A new bill, the first of its kind in the U.S., would ban security screening company Clear from operating at California airports as lawmakers take aim at companies that let consumers pay to pass through security ahead of other travelers.
Sen. Josh Newman, a California Democrat and the sponsor of the legislation, said Clear effectively lets wealthier people skip in front of passengers who have been waiting to be screened by Transportation Security Administration agents.
“It’s a basic equity issue when you see people subscribed to a concierge service being escorted in front of people who have waited a long time to get to the front of TSA line,” Newman told CBS MoneyWatch. “Everyone is beaten down by the travel experience, and if Clear escorts a customer in front of you and tells TSA, ‘Sorry, I have someone better,’ it’s really frustrating.”
If passed, the bill would bar Clear, a private security clearance company founded in 2010, from airports in California. Clear charges members $189 per year to verify passengers’ identities at airports and escort them through security, allowing them to bypass TSA checkpoints. The service is in use at roughly 50 airports across the U.S., as well as at dozens of sports stadiums and other venues.
OK, so you refuse to acknowledge what you said about it not mattering much to you if the line takes a little longer.
Yeah sure Richie.
Dude, it’s $200 per year. A) That’s not rich person money. B) Most of the people willing to pay that little bit of money for the little bit of benefit are frequent travelers. C) Most of the people in the line didn’t pay it at all. They got it through their credit card benefits or paid for by their company or a benefit by hitting status with an airline.
So I’ll go back to what you said. When I pointed out that for frequent travelers it matters a lot to save a few minutes in line waiting for infrequent travelers to figure their shit out, you said it wasn’t a big deal to wait a few extra minutes. But when YOU have to spend a few more minutes in line because of them, then it is suddenly a big deal. That’s the issue I have. I can see your point about not having a pay-to-play feature giving the haves a benefit not available to the have-nots, but when you downplay the inconvenience for people who aren’t haves but do have access to that line and then play up your inconvenience then it hurts your message.