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.
You are right, but having a system like Clear also incentivizes the whole system to be worse to increase sales. While it’s not a whole solution, it’s a good move, imo.
I disagree. Clear gives wealthy an “out” and incentivizes the TSA system to NOT change. Clear is increasing sales but there is no relationship between their sales and TSA. TSA is not incentivized to make Clear more money. It’s a bad move.
I’d day it’s still a good move as it prevents inequal wealth resulting in inequality treatment. We should ALL be moved to the front of the TSA line, with no extra cost, or none of us should.
The ultimate solution is a change to TSA that makes it easier to board for everyone, but if the only option is to let people who pay a fee get a leg-up, I’m fine with just banning the whole service.
You’re forgetting the best option: disband TSA. It’s never been shown to improve safety and I have always argued it’s a greater security risk to congregate all the passengers (before screening) in a central location anyway.
If Clear’s entire business model is predicated on getting money from people who don’t want to deal with the standard security system, then they are 100% incentivized to keep security as unpleasant as possible. Suppose that Congressman Jones introduces the Make TSA Less Horrible Bill. That bill would be an existential threat to Clear, so they would absolutely lobby against it, even though it would objectively improve the lives of everyone who travels. By that same token, if Congressman Chudknuckle wanted a campaign donation from Clear, he might just so happen to introduce the TSA Now Can Stab You in the Ear with an Unfolded Paperclip Bill, and Clear would happily oblige.
Clear may not have created the problem for which they are selling the solution, but they have every incentive in the world to keep the problem as bad as possible, and even make it worse if they can.
Nothing you have said (which I agree with) disagrees with my comment. Clear only exists because TSA is terrible. Fix TSA and Clear goes away because no one will see value in it. In my airport, Clear is worse than preTSA and many have cancelled their Clear because a better option exists.
If it gave the wealthy an out it would be $1000/yr. This is trying to onboard everyone cheap, so you either pay clear or wait 2 hours.
Okay? It’s still a private sector solution to make a public sector shitshow tolerable. How does banning it help the shitshow that is TSA? This was my whole point - government thinks banning Clear is the solution to be “fair” when the problem is TSA. If they fix the TSA shitshow there is no need for Clear.
Let’s reverse the question: how does continuing to allow it not just make the system the same but with a yearly fee attached?
Because only a small percentage of people use Clear.