Originally Posted by
exbayern
I'm not suggesting that your recommendation is off base. But I think that most people would call, and if they encounter what that poster did, they may not pursue it further, or they make think that they did what they were told to do.
It's not surprising that TSA recommends calling, but in this caes the person doesn't achieve any result.
I don't think TSA necessarily
wants people availing themselves of this 'service' - if they did, there would be a CSM on hand at all times and pax with 'special concerns' would automatically be advised of their right to ask for CSM assistance. Ditto with the phone call to TSA Cares - the pax should routinely be advised that a CSM can be made available.
I can only think of two reasons for the 72 hours notice: 1) the CSM is
not readily available and 2) TSA intends to do a background check and probably make a report on any pax requesting TSA Cares CSM assistance at the checkpoint.
Nevertheless, it would appear that there's a chance to get someone who is possibly 'outside' the normal checkpoint chain-of-command to at least witness what happens at the checkpoint. It may deter over-zealous TSOs/LTSOs/STSOs from overtly punitive actions - that in itself is a step in the right direction.
Now it's quite possible that the CSM isn't really concerned about the pax experience or TSOs following SOP (whatever it happens to be at the moment), but the CSM may be an attempt to avoid embarrassing items in the news about pax mistreatment. This is, after all, the real reason why TSA suddenly decided that pax <12 and >75 can have repeat scans in an attempt to avoid gropes. The public is much more likely to get upset, call/write to Congress, etc, if a video or story surfaces about a child or an elderly person getting groped and mishandled. I think that's what is really going on with TSA Cares - image protection.
In a truly well-run organization, the position wouldn't be necessary. However, if a CSM can improve my checkpoint experience (meaning 'ensure that I am treated with something close to the respect that I should always receive and protect me from punitive TSO actions'), then regardless of motive, we should take advantage of it.
Now I certainly think there are FSDs who will not be on board with this (BOS comes to mind) - pax may show up at the checkpoint and find that the CSM is mysteriously 'unavailable', but a LTSO or STSO is ready to rubber stamp whatever goes down. But we do now have Stacey Armato's experience and the post above, two tiny data points, that suggest it might be an avenue worth pursuing.