Clear's business model is to give airports part of the subscriber revenue in return for allowing their employees manage the queues, which they use to direct subscribers into checkpoints with shorter lines.
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.
Also, agreeing with GP, it generally creates a lower class of government trust based on wealth.
I maintain it is latter, at the expense of multiple very real and often dismissed constitutional issues
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.
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.
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.
Seems a weird place to draw the line, eh, $30 burgers and $8 water - equally optional - are fine, but $179/yr for people who value their time disproportionately highly is a step too far? Despite the average ticket costing some ~$300? [2]
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...
[2] https://www.bankrate.com/finance/credit-cards/domestic-airfa...
Why should airlines or Clear have any authority over the security line when they're not the ones requiring or conducting the security check?
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, any less than security at the ballpark? 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 either way. 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 (almost certainly Aramark).
Would you feel differently if CAS ran the lines, or if Clear did the security?
The TSA should run its own line because it's the one imposing the screening requirement.
You are right then that SFO is public property but of course that doesn’t make it freely accessible.
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?
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?
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.
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')
Once my wifes work schedule settles down, I plan on upgrading to the platinum amex.
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.
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