![]() |
Originally Posted by BigFlyer
(Post 19763292)
Which goes back to the original question I asked.
I assume that it is because of the initial "trusted traveler" idea that Clear still has the biometric looking checkpoints, even though that level or security really serves no purpose. I don't see the public policy rationale for allowing some people to pay money to a private company to cut the line for a governmental service. As far as the public policy rationale. Here in CA, some people pay money to drive solo in the carpool lane (toll lane), and they are paying a government agency to do it. Saving time, just as in Clear. |
Originally Posted by BigFlyer
(Post 19763292)
Which goes back to the original question I asked.
I see the public policy rationale for having a "trusted traveler" program, which is what Clear was originally supposed to be. However, when the TSA ultimately did not allow a different inspection for Clear members as Clear initially promised, it became a program where you simply pay money to cut the line. I assume that it is because of the initial "trusted traveler" idea that Clear still has the biometric looking checkpoints, even though that level or security really serves no purpose. I don't see the public policy rationale for allowing some people to pay money to a private company to cut the line for a governmental service. BTW, I pity the fool in SFO that pays UA $40 for the use of the premier line...... That line can be three times worse than the regular line:) |
Originally Posted by Crazyhotelguy
(Post 19763327)
BTW, I pity the fool in SFO that pays UA $40 for the use of the premier line...... That line can be three times worse than the regular line:)
BTW, I'm doing SFO-MCO soon, and am looking forward to using Clear on both ends. |
That is not exactly correct re the car pool lanes.
You can only pay your way into a carpool lane which is determined to be underutilized. So no buying your way into the carpool lanes in the central SF Bay Area, for example. When you buy your way into an underutilized carpool lane it is not at the expense of anyone else, i.e., no one has a longer journey because you are in the underutilized lane. In contrast, when you use clear, when you go to the head of the line you are causing others to wait longer.
Originally Posted by rwmiller56
(Post 19763325)
The biometrics serve as your ID. You don't have to show a passport or DL when going through Clear.
As far as the public policy rationale. Here in CA, some people pay money to drive solo in the carpool lane (toll lane), and they are paying a government agency to do it. Saving time, just as in Clear. |
Originally Posted by BigFlyer
(Post 19763475)
That is not exactly correct re the car pool lanes.
You can only pay your way into a carpool lane which is determined to be underutilized. So no buying your way into the carpool lanes in the central SF Bay Area, for example. When you buy your way into an underutilized carpool lane it is not at the expense of anyone else, i.e., no one has a longer journey because you are in the underutilized lane. In contrast, when you use clear, when you go to the head of the line you are causing others to wait longer. The idea is purely for the agencies to receive the additional money, they have even admitted it. As far as Clear delaying people in the security line: That is another reason they escort you, to minimize the delay. And the delay is very minimal, believe me, only a few seconds, because you place all your items in the trays while standing outside of the line. Then, the escort jumps in and places your items on the belt and puts you in line. I've never heard anyone complain :) |
Originally Posted by BigFlyer
(Post 19763475)
That is not exactly correct re the car pool lanes.
You can only pay your way into a carpool lane which is determined to be underutilized. So no buying your way into the carpool lanes in the central SF Bay Area, for example. When you buy your way into an underutilized carpool lane it is not at the expense of anyone else, i.e., no one has a longer journey because you are in the underutilized lane. In contrast, when you use clear, when you go to the head of the line you are causing others to wait longer. In reality the CLEAR line feeds to different places depending on that day's config. Often it feeds into the crew line, not a regular line (at least on the DL side) Sometimes they open the rope and boot me in right in front of a pile of kettles. Sure I feel a little guilty for about a minute. It passes. |
Sure I feel a little guilty for about a minute. It passes. |
CLEAR plus TSA Pre-Check is an unbeatbable combination. I fly out of DEN once a week. If the TSA Pre-Check comes through, my total time going through security aveages about 3 minutes. Without Pre-Check you will be subject, of course, to the standard security search, but CLEAR cuts out the whole first step of waiting in line to have your license/passport checked. How often do we show up two or two-and-a-half hours early because the biggest crapshoot of the day is the length of the security line. For me, at least CLEAR provides some assurance that I've already won half the battle of getting through security. If the Pre-Check comes through, it's a complete victory.
|
No there's not much point. It's just another cost to frequent flyers. People who fly a lot get priority security anyways. Airports like MCO actually had no FF line because of clear.
|
Originally Posted by 99luftballoons
(Post 19788872)
No there's not much point. It's just another cost to frequent flyers. People who fly a lot get priority security anyways. Airports like MCO actually had no FF line because of clear.
MCO has both FF lines, as well as, recently opened Pre-Check. I do not expect Clear to survive for long at MCO. |
Clear used to be a client of mine (I work in advertising) back under the original ownership of Steven Brill. Their business model was shoddy, as their revenue stream was compromised by the fees they had to pay airports like MCO (their launch airport, from what I remember) and the low pool of potential customers, despite having presence in major metro areas, like NYC.
Though the new ownership group doesn't have the legacy costs of the old Clear, I think the challenges they face have multiplied. I don't know what they pay out to the few airports they operate in, but back in the day, the demand was simply much lower than what their financial model required for survival. I was a Clear member back then, and used it in LGA and CVG and it was nice to be guaranteed breezy pass-through. But I'm not sure that the incremental 5 minutes in the FF line in a 2nd tier airport like MCO, SFO or DEN would be worth the $179/year. It is to some, obviously, but I wonder if the number of those folks is enough for the Clear to break even. |
I don't care if people can pay to cut in line - it already happens in many places by virtue of flying business / first anyway.
I do have a problem with a 'trusted traveller' concept. There is no one I would consider 100% trustworthy. But wait, what about that 80 year old grandma? That army officer? The priest? Nope, nope and nope. Firstly, I don't buy the idea that terrorists have a 'look' - despite Hollywood's ideas to the contrary. Just because someone has a certain skin colour, is a certain age, or travelling with their child does not make them 'safe'. The 80 year old grandma? "Hey lady, we have your grandkids, and will kill them unless you smuggle this explosive through the security line and give it to our guy on the other side". The army officer, could he have suffered PTSD and now has a somewhat twisted sense of right and wrong, and his duty to protect? The priest - long term planning, sure, but it doesn't take much to become a priest. |
CLEAR: Low Demand
Originally Posted by gosha83
(Post 19793035)
Clear used to be a client of mine (I work in advertising) back under the original ownership of Steven Brill. Their business model was shoddy, as their revenue stream was compromised by the fees they had to pay airports like MCO (their launch airport, from what I remember) and the low pool of potential customers, despite having presence in major metro areas, like NYC.
Though the new ownership group doesn't have the legacy costs of the old Clear, I think the challenges they face have multiplied. I don't know what they pay out to the few airports they operate in, but back in the day, the demand was simply much lower than what their financial model required for survival. I was a Clear member back then, and used it in LGA and CVG and it was nice to be guaranteed breezy pass-through. But I'm not sure that the incremental 5 minutes in the FF line in a 2nd tier airport like MCO, SFO or DEN would be worth the $179/year. It is to some, obviously, but I wonder if the number of those folks is enough for the Clear to break even. |
Clear longer than FF line
Originally Posted by european28
(Post 19789546)
That's not true anymore.
MCO has both FF lines, as well as, recently opened Pre-Check. I do not expect Clear to survive for long at MCO. |
Clear just opened at LAS. :cool: While sadly I have not been to LAS for some time but my recollection is that the TSA lines were horrific on Sundays, particularly for the WN terminals.
Even though I always get precheck, Clear makes sense for me based at SFO/SJC, particularly as I fly often to IAH/HOU and occasionally DEN. It is an even better deal if your family travels frequently as the add-on is only $50/yr. for your spouse, and children <12 are free. ^
Originally Posted by rwmiller56
(Post 19763378)
Amen to that! That "Premier" line at UA SFO is a distant memory since I've had Clear. I'll never go back.
BTW, I'm doing SFO-MCO soon, and am looking forward to using Clear on both ends.
Originally Posted by pauljacobson958
(Post 19794623)
That's a good point. When I'm departing DEN, usually Sunday afternoon or early evening, there is never anyone in the CLEAR line, except me.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:57 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.