6 ms·

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]

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]