I really don't understand why certain airlines (almost exclusively Middle Eastern based ones) are affected but American and other airlines are not. If laptops are a risk, what makes someone stop them from taking a United flight vs Emirates?
That's the key to understanding this. Makes less and less sense as a security measure, maybe it makes sense as an economic measure directed at middle eastern airlines?
Just because you depart from a country doesn't mean your laptop is dangerous. Moreover, up til now there hasn't any paper or statistics claiming laptops are dangerous on flights. I am sure they are trying to hide the discrimination that lies underneath the ban.
To be fair, a laptop battery contains as much energy as a small grenade. I think the fact that no terrorist organization has exploited this really speaks volumes of their lack of resources, and the effectiveness of alternative security measures.
I think the threat of domestic terrorism on US flights is probably overestimated (and I think a lot of domestic TSA is bordering on security theater), but I don't feel the same flying internationally. I trust everyone far, far, far less; and for me, I consider the extra security layers a welcome addition.
Statistically speaking, the chance of a terrorist event on an international flight is much lower. The 9/11 flights were all domestic. Humans are terrible at evaluating risk objectively.
Care to share your statistics? Not saying you're wrong, but since 9/11, I can't think of a single terrorist incident on an entirely domestic US flight, whereas I can think of several attempts/successes on international flights.
I think a blend of both is appropriate. I'm just being pragmatic, and people can downvote me all they want, but the reality is I trust the magic of courage just as much as I trust faith in a magical sky being.
I'm not suggesting courage will protect you, I'm saying it will stop people from allowing their dignity, quality of life, and freedom of movement degraded for objectively insufficient reasons.
I do not feel like my dignity, quality of life or freedom of movement have been degraded in any substantial way by the level of additional security I've seen in my travels. I recognize this is not the same for everyone, but personally, my life has continued on as it did before. In fact, with programs like TSA Precheck / Global Entry, my quality of life has noticeably improved.
You are free to disagree with me on whether or not the reasons for additional security are 'objectively insufficient', but my personal opinion is that the additional security I've seen is reasonable when it comes to international travel. For domestic travel, I think it's overkill in places, a position consistent with my original comment above.
The number of people in the world who are willing to execute schemes that would kill innocents is very small.
Sadly, there is likely nothing we could ever do to stop those who are truly committed to this goal. Sadder still is the fact that the null reaction is considered unacceptable by politicians and constituents alike.
I've been thinking about the same since 9/11. While they comb through small liquids and nail files in all cabin baggage I can walk into a plane with several Ampere-hours of tightly packed energy in my backpack.
Search for "cargo hold" to see the number of planes that have gone down due to an event in the cargo hold.
This ban is simple, it is to hurt DBX air carriers which EU and US air carriers have complained about for a long time. DBX based air carriers have newer planes, better service, better food, and shorter legs. This eats into first class and business class revenue of major EU and US carriers.
Not as dangerous by itself as you can't just hold it up to a window or wall. But possibly more so, because you can also pack liquid explosives, flash paper, carbon-packed clothing, compressed gases, etc in checked luggage.
I've wondered this myself as well - in my mind, 'all' one need do is pierce a fully-charged iPad and then aim the resultant jet of flame at a plane window, and like a violin, a well-publicised fear-inducing terrorist event at worst, or a downed plane at best.
I gotta say, -1's are really negative when not backed up by an explanation - it's not like i've said something horrible that's not been since-repeated a couple of times by other people here.
The one and only time I have ever checked a laptop in my bag, it was destroyed by the TSA. My bag was opened and my carefully packed and padded laptop was placed on top of my clothes in my soft-sided luggage with a note on top saying my bag had been inspect. The screen was completely smashed upon arrival.
What are my alternatives now? Can I overnight my laptop via FedEx or something?
Similar thing happened to me. I had a lot of computing equipment to carry, including a desktop LCD screen, and it only just barely fit in the hard case. Took what felt like hours of fiddling and rearranging to get it to close. Of course, with all that electronics the case was searched, and of course the TSA didn't spend hours fiddling and rearranging - they'd obviously just jumped on it until it latched, crushing the screen.
Same here. It wasn't inspected, what ever extreme handling they did, all the packing I had for it did not allow it to survive, and it had a cracked case and something else no longer allowing it to turn on (it was a long time ago, I no longer remember the details nor have the laptop).
I think this will heavily curtail travel to the US.
US officials said bombs could be hidden in a series of devices.
Bullshit. If an effective explosive could be hidden, they would be banned from all planes, from everywhere, period. Not in the hold, not in the cabin, not even anywhere close to an airport. Also, technical staff working on any airport anywhere would be banned from bringing these devices anywhere airside.
Why would anyone do that? It would be against the rules. Gotta follow the rules. /s
On a somewhat serious note - presumably your itinerary would light up like a Christmas tree somewhere. Unless, of course, you swap identities en route. That would be against the rules, though.
Also, in fairness, it may be that they have very credible intelligence that someone is planning mischief using a specific carrier or airport.
Ah, mea culpa. I suddenly realized that the ban doesn't affect flights on the named airlines NOT ending up in the US. D'oh.
However, if I were the TSA and I were serious, I'd just require that you surrender your laptop at the start of the leg terminating in the US - as you started off in a place they obviously have a grudge against, &c. (That would require you to book two separate tickets, if nothing else.)
Would travel via a third country actually raise any alarms?
Surely it is common for people traveling for international business to visit their offices, customers, or suppliers in multiple places during one trip, so a business person traveling from Saudi Arabia, say, to New York, with a week in Munich in the middle would not be unusual.
If you want pure speculation: Perhaps you don't trust airport security in those countries to properly check the laptops, but you trust the airport security in third countries.
If they did it from everywhere at once too many people would complain and they would remove the restriction. This way it can be incrementally added everywhere with less push back.
If this was an attempt to avoid large batteries used in attacks, you could just bring 10 cellphones with you, or have 10 people on the plane bring several cellphones or something. This is about bureaucrats covering their asses, not actual safety.
If you think this is somehow a good idea, require your government to mandate the airlines to provide a reliable, free method to store your electronics that does not involve paying to check a bag (because you don't have to pay to bring a laptop today, so there is no reason to gouge customers now). If you don't demand specific changes they will think you're a push-over and never change the policies.
If you go looking for ways there's an infinite number. The problem is where you draw the line and accept the risk. Banning everything technically is what makes terrorism effective. The greatest terrorist purpose is for us and our governments to be afraid of everything and everyone.
So does this mean the UK is also racist and fascist or are we allowed to accept this as a security measure? If its still racist which country adopting a policy like this will turn it from unacceptable to acceptable.
I'm guessing this post is intended with some small level of sarcasm or passive aggression to make a "subtle" point, but assuming it's just a simple question: yes, the UK is widely considered be heavily influenced by anti-immigrant sentiment. Brexit is a high-profile example of this.
The UK is on the cusp of committing economic suicide, or at least crippling itself for decades. It needs all the friends it can get. I imagine this is a measure to cosy up to the US, in full knowledge that it is an unhinged administration, in the hope of getting a good trade deal out of it once we cease trading as part of the bloc.
> The UK is on the cusp of committing economic suicide, or at least crippling itself for decades.
No.
Here's why.
The UK can control it's currency and maintain a clear direction. The EU can't do that. The Euro favors some countries.
The UK can have bi-lateral trade deals that is best for her with all countries around the world[1]. The EU can't do that, it has to consider ALL countries best interests within the Block.
The UK can change it's business rates to be more competitive than the EU [2]. The EU can't really do that, lest it risk some states losing money.
In short. The UK is in an excellent position for growth.
Far from economic suicide. Based on the trade deficit [1], I doubt the EU can survive giving the UK a punitive trade deal. This is a great opportunity for the UK [2].
Is this (well, the US half of this, not the UK adopting it as well) just an indirect way to enact Trump's "muslim ban" executive order? Make 14hr flights much more boring and fewer people from the originating countries will fly to the US?
More countries on this list will follow, it's how these things always start. Target 'dangerous' countries first, ones that the public won't speak out much about, then keep adding to it.
Ban of large electronics in the hand luggage and recommendation to not put fragile electronics in the checked-in luggage may result in quite unexpected passenger behavior.
My guess is that the purpose of this is intelligence gathering (assuming that it is security related at all, as opposed to being retaliation against unfair competition by state subsidized airlines as some have speculated). Perhaps something like this:
1. Some international criminal group has been under surveillance. Security agencies know quite a bit more about the group than the group thinks they do.
2. Security agencies do not have much information on the membership and organization of the group within the United States.
3. There is some good reason to believe that the group is about to undertake some major action, such as a terrorist attack, in the United States, and that a specific known officer of the organization will be traveling to the US to direct the attack.
4. Security agencies want to get some alone time with something that traveler will take with him when meeting with his comrades in the US, so they can install spying equipment like a listening device, a tracking device, a key logger if the device has a keyboard, and so on. They want this so that they can get information about the organization's US membership.
5. They don't want to do anything that would tip off the organization that their officer has been targeted. Hence, they need to cover up doctoring his electronics by making it appear that it is part of a very broad operation.
This restriction on electronics fits this well. Checked electronics will spend lots of time away from the owner, giving plenty of time to doctor it.
It's funny that there's such furor about Russia influencing American policy, while statements like "Europe will follow the US/UK rules very soon" are just casual factual commentary.
