In the age of the post-pandemic travel boon, crowding at every step of the flying process has become a fact of life. This has pushed for greater applications for expedited security screening programs such as TSA PreCheck and Clear or, in some cases, outright cheating as some airlines have rung the alarm on passengers faking disabilities in order to get early boarding once at the gate.Related: Passengers are doing this sneaky thing to board flights earlyClear, which was established in 2010 as a response to customers who were getting adjusted to the many airport changes introduced after 9/11, has recently been under major scrutiny over everything from collection of passenger biometric data to the fact that it exacerbates wealth inequities.
Expedited security programs advertise the ability to bypass crowds such as these.Shutterstock
California senator: 'It's a basic equity issue'The latter was what caught the attention of California lawmakers who are trying to push forward a bill that would ban the company from operating at the state's airports.More Travel:A new travel term is taking over the internet (and reaching airlines and hotels)The 10 best airline stocks to buy nowAirlines see a new kind of traveler at the front of the planeThe company charges $189 per year to let customers pass a pre-screening test once and then use biometric kiosks every time they need to pass through the airport for domestic flights (due to the need for customs, such an option is not available for international flights.)"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," Senator Josh Newman, a Democrat who is sponsoring the bill, 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."There is a reason so many people hate ClearEven some Republican senators from the state have expressed support for the bill, which was first introduced to California Senate's transportation committee for consideration on April 23. Republican Senator Janet Nguyen commented that it "becomes a haves vs. have nots" situation that does not actually address crowding but lets wealthier people bypass lines.While it is rarer (and a very California story) for someone to look at the company through the angle of wealth inequity, passengers have increasingly been criticizing Clear for having lines that are only marginally shorter than those to pass through regular security."The Clear lines are longer than the regular lines, with correspondingly longer wait times," one travel influencer wrote on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, in a post that end up going viral. "Why should I pay to wait longer to get through airport security? The value just isn't there any more."The proposed bill is still at the discussion phase and would need to pass through several stages of voting in order to be signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom. Six major airlines such as Delta (DAL) , United (UAL) and JetBlue Airways (JBLU) came together to write Senate Transportation Committee Chair Dave Cortese a letter opposing the bill.Clear is currently available at 55 airports across the country while representatives have been declining media requests to comment on what is being proposed in California.
