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?
Several points to answer this:
1. The TSA was built in a knee-jerk fashion in response to 9/11.
2. When the TSA was assembled, it was also during a time when airport security was the butt of a lot of jokes in America, primarily due to most of the screeners having a very loose command of the English language. The TSA's hiring standards brought on people who do speak English fluently, and it part of eye (or ear) candy for the general public.
3. Answering the question about the "around the world" thing. The TSA is admittedly between a rock and a hard place, for them no news is good news. However, they feel they need to justify their existence given they haven't caught any terrorists when their agency has the perception among some of needing to do just that.
That's a long way of coming to this point: The TSA does many things to bolster its PR image.
- They purchased new police-style uniforms, which they even admit was done to command respect from the traveling public.
- They have many signs in airports citing "testimonials" from its screeners, most invoking 9/11 somehow. 9/11 is rapidly becoming shamelessly used. Rudolph Giuliani used it as a platform to run for president, and the TSA uses it to boost its perceived value and image. And here in the States, it's an unwritten law that if you attach 9/11 to something, you're vilified if you go against it.
- The TSA doesn't cater to the frequent fliers. They focus in on Ma and Pa Kettle. You have heard of the 70/30 rule of flying (70% of the airlines' revenue is dependent on 30% of its passengers), right? That basically means that the TSA wants to cater to the 70% that are infrequent fliers, the ones that are in awe and easily impressed by things at the airport, including those police-imitation uniforms (again, purchased to command respect) worn by the TSA.
So, to summarize those points, it's all about the PR and its image for the TSA.
Originally Posted by
exbayern
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 largely do the travel you mention (though no UK), and I see the same thing at Western Europe airports as I do with U.S. airports.
I don't share the same point of view about civility. People yelling at me (and others) to take liquids out is not what I see (or hear) in Europe. "Male assist, no alarm" yelled out is not something I hear in Europe either.
The TSA would like to advertise professionalism, but actions speak a lot louder than words (even if you shout them).
The difference between U.S. and European screening is that the Europeans don't feel the need to justify their existence. Yes, some European lines can sometimes be a little (and I mean a little) slower, but I find them to be competent and professional.
Originally Posted by
exbayern
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?
Again, the warm and fuzzies about the PR the TSA puts out.
The Europeans just do their job, there's no "sizzle" or PR with what they do.