Who did?

Not when they stick out like a sore thumb making themselves the first targets to get taken out.

Our government tells us that we're all at risk and that there's a terrorist behind every bush waiting to strike. Aren't they all at risk?

Just telling you what the "gubmint experts" were teaching us.

I think that's true ... to a point. TBH, I don't have a whole lot of confidence in any of them ... including intelligence agencies seeing how they're run (I'll leave it at that). I do think they do a better job than most agencies. You have more confidence in TSA's abilities than I do. However, I still maintain that it wouldn't take much to get the needed items on a plane if they really wanted to, and the pax checkpoint isn't the only way to get it done either.

As for the layers, I think the intelligence and LEO layers are the strongest, with the airport layers being the weak link. I'm not confident that outside of luck that there's all that much chance of truly bad stuff getting thru, and a lot of that has to do that TSO's have to look for WAY too much like shampoo, water, etc which detracts from looking for things like bombs.

ICE.


That is a problem of policy, which is mainly driven by the airlines at this point. Believe me, the rank and file FAMs I have spoken to want this to go away as much or more than you do.

There's risk and then there's risk. Obviously some areas are higher risk than others.

I wish I could see that info, because it runs counter to everything I've learned and seen over the last two decades.

TBH?

Well, we can argue 'till the cows come home about who, what, where or how things are done and effectiveness.

First principles - is it necessary?
Second - if its necessary, what is the best, most efficient way to get it done, given the mission.

I agree that the TSA needs better technology and needs to focus its resources. I doubt many of the rank and file would disagree with you on this.

Ah, a sister agency to TSA under the DHS umbrella. I'd really like to see a non-DHS study of that.

This puts us back to the blame game. If you ask TSA, they'll blame the airlines for this. If you ask the airlines, they blame TSA.

I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of "high risk" flights that don't have FAMs on them. And even if there is higher risk, higher risk compared to what? Are we talking like 1 in a million vs. 1 in a billion?

Wish they would have given us literature and notes as it was primarily a lecture. Small class and it was a very good class (interestingly enough, the gov't contracted a Canadian to teach it), but they didn't give us much to take home. A lot of good survival skills taught in that class though.

To Be Honest ... sorry gamer lingo coming thru.

And I think the first principle is where you and a lot of us get hung up. You see it as necessary while a lot of us don't. We all have our reasons for thinking why we do.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not too confident that many of them care what they have to enforce. It's just a job to a lot of them at this point.

Well, the tactics are Delta Force tactics, and they're the ones who set up the drill, so I personally take that as gold.

Indeed. But as a FLEO I know who it is that demands me preboard, and that is the pilot.

I'm not sure how they compute it. But by risk I don't think its economic as much as likelihood, but I may be wrong on this. As far as many high risks not having FAMs, I think that is more a manpower issue than anything else.

Interesting. I would have liked to attend that. My experience and education says that moving dramatically increases your life expectancy.

I'm a gamer too, but not online so much. The ten year old kids whipping me is hell on my therapy bill.

Absolutely. If you can't agree on the first principle then the rest is irrelevant. Take, for instance, Texas Dawg. He is opposed to any type of screening unless the business wants it. So everything else is mute. Other people will say that screening is a good idea, then get hung up on the best way to do it (TSA vs. private, weapons vs. bombs, etc.).

I'd disagree with this. A lot of them have risked their careers to highlight security issues and effect change, particularly in the FAMS.

You claimed that all curtains were removed "just after" September 11, 2001 and that their removal (actually as a result of TSA edict) had nothing to do with concern about marshals being able to see throughout the cabins. My 30 second Google search confirmed that they weren't all removed immediately following September 11, 2001 and that their forced removal (ordered by the TSA in Spring, 2003) might just have been to please the marshals' bosses (TSA/ICE/DHS - whichever alphabet agency owned the sky marshals at the time).

I apologize for not making crystal clear the parts of your post that constituted that "misinformation." Sorry 'bout that.

Excellent question. Given that the reason for this website's existence is that many of the participants are obsessed with airline points and miles (and what those points and miles typically allow us to do), your hunch is probably correct. If marshals sat solely in the rear (or in the front galley jumpseats, which is where they should be, IMO), there would probably be fewer complaints about them "poaching" First and Business class seats (Remember that legendary thread?).

See, this is not merely a travel or airline passenger website. Its primary users are typically that subset of travelers who enjoy collecting airline points and miles, which are often used to redeem free premium cabin award seats or to upgrade paid coach or business class tickets to premium classes. Every marshal butt in a premium seat is a seat that can't contain a paid butt (the typical airline complaint) or a free or upgraded butt (the typical frequent flyer complaint). Sit in a jumpseat facing the cabin and you would impose much smaller costs on both groups (airlines and mileage-obsessed passengers).

About concern for airlines' financial health: IMO, the smart frequent flyers who are obsessed with miles and points (and, consequently, upgrading) most certainly care about their airlines' financial health. When airlines are thriving, airlines tend to add F and J/C (business class) seats to their airplanes and generally make it easier to upgrade. That's generally what happened from about 1993-2000. When airlines are ailing, they tend to do the opposite. I prefer the former. Both as a shareholder and a frequent upgrader.

I'm not questioning the tactics per se as I know Deltas know what they're doing. I guess I'm just skeptical of any organization that puts out their own studies/benchmarks/etc and claims they're the absolute truth. It's fine that they run tests and make a claim. I just like to see some outside verification of those claims.

I don't doubt that. The question comes where is that decision made. The captain blames the airline, the airline blames the TSA, TSA blames the airline ...

I can generally understand flights going out of DCA as that's just across the river from downtown DC. I haven't seen the same thing in fights out of BWI and IAD considering they're not that far off either. Especially with all the heavies going out of IAD.

It was a very interesting class, primarily geared towards assignments going to hostile areas but it was good to know for any sort of traveler really. I liked taking them as they also showed me how the "game" was played from multiple facets.

lol I hear ya. I play an online RPG (Final Fantasy XI) that really doesn't have much player vs. player, so I don't have to worry about getting beat by the young whipper snappers. They're on my team.

I think you'll find people here be largely against the FAM program, but for screening. A lot of it's just the implementation that sucks.

Well, you always have the "whistle blowers", but I think the higher up you go into the more specialized areas such as FAMs, you'll see more career minded people who are willing to take it more seriously and put more on the line. However, to the average airport screener, it's just a job or a way to get thru college.

What I don't like seeing is where TSA focuses on canning the whistle blower (such as Mark "Baghdad Bob" Hatfield wanting to can the person who released the 90% failure rate at EWR) rather than actually fixing the problems.

As a tax law expert and government paid author of numerous tax forms and publications, I can guarantee you that there is NO tax credit, deduction, or benefit of ANY kind for providing free seats to FAMs.

A tax credit with a carryback or carryforward provision can be of benefit to an airline with current year losses if they eventually are profitable.

Yes, I agree with that statement, but didn't want to muddy the waters too much, which is why I was pointing out the years immediately following 9/11 when a tax credit was not an issue; the survival of many airlines was and additional revenue was being lost through free seats to FAM's.

I followed up and did some searching. Interesting information. I stand corrected. The fact that TSA mandated makes your point right. Even if the FAM service was not the primary cause of the removal, the service is part of the TSA, (and was at that point I think. We have bounced so much its hard to keep the exact dates of whose logo we are wearing) so we have to own it as well.

I will say that curtains or no curtains has never been a big issue or training point in the field, hence my lack of knowledge on the issue.

Thank you for the other comments as well, regarding seating, frequent flyers, and FAMs as they relate. Very much to the point. There have been times where some posters try to "talk around" those points and seem to shy away from admitting that their prime concern is the "seat", not the program. Not that they don't have opinions about how effective the program is, but that the concern is more about the seat in many instances (but not all of course).

I can appreciate that.

But this was a policy long before 9/11 and the existence of the TSA.

From what I've heard its pretty heavy at both, although maybe not as much as DCA.

Neverwinter Nights II and Spellforce are my RPGs of choice. And Halo on XBox.

That's my impression as well.

On this we're in 100% agreement.

Thanks.

So maybe what we're looking at is an old FAA policy that TSA decided to continue.

I haven't seen any on any UA flights out of BWI ... and I often sat in row 2 on their 757's. I usually try to avoid IAD like the plague as I hate that airport in general but I haven't seen any on any flights I've been on out of there. Doubt there will be on my little RJ to YUL in a couple weeks. Don't blame FAMs for not wanting to be on those.

Never did either of those. I'm a PC gamer. I get killed in shooters on a console, but I do pretty well on my PC when I have a mouse.

Wow, is that possible?

Yes, well don't make any assumptions about what I'm suggesting the solution is. I been to "high security" places that are easier to get into than my university library.

Not FAA either. FAA regs require a LEO to check in with the aircraft operator, who then is supposed to notify the PIC and any other LEOs. That is it for regs. Everything else is an airline issue, that I have found.

Who would?

How about Knights of the Old Republic?

When the stars align, maybe?

Well back to the ORIGINAL topic...

I'll be interested to see if there are FAMs on my 6am Sunday flight out of DCA post-Freddies. I hope not cuz then I'd get bumped from 1B, but I expect not cuz what FAM in their right mind wants to take a 6am Sunday flight.

Cheers.

I will bet you two martinis that there most certainly will be and probably in the second row aisle seats, so you are safe in 1B. And the FAMS don't get to "choose" not to work a flight that DHS wants them to work.