I have spent many hours in cramped seats, all over the plane. So I guess if you want a paycheck, you put up with where they seat you.

I have sat in the front, I have sat in back, I have sat in the middle. All frequent enough to be considered "regular", and no I am not just talking about seating when flying "budget" single class airlines.

The GAO is not really known for their tactical acumen.

There is a survey of FAMs out I'm unaware of?

Question - given the mission of the FAMS, where is the need greatest?

Although I personally wouldn't have too big a problem having one in the first row or so of C (assuming no business class). Personally, I think a three man team is the only way to go, but resources and money is always an issue.

BTW, they did game the one in F one in C too. Not great. Again, first principles - what is the mission? Everything else flows from that.

Yes, we know the GAO isn't well liked by a lot of organizations, especially TSA. Accountability isn't something agencies like.


Just mentioning what was in the article cited earlier.

I think this is a false choice quesiton. This assumes that there really IS a need for FAMs. We can debate this till the cows come home.

FAMs seem to work under the assumption that only they can save a plane. However, they also rely on the pax and crew to handle most situations so as not to break cover. Considering that in the vast majority of cases pax and crew are relied upon to deal with a situation, do we REALLY need them? Especially considering they're on less than 5% of flights?

Chances are that they're not going to be there anyway when you need them and if they do, they're not going to do something unless things are really going south. And at least from what I learned in my CT classes when I was govie, when the crap hits the fan and the guns start blaring, your chances of survival drop drastically to around 8%. I don't know that even having a FAM on board would significantly change those odds.

The place to prevent something from happening is BEFORE they get on the plane. That's why the intelligence agencies need to do their jobs and sniff them out before they get too far. I think if they get to the airport, it's pretty much too late, because we can't really rely on TSA to catch them, and odds are low that there's going to be a FAM on board to help anyway.

Super

So you're honestly claiming sitting one or two rows farther back really makes a critical difference? Who was doing the dry runs and red teaming? I have to wonder if perhaps the thoughts of giving up a F seat for Y might have dulled their reflexes a bit.

I still contend that if that time makes the difference between the plane being hijacked or not, then there are far worse things wrong with the system.

I think that you can keep on looking because that tax credit does not exist. Hard to prove a negative. Search through the Internal Revenue Code, because that is where it should be.

In addition, a tax credit doesn't do much good if you have a net loss, which was the case for almost all airlines in the years immediately following 9/11.

I will take the over that you have been up front 75% of the time on 2 class planes. Anybody want to take the under?

Yeah, I would take the under. But if I got into specifics I would be releasing controlled information on a public website, and would most likely cost me my job, in addition to just being the plain wrong thing to do.

There is alot of misinformation in the public domain about the FAM program, as well as some that is right on the mark.

This is true. There are plenty of open source documents that discuss the number of flights in the U.S. compared to the small number of FAMs in the service (compared to the number of flights).

I realize that everyone has a right to their personal beliefs about an issue. Thats the way it should be.

But my question is this, if the chance of a FAM being on your flight is so small, why is the uproar over the program so great? I mean there are many other issues out there (even if just limited to the topic of personal or business travel) to get worked up over that directly effect most individuals more. Or is the truth about the matter that the "uproar" is greatest amongst frequent flyers who feel they have lost an upgrade or other benefit? Do most really, really care about the airlines financial health that they firmly believe the airlines are suffering catastrophic damage from the FAM program? If doing away with the FAM program would be the financial golden egg, wouldn't phasing out frequent flyer programs across the board be a financial wonder for the airlines? People (business people in particular) have to fly in this day and age to get things done, if the airlines stuck together they wouldn't have to worry about upset customers, as the choice would be like it or lump it. Everyone would be in the same boat.

If one of the requirements after 9-11 was that the FAMs sat only in the rear most area of the aircraft, would FAM topics have gained as much attention on these forums as they have? Or would the topic only be of interest to those who have intense thoughts or dislikes for government, or law enforcement?

Just wondering.

I'm talking about physical tactics, not accounting. GAO is not known for gunfighters and hand to hand specialists.

Missed it. Will go back and check.

I am assuming the existence of the agency, yes.

The FAMS that I know don't think only they can save a plane. They do think they have better tools and training to do so than just about anyone else, which gives them an edge.

That's when you'd want them.

I've been in two gunfights and I'm still around. Where do you get these numbers?

Absolutely. But you can't just rely on prevention. You have to have a plan in case things do go too far. Layering is the key.

I'm honestly claiming it. I've seen the video, with running timer. The guys maintained a consistent pace in every scenario to avoid that "Dulling" you mentioned.

Time is ALWAYS an issue in combat. Always.

So you really don't know what you are talking about. I suspected that for a long time. C is business class.

It's also interesting to compare your seating arguments with those of bbc's. I put more money on him being a FAM than I do on you.

Sorry. I was calling coach C. I'm not up on all the airline technical jargon.

And I never, ever said I was a FAM.

Fair questions.

To me, it's mostly government waste. The FAM program isn't implemented nearly wide enough to be effective, or even be a deterrent. Yet we're throwing millions of dollars at something on the off chance that some bad person tries to pull something on the same plane that a FAM just happens to be on. The odds are so small of that happening, it's a waste IMO.

Granted, it's not a billion dollar program, but with the state this country is in with fighting in Iraq, etc, I don't know that we really have the money to waste. It's not limited to TSA and the FAM program ... at the particular agency I worked at I never saw so many plasma TV's. They're there largely because of accounting practices: if you dont' spend the money you'll get your budget cut, so waste it on unneeded stuff. I know it's how the game is played, but it doesn't make it right.

I wouldn't care so much if they were sitting in F if the gov't was actually paying for the seats. They have contract fares for everything else ... why can't they cut a deal so the airlines get at least something tangible out of it. I'm not expecting that they'd pay full fare F for the seat, but at least they could pay what the contract rate is for an unrestricted YCA fare.

As to your "if we all screw the customer, they can't gripe" comments, I suppose in theory that would work. Maybe for the short term though. If flying is made distasteful enough (and TSA has gone a long way to furthering that) then businesmen will eventually seek other means. Hell, my IT dept doesn't have a travel budget because they say "we can just do everything remotely." And with video conferencing and high speed data links getting cheaper all the time, that can easily become more of a reality.

Super

Could always contract it out. Point is, I'd like to see outside review and not TSA's say so.

Fair enough, but I wouldn't say much of an edge.

That's also when they most likely wouldn't be there.

Numbers came from a CT class I took while working for a gov't agency that specializes in CT. If you're in a close quarters gun fight, your chances of survival go way down.

And unfortunately, TSA has shown us that they have no plans other than dumping a terminal and not evacuating planes that are suspected of having bombs on them.

TSA didn't do it.

I'd say countless hours training and a gun is a huge edge over neither.

It depends. FAMs are on many, if not most, of the high risk flights.

Of course they go down, but to 8%? I know quite a few people who have been in CQC and the overwhelming majority survived. The human being can be hard to kill. Especially when moving, which decreases the odds of being shot in the first place, and then being shot in a vital area. Same with knives. Its more problematic on a plane with only an isle (no lateral movement) but I'd still say that 8% is way, way too low.

I've said for a long time it won't be the Intel guys or the TSA or the airport LEOs or the FAMs or the FFDOs or the pax that prevent the next terror attack on civilian aviation. It will be all of them. They all make it more difficult to do, which makes other targets look more appealing. And even if they do try again, hopefully one of those layers will catch them somewhere in the process.