Djlawman

Bull-twaddle.

So it's "theft" to force automakers to spend extra money to install airbags, bumpers which work, and other safety devices? It costs them money, after all. Must be "theft".

It's theft to require food preparers to adhere to certain costly food preparation requirements? It costs them money, after all. Yep, more "theft".

It's theft to require construction companies to follow certain OSHA regulations? It costs them money, after all. Give me a "T", give me an "H", give me an "E", ..........

It's theft to require a building contractor to build a building with concrete fire-proof stairways, smoke detectors and sprinkler systems? It costs them money after all. Damn thieves, being forced to protect people like that. Outrageous.

Doesn't the government realize that it's taking food off the table of these airline CEO's? It's THEFT!!!!!!!!!

The "theft" position is nothing other than BS.

Spiff

BS is exactly what you're spewing.

Your analogies are terrible. If the government made seatbelts and forced the automakers to purchase those seatbelts from the government only, then you might have a chance of coming closer to the analogy of THEFT of premium class seats from the airlines.

Show me another example of the government appropriating goods and services at gunpoint and your point might be more credible. @:-)

bocastephen

Reinforced doors which remain locked prevent incursions into the flight deck, aided by attentive crew and passengers if necessary. FAMs are not needed for this.

First Class seats are often mere inches closer than the first rows of coach - on these aircraft, the choice of seat for the FAM is comfort, not effectiveness.

So far, the program hasn't stopped any terrorist attempts, but has managed to expose FAMs to curious onlookers (although some do a good job of it on their own), put loaded in guns in places accessible to customers, become embroiled in non-germane customer service disputes, harassed customers for nonsensical reasons, and such gems as holding a plane load of passengers hostage while threatening to shoot anyone who looked at them and my personal favorite - threatening to shoot someone over a parking space at an airport.

Before DHS and the TSA got involved, FAMs were invisible, spread throughout the cabin, professional and highly trained, and managed by competent people.

Post DHS/TSA, the program is a foul mess, derided by many of the airlines, quite a few of the customers, full of cowboys and yahoos who can't wait to shoot someone (I've had just such language given to me by someone close to the program), and is a clusterbomb of poorly conceived rules and procedures which do nothing to aid their mission.

Once again, focusing on the notion that 9/11 will repeat exactly as it did that fateful day is both foolhardy, paranoid and an invitation to disaster. Trust me, you can stop staring so intensely at the flight deck - perhaps you might want to look under your feet and wonder what's sitting below you. Now *there* is something to worry about.

ND Sol

At least on CO, it is certainly far from true that "the vast majority of first seats are filled by upgrades, and not sold first tickets."

law dawg

This works, so long as the flight deck door is closed.

Tactically you are right, it's never good to have a threat to one's rear. On the other hand, if you have a threat that's close to the target (which historically is the case) one's reactionary gap is small. You only have a short amount of time to react. Add to that the OODA loop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop and if one is in the middle of the plane, with narrow aisles, and something goes down up front, then it's impossible to get there in time to do much.

First principles first - if the plane goes down everyone dies. So, one has to protect the flight deck first.

law dawg

He is upset that the nation "steals" seats. I'm saying that perhaps the nation is upset that his planes destroy buildings.

bzbdewd

Have to agree with you across the board. A family 'friend' is now a DHS version FAM. She's a moron who's been promoted based on her face not what lies behind it.... and a serious anger management/authority complex. The thought of that bimbo on a plane with a loaded gun is terrifying! I'd worry more about her doing something to down the plane before a terrorist.
When they start screening cargo as vigorously as they are passengers I'll think they're heading in the right direction. Until then it's all window dressing BS.

Djlawman

YAWN!

LOL -- so your point is that it's theft because the government forces them to use GOVT FAM security service, rather than allowing the airlines to contract it out to the lowest bidder????? Great. Sorta like the great contractors that the airlines were subcontracting screening out to, prior to the federalization of screening???? Can you say "Quackenbush?"

At gunpoint? No, the FAM's do not use their guns to take the seats, the LEGISLATION says that the FAM's get the seats.

Sorta like (follow me here, cause this one is a tough analogy Spiff) the LEGISLATION that says that airbags have to be installed,increasing the costs to the automakers. The LEGISLATION which requires smoke detectors, sprinklers, fireproof stairwells. The LEGISLATION which requires certain food safety standards which increase processed food costs.

Oh, nevermind, if you want to believe that they take these seats "at gunpoint" Spiff, there is no use arguing with you. I am sure a Nevada legislative candidate agrees with you.

Djlawman

Great, let's let a vote of frequent flyers pissed about being bumped out of their upgrade seats determine the nation's security policies.

law dawg

So it's damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Do we let the airlines decide if they should carry/have:
fire extinguishers
first aid kits
defibrillators
minimum crew rest
mandatory yearly training
maximum flight hours
etc, etc, ad nauseum
minimum inspection levels on equipment (including the plane itself)

All of the above are MANDATED to the airlines, regardless of their wishes. All of the COST the airlines money. The airline doesn't get to decide if they want them or need them. It is mandatory. Because I bet you dollars to donuts that the airlines would gladly ditch some of the above list (especially recurrent training, minimum crew rests and maximum flight hours).

But they don't get to decide.

FAMs are just one more item in the list. If you think any of the above should be enforced then you can't argue against FAMs in principle, only in efficacy.

So anyone who calls FAM seating theft needs also to call the entire above list theft as well, because it is MANDATED. Theft is taking without choice, in some many words. The airline gets no choice in the above matters.

Just like FAMs.

So what's the difference, other than - "we like one and not the other?"

law dawg

Brilliant. Thank you for illustrating my point much better than I could.

Spiff

You're really all over the map here today. There was nothing wrong with the private security screeners at the checkpoints. Their present counterparts have been shown to be no better than these private screeners in detecting credible threats.

Now, you're trying to squirm away from admitting that This Thing of the Government's is anything but theft by putting the word 'legislation' in caps. Brilliant! Show me some other examples of the government appropriating goods and services at gunpoint. Still having trouble with that one, eh?

Gunpoint is exactly what it is. While the air marshals are not usually waving their guns in the faces of the airline employees, that is exactly what would happen if the airline chose to not permit the government to steal its product and tried to operate the flight anyway.

law dawg

You need to see some of the flights I've been on then. I'd have owned that plane, had I wanted it.

Depends on the plane, view of the flight deck, etc.

And an inch in combat is often the difference between life and death, success and failure.

And possible mass murder, in an airport (the "other man" was a FAM):
http://www.wdsu.com/news/1475429/detail.html

And loads of stuff you aren't aware of. Don't put too much of that probing stuff out there (where FAMs have been on), because it might scare away the passengers.

Funny, some of the very people you describe are now also in high management positions. They sold out pretty quick.

There are lots of changes that need to happen to the FAMS, many of which the front-line FAMs have argued for. I won't argue that.

But that's a discussion of execution, not principle.

Well, I can't speak to your source, but I know more FAMs than you do, and I know that the ones I know hope nothing else ever happens. They aren't looking to get up in the morning with the hopes of killing someone.

But if it does happen, they hope to be there to stop it.

That's like a SWAT guy worrying about whether or not his counterparts in Narcotics are doing their job.

You are comparing two different jobs. The job of a FAM isn't do to bomb screening. A FAM is on scene. The bomb screening is done by someone else.

Although I'd be the first to say we need better screening, this one has nada to do with the FAMS.

Djlawman

Useless arguing with a person who only hears what they want to hear.

Legislation = gunpoint. OK. You win.

law dawg

I made a whole list of them. It appropriates capital from the airline, because the airline has to pay for them. It takes money out of their pocket. You can argue that one is a service and one is a cost, but it still costs them, which makes them either both theft or neither. You can't have it both ways.

Are you insane? FAMs would pull heat and demand their seats?

It's happened before and no guns were pulled. Several times. The airline just received a nice little fine, just like it would if it was found negligent of any other regulatory violation.