Having worked in public safety/law enforcement/aviation industry prior to the attacks on 9-11-01, I have definite opinions on what should or should not have happened.

In my "world" what should have happened was a strengthening of the civil enforcement/inspection/law enforcement aspects of the then FAA Civil Aviation Security Division. I believe "heads" may have had to roll in some management employment situations due to the FAA's "fluctuations" in being effective in its security mission (friend of the airline one minute/here to fine you the next/oh you screwed up thats a biggie/well we'll mitigate it down to $37.50 and a slap;)).

Screening would have been left with contracted companies. Mandated help from the Fed in providing advanced technology. Increased oversight as related above(more inspectors/agents/LEO's).

The knee jerk reaction was aviation security responsibility had to be removed from the FAA. I feel that with additional oversight and strict enforcement; billions could have been saved, and a better result would have been seen. I am not a FAA cheerleader, but I think it could have been sorted out and left where it was.

The additonal duties TSA is branching out into such as rails and ports could have been accomplished with providing the resources to agencies that already existed within DOT and the other alphabet law enforcement agencies out there.

Wirelessly posted (bb: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0) BlackBerry8310/4.2.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102)

Yes, the TSA was primarily a move for politics sake (well for some, that is. I'm sure some bozos actually thought the Feds could do a better job.) Its a shame how much political considerations can screw up our daily lives and cost out of our pockets.

On a side note, LEOs flying armed on aircraft are not isolated to just Feds. If on official business and with the appropriate paperwork, any LEO can fly armed.

Wow, I love your enthusiasm, but maybe you could direct your comments and concerns to the Air Marshal Director instead of stating what everyone already knows in this forum. “FAMs are easy to spot” It’s funny though… most of the people on here who believe they saw a FAM are mistaken.

Most of you sit next to a FAM every day and don’t know it. Things are still not perfect, but the agency has come a long way in a very short time.

You know, I love when people like you say things like this. What makes you think your comfort trumps the safety of air passengers and victims on the ground, who may be targets of flying bomb?

And for the record…. Airlines take a full tax credit for every seat FAMs use during their missions. Most of you upgrade for free because your company buys you airline tickets.

A guess you also complain when the airlines move military personnel into First also…. How dare they??!!!

Arguments about safety aside, I'm not entirely sure why you think tax credits are such a great thing. Given that virtually every airline is LOSING money, they aren't paying tax anyway. Ergo, the value of tax credits is effectively zero. From page 3 of UAL's Q2 press release:

http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_...ingsReleas.pdf

You've been invited to source your claim in the AA forum - feel free any time.

Regarding the argument of whether or not the actual person flying paid for the seat: this is a non-argument. Someone paid, and someone should get what they paid for.

Finally, regarding military personnel: I personally think it is wonderful when someone gives up their first class seat for someone in uniform -- but that is their decision, not the airline. I don't think anyone has seen an airline seat military personnel in first over a paid customer or someone flying on an upgrade instrument - have they?

I fail to see how FAMs are any less effective at protecting the cockpit sitting in the first row of coach, which is usually between row 3 and row 9, than in first.

I definitely fail to see how it maintains the "cover" of FAMs to make it known that they are likely to be in one of only 4-12 seats (i.e., aisles in 2-6 rows of F).

I doubt anyone who flies 50K, or 100K, or 200K miles per year considers their frequent-flier loyalty benefits "free." Doesn't really matter who pays for the tickets, but many FTers pay for their own or own the company that buys them.

Actually, a number of FTers have used their own upgrade credits to put uniformed military in first with varying degrees of success. I myself haven't done that, though I did once try to give up my high-priority standby slot (we were both distressed pax from cancelled flights, but I had status) to a military guy going home once during irregular ops at ORD. But the airline refused.

Please don't insult the intelligence of frequent flyers who actually know something about federal taxes by posting such nonsense. There may be sky marshals who are experts at federal tax, but you've just outed yourself as someone whose knowledge base is lacking on the subject.

Not when I sit in coach. :D

The former is an urban myth. Why do people keep on spreading that untruth?

As for the latter, I have never heard of an airline kicking someone out of their FC seat to put a military member in. Perhaps if the seat is open, then yes. Would FAM's agree to the same standard?

I am not aware of this being done over a paid F or confirmed upgrade customer (though I have seen such passengers give up their seats), but I do believe that military folks have occasionally been given seats in F over folks waiting on the standby/upgrade list.

Good points. The studies were done and shown to Congress using timers for scenarios. It's been hashed out.

As far as F and advertising, I agree 100% but that cat's been out of the bag for a while now. CNN was the first to put it out, mere weeks after the program was being ramped up. :(

It depends. :)

It's what FAMs were told upon asking and joining. It's been put out to the troops as such, although I've seen no documentation supporting this contention.

Oh, boo hoo. It should be up to the airlines who sits where, not the government. Furthermore, there's no proof that stealing a seat in F and putting an air marshal there will prevent the hysterical drivel you've described vs. keeping them in coach vs. not putting them on the plane at all.

That's pure rubbish. The airlines get NO tax breaks and NO revenue when the government steals seats for the air marshals. Got any other bogus ideas you'd care to share with the group? Earth is flat perhaps?

Actually, many of us do pay for premium class seats. Other times we upgrade. In either case, where we sit should be between us and the airlines. The government should get the hell out of the equation and better yet should be forcibly thrown out of the equation.

The airlines can and should seat people wherever they like without any interference from thieves in the government. If the airlines want to put military people in F, that should be for them and them alone to decide. The government should have zero say in the matter.

Dream on, pal. I am very good at spotting air marshals. I am quite confident I haven't flown next to an air marshal in months. Of course, we can't possibly be as good as you, who claims to know what other people know or don't know, see or don't see, understand or don't understand. :rolleyes:

I've already refuted the "theft" argument, unless you want to label all governmental regulatory costs as theft. You can't pick and choose. Not even you, Spiff. ;)