Missing Air Marshalls
 

Interesting articles about the lack of FAMs on flights.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/03/25...rss_topstories

The article seems bizarre to me. Are they expecting FAM coverage of 100% of flights? are they kidding me?

It's going to be on Anderson Cooper on CNN tonight. I'm setting my Tivo now.

"Of the 28,000 commercial airline flights that take to the skies on an average day in the United States, fewer than 1 percent are protected by on-board, armed federal air marshals, a nationwide CNN investigation has found."

Maybe that 1% of flights affected by government theft of (usually) premium class seats could somehow be reduced? I'd be fine with that.

What a ridiculous article. To start on the assumption that all flights are covered and then extrapolate from there that they are missing is pretty shoddy, especially when the program has always stated that they cover only some of the flights, and a relatively low number at that.

Ohhhhmy goshhh:

Not every flight has an armed air marshall
Not every bank has a security guard
Not everyone was put through a magnometor at an Obama rally last month
Not every building has a security screening.
Not every road has a DUI checkpoint up 24 hours
Not every piece of food here in America is healthy for you.
Not every building downtown has a structure to keep someone with a truck away from it.

Thanks CNN for perpetuating this freak out, paranoid mentality.

On these hundreds and hundreds and millions of flights, millions of people hopped on the plane with the intention to peacefully get from point A to point B. And if there would be anyone with bad intent, the tsa was there before they got onboard, and (better yet) the plane had passengers who wouldn't be passive like they were in the past.

ARGH......

It's a legitimate question to ask in light of the DHS/TSA's all-encompassing "we're here to save you" mentality and portraying they do in front of the cameras and on their website.

Another angle is the overall "security" aspect of it all. Consider how you go through the same "security" charade whether you're flying, for example, from LAX to either Hong Kong or from LAX to Carlsbad.

Further, if the TSA wants to shine the light on the onboard disruptive passengers in their "week in review" jargon, they're going to have to answer to questions like why there's a lack of FAMs on planes. No, it's not the FAMs primary job to control riff-raff on the planes, but the TSA puts that perception into play by that stupid "week in review" stuff.

And it's not even Sweeps month. Sigh.

So assume I'm an Evil Turrist Mastermind.

All I have to do is recruit more than one set of people to hijack planes - in some cases the FAM's will try to stop my Martyrs and may succeed, in others I get my Martyrs to fly into a building of my choice

To do what? Confiscate lotions and go on powertrips?

Obviously not:

The discrepancy they're reporting is TSA's assertion that 5% of flights are covered vs 1% according to their sources and, as a consequence:

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; PalmSource/Palm-D052; Blazer/4.5) 16;320x320)

They are in a full prevent defense over on the blog. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

If Kippie thinks CNN will embarass him, just wait until the blog responders get done with him.

"Covered" apparently includes armed pilots.

OK, this is too funny. TSA put up a 'myth-buster' article on their website. They badly need to hire a copy editor.

http://www.tsa.gov/approach/mythbust..._shortage.shtm

As soon as that "government theft" of revenue from first aid kits, oxygen bottles, defib kits, enforced maintenance (hello Southwest, anything to add here?), mandatory crew rest and maximum hours, etc. are addressed I'll be on board with your proposal.