Originally Posted by
exbayern
May I ask the same question I have asked for some time now? Why does the general public not appear to have an issue with TSA, and in fact many laud it for being 'better' than screening in other airports around the world?
I recently had a series of flights at various airports in the UK and western Europe after a relatively long spell of US domestic travel, and was again struck by the differences in approach (and frankly the peace, calm, logic, and civility was what stood out most)
I read so often online from the infrequent traveller how 'poor' non-US screening is, and how the screening is substandard to TSA. Yet it appears that they don't understand the facts, and only look to the outward top layer, and take shoes off and barking to mean 'better'. Why are more of them not questioning this?
Probably because most people have never traveled outside the US, and many believe the propaganda TSA puts out. Most people fly a handful of times a year, at that much, so the show is for them. It LOOKS like they're doing something. And after all, if it's a hassle, security must be tight. And we haven't had any planes going down. It all makes sense right?
And as many people don't fly very often, even if they don't like it, they don't make a big deal about it because they don't have to deal with it option. The ones who complain about the process are marginalized as "nuts", "natives", etc. So the net result is we get what we have now.
Despite the many public failures, TSA isn't going anywhere because Congress is afraid to take it out. If something happens, it will be there butt in the fire for reigning in TSA, and you KNOW TSA will be saying "Well, if you had let us do X, this wouldn't have happened." Until enough people complain to Congress to overcome that fear of not getting re-elected, nothing will change.