I've long held the opinion that the government should ban all forms of paying a third party extra for shorter waits in security lines, but then wealthy frequent travelers would start pushing back on the security process itself.

The question then becomes is that security really doing anything, or is it just to make people feel like it is doing something

I maintain it is latter, at the expense of multiple very real and often dismissed constitutional issues

Hence the goal of forcing the powerful and wealthy to go through the same process as everyone else.

When we force the same process on the powerful and wealthy as are applied to everyone, suddenly these programs that inconvenienced tens of millions without any careful evaluation are put under close scrutiny to determine their value.

But the most powerful and wealthiest fly private jets, so they aren't subject to any of the regular airport procedures either way, are they?

The most wealthy and powerful are generally immune to inconveniences, so don't care.

The most poor are completely and totally helpless to change things.

It's the group between those extremes that sign up for CLEAR; as a group though they could push for removing the need for CLEAR.

The most wealthy fly on private jets. But there are still plenty of wealthy and powerful people who fly commercial

Look at it this way, if you can afford to donate $6,600 to a house candidate every two years (current max donations for primary and general election for a single candidate), you're absolutely wealthy enough to get a member of the house of representatives to listen to you and take your concerns seriously (at least for a brief period during the election cycles).

You're also not nearly wealthy enough to be flying private, but you are probably wealthy enough to be paying for CLEAR, TSA Pre-Check, or another option to reduce the hassle of security lines.

Air travel is a luxury. Basically everything else in the airport is private and for a huge fee except the airport itself - and even that's not universally true. If they want to charge for shorter lines why not?

This whole thing is kind of silly - the identity and name of the passenger shouldn't even matter in the first place, the security checkpoint should remove anything dangerous no matter what their name is. They don't though, TSA fails over 90% of their own red team operations. That's where the focus should be. [1]

[1] https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/tsa-agents-minneapolis-airpo...

Airlines can reasonably charge customers extra for a shorter check-in or boarding line because the airline owns those processes and pays the staff that operate them. Shops can reasonably charge whatever people will pay, which tends to be higher when they're a captive audience.

Why should airlines or Clear have any authority over the security line when they're not the ones requiring or conducting the security check?

They don't have any authority over the security check itself, just the line, as delegated to them by the airport. As you say. But the airport is where you line up, the airport is who you pay for your experience (XF, $4.50 per ticket at SFO anyways), and the airport is private property.

So I guess my question is, why shouldn't the airport - who you're paying admission to - get to decide who can line up where? Why should they not defer that authority to someone else? The airport is a business too, generally speaking, and they have customers who value getting through the line faster. They've deferred that determination to a third party who also manages said line-up.

What difference does it make who's running the line - SFO staff or Clear staff? They're going to be private contractors one way or the other. And at SFO you're just going from one private contractor who manages the line-up (Clear) to another one who manages the actual security (CAS, not the TSA) - to another private company who flies you somewhere. Unless you stop at the privately operated restaurants or lounges.

SFO is owned by the city and county of San Francisco, but that's beside the point.

The TSA should run its own line because it's the one imposing the screening requirement.

The TSA doesn’t operate the checkpoints at SFO, it’s a private contractor called Covenant Air Security.

You are right then that SFO is public property but of course that doesn’t make it freely accessible.

The price for clear is negligible—-$190/year which includes all minor family members.

It’s odd take to think that is something that is only attainable for wealthy travelers.

What’s the point of money if it cannot be exchanged for increased convenience?

This is the government erecting barriers for no reason, then understaffing to make lines longer, then you get to pay government to buy back some of your time, and you get to pay a private company to buy back some more of your time.

From a quick websearch [1], it shows that the airport with the longest wait time on average was 26 minutes (STL) for a TSA checkpoint.

What should that target number be?

Also, how many people who arrive within the recommended window (2 hours before departure time for domestic, 3 hours for international) miss their flight due to security checkpoint delays, and how many people over all miss their flight due to security delays.

The purpose of the onboarding process (of which TSA checkpoints is one portion) is to maximize passenger safety, not minimize frustration. How much should US tax payers be expected to pay for better customer service?

[1]: https://usebounce.com/blog/airport-wait-times-2023

You may not realise this, but you need to be reasonably affluent *and* fly quite a bit for this to make sense. An extra $190 to shave off 15 or so minutes(1) for 1 or 2 trips a year is, frankly, not an affordable luxury for most.

For families it'd be worth it sooner, but if 2 parents join, you'll need to fork over $380. You could also put that towards your family holidays. E.g., it's enough for three tickets to Disney World.

(1) another comment stated that average regular TSA wait time was 26 min worst-case.

Flying isn't just for luxury. In my previous job, I was sent to client sites, a week at a time, for about 60% of the year. I flew 2ish weeks a month every month for years.

Because of the above, I demanded to only fly Delta, and I got the Amex Skymiles credit card. I built status, and often, got free upgrades to First Class. Another "not-a-luxury" thing. When you're boarding and you walk by all the First Class passengers, most of them are there on their company's dime, and nearly all got a free upgrade or paid a highly reduced rate.

The AMEX SkyMiles Credit Card also pays for your PreCheck or Global Entry. So even that was "free" for me (depending how you define 'free' and 'credit cards')

Delta Amex also pays for Clear. That's what I used.

Once my wifes work schedule settles down, I plan on upgrading to the platinum amex.

We're mostly saying the same thing here--though adding an adult is only $60, so it's $250 for a family.

If you fly infrequently, it's probably not worth the cost. If you do fly frequently, it probably is.

However, in response to the commenter whom I originally replied to, my opinion is Clear is not a luxury for only the wealthy. And it seems silly to prohibit Clear because of philosophical opposition to paying for expedited access.

+1000 and they should ban TSA precheck as well. Combine that with mandating that Congress travel commercial and wait in line with the proletariat and you’ll have a solution faster than you can say “equal treatment”.

Unlike Clear, precheck is trading an up-front background check for a less involved inspection when traveling. I'd imagine if it was up to the TSA everyone would do precheck.

Wouldn’t that be a good thing given that much of it is security theater?

From my perspective, yes, but the people making the decisions about this do not care about my perspective.

Honest question, what if I pay the government itself (Nexus/Global Entry) for the shorter line (in exchange for a one-time but deeper security scan)?

There's a better argument for Global Entry and TSA Precheck since at least in theory they're not about paying money, but about reduced scrutiny in exchange for submitting to a background check. The fee is (supposedly) to cover the costs of running the program.

Of course, I'm cynical enough to believe that they, too are about reducing pushback against security procedures from the sort of people politicians actually listen to.

Private jets (and hence the uber wealthy) are already largely exempt from TSA screening requirements. They're only subject to owner and airport policies, which tend to be minimal at best.

I don't think politicians are afraid of the doctors, lawyers, and middle managers flying business who actually deal with onerous security checks.

> Of course, I'm cynical enough to believe that they, too are about reducing pushback against security procedures from the sort of people politicians actually listen to.

I completely agree with this, but at the same time I paid for Global Entry. It feels ok to me since it's really a government program that helps with a government requirement.

I find CLEAR offensive because of the way it blurs public/private boundaries.

The global entry line is not always shorter. You’re paying for a different process, not a shorter line.

My company paid for me to get precheck/globalentry years ago and I still have it after having left. I can say from my experience about 99% of the time it actually is a shorter line and a much smoother experience. And even in cases where its not shorter, it can still be faster since people don't have to take off shoes, belt, etc.

To add to this, the line is also faster because you're not dealing with the people who never fly and can't figure out how to put a bag on a conveyer belt.

It's not always shorter, but it definitely is the vast majority of the time.

As someone who pays for TSA precheck out of my own pocket, I can tell you my expert opinion: I absolutely pay for shorter line.

Global Entry is for immigration, TSA is for security checkpoints.

Global Entry includes TSAPre

jen20 referred to a global entry line, and kova12 referred to tsa lines, which are unrelated lines in an airport.

Maybe rare and unpopular to think about, but a one-time check allowing less scrutiny for future boarding is a gift to radicals who may not care about living beyond One Big Act.

Also, agreeing with GP, it generally creates a lower class of government trust based on wealth.

> Within the checkpoint, it's all government-run. This is why Clear subscribers still have to take off their shoes.

This isn't universally true, for instance at SFO checkpoints are run by a private contractor: Covenant Aviation Security or CAS. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_Aviation_Security

I believe you can aggressively reject clear users from cutting in front of you because it’s privately managed