I hear that a lot, but I've got to tell you that our company dropped the ball fairly frequently. You would think that the contract would have been cut, but it never was. Go figure.

When I was hired as a private security screener, my training consisted of a six-hour computer-based course that I finished in three hours. My x-ray exam so easy, consisting of Wile E. Coyote time bombs, Dirty Harry revolvers, and Bowie knives---seriously, I'm not exaggerating; you'd have to be blind to not spot the threat items. After that, never received any other type of follow up training. The "OJT" was more or less an initiation. No true rhyme or reason behind it other than testing our stamina for the work, giving us the unpleasant tasks or leaving us stranded at the "wand down" table. Then, after someone in the hierarchy determined we had successfully passed the "test," we were allowed to work on our own.

TSA has an organized training program. And it has a very strict testing policy. I won't go into all the details, but I will say this: recently, I seem to have had the "bad luck" of losing students. Within the first few days, they would drop out of the course. Lost three in one course and two in another. Thought I was under some curse until one of the other students revealed something to me. Seems that some people come into this job thinking that it's easy money, that it's just a matter of standing around the checkpoint for eight hours a day and going home with a paycheck plus benefits. Then I or one of my other instructors comes along and teaches them all the ins and outs of hand wanding, stressing the importance of certain procedures and then following up during the practical labs with very picky, very detailed critiques (and that's the easy part---we get very picky during the certification finals). So now I don't feel so badly about losing these students; if they don't have what it takes, then I don't want them on the floor.

Now you say that you believe that airport security is important yet don't want to invest the time and resources it takes to train a professional staff. Makes me doubt that you really mean what you say.

Hmmm. Well, when I was in the Army, we had Chevy Blazers as our primary vehicles AKA the CUCV. Not very practical on a shooting battlefield. The CUCV was replaced by the current HMMWV or "Humvee." So, yeah, I guess we have. If you feel safer in a Chevy, that's your choice. I think the Humvee is suitable for the task at hand. We can agree to disagree.

Possibly. I initially opposed federalized screening until I worked the checkpoint floor as a private contractor supervisor and had an opportunity to compare that company with TSA. I don't think the stories were made-up; but I do agree that they were slanted against the private security companies. Then again, the private security companies didn't do much to improve their image.

Again, I disagree that the problem didn't exist. I accuse you of saying anything that will return your convenience over sound security because it suits your purpose. Not saying that I blame you. Just saying that security is intended to be inconvenient. That's reality, my friend.

I seriously doubt that. I'd like to know where you get your data because I know for a fact that it does not exist. There is no national database that directly compares airports or that directly compares the federal contractors with TSA. You seem to believe that there is, probably based on a six-year old piece taken out of context.

I would gladly match the officers I've trained against any others.