4 ms·

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

by Zak 3y ago

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.

bonestamp2 3y ago
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)?
- jen20 3y ago
  The global entry line is not always shorter. You’re paying for a different process, not a shorter line.
  - xur17 3y ago
    It's not always shorter, but it definitely is the vast majority of the time.
  - kova12 3y ago
    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.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      Global Entry is for immigration, TSA is for security checkpoints.
      - mmh0000 3y ago
        Global Entry includes TSAPre
        lotsofpulp 3y ago
        jen20 referred to a global entry line, and kova12 referred to tsa lines, which are unrelated lines in an airport.
  - Jcampuzano2 3y ago
    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.
    - mmh0000 3y ago
      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.
- Zak 3y ago
  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.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - anthonygd 3y ago
    > 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.
- emptybits 3y ago
  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.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
profile53 3y ago
Wouldn’t that be a good thing given that much of it is security theater?
- Zak 3y ago
  From my perspective, yes, but the people making the decisions about this do not care about my perspective.
phpisthebest 3y ago
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
- ncallaway 3y ago
  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.
  - grishka 3y ago
    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?
    - ncallaway 3y ago
      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.
    - anthonygd 3y ago
      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.
koolba 3y ago
+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”.
- ahupp 3y ago
  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.
arcticbull 3y ago
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? Government services charge expedite fees for basically everything else, why not here? 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-airport-failed-164139315.html https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/tsa-agents-minneapolis-airpo... [2] https://www.bankrate.com/finance/credit-cards/domestic-airfare-average-cost https://www.bankrate.com/finance/credit-cards/domestic-airfa...
- Zak 3y ago
  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?
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    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, 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?
balls187 3y ago
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?
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  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.
  - balls187 3y ago
    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 https://usebounce.com/blog/airport-wait-times-2023
- Beldin 3y ago
  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.
  - balls187 3y ago

by Zak 3y ago

bonestamp2 3y ago

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)?

jen20 3y ago
The global entry line is not always shorter. You’re paying for a different process, not a shorter line.
- xur17 3y ago
  It's not always shorter, but it definitely is the vast majority of the time.
- kova12 3y ago
  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.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Global Entry is for immigration, TSA is for security checkpoints.
    - mmh0000 3y ago
      Global Entry includes TSAPre
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        jen20 referred to a global entry line, and kova12 referred to tsa lines, which are unrelated lines in an airport.
- Jcampuzano2 3y ago
  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.
  - mmh0000 3y ago
    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.
Zak 3y ago
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.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- anthonygd 3y ago
  > 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.
emptybits 3y ago
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.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

profile53 3y ago

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

Zak 3y ago
From my perspective, yes, but the people making the decisions about this do not care about my perspective.

phpisthebest 3y ago

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

ncallaway 3y ago
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.
- grishka 3y ago
  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?
  - ncallaway 3y ago
    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.
  - anthonygd 3y ago
    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.

koolba 3y ago

+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”.

ahupp 3y ago
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.

arcticbull 3y ago

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? Government services charge expedite fees for basically everything else, why not here? 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-airport-failed-164139315.html https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/tsa-agents-minneapolis-airpo... [2] https://www.bankrate.com/finance/credit-cards/domestic-airfare-average-cost https://www.bankrate.com/finance/credit-cards/domestic-airfa...

Zak 3y ago
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?
- arcticbull 3y ago
  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, 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?

balls187 3y ago

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?

lotsofpulp 3y ago
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.
- balls187 3y ago
  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 https://usebounce.com/blog/airport-wait-times-2023
Beldin 3y ago
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.
- balls187 3y ago