Airport security line cutters are target of first-in-the-nation California bill

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/22/california-bill-to-ban-clear-00153447

33 49 2 years ago

rockets101• 2 years ago

No idea if this will pass or not but paying a private company to cut lines in airports seemed like a flimsy value prop

cge4• 2 years ago

As someone who uses Clear, it has a significant benefit in that, for a comparatively low cost, it makes time through the airport more consistent.

If I have priority check-in through airline status, or am not checking baggage, then security waiting time is the main variable in the time to get from the terminal entrance to the gate (we'll ignore disaster airports like LAX where time from the freeway to the terminal is a major variable). If Clear lets me essentially not wait in line for security, that reduces an expectation of a, say, 0-45 minute time through security to a 0-5 minute time through security. Even if it might often not save me any time getting through security, the reduction in uncertainty means I can safely plan to arrive at the airport much later, while having the same low chance of missing the flight.

Some airline status provides priority security, but it is less common, usually at higher levels, and less consistent outside major hubs for each airline. Flying business or first would work, but would be vastly more than the cost of Clear for frequent travellers, while providing few other benefits for short flights.

In Europe, some airports just directly offer a paid priority security option, which sometimes is actually quite inexpensive. But it seems this may not be allowed by the TSA, and the alternative is the fiction of Clear supposedly offering some identity verification benefit.

et-al• 2 years ago

Isn't Clear just a more exclusive TSA PreCheck? It only works because the normies haven't saturated it.

tristor• 2 years ago

I also pay for Clear, and basically echo your take. My home airport has a separate like for Clear + Precheck, and basically only frequent travelers have both, so even though the line is sometimes longer it moves much faster. It's worth it for me to eliminate the variance of a first-time traveler who got randomed to precheck being slow.

lotsofpulp2• 2 years ago

In Europe, some airports just directly offer a paid priority security option, which sometimes is actually quite inexpensive. But it seems this may not be allowed by the TSA, and the alternative is the fiction of Clear supposedly offering some identity verification benefit.

The question is why a non governmental entity is inserted into the middle of transportation security, with a profit incentive.

There already existed an entire apparatus for airport transportation security. There already existed an entire apparatus for fingerprint and other biometric verification to expedite the security screening process (precheck and global entry).

So then why did the government give Clear the right to bypass the official process? Why not just have a precheck plus or whatever system? Why not just have everyone do their biometrics when they do them every 5 years for precheck as it is?

withinboredom• 2 years ago

I used to race my coworkers through those lines. Going through normal security 9/10 times, I would win. They’d finally come through the other side to find me sipping on a Starbucks coffee. But when I lost, I lost big time, and I’d have to meet them in the bar.

alfalfasprout2• 2 years ago

Because the TSA is so wildly incompetent that it became the only choice if you wanted to go through the airport in a reasonable amount of time.

bradleybuda2• 2 years ago

A little zero-sum class warfare to distract from the fact that the TSA is the most wasteful and useless government agency in human history.

yincrash2• 2 years ago

Unfortunately, the state government cannot alter TSA's authority.

Scoundreller5• 2 years ago

How’s it work with SFO where they have their own contractors for security screening that aren’t federally employed TSA agents?

Am4TIfIsER0ppos• 2 years ago

Don't all states have the ability to ignore federal law (enforcement) leading to situations like sanctuary cities and legalized cannabis?

zem2• 2 years ago

the TSA is literal street sweepings, but that does not mean private companies should be able to sell the ability to skip lines in public airports. if the government wants to implement its own program they can.

bradleybuda2• 2 years ago

$12 billion. So you're right that it's not a lot relative to the size of the federal budget. But it is a lot relative to the TSA's accomplishments:

1. Has never prevented an act of terrorism in its history

2. Robs travelers of their time and sanity

3. Makes life a living hell for people with unfortunate names

gnutrino2• 2 years ago

I had clear for a bit when I traveled for work more often. It was nice, and it's definitely not "for rich people". It's less than $200 a year. I bet most people pay more for streaming services for non-essential entertainment. I've always been torn on if it's something viable long term though. While they're at it, they should ban fast passes at amusement parks.

kondu• 2 years ago

That's $800 for a family of 4. With the median household income at under $80,000, it's ridiculous to think the average person can afford to spend that much just to skip a line a couple times a year.

gottorf2• 2 years ago

it's ridiculous to think the average person can afford to spend that much just to skip a line a couple times a year.

Well, sure, it's ridiculous to pay that much if you only travel a couple times a year. It's like how paying $700/year for airline lounge access is ridiculous if you only travel a couple times a year.

But $800 for a family of 4 is much closer to the average person than, say, using a private jet to skip security lines.

hgschmie• 2 years ago

It is not. Your partner is discounted abd kids go free.

awildfivreld• 2 years ago

But a family of 4 is not the value proposition here. They are explicitly targeting frequent flyers that stand in the queue so often that the time saves add up.

If you're only traveling once a year, you can handle a 45 minute wait twice (although yes, it still sucks). If you're traveling once a week, it's a completely different ballpark.

rkagerer2• 2 years ago

Can someone share background on how they got privileges in the first place (as a startup) to escort passengers to the front of the queue? Do they act as designated reps of the airlines?

lazerpants• 2 years ago

Here's a great and kind of terrifying story on CLEAR:

https://onezero.medium.com/clear-conquered-u-s-airports-now-...

rkagerer2• 2 years ago

Thanks. Non-paywalled: https://archive.ph/Wx8WS

pknomad2• 2 years ago

As a frequent traveler (80 flights alone last year), I feel like this bill is rather useless.

First, Clear is not present at all airports. Sometimes it's not even available at all terminals of the same airport (see JFK terminal 7 2 years ago) https://www.clearme.com/where-to-use-clear

Secondly, Clear lines clear (heh) much slower than the TSA-pre lines. EWR is a great example of this.

Lastly, TSA-Pre is going to eat Clear's lunch with their new programs: https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2024/03/06/tsa-and-d...

https://www.afar.com/magazine/tsa-precheck-is-introducing-se...

xenospn• 2 years ago

Global entry kiosks clear me to enter the country in 3 seconds. No reason going through security should take any longer.

Scoundreller5• 2 years ago

I’m even miffed about global entry being a separate program you have to sign up for. Should just be an automatic thing after you’ve made X entries without any issues. As if the gov isn’t already assigning risk scores to people and pre-evaluating who is high or low risk.

pknomad2• 2 years ago

You have to consider the fact that most airports were built pre-9/11. The architectural constraints of the airport means long lines are unavoidable if you need to scan people and carry-on luggages for things like metal and sharp objects. Global entry only deals with international passengers which represents fraction of all passengers traveling in the US (which is what the front security deals with).

It also doesn't help that the security have to deal with passengers who don't follow the rules: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-england-patriots-jack-jones...

miles• 2 years ago

Meanwhile...

Ted Cruz wants lawmakers to get security escorts through America’s airports https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/03/ted-cruz-airport-se...

Sen. Ted Cruz faces backlash over his push for airport special privileges for members of Congress https://www.khou.com/article/news/politics/national-politics...

leoh• 2 years ago

Saddest part is that all these congress folks will almost certainly still have some kind of way to cut through things while taking it away from everyone else. I don't think CLEAR is fair, but let's make the whole airport process more humane for everyone.

alfalfasprout2• 2 years ago

Typical California... instead of addressing why people even find a value proposition in clear (nobody wants to wait forever to get your drivers license scanned by an incompetent TSA employee) they go after the superior solution.

Yes, I understand the TSA is a federal agency. But the reality is CA is influential enough that they can push the TSA to do better. They already have with eg; the EPA.

I agree, in principle, that companies like CLEAR shouldn't exist in airports. But this is once again a reflection of the public sector getting bottom of the barrel talent and as a result being stifled in any sort of innovation.

rurp2• 2 years ago

For anyone else curious about the brief mention of purple peeps being banned, turns out it's because it uses Red Dye 3 which Consumer Reports claims is a known carcinogen.

https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/press_release/popular-p...

Airport security line cutters are target of first-in-the-nation California bill

Related Stories