California Senate Drafts Bill to Restrict CLEAR's Operations at Airports

In a move that could significantly impact the operations of CLEAR, a private company offering expedited security screening at select airports, a pair of California state senators from Orange County have introduced a bill aimed at restricting third party vendors like CLEAR from operating at existing security checkpoints in the state. The proposed legislation would require CLEAR to have its own dedicated security lanes or risk losing the ability to operate at airports.

However, implementing this proposal may not be straightforward. Since the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) oversees security at US airports, CLEAR would need federal approval to fund its own security lines. Additionally, most airports do not have extra space to accommodate expanded security checkpoints.

Proponents of the bill emphasize that they do not seek to ban CLEAR entirely but rather want to ensure a more equitable screening process. They express confidence in CLEAR's ability to "re-engineer its business." Under the bill, CLEAR would be allowed to continue operating until current contracts expire, with the potential for extensions if the company demonstrates genuine efforts to modify its operations.

In terms of economic impact, CLEAR paid California airports $13 million in 2023 and a total of $49 million since 2012. However, this constitutes a small fraction of overall airport concessions.

State Senator Josh Newman, the Democrat who authored the bill, argued that airport security should not allow affluent individuals to bypass others waiting in line, stating, "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."

Support for the bill also comes from Republican Senator Janet Nguyen, who acknowledged the frustrations expressed in the bill. She noted that those who can afford CLEAR often cut in front of not only regular travelers but also TSA Pre-boarding pass holders who have already undergone TSA screening.

Not surprisingly, the proposal has generated mixed reactions. Delta, United, Southwest, Alaska, JetBlue, and Hawaiian are opposing the bill, as they fear revenue losses resulting from CLEAR's potential absence could lead to increased airfare. On the other hand, the union representing TSA agents argues that CLEAR is a privilege sold at the expense of others waiting in line.

Sara Nelson, the leader of flight attendant unions representing several airlines, stated that CLEAR perpetuates socioeconomic disparity in airport security, adding that the bill would restore equal access and treatment for all travelers at checkpoints.

It is crucial to note that the bill is in the early stages and may undergo significant changes or even be rejected. Lobbying efforts and public opinion are expected to play a role in shaping its outcome.

The subject of CLEAR and the proposed restrictions has sparked passionate debates among the traveling public. While some support the bill due to their personal experiences finding CLEAR inefficient and of little value, others argue that the priority security lines available to premium customers should also be subject to scrutiny.

As the discussion unfolds, it remains to be seen whether CLEAR will be able to continue its operations in California or be forced to adapt its business model to comply with potential new regulations.