California May Ban CLEAR Airport Security As We Know It

California May Ban CLEAR Airport Security As We Know It

122

POLITICO reports on how California is considering changing some laws, which would ban CLEAR airport security as it’s currently implemented.

For those not familiar, CLEAR is a private company that lets you expedite the security screening process at select airports using your biometric data, in exchange for a fee (typically $189 per year, but it’s also covered by some credit cards). CLEAR verifies your identity, and then escorts you past the TSA ID check.

California lawmakers draft bill aimed at CLEAR

A pair of California state senators from Orange County have drafted a bill that would prevent third party vendors like CLEAR from operating at existing security checkpoints in the state. With this proposal, CLEAR would need to gets its own dedicated security lanes (rather than funneling into the main security lanes), or lose the ability to operate at airports.

Now, the concept of CLEAR funding its own security lines isn’t so straightforward. This would need federal approval, since the TSA oversees security at US airports. Furthermore, most airports don’t exactly have a lot of extra space where security checkpoints could be expanded to.

The people behind this bill insist that they don’t want to ban CLEAR, and that they have “every confidence” in CLEAR’s ability to “re-engineer its business.” The bill would allow CLEAR to continue to operate until current contracts run out, and the timeline could be extended if CLEAR is making a good faith effort to change its operations.

In terms of the economic impact on California, CLEAR paid airports in the state $13 million in 2023, and a total of $49 million since 2012. This accounts for just a tiny percentage of overall concessions at airports.

Here’s what Josh Newman, the Democrat who authored the bill, had to say:

“The least you can expect when you have to go through the security line at the airport is that you don’t suffer the indignity of somebody pushing you out of the way to let the rich person pass you.”

Meanwhile here’s what Janet Nguyen, a Republican in support of the bill, had to say:

“I do understand the frustration stated in Senator Newman’s bill. It becomes a haves vs. have nots where those who can afford it jump in front of the rest of us. They even cut in front of TSA Pre-boarding pass travelers who have been screened by the TSA.”

As you’d expect, opinions are all over the place regarding this proposal:

  • Delta, United, Southwest, Alaska, JetBlue, and Hawaiian, are fighting this bill, claiming the revenue loss from CLEAR would lead to an increase in airfare
  • The union representing TSA agents has stated that CLEAR is “nothing more than the luxury resale of upcharge of space in the airport security queue, where those who pay can skip the line at the direct expense of every other traveler”
  • Sara Nelson, who leads flight attendant unions representing several airlines, has stated that “CLEAR is a pay for play way to cut the screening line,” and that this bill would “restore equal access and treatment at the airport security checkpoint”

Now, let me emphasize that this is just a proposal, and it’s anyone’s guess if it goes anywhere. I’m sure there will be a lot of lobbying efforts regarding this.

CLEAR may no longer be able to operate in California

Is this bill aimed at CLEAR reasonable?

I’m sure opinions on this from the traveling public will be all over the place. Personally I think I’m supportive of this bill, but not necessarily for the reasons stated. I don’t view this as a “haves vs. have nots” or “rich person” thing. After all, California airports allow priority security lines for premium customers, with no effort to ban that. If all passengers should be treated equally, shouldn’t those lines be banned as well?

Personally I’m supportive of this because I just find CLEAR to be a ridiculously inefficient concept, and I just don’t find there to be much value to it, at least based on my travels:

  • When CLEAR first started, it was a huge time saver, since not many people had it, so you actually saved a lot of time
  • Now we’re at the point where basically everyone has CLEAR, and when everyone can cut the ID check, no one can cut the ID check
  • The TSA ID check is really simple nowadays — in many cases you just insert your ID into a reader, and you’re sent on your way, and don’t even have to show your boarding pass
  • Meanwhile the CLEAR process just isn’t simple; the CLEAR ambassador has to fingerprint themselves with every passenger, has to ask whether you want to use your fingers or eyes for verifying your identity, then a good percentage of the time you still have to show the TSA agent your ID, and never mind the small space through which you have to navigate
  • Airport security checkpoints are often so small, and I feel space could be better utilized by expanding other, more efficient screening methods

As someone who has CLEAR, I find myself skipping CLEAR and just using the standard TSA PreCheck line more often than not, and that usually ends up being fastest. That’s despite the fact that I’m cut by a countless number of CLEAR members in line.

Lawmakers want CLEAR to pay for its own checkpoints

Bottom line

Lawmakers in California are considering a bill that could cause CLEAR to be banned from existing checkpoints. The argument is that it’s unfair that people can pay to cut the security line, and that if CLEAR wants to operate in the state, it should pay for its own security screening checkpoints.

Personally I think the argument is weak if it’s on equality grounds, since priority security lines are allowed in the state. However, I do find CLEAR to be mighty inefficient and a pain to use, and as far as I’m concerned, most people using security would be better off if CLEAR were just banned. But that’s just my take based on my observations with CLEAR, and I realize others feel differently.

What do you make of this CLEAR proposal in California?

Conversations (122)
The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.
Type your response here.

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Anyone can comment, and your email address will not be published. Register to save your unique username and earn special OMAAT reputation perks!

  1. jallan Gold

    Clear is a private company, right? So what would happen if I just refuse to let Clear shove in front of me in the security line? Clear employees aren't members of TSA or Homeland Security.

  2. Andrew Guest

    I live in CA and have CLEAR. Frequently fly in the front of plane bc of status, points, or occasionally buy it.

    I agree with this bill.

    Airport security is a govt service and a private company should not be profiteering off of the backs of taxpayers. Build and pay for your own damn security line.

    I agree with @Lucky as well; CLEAR is basically useless these days.

    1. Pat Guest

      CLEAR pays taxes and fees to the local authorities.
      I use it and I like it as a frequently traveler.

  3. Bhn Guest

    Sky high taxes, poor management of electrical infrastructure, unaffordable housing, cities overrun by drugs and homeless, $71 billion deficit. Hey, I know what will make California better, let’s ban Clear!

    1. Biglaw V10 Partner Guest

      Taxes are no lower in NYC, the only part of the country other than California where people actually want to live.

      Unaffordable housing is a good clue that demand is high (i.e., people want to live there). Drugs are ravaging small rural inland towns more than big coastal cities. NYC shelters the majority of its homeless. California has better weather.

      Deficits or surplus are meaningless.

  4. Tony W Guest

    Fresh reminder that California should be separated from The United States of America and join North Korea instead. No soup for you!

    1. Andrew Diamond

      Salary transparency, property tax increase limitations, personal data protection rights that rival GDPR, consumer advocacy.

      Terrible ideas. Totally North Korea. :P

    2. Biglaw V10 Partner Guest

      Salary transparency is a crock. California employers pay the bulk of their compensation in restricted stock units, which aren't subject to disclosure under salary transparency laws. A famous exception to the RSU comp structure is Netflix, which posts jobs with a salary range of $100k-900k. It's remarkable Netflix has not been held in contempt.

      Having said that, California is objectively the best state in the country. Best weather, nature, food whether you're buying fresh produce...

      Salary transparency is a crock. California employers pay the bulk of their compensation in restricted stock units, which aren't subject to disclosure under salary transparency laws. A famous exception to the RSU comp structure is Netflix, which posts jobs with a salary range of $100k-900k. It's remarkable Netflix has not been held in contempt.

      Having said that, California is objectively the best state in the country. Best weather, nature, food whether you're buying fresh produce at the supermarket or eating at out-of-this-world Michelin three-starred places like SingleThread, higher education, business opportunities, and damn good quality of life.

      Young extraverted urban professionals will often prefer to live their 20s in Manhattan or Brooklyn--but when it's time to settle down, California cannot be beat.

      I was at Penn Station yesterday at the evening rush, around 6:15pm, and saw a bunch of middle aged white men sprinting from the downtown A/C/E subway to the LIRR. Imagine commuting that way when you could sit in your self-driving electric car and chill with an audiobook along US-101 or I-405.

  5. Miami305 Gold

    "Sara Nelson, who leads flight attendant unions representing several airlines, has stated that “CLEAR is a pay for play way to cut the screening line,” and that this bill would “restore equal access and treatment at the airport security checkpoint”"

    I agree SARA... And while we are at it... to "restore equal access and treatment at the airport security checkpoint" no more FA's or pilots cutting the line. Let me guess Sara... you don't want...

    "Sara Nelson, who leads flight attendant unions representing several airlines, has stated that “CLEAR is a pay for play way to cut the screening line,” and that this bill would “restore equal access and treatment at the airport security checkpoint”"

    I agree SARA... And while we are at it... to "restore equal access and treatment at the airport security checkpoint" no more FA's or pilots cutting the line. Let me guess Sara... you don't want that.

    Sara Nelson... another phony.

    1. Cliff Guest

      FA's and pilots are airline employees who are necessary for the operation of flights. What do you suggest, have them all wait in line so flight departures can be delayed with passengers waiting until the crew arrives?

    2. AD Diamond

      I don't care if they cut the line - at least they're being screened. We need to stop letting crew members skip security. I work in a building with security and every employee has to go through security. I hold a security clearance and have had a far more rigorous background check than any known crewmember. We should all have to go through security.

  6. Lieflat19 Member

    CLEAR has gotten a lot worse. most of the time it's slower than the regular pre check lane. I definitely would NOT pay for it if I didn't get it for free from my credit card. The whole process is very inefficient. And like someone said, Delta now has a Digital ID program which is 10x better (and faster) than CLEAR.

  7. Zymm Guest

    One time I triggered a random check on the Precheck metal detectors so I had to go through the scanner. I was wearing a pleated skirt and the pleats registered as a false positive so a TSA employee had to grope my groin area in public. Not a great experience, but THANK GOODNESS I didn't have to suffer the INDIGNITY of having someone go through the line slightly faster than I did!

  8. PointsandMilesDoc New Member

    I have to wonder what the real motivation is here. Who is lobbying for this?

    I don't believe for a second that it has to do with have vs. have nots. The OC is the most suburban, republican, NIMBY, wealthy part of the state. What are they really going after? Frequent travelers? A private company? It's quite bizarre.

  9. Emoney Guest

    Next we should get rid of the VIP status lanes at the ticket counter as well? Buying premium fares also gives certain expedited services including expedited security screening and sometimes a dedicated immigration lane ... it's always been a "pay to play" business model at airports this is just another example. It literally has a "first" class ticket as a product.

  10. Gary Leslie Craig Guest

    If you support discontinuing CLEAR, how about stopping Global Entry as well. The argument is the same-although the people involved have been screened many times, and often are pretty frequent fliers, the major differentiator is buying Global Entry so the argument that only more well off people get CLEAR, the same can be said of Global Entry.

    1. Tony W Guest

      California should also ban business class, first class, and airport lounges.

    2. Pat Guest

      People who go through the process of getting CLEAR and Global Entry are lower security risks. The cost is not prohibitive.
      Also, CLEAR employs local workers and pays taxes and airport fees.
      I will call my State Senator and voice my views to his staff. Others could do the same.

  11. Clearmakesnosense Guest

    Clear is for the same people that wait in line for the Amex Centurion club in Las Vegas. It makes them feel important, but they are actually being treated like cattle.

    1. Pat Guest

      The Club is an alternative at LAS and there are two lounges.
      I use CLEAR because it saves time not because I feel important. It is present at many of the airports I fly through. I travel domestically and internationally two or three times each month. The savings in terms of time adds up.
      Cheers!

  12. FlyerDon Guest

    Basically everyone has Clear? I don’t think so.

  13. Mary Guest

    So typical of CA lawmakers to focus energy on something so trivial with all of the massive problems in the state. A perfect example of why I left.

  14. David T Guest

    Following that logic, California should include the following in that ban (for the same reasons):
    1. Airport lounges
    2. First/business and higher priority class boarding before economy class
    3. Any food court establishment in California airports since their prices are almost double the street prices
    4. Make all first and business class passengers board their plane through a different door.
    5. Ban any upscale stores that are obviously for the...

    Following that logic, California should include the following in that ban (for the same reasons):
    1. Airport lounges
    2. First/business and higher priority class boarding before economy class
    3. Any food court establishment in California airports since their prices are almost double the street prices
    4. Make all first and business class passengers board their plane through a different door.
    5. Ban any upscale stores that are obviously for the wealthy.
    6. Require all politicians traveling on government funds to fly standby.

  15. Not Ben Guest

    Are we going to ban all “ridiculously inefficient concepts” now? Communism and planned economy at its best.

  16. iamhere Guest

    I think a private company should not be operating in that space anyway. Either it should be privatized or not.

    1. Timtamtrak Diamond

      Bear in mind there are some medium sized airports where the TSA screening process is *entirely* contracted out, such as MCI.

      https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/screening-partnerships

  17. Andrew Diamond

    There's a lot of weird inconsistencies coming out of the OC. Katie Porter portrays herself as a hero of the people by grilling Chase's CEO, this legislation seems like it's anti "rich" (but let's be real, it's only $180 / year and free with lots of cards.)

    Meanwhile the hills of OC have wildly expensive real estate and the Irvine Company is basically a small kingdom. Maybe their whole thing is distraction.

  18. John A. D. Needham Guest

    When I passed through CLEAR at Kennedy in March I had to wait about as long as if I had joined the general security line. We had to wait in line for CLEAR machines for processing CLEAR customers. Lots of machines were available for new customers to register, but mugs like me, existing customers are treated slowly and even rudely. CLEAR is totally interested in getting new customers and not very interested to service those who have already paid. I will not renew.

  19. Mike M Guest

    Typical California logic, but I guess when you are virtually bankrupt as a state, why not ignore yet another avenue of revenue!

    1. FlyerDon Guest

      As measured by GDP California has the fifth largest economy in the world. They are projecting a budget deficit this year, just like the United States does every year. They are not in any danger of being bankrupt.

    2. Ea Guest

      California logic? It's literally 2 politicians one from either party... bankrupt? You mean like southern states that continually receive more money from the federal government than they contribute to the country?

  20. Greg Guest

    What do these lawmakers think of the express lanes where you can pay to go in the carpool lane without a carpool? Are they asking to ban those because 'the rich' can use them and pass you by?

    Clear is an awkward service, I use it when TSA Pre fails, but would rather TSA Pre didn't fail.

    1. dee Guest

      The carpool lanes esp for the people who can afford electric vehicles should need to be banned also as it is unfair to those who cannot buy$$$$$ EV's

  21. G kelly Guest

    I think there are so many other things that California lawmakers should focus their time and energy on. You really want to focus time and energy on a law to ban CLEAR because someone’s butt hurts because they worry that one passenger may or may not get to skip the line. Passengers can pay to be in the first boarding group on Southwest- is that fair to people who don’t pay for Group 1 boarding? Where does it stop?

    1. Gary Leslie Craig Guest

      Too many bureaucrats with time on their hands; let many go and the rest can work full time without dreaming up more hassles for the rest of us. $180 doesn't make you rich-its an attempt to be more efficient and less hassled by another government agency (TSA).

  22. Haim Guest

    Communist legislation… but politics aside, airport security is run by the federal government. Can California can over rule what the Feds allow?

  23. Grant Guest

    Delta has their own biometric program. It’s in limited airports and is free for
    Anyone who qualifies. Last week, in ATL, the Clear line had 20+ people in it, the TSA pre-check had more and I was literally the only person in the Delta Digital ID. Went up to podium, my picture was taken, and I went right through. It’s light years better than Clear, albeit in limited production. (And I’m a clear member too thanks for Amex Platinum)

  24. Dave Guest

    I am assuming that these virtue signaling California hippies are also writing a bill to ban front-of-line access sales at Disneyland?

    And yes, I know Disney is private and airport is public transportation, but if you go down that rabbit hole, where does it end?

    The government is the problem at airports, not the solution. Go away.

  25. Flomer Williams Guest

    I have had CLEAR since its' inception and have never had a problem using it; I am a frequent traveler.

  26. Dr. Azin Guest

    If they get rid of Clear, they should get rid of TSA PreCheck and GlobalEntry. If it's mandatory "Security", then everyone should be subject to it, not those who pay to get out, nor those who surrender their 4th Amendment rights.
    (Now, of course, they should use intelligent statistical analysis to determine who gets what level of scrutiny--82 year old grandmas vs 20-40 year old males with additional risk factors...)

  27. Davisson Guest

    Clear will be dead if they don’t change or work with TSA on their business model.
    1. Clear has gotten exponentially worse last 12 months in terms of wait time, while TSA pre check has gotten better.
    2. Interaction with clear machines remains frustratingly slow, and requires human intervention. Cutting lines requires human intervention. While TSA is piloting on not requiring boarding passes, and soon won’t require IDs.
    3. The whole premise...

    Clear will be dead if they don’t change or work with TSA on their business model.
    1. Clear has gotten exponentially worse last 12 months in terms of wait time, while TSA pre check has gotten better.
    2. Interaction with clear machines remains frustratingly slow, and requires human intervention. Cutting lines requires human intervention. While TSA is piloting on not requiring boarding passes, and soon won’t require IDs.
    3. The whole premise of clear is to cut lines, and the business model of 189 a year isn’t cutting it. It needs to really up the price or throw in the towel.

    At a high level, I actually like the concept of CLEAR, but it is obvious that TSA monopoly cannot be touched, so this business model is not going to succeed. Short their stock.

    1. Pakmann2k Guest

      The original TSA concept for PreCheck was to get a "majority" of the traveling public to adopt it. Example: Checkpoint A has 4 pre-check lines and 10 standard for everyone else. TSA's dream was that in the future, it would be 10 pre-check with 4 standard lanes for the folks that never travel and didn't get the service. If that happened as dreamed, Clear would have an obvious advantage as the pre-check lanes would be...

      The original TSA concept for PreCheck was to get a "majority" of the traveling public to adopt it. Example: Checkpoint A has 4 pre-check lines and 10 standard for everyone else. TSA's dream was that in the future, it would be 10 pre-check with 4 standard lanes for the folks that never travel and didn't get the service. If that happened as dreamed, Clear would have an obvious advantage as the pre-check lanes would be just as full as a standard lanes. This dream came to a halt during Covid and the plans have changed. As TSA employees, they all receive Pre-Check for free. Free PreCheck was going to expand starting with all airline employees, then Active Military, Veterans, all law enforcement, and down the list. In essence, anyone who has ever had a fingerprint taken and a proper background performed for their job would essentially get it for free. PreCheck is advantageous for all parties involved, TSA wished everyone had it. If they did, Clear would be faster again.

  28. Zeek Guest

    I agree with Ben in that I don't get the benefit of CLEAR v. TSA PreCheck. At least for the times i've used it, I'd guesstimate that the benefit was marginal vs just going through TSA PreCheck.

    But this argument about have and have nots is kind of silly when there are expedited security lines for first class. It's not like it's this service that costs 1000s of dollars. It comes free with your premium credit card.

  29. O'Hare Is My Second Home Guest

    My feelings are simple: I am better than you, so I deserve to be treated special. I get CLEAR free with my United staus and I've had Pre-Check for dog's years. United has special lines at many airports for people like me, and I use them.

    If you're stuck in the normal security line, please note that I have no empathy for you, or for that matter, anyone. Go cry in your Milwaukee's Best, prole.

    1. Buster Guest

      That's what it's coming to. There is so much complaining about EVERYTHING that pretty soon (and it's already beginning) people will completely stop caring about the complainers. I work my tail off to provide for my family and if I can afford something like Clear and want to purchase it, get out of my way. There are plenty of things that I cannot afford, some I aspire to, but I don't crap on the people...

      That's what it's coming to. There is so much complaining about EVERYTHING that pretty soon (and it's already beginning) people will completely stop caring about the complainers. I work my tail off to provide for my family and if I can afford something like Clear and want to purchase it, get out of my way. There are plenty of things that I cannot afford, some I aspire to, but I don't crap on the people who can afford them.

      The population of the country that wants to take everything they can get and not do a damn thing to earn it is ruining the country. It's sad and dangerous.

  30. W Diamond

    I sort of do agree with this bill, but like Ben, not for the reasons stated. I don't think equality should be grounds for this change, because the people paying for this service do so because it is of use to them. For frequent travelers, having a way to pay for expedited security should be an option because it saves them a huge amount of time over the course of a year. And it should...

    I sort of do agree with this bill, but like Ben, not for the reasons stated. I don't think equality should be grounds for this change, because the people paying for this service do so because it is of use to them. For frequent travelers, having a way to pay for expedited security should be an option because it saves them a huge amount of time over the course of a year. And it should theoretically mean extra revenue for the airport.

    However, I do think that CLEAR should have its own dedicated security checkpoints. That would mean that CLEAR members no longer get to cut the security line, but rather, they get access to a dedicated security channel. Perhaps CLEAR could modify its product to include TSA PreCheck as well. That way, you don't have to take off your shoes (and other stuff), and you get all of the benefits of PreCheck as well as access to a shorter line. CLEAR could be the premium version of PreCheck. That way, if the CLEAR line is longer, it's users can get into the regular PreCheck line. If I remember correctly, I think something like this was proposed somewhere not too long ago (or at least I remember reading about it somewhere).

  31. Steve from Seattle Guest

    I agree that I mostly don't use CLEAR these days, Ben. Most of the time, it's a longer line than Pre-Check.

    I agree with most of the other comments made but would add a couple of "premium" hacks for getting through lines faster to the list. How about Pre-Check itself? What about Global Entry? Why stop at CLEAR? I suspect the reason is that it's more blatant and obvious than other forms of skipping lines.

    ...

    I agree that I mostly don't use CLEAR these days, Ben. Most of the time, it's a longer line than Pre-Check.

    I agree with most of the other comments made but would add a couple of "premium" hacks for getting through lines faster to the list. How about Pre-Check itself? What about Global Entry? Why stop at CLEAR? I suspect the reason is that it's more blatant and obvious than other forms of skipping lines.

    One question for any legal experts out there: what authority do states have to control federally run programs? If TSA is OK with CLEAR, would this bill survive court challenges if it were enacted into law?

    1. Biglaw V10 Partner Guest

      The answer to both of your legal questions is "I don't know"

    2. Bossman Guest

      CA Lawyer here. The issue you're identifying is Federal Preemption. When the Federal government has jurisdiction under the Constitution to regulate in a particular area and has elected to do so, then typically the states (and counties, municipalities etc.) are "preempted" from doing so themselves. Air transport is Federally regulated and properly so under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. California's legislators have a history of passing legislation that is subject to attack on preemption...

      CA Lawyer here. The issue you're identifying is Federal Preemption. When the Federal government has jurisdiction under the Constitution to regulate in a particular area and has elected to do so, then typically the states (and counties, municipalities etc.) are "preempted" from doing so themselves. Air transport is Federally regulated and properly so under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. California's legislators have a history of passing legislation that is subject to attack on preemption grounds and this strikes me as falling in that bucket. There are aspects of airport operations that are subject to state and local law but my guy reaction is that it would be tough for a state to enforce a law that goes directly to airport security which is squarely a Federal purview. I doubt Clear is quaking in its boots over this... they should be much more concerned with the lack of clear value add that their product is providing at the moment.

    3. Mantis Guest

      @Bossman
      What would you know? You don't even have "big law" in your username!

  32. MetsNomad Guest

    “The least you can expect when you have to go through the security line at the airport is that you don’t suffer the indignity of somebody pushing you out of the way to let the rich person pass you.”, says one of the legislators authoring the bill.

    I think he has to not only look at airports in this case, but there are theme parks, for example, in his state where people also pay...

    “The least you can expect when you have to go through the security line at the airport is that you don’t suffer the indignity of somebody pushing you out of the way to let the rich person pass you.”, says one of the legislators authoring the bill.

    I think he has to not only look at airports in this case, but there are theme parks, for example, in his state where people also pay for the privilege of skipping lines à la Genie+ (Disneyland) or à la Universal Express Pass (Universal Hollywood) and I'm sure there are other places (probably even sports venues that also use CLEAR or something similar, where this pay-to-skip takes place. If CLEAR at the airport goes down for that one, all the others should go with it.

    1. John A. D. Needham Guest

      Rich people already push you to the side. It is called FastTrack - and for that matter it is called Private Plane.

  33. Mitch Rapp Guest

    All I can say is that I've been a Clear member for over 6 years now. And the regular Pre-Check line is so much faster. Besides everyone be a Clear member, the people who are working there are so slow it makes no sense to ever go there. This morning at LAX there where 10 people in line, so I when to the regular Pre-Check with 30 plus people and I was through quicker. The...

    All I can say is that I've been a Clear member for over 6 years now. And the regular Pre-Check line is so much faster. Besides everyone be a Clear member, the people who are working there are so slow it makes no sense to ever go there. This morning at LAX there where 10 people in line, so I when to the regular Pre-Check with 30 plus people and I was through quicker. The airlines have ruined Clear by giving it away to it's elite customers and they have made everyone elite since it's all based on credit card spending.

    1. TO Guest

      It seems like half the time I'm at LAX, the CLEAR stations aren't even manned. I'm with you, and have gotten in the habit of just going directly to Pre-Check and not bothering with CLEAR.

    2. Pat Guest

      It is very useful at BWI, ATL, LAS, SLC, SJC, SAN where I pass through every few weeks. I usually arrive from international flights using Global Entry before the CLEAR lanes are open and then just use the TSA Pre Chek. The CLEAR lanes really save time for me. I was a member of the original CLEAR and rejoined when they emerged from Bankruptcy.

  34. BenjaminGuttery Diamond

    1) Why can't Californian lawmakers actually focus on something beneficial to society and not divisive?

    2) CLEAR is not full of rich people, it's for REGULAR Heavy TRAVELERS, road warriors, the person who travels once a year and will probably fo4get to take out that bottle of water and the 3 pads they left in their bag should not hold up someone who knows what they are doing. Lots of members dues are paid...

    1) Why can't Californian lawmakers actually focus on something beneficial to society and not divisive?

    2) CLEAR is not full of rich people, it's for REGULAR Heavy TRAVELERS, road warriors, the person who travels once a year and will probably fo4get to take out that bottle of water and the 3 pads they left in their bag should not hold up someone who knows what they are doing. Lots of members dues are paid for by companies and CC's so that their employees can reasonably travel regularly without issues.

    3) This whole "rich vs. poor" thing is getting old and stale. Like the rich Dems and rich Repubs have both ever done anything for "poor people" and not served their corporate donors is hilarious. Both sides are grasping for straws and trying to distract voters from the REAL issues. Having to wait a bit longer on your annual trip to see Grandma or vacation to Cancun doesn't affect your daily life. Crime does. Taxes does Homelessness does too. Drugs and Addiction does. Illegal immigration does. Housing affordability does. EV regulations does. Water regulations does. Power/Utilities blackouts and transmission lines does. Gambling does. Jobs (or lack there of) does. Healthcare does.

    California needs to wipe the slate clean with the politicians and elect new and fresh perspectives.

    1. Justin Guest

      Give California back to mexico for a few years (or forever)

    2. Eskimo Guest

      1. Proposition 65. That's beneficial for society.

      2. Rich people who travel once a year
      also will probably fo4get (sic) to take out that bottle of water and the 3 pads they left.
      They can have CLEAR and precheck too and still holding the line. What's your point?

      3. Didn't you just bring up rich vs poor in #2?
      By the way, if you're rich, your "REAL" problem isn't even a problem.

      1. Proposition 65. That's beneficial for society.

      2. Rich people who travel once a year
      also will probably fo4get (sic) to take out that bottle of water and the 3 pads they left.
      They can have CLEAR and precheck too and still holding the line. What's your point?

      3. Didn't you just bring up rich vs poor in #2?
      By the way, if you're rich, your "REAL" problem isn't even a problem.
      You think Jeff Bezos or Warren Buffett have problems with Crime, Taxes (maybe), Homelessness, Drugs, Illegal immigrants, Housing, Cars, Water, blackouts, Gambling, Jobs, Healthcare?
      It's not old and stale, it was and always is about wealth.
      Unless you're a socialist commie who doesn't believe in free economy or freedom.

  35. Sel, D. Guest

    Who cares what what the FAs say? They get to skip the line themselves. Why are they even commenting on this? Why are you even posting it? They aren't stakeholders in any way, except maybe one....

    Have CLEAR lanes created less space for crew lanes? Of course selfish FAs would chime in if they think eliminating CLEAR would help them, and of course under the guise of "equality".

    1. BenjaminGuttery Diamond

      Because Sara Nelson is an attention diva and will "jump in front" of any journalist/media to get a quote out there, instead of working for her members to get them taken care of.

  36. George Romey Guest

    I really get tired of the poor should get what the rich can buy argument. I've been poor and I am now fairly well off. When I was poor I wanted (and needed) more and I worked my ass off to get it. I guess airlines need to start to sell first class seats at $79 because of the social injustice of someone being forced to walk through first back to coach.

    That being said...

    I really get tired of the poor should get what the rich can buy argument. I've been poor and I am now fairly well off. When I was poor I wanted (and needed) more and I worked my ass off to get it. I guess airlines need to start to sell first class seats at $79 because of the social injustice of someone being forced to walk through first back to coach.

    That being said I've thought about Clear but don't see the value. There's only one entrance at MIA at E and I usually go to the less crowded lounge at D15. I've noticed now at airports like ATL and DCA the Clear line is as long as the regular PreCheck line. Just like airline club, it gets sold to so many people the "experience" becomes degraded.

  37. Antwerp Guest

    At IAD I am skipping the Clear line always. Pre line is more efficient. Usually at Clear there is a line of 15-20 people just waiting for a kiosk. Then you have the clunky kiosk for two minutes. Then waiting for a Clear agent to escort you. I am usually on the train by the time they get through security.

    As to the Haves and Have nots....do they feel this way about their own Govt's...

    At IAD I am skipping the Clear line always. Pre line is more efficient. Usually at Clear there is a line of 15-20 people just waiting for a kiosk. Then you have the clunky kiosk for two minutes. Then waiting for a Clear agent to escort you. I am usually on the train by the time they get through security.

    As to the Haves and Have nots....do they feel this way about their own Govt's Pre system? While it is a security clearance on one hand there is still a cost involved. Perhaps they are saying it should be free for everyone now?

  38. Biglaw V10 Partner Guest

    Lest we forget one perk of CLEAR- If you have forgotten your physical ID then you can roll the dice and hope the CLEAR kiosk doesn't "randomly" ask you to show ID.

    You can of course tell the TSA podium officer that you've forgotten your ID, but that shunts you into a laborious process.

    1. michael Guest

      Big - probably true, except if you have forgotten you government issue ID (even in the US), you probably have much larger potential problems that not getting thru TSA for a flight. They are probably doing you a favor.
      :)

  39. Eskimo Guest

    So is the issue that a private company is doing it or that a haves vs. have nots where those who can afford it jump in front of the rest of us.

    Because government use contractors who private companies already.
    And Global Entry allows the haves to jump in front of the rest of us too.

    So what is all this hypocrisy.

    1. Biglaw V10 Partner Guest

      So is the issue that a private company is doing it

      In theory when a private company charges these fees, the beneficiary is that private company alone. When a government charges fees, the government can use those funds to make the entire process better for everyone.

    2. Eskimo Guest

      Just because you didn't pay directly to private companies doesn't mean the government doesn't pay them as long as someone believes that it makes the entire process better for everyone.

      I'm not saying you're wrong but lawyers and "in theory" just gotta love em.

      If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.

    3. Mitch Guest

      Soooooo why hasn't the airport security experience gotten better with so many people having PRE and Global Entry now?

  40. Anon lawyer Guest

    I question the legality of this proposed legislation. The federal government, not the states, controls airport security through the TSA (part of the DHS). The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means that federal law always takes priority over conflicting state laws.

    If this law is enacted, there will definitely be a lawsuit, which may well win.

    1. Eskimo Guest

      So you are suggesting law works differently if you are in biglaw?

      Rather than pointing out the what's wrong with the statement like what lawyers should be doing.

    2. Mantis Guest

      @littlelaw
      Your weak comment makes me think you aren't...Probably a clerk or a law school dropout. If you are "big law", then make a substantive comment, don't pretend like your credentials are proven by your screen name.

    3. Pakmann2k Guest

      As former TSA, I can tell you TSA does not run the airports in the way you may think. TSA controls from the ticket checker to the exit, the cities are responsible for the rest. Years ago with TSA in PHX, the officers literally had to place a call to the city to adjust the stanchions, they were forbidden by the city to adjust the little ropes when they popped off or needed to be...

      As former TSA, I can tell you TSA does not run the airports in the way you may think. TSA controls from the ticket checker to the exit, the cities are responsible for the rest. Years ago with TSA in PHX, the officers literally had to place a call to the city to adjust the stanchions, they were forbidden by the city to adjust the little ropes when they popped off or needed to be straightened. The line is before the ticket checker and TSA is not responsible for it, nor has any word of what happens out there. Line cutters into the first class line, regular folks in the special needs lanes, not the TSA's issue, they process from the ticket checker on, the city and the airlines are supposed to regulate everything out front. Clear runs their own line and Pre-Check is sort of it's own thing but if you wait in Pre-Check and make it to the ticket checker, you will get the walk of shame as you are sent to the standard screening lane. I personally didn't mind Clear but there were some Clear employees that were rude and would really make a point of cutting their passenger into the front. This is like anything else and with any large company, you are gonna have some bad apples. My only thing against clear are the checkpoints with limited space and the lines fill up quickly with a weird empty clear line in the middle. For PHX as an example, there are 4 checkpoints and all are connected inside, why not make one a mix of Clear and PreCheck? I said this when I worked there, they have all 4 with dedicated lines for clear and precheck at each, it's just a waste of space compared to what is needed for the standard folks.

    4. Gary Leslie Craig Guest

      Lawmakers don't care about dubiously legal new laws/rules running a risk of legal action. That will only change when those who vote for those bills are charged the legal costs of defending them.

  41. Redacted Guest

    I frequently decide to skip the CLEAR line too, but this is so airport-dependent that it's essentially pointless making generalizations.

    By the way doesn't LAX basically have its own de facto Clear "Security Line" at some terminals?

    1. Biglaw V10 Partner Guest

      It's not very airport-dependent. I skip CLEAR unless there is an extremely obvious difference in line length.

    2. Redacted Guest

      Hmm we've clearly had very different experiences. For some airports like Denver, where the Pre-Clear line is consistently horrendous, CLEAR can definitely save you at least some time and is almost a non-brainer.

  42. pstm91 Diamond

    CLEAR lines at airports have definitely been getting much longer in recent months, but it has still saved me tons of time. I've found it to be much better at certain airports over others (DEN has been particularly valuable).
    Apparently not many OMAAT readers are sports fans. Stadiums is where it certainly is worth the fee. It makes heading into MSG, Yankee Stadium and Citi Field a breeze.

    1. JustinDev Member

      So have TSA Pre lines getting longer. I have absolutely no problem with Clear getting its own line. I do have a problem with being pushed aside when I am in the TSA Pre queue that I have already paid for.

    2. Redacted Guest

      Ha, Denver is my primary reason for holding on to CLEAR. 100% agreed.

  43. legalalien Guest

    "Personally I’m supportive of this because I just find CLEAR to be a ridiculously inefficient concept."

    Supporting a legislation banning Clear because the concept is arguably "inefficient" is totally ridiculous. Market takes care of inefficient concepts just fine, thank you very much. Keep lawmakers out of it.

    CA voters should be upset that their elected representatives are spending time on this non-problem instead of focusing on coast erosion, crumbling infrastructure, rising crime, and homelessness.

    "Personally I’m supportive of this because I just find CLEAR to be a ridiculously inefficient concept."

    Supporting a legislation banning Clear because the concept is arguably "inefficient" is totally ridiculous. Market takes care of inefficient concepts just fine, thank you very much. Keep lawmakers out of it.

    CA voters should be upset that their elected representatives are spending time on this non-problem instead of focusing on coast erosion, crumbling infrastructure, rising crime, and homelessness.

    1. neogucky Member

      As CLEAR should not be banned but forced to get their own security line the bill would potentially help CLEAR customers. Just because a market might regulate something (difficult in a quasi-monopoly situation like this) doesn't mean laws can't help it along.

    2. legalalien Guest

      Forcing (at a state level!) of something that requires approval from a federal agency has nothing to do with helping the market, but everything to do with the legislators' misguided desire to enforce their version of "fairness."

      If Clear stops delivering value, they will start losing customers. If dedicated security lanes help their customers *and* are possible to negotiate with TSA and individual airpors, Clear will get that done. This is how market works.

    3. JustinDev Member

      Did you read the article? No one is banning Clear. The Bill just requires Clear to operate its own security line - which is something I wholeheartedly support.

    4. Biglaw V10 Partner Guest

      That's effectively banning CLEAR, JustinDev. There's no viable business model in operating dedicated lines.

      If you write a bill forcing McDonald's to switch to extra virgin olive oil, 100% grass finished beef, and organic vegetables sourced within 100 miles of the restaurant, you are effectively banning McDonald's.

    5. Dusty Guest

      That's a pretty crappy analogy. Clear is an expensive ID check. That's all it is. A better analogy is it's the equivalent of McDonalds taking your order but sending you to Burger King to get your food. If Clear is going to take your order, why shouldn't Clear also make you the burger?

    6. legalalien Guest

      Analogies aside, the bill does effectively kill Clear by imposing state conditions on a federally operated program.

      Besides, if Clear does manage to convince TSA and an airport authority to give them a dedicated checkpoint (e.g., by paying more money), how will that benefit the rest of the traveling public? Since most airports are already tight on space, there will be fewer checkpoints available to the general public.

    7. Dusty Guest

      Only at CA airports, and only if Clear decides that having to do their own security screening is too onerous a task. If they decide they can't do screening, or can't deliver it at a price that gives them a profit, the company should die. It's more expensive than Pre-Check, doesn't do anything Pre-Check already does, and makes life worse for people who have Pre-Check. That's classic Silicon Valley grift piggybacking off a public service.

    8. Mike F Guest

      You nailed it. Ben's reason for supporting the legislation is flawed. Let the markets decide if it is inefficient.

  44. M. Casey Guest

    If clear were not free to me, I wouldn’t pay for - it 1K at UA. No one likes long line at TSA Pre✅ or having to remove items from your carry-on, plus shoes at the regular TSA checkpoints. Clear can give customers another option and they’re paying the airports a fee. Why not allow it, if it covers some costs of the TSA.

    I have seen longer queues at Clear at ORD, EWR, and IAH than the Pre✅ queues. When this occurs… I do not use the Clear process.

  45. Sam duarte Guest

    Get rid of flight attendant pay scales and make it equal for everyone. Bidding is at random. That way everything is equal. Watch how fast that mouthpiece Sara Nelson changes her tune.

    1. JustinDev Member

      Good gracious me. What are you on about, now?

  46. Tony Guest

    The author is wrong on multiple points. Clear has worked well for us that most of the time it has been a real time saver. In most of the airports we’ve flown, Clear has its own dedicated line. In SFO, there is a sign above security which tells the wait time between regular line and TSAPre, and often times TSAPre is longer. We pay for Clear because it gives us choices. That’s why California has...

    The author is wrong on multiple points. Clear has worked well for us that most of the time it has been a real time saver. In most of the airports we’ve flown, Clear has its own dedicated line. In SFO, there is a sign above security which tells the wait time between regular line and TSAPre, and often times TSAPre is longer. We pay for Clear because it gives us choices. That’s why California has “Lexus” express lanes which you can pay to drive on. That’s why we have VIP packages to all types of events. Ban Clear and California has to ban all “pay to” access.

    1. neogucky Member

      Where is Ben wrong exactly? He just stated that for him CLEAR is more often slower than faster which is a subjective statement. Otherwise I can’t see any (multiple) points in your statement that contradict him.

  47. Tom I Guest

    The irony here is that SNA doesn't even have Clear. WTF are they sticking their nose in this. Typical class warfare issue. Cant be happy until everyone is the same level of miserable.

  48. Ap Guest

    Why is ms. Nelson here. I do get annoyed that FAs and pilots routinely cut lines at security and immigration. Let’s get rid of that too

    1. JustinDev Member

      Really? And when you are at the gate and flight is delayed because the crew is stuck clearing security, you will say and do what? Come on people, let's have a bit of perspective please. No one is saying to ban Clear. The requirement is that it operates its own security queue. How is this controversial?

    2. Antwerp Guest

      At most airports crews have their own security line now given the anger this was generating back in the day. But further that I tend to agree with @Ap that when they don't have dedicated security they need to wait like everyone else. Nothing worse than an entire International wide body crew of 20 all coming right in front of you when you are next in line. It's infuriating.

      @Justin. They can arrive early...

      At most airports crews have their own security line now given the anger this was generating back in the day. But further that I tend to agree with @Ap that when they don't have dedicated security they need to wait like everyone else. Nothing worse than an entire International wide body crew of 20 all coming right in front of you when you are next in line. It's infuriating.

      @Justin. They can arrive early like the rest of us if they anticipate long lines. And wait like the rest of us.

  49. Alex Guest

    At SFO, LAX and ORD at T1 & T2, CLEAR is so much faster than PreCheck. Worth every penny of Amex's credit.

    1. TravelinWilly Diamond

      Agreed. It really depends on the airport, though.

      At IAD, when the later afternoon/early evening banks of planes go out, the Clear line in the east side security area is longer than the Precheck line.

      Pro-tip: If you're departing Dulles during the rush, walk over to the west side security area. It's dead, and they still have a Precheck line there.

    2. jacobin777 New Member

      Clear isn't too much faster in SFO T1..maybe just by a few minutes. That being said, I only take early morning flights out from SFO and get through security quite quickly.

      Also, at ORD T3, PreCheck takes minutes, regardless what time of day.

      I can't say about LAX.

  50. Bradley Guest

    Let's get rid of first class. It's not fair that people can pay more for extra space and better service. In fact, let's get rid of extra legroom too because it's not fair that everyone doesn't have the exact same seat. Actually, Starbucks isn't cheap, it's not fair that some people can afford better coffee...Hey wait, I have a better idea: Maybe the first class people should pay for everyone else's seats too, after all they have the money, right California?

    1. jcil Guest

      My view is slightly different--the social justice types don't want to get rid of these first class type of things, they just want to change the criteria for who gets to use them. Money, or individual ability to pay will not be the criteria. If you are a rich capitalist type generating a lot of monetary value for yourself and society, you can just forget about first class. The back of the bus is now...

      My view is slightly different--the social justice types don't want to get rid of these first class type of things, they just want to change the criteria for who gets to use them. Money, or individual ability to pay will not be the criteria. If you are a rich capitalist type generating a lot of monetary value for yourself and society, you can just forget about first class. The back of the bus is now for you. However,if you are a totally woke and virtue signaling type (like the new NPR CEO) who gets to spend other peoples tax money, then you will be allowed these things because you are so enlightened and good. You will be assigned a social credit score to help sort out these things in the future, and you WILL enjoy it.

  51. Tim Dunn Diamond

    I suspect that Clear will mount a hefty legal fight if this moves forward because their future depends on the status quo. While airports are run locally and provide the space the TSA uses, local airports cannot dictate how the TSA does its job.

    Clear does need to rework its business model. It is not unique and isn't that much faster than PreCheck if at all. Whether they move forward with any of their proposed...

    I suspect that Clear will mount a hefty legal fight if this moves forward because their future depends on the status quo. While airports are run locally and provide the space the TSA uses, local airports cannot dictate how the TSA does its job.

    Clear does need to rework its business model. It is not unique and isn't that much faster than PreCheck if at all. Whether they move forward with any of their proposed changes or not, TSA is also trying to rethink security screening. Private enterprise SHOULD be able to move faster and better than the feds.

  52. JustinB Member

    As is always the case, Amex Platinum ruined Clear. I'd imagine its the same at MSP, DTW, JFK, ATL. I chuckle in SLC 1-2x a week when there are 10 people lined up in the Clear line, which feeds into one pre-check lane, and yet there are 4 regular pre-check ID stations open and hardly no line for any of them. People love to use clear because it makes them feel important, just like they...

    As is always the case, Amex Platinum ruined Clear. I'd imagine its the same at MSP, DTW, JFK, ATL. I chuckle in SLC 1-2x a week when there are 10 people lined up in the Clear line, which feeds into one pre-check lane, and yet there are 4 regular pre-check ID stations open and hardly no line for any of them. People love to use clear because it makes them feel important, just like they love to stand in line for 10 minutes to visit the sky club because it makes them feel important. Amex is definitely smart in that regard.

    If Clear had it's own entire security line I would feel very different about it - but now that everyone has Clear I agree it provides very little benefit to the individual traveler and probably no benefit to the entire system. I disagree with California's rationale though.

  53. gideyup11 Member

    100% agree that CLEAR has minimal to no value now, and just take up valuable real estate that belongs to TSA. I have pre check, Global Entry and CLEAR. I will be cancelling CLEAR. 100% support this legislation.

    1. Biglaw V10 Partner Guest

      Negative value. At one checkpoint (where the signage prominently said CLEAR + PreCheck), CLEAR didn’t provide me a laminated PreCheck card, which I didn’t know I needed until I got to the x-ray belt and the officer told me to take off my shoes.

      I said I came through PreCheck. Officer said did they give you a card? I said no. Officer said then you don’t have PreCheck.

      I admit the PreCheck line was longer,...

      Negative value. At one checkpoint (where the signage prominently said CLEAR + PreCheck), CLEAR didn’t provide me a laminated PreCheck card, which I didn’t know I needed until I got to the x-ray belt and the officer told me to take off my shoes.

      I said I came through PreCheck. Officer said did they give you a card? I said no. Officer said then you don’t have PreCheck.

      I admit the PreCheck line was longer, but only by a couple of minutes at most, and I would have gladly waited if it meant keeping my shoes on.

    2. Plane Jane Guest

      Going through regular security like a common american... how middle america of you, big city boy

  54. Lee Guest

    With TSA adopting facial recognition, I have found that Clear is offering little to no time advantage. Indeed, in some cases, Clear can take longer. I discontinued using Clear about 6 to 9 months ago. And, I assign ZERO value to its Amex statement credit.

    1. Biglaw V10 Partner Guest

      TSA facial recognition is slower, at least now. Someday maybe it will supplant the manual ID check, but as of today:

      Normal checkpoint:
      1. Hand ID to officer.
      2. Officer inserts ID into machine.
      3. Officer glances at you.
      4. Officer hands back your ID.

      Facial recognition checkpoint:
      1. Hand ID to officer.
      2. Officer inserts ID into machine.
      3. You look at the camera.
      4. Camera...

      TSA facial recognition is slower, at least now. Someday maybe it will supplant the manual ID check, but as of today:

      Normal checkpoint:
      1. Hand ID to officer.
      2. Officer inserts ID into machine.
      3. Officer glances at you.
      4. Officer hands back your ID.

      Facial recognition checkpoint:
      1. Hand ID to officer.
      2. Officer inserts ID into machine.
      3. You look at the camera.
      4. Camera adjusts itself so your face is in the frame.
      5. Camera snaps a photo of you.
      6. Officer hands back your ID.

    2. Kip Guest

      The new TSA Precheck facial recognition (on test with United in Terminal 1):

      1. You look at the camera.
      2. Camera snaps a photo of you.
      3. You go to X-ray machine

    3. Lee Guest

      At TSA facial recognition checkpoint, items #1,2,and 6 haven't occurred for me.

    4. DCAWABN Guest

      Same here. I still have it and enjoy it at times because it offers me the choice to skip the queue if I want/need to, especially as I traverse many airports for work where lots of people have TSA-Pre and, yet, are still ridiculously useless at getting through TSA efficiently because they don't actually fly a lot. Sometimes TSA-Pre is absolutely faster. Other times it 100% is not. But my main airport, DCA, is getting...

      Same here. I still have it and enjoy it at times because it offers me the choice to skip the queue if I want/need to, especially as I traverse many airports for work where lots of people have TSA-Pre and, yet, are still ridiculously useless at getting through TSA efficiently because they don't actually fly a lot. Sometimes TSA-Pre is absolutely faster. Other times it 100% is not. But my main airport, DCA, is getting MUCH better so skipping Clear is becoming more frequent. Ultimately I would miss Clear as an option since it's free, but it's absence is not going to make a huge impact once more TSA lines are up and running with the "insert ID/scan face and be on your way" process.

    5. TravelinWilly Diamond

      "But my main airport, DCA, is getting MUCH better so skipping Clear is becoming more frequent. Ultimately I would miss Clear as an option since it's free, but it's absence is not going to make a huge impact once more TSA lines are up and running with the "insert ID/scan face and be on your way" process."

      This.

  55. Franklyn Miller Guest

    How is this different from elite/first class line and being escorted to the front of the line by airline staff that do it for true intl first class? Or (at least united at its hubs) having Global Services checkin dump you right at PreCheck?

  56. Moe Guest

    Get rid of CLEAR. A private company shouldn’t be able to operate in the airport security world so people can pay extra to skip the line. They’re hated by flight crews and TSA agents alike.

    1. C-B New Member

      Private companies already do security at some airports: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screening_Partnership_Program

    2. Dusty Guest

      Honestly this. And I also argue for just doing away with Pre-Check. There's no legitimate security reason for having to take off your shoes going through security, and machines are to the point where laptops don't need to come out of bags. TSA Pre-check process should just be the standard, charging people for a background check so that they're checked marginally less on-site isn't much different from Clear.

    3. Westside Flyer Guest

      I understand the arguments in that priority security lanes (first class/high FF status) in the US and abroad have dedicated security lanes that the airlines pay for the real estate and services. Yeah these screeners might be doing nothing half the time, but that luxury is paid for by the airlines for dedicated lanes. The fact that CLEAR, in some airports, dumps people ahead of the same queues means they're piggybacking off the same infrastructure...

      I understand the arguments in that priority security lanes (first class/high FF status) in the US and abroad have dedicated security lanes that the airlines pay for the real estate and services. Yeah these screeners might be doing nothing half the time, but that luxury is paid for by the airlines for dedicated lanes. The fact that CLEAR, in some airports, dumps people ahead of the same queues means they're piggybacking off the same infrastructure without paying for it. TSA does not care about queue management, that's at the discretion of airports.

      If they're selling a service of faster screening, then they should pay for the salaries and equipment for dedicated lanes. If their lanes are slower than regular lanes, then we know CLEAR is not a viable business when they're asked to shoulder the costs that are expected of operators of priority lanes abroad.

    4. Greg Guest

      This is the intellectualy honest answer.

      There shouldn't be a need for Clear or even Precheck with a proper security process that doesn't waste time on low value add procedures.

      So fix that not ban things that try to ameliorate while it's broken

    5. legalalien Guest

      Why do flight crews or TSA officers even care??

      The former get to skip the line; are they jealous that someone else does, too?
      The latter fear becoming irrelevant if IDs are checked by Clear or face recognition software?

      Neither reason is particularly compelling.

Featured Comments Most helpful comments ( as chosen by the OMAAT community ).

The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.

Davisson Guest

Clear will be dead if they don’t change or work with TSA on their business model. 1. Clear has gotten exponentially worse last 12 months in terms of wait time, while TSA pre check has gotten better. 2. Interaction with clear machines remains frustratingly slow, and requires human intervention. Cutting lines requires human intervention. While TSA is piloting on not requiring boarding passes, and soon won’t require IDs. 3. The whole premise of clear is to cut lines, and the business model of 189 a year isn’t cutting it. It needs to really up the price or throw in the towel. At a high level, I actually like the concept of CLEAR, but it is obvious that TSA monopoly cannot be touched, so this business model is not going to succeed. Short their stock.

3
Greg Guest

What do these lawmakers think of the express lanes where you can pay to go in the carpool lane without a carpool? Are they asking to ban those because 'the rich' can use them and pass you by? Clear is an awkward service, I use it when TSA Pre fails, but would rather TSA Pre didn't fail.

2
Dusty Guest

That's a pretty crappy analogy. Clear is an expensive ID check. That's all it is. A better analogy is it's the equivalent of McDonalds taking your order but sending you to Burger King to get your food. If Clear is going to take your order, why shouldn't Clear also make you the burger?

2
Meet Ben Schlappig, OMAAT Founder
5,163,247 Miles Traveled

32,614,600 Words Written

35,045 Posts Published

Keep Exploring OMAAT
  • September 19, 2023
  • Ben Schlappig
69
TSA Catches Flight Attendant With Loaded Gun
  • December 17, 2020
  • Ben Schlappig
11
CLEAR Offering Free Six Month Trial