Travelling can be quite stressful, even more so when you have to be at the airport at least two hours before departure to make sure you have enough time to pass through all the security checks.
Those who somehow end up being late or simply do not want to spend too much time waiting at the gate can usually purchase, through the official airline or airport websites, some sort of fast track, allowing them to go to a separate, shorter queue, either at check-in, boarding or security screening.
In the US however, some vendors, like Clear, allow passengers to skip ahead of the regular queues. For an annual pass of $189, users get their identity pre-checked at Clear booths or kiosks and are then escorted to the front of the regular Transport Security Administration (TSA) security line.
In California, Democratic state Senator Josh Newman has now introduced a bill that would ban such third-party services from using the same line as the rest of the people, citing security concerns as well as the unfairness to the rest of the travellers. “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”, Newman told Politico.
The idea of the new law is not to forbit line skipping services altogether, but simply to not allow the people using these services to cut in front of the rest of the travellers in the regular queues. Instead, to continue operating, Clear would have to create its own separate line.
“Beginning January 1, 2025, a public airport that provides commercial services shall not enter into a new agreement that authorizes a private third-party vendor that provides expedited security screening to use the standard security lane or the Transportation Security Administration PreCheck security lane”, reads the text of the draft regulation.
Since Bill 1372 is being supported by both Democrats and Republicans, so it might soon become reality. Joining the lawmakers in supporting the bill are also two labour unions – the Association of Flight Attendants and a California chapter of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents Transportation Security Administration employees.
“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 travellers who have been screened by the TSA”, Republican Senator Janet Nguyen told Politico.
On the other hand, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Travel Association and the California Airports Council and 6 major airlines (Alaska Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Hawaiian Airlines, JetBlue, Southwest Airlines and United Airlines) are opposing the bill.
Airlines are arguing that the lost revenue from partnering with Clear would lead to increase fares for all passengers. “Moreover, by preventing airports from partnering with Clear, we are concerned SB 1372 will result in longer, less efficient lines at the security checkpoint. In 2023 alone, Clear verified our frequent fliers over 5 million times in California – which means our most loyal customers find value in using Clear”, the airlines wrote in a joint letter.
Founded in 2010, Clear provides identity verification services for expedited security screenings at more than 50 airports, as well as other venues like stadiums. In California alone, it has about 1 million subscribers using the service across nine airports: Long Beach, San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, Palm Springs, Ontario and San Jose.
Should the bill go ahead, Clear would need to get federal approval to operate separate security checks to comply with TSA regulations.
