> I am merely trying to put the work of airport security
> personnel in a broader context ...
Sure, I've got no problem with the problems encountered by people who work in the travel industry. Road rage and air rage are common, it's a race to the bottom for a dying industry with entrenched (read: unhappy) labor, etc. So let's talk instead about why we have FAMs in the first place, because if you get a badge and a gun and you go looking around at everyone as a threat, you WILL shoot someone someday. On the other hand, traditional law enforcement emphasizes problem resolution; this is the same reason why you don't send in the Marines to a peacekeeping mission: the threat is different, the training is different.
The question we should be asking is: what the hell are we doing with the FAM program anyway? Are we really that afraid of everyone on a plane that we have to put a pair of undercover officers -- Marine-style, not Abe Vigoda as Fish-style -- around to suspect everyone and shoot innocents now and again?
I'll say it: I'm willing to lose some airliners sometimes to terrorists if it means Federal Agents don't have to sit on a hairtrigger, kill bi-polar people "just in case" and create _actual_ terror in the skies on every flight.
/jordan