So the public should let small little items like the TSA hiring convicted felons (background checks were not done in spite of the press releases to the contrary) as screeners and then keeping them employed to fill staffing requirements as a forgivable item?

How did the TSA handle that little inconvenient information? Out of curiosity what other agency within the Department of Justice, Treasury (and then Homeland Security) had so many felons hired as percent of workforce?

Opening ceremonies of the first Bastille Day was not perfect either.

Now this is really where I disagree with you.

TSA could have a GREAT IMAGE if they did what the charter calls for, treated people with respect and presented itself as a benefit to travel instead of a hinderance.

I kinda of thought that was what the Engage Program was all about but that seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

I'm not suggesting that the problems can be fixed overnight, not even this year, but action must be taken to change direction.

Rock bottom already happened with the fake drugs in a baggie "joke" over at Philadelphia. Daddy is a lawyer. We haven't seen the end of that by a long shot.

But the temptation to build a fully functional guillotine over at TSA HQ is at times overwhelming.

TSA will always have a bad image. I've seen too many vindictive pax.

That sounds like the TSA isn't interested in cleaning up its public image. Why can't the TSA be magnanimous and make the changes despite potential negative stories?

This past week was a perfect example. Instead of digging in his heels, Blogger Bob went on the offensive over the article about Mikey the Cub Scout. If he had simply said the TSA was reaching out to Mikey's mother to fix the situation, PV would have been filled with people saying, "Wow. Great to hear, Bob. Keep up the good work." Instead, Bob is getting his just desserts.

Diffusing a potential PR nightmare is just not that difficult.

For much the same reason the police close ranks when one of theirs is busted.

I noticed none of the TSA screeners here appear to know what Bastille Day is (or why).

Sure, it can be fixed. It requires, though, that the agency with the problems (in this case, TSA) do two things: fix the problem, and then aggressively go out and build a positive image.

It happens all the time with other industries. People have no problem buying Tylenol pain killers, Firestone tires, and airline tickets on AirTran ... even though each of those companies had, at one time, a huge public relations nightmare on their hands. But each of those companies quit blaming other people for their problems, fixed their problems, and then got out front and started building trust with the public once again.

TSA could do the same.

Do you honestly believe that everyone who posts the body slams against TSA woke up one morning and decided to hate everything and everyone associated with your despicable agency? I sure didn't. TSA worked hard for me to feel about it the way I do now.

So what is your despicable agency doing to fix the PR nightmare it created for itself? Listening (and I do mean listening) to valid complaints and fixing those complaint items? Sadly, no. From the outside it looks as though TSA operates only in damage control mode (cue in klaxon) while rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Has it fixed any of the complaints passengers have had? Perhaps the issue with most of the barkers was taken care of but it was replaced by several other, still more obnoxious additions to the SOP.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

It keeps you from being part of the solution.

+1

Absolutely, spot on. The TSA has gone out of its way to make people dislike it. Until the creation of the TSA, I had never fretted about going through airport security. Now, I feel like I have to prepare myself to run a gauntlet of snippy TSOs and inconsistent rules and blabber from officers who tell me over and over that a U.S. Passport Card is not a valid ID.

It need not always have a bad image, but if this is the prevailing TSA viewpoint, it certainly will.

Business school marketing class teach that the most loyal customers an entity can have are those who had a grievance that was promptly and effectively addressed and corrected. Having an "official blogger" make fun of an 8 year old whose mother has tried for 7 years to get him off "the list" is not an example of effective correction of a problem; in fact it has made it worse.

Most of us fly frequently and are aware that there are many TSOs who are effective, efficient and professional, but we are very offended by the many we meet who are not, as we know that in our own businesses those poor performers would be "performance managed" and fired if they did not improve.

By the same token, as frequent flyers we are intensely interested in real security. When the next plane goes down to a terrorist plot, we know that we are far more likely to be on that plane than the once-yearly flyer who parrots "anything for security," but mistakenly believes that Security Theater is keeping him/her safe.

Ah, so you're putting blame on others. Pretty typical reaction from a government agency. "Can't be us..."

Not sure about that. I for instance highly appreciate how security treated me in Japan, Thailand, and many of the countries in Africa I traveled to in the past months. Generally security in Skandinavia great, too. What I want to say is that there are many ways of screening passengers.

As a passenger I'm very keen on having good security on my flight. (I have been on flights where I didn't really feel safe). But in my experience the TSA is one of the most stressful, pushy and rude ways you can screen passengers and I think that the TSA's bad image has somthing to do with that.