As you well know, there is a right way to complain and a wrong way. Compliments can be generic ("everyone is so friendly" "there's a nice positive atmosphere" etc.) but complaints need to be specific. "Everyone is so rude" doesn't cut it. However, "TSO Smith threatened to have me removed from my flight. He refused to allow me to explain my concerns. He refused to notify the supervisor after I requested one." These are the proverbial nails in the coffin. But you have to be willing to swing the hammer. From time to time, I get to read some of the negative comment cards. Unfortunately, some of them have generic statements or fail to specify any details. It makes it very difficult to follow up. Others are obviously written while angry, and it's difficult to determine how much of it was actually rude behavior by the TSO as opposed to a chip the passenger may have already had on his or her shoulder. This is basic stuff, and I know you know this already. However, some folks do sabotage themselves with emotionally-laden complaints or with general comments that don't specify anything.

As for the "do you want to fly today" comments. Ask for a supervisor, and ask the supervisor to defend that comment. If the supervisor is dumb enough to try to defend it, then ask for that supervisor's name, the TSO's name (all that's required is the name and number that appears on the name plate), and then submit your complaint through the airline station manager (you should be able to obtain the email address/mail address from the airline representative at the departure gate).

Threatening passengers in this manner is a direct violation of TSA policy. You don't have to tolerate it.

The only thing a TSA supervisor can do is deny you access into the sterile area. But that supervisor needs to be able to support that decision with solid facts (e.g. possessing a knife but not wanting to surrender it, failing to resolve an ETD alarm, etc.). Otherwise, if there is a violation of law (e.g. possessing a firearm at the checkpoint), then it's a LEO issue. Whenever a TSA supervisor denies access into the sterile area for matters such as inability to resolve an ETD alarm, the first person that needs to be notified is the airline GSC.

I'm not defending TSA with the comment I'm about to make, but I think I do have an explanation for why some supervisors were ineffective. When NCS Pearson hired the first generation of supervisors, it did a sloppy job. It was a first-come-first-hired basis. The standard was, essentially, if you didn't have anything in your background that disqualified you, then you were hired as a supervisor INSTEAD of hiring only those with the strongest qualifications. I think FSDs have slowly weeded out these supervisors, but I can't speak for all airports. What I can tell you is that at my airport, only one supervisor has been promoted to screening manager who was originally hired by NCS Pearson as a TSA supervisor. Everyone else who was promoted to screening manager were screeners who worked their way up the ladder either starting off as basic screeners or as lead screeners. This tells me that our FSD was not impressed with what he was given as his initial crop of supervisors. As for the rest of that initial generation, many of them have subsequently resigned, some have been terminated, and others are slowly realizing that they will never advance. I'm not speaking on behalf of my FSD. I'm just reading between the lines. I'm no dummy. I can read patterns and trends with the best of them. While I know I can't apply this model across the board, I think it's safe to assume that other FSDs may have applied it at some airports. If this assumption is valid, then there should be less and less supervisors who are unresponsive to customer complaints today than there were five years ago.

Again, you don't have to tolerate rude behavior.