anything to alienate those premium flyers. "Privacy is a huge issue for travelers in the front of the plane," says Matthew Bennett, publisher of FirstClassFlyer.com "And in this economy, airlines want to do everything they can to make their best customers happy."
If they are required to drop the curtain, the airlines are making a request of their own: that the FAMs be seated through the entire plane rather than in valuable first-class seats, where they often sit now. Industry sources say the TSA will have a difficult time persuading the marshals, many of whom are already bored and exhausted by the job, to agree. TSA spokesman Brian Turmail says assertions that morale is poor among the FAMs are "absolutely wrong." He says the TSA "is intent on providing the highest level of security." --By Sally B. Donnelly
Monday, Mar. 10, 2003 By SALLY B. DONNELLY
That annoying curtain separating first class from coach on most airplane flights may be facing its own final curtain. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which oversees aviation security, has told the airlines that it wants the barrier removed permanently, to allow cabin crews and federal air marshals (FAMs) to see the entire cabin. Some airlines are not thrilled with the move, which could happen by the end of the month. Much of their profit comes from passengers paying high first-class fares, and the companies are afraid of doing anything to alienate those premium flyers. "Privacy is a huge issue for travelers in the front of the plane," says Matthew Bennett, publisher of FirstClassFlyer.com "And in this economy, airlines want to do everything they can to make their best customers happy."
If they are required to drop the curtain, the airlines are making a request of their own: that the FAMs be seated through the entire plane rather than in valuable first-class seats, where they often sit now. Industry sources say the TSA will have a difficult time persuading the marshals, many of whom are already bored and exhausted by the job, to agree. TSA spokesman Brian Turmail says assertions that morale is poor among the FAMs are "absolutely wrong." He says the TSA "is intent on providing the highest level of security." --By Sally B. Donnelly
I'm pretty sure there were dozens of threads all around Flyertalk about the TSA's order that the curtains be removed, but I'm too lazy to search for them. They would probably contain dozens of corroborating news articles and perhaps even TSA press releases.
AA retained the curtains on its airplanes until it was ordered to remove them in 2003. Dunno about the others.
Last edited by FWAAA; Apr 11, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Apr 11, 2007 | 2:16 pm
#64
Moderator, Omni, Omni/PR, Omni/Games, FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Between DCA and IAD
Programs: UA 1K MM; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 72,668
Apr 11, 2007 | 2:18 pm
#65
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,957
That is misinformation. The curtains were removed just after 9-11 on all airlines as I recall. It had nothing to do with FAMs or the tactics they use. It was to provide the crew with clear views up and down the aisles. Airlines later went to the see thru sheer curtains like CO, and I have seen others with strap type barriers across the aisles. None of which were done for, or at the direction of the FAMS.
Apr 11, 2007 | 2:38 pm
#66
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Additionally, if the airlines were getting paid for the F seats, they wouldn't be squawking about wanting the FAMs in other parts of the plane, like say Y, because they were getting paid for those seats. Wanting them out of F and into Y tells me that they're not getting paid like CO says they're not.
Apr 11, 2007 | 2:57 pm
#67
Moderator, Omni, Omni/PR, Omni/Games, FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Between DCA and IAD
Programs: UA 1K MM; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 72,668
Or if they're getting paid, it's at a rate not equivalent to the going FMV for an F seat (and given the fact of upgrades, they must be getting paid very little indeed if so).
Apr 11, 2007 | 3:26 pm
#68
Join Date: Aug 2004
Programs: UA, SWA, HA, Qantas
Posts: 660
I am also saying that I have seen cabin/class barriers other than CO's "sheer blue curtains" on other airlines. Such as the strap type barrier.
Last edited by bbc1969; Apr 11, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Apr 11, 2007 | 3:35 pm
#69
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
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.
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.
In combat a few seconds is an eternity.
Apr 11, 2007 | 3:38 pm
#70
Join Date: Aug 2004
Programs: UA, SWA, HA, Qantas
Posts: 660
I have repeatedly asked for the citation. Would make things alot easier when arguing on the internet.
Apr 11, 2007 | 3:38 pm
#71
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
But then again, if having a FAM meant a plane wasn't going to fall out of the sky, well, we'd have planes falling out of the sky all the time.
Exerda already explained the timing difference and I agree with him.
Exerda already explained the timing difference and I agree with him.
I'd be willing to bet that it's because:
1. On many 747's, upstairs is usually C so by the "view of the cockpit", they'd be useless in F. This is one case where Y generally wouldn't work either.
2. There are international 2 cabin flights (LAX-SIN on SQ comes to mind) that are pretty much C and not F. If there's no F, they have to fly C.
1. On many 747's, upstairs is usually C so by the "view of the cockpit", they'd be useless in F. This is one case where Y generally wouldn't work either.
2. There are international 2 cabin flights (LAX-SIN on SQ comes to mind) that are pretty much C and not F. If there's no F, they have to fly C.
Apr 11, 2007 | 3:47 pm
#72
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,416
Although I haven't searched for it, the citation was posted here *many* times. There is a portion of the federal law which specifically states that the airlines receive ***no*** compensation for the FAM seats.
Apr 11, 2007 | 3:52 pm
#74
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
And according to the article sited recently, it also seems that at least a lot of FAMs wouldn't put up with flying in Y, which is why they're still in C/F.
Those would be correct, as well as anytime there is more than a two man team. Which happens quite often.
Apr 11, 2007 | 4:22 pm
#75
Join Date: Aug 2004
Programs: UA, SWA, HA, Qantas
Posts: 660
The Act signed into law in the fall of 2001 (as well as the reg's pre-911) do state that FAMs will not be charged for seats. We were led to believe that tax allowances did exist to offset any costs. Proof would be nice.