Mar 21, 2017, 12:52 pm
Last edit by: aztimm
US/UK Electronics bans discussion
This thread is intended for discussion of how the recent US and UK electronics bans impact travel with discussion.
For more discussion of this topic, please follow the appropriate thread below:
For basic questions, what is/isn't allowed, use this thread in the Travel Safety/Security Practical forum
To discuss the merits of the rules, with the option of political discussion, follow this thread to the Omni-PR forum
(note: there are time/post restrictions for access to Omni)
Political discussion will not be tolerated in this thread.
Signed in members with 90 days / 90 posts can edit this Wikipost; wiki contents may be printed by using the
(lower right wiki corner)
Electronic Devices Banned on Flights to US & UK from 10 ME Countries
Mar 23, 2017, 8:33 am
#346
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,744
In addition, if it was really about security, what do you think is more carefully screened - carry on or checked? Common sense dictates that when you remove your laptop to a separate tray and it goes through xray and is visible and has individual attention the screening is MUCH more thorough than putting it in checked.
So infact, this new rule make things LESS secure not more which is why it is idiotic.
So infact, this new rule make things LESS secure not more which is why it is idiotic.
I guess one way the ME carries can retaliate is to route all flights to the US via another point where the cost of stopping is pretty low, it could be a very small stopover, something like 30 mins? Can't they do something like this? I am thinking they would have to do this because no business traveler is going to subject themselves to this ridiculousness and I am thinking without business class tickets the flights become economically unviable.
I don't really see a carrier doing that to save passengers from having to check their electronics.
I heard an interview on the radio yesterday where someone familiar with airline technology said that the baggage area on most planes (used for such long-haul flights, at least) is much more able to sustain and isolate a comparable explosion (of the size excepted from a device fitting into somehting like a laptop) than the cabin is, and that's why it's safer to put the same items in checked bags.
Your assumption (that moving the bag to the checked baggage part of the plane just moved the problem there) seems to be based on an assumption that an explosion in any part of the plane produces the exact same effect as an explosion in another part of the plane. Apparently that's incorrect assumption.
Your assumption (that moving the bag to the checked baggage part of the plane just moved the problem there) seems to be based on an assumption that an explosion in any part of the plane produces the exact same effect as an explosion in another part of the plane. Apparently that's incorrect assumption.
This sounds like the media promoting an irrelevant theory.
Well there can be a loophole.
Imagine a (fictional) flight CPT-DXB-LAX.
Checkin at CPT for EK771: You drop your bags and the clerk will tell you that you should check in laptops, etc. You ignore that an keep in in the carry-on.
Then go to security where they check the boarding pass to be allowed into the security and they don't check the final destination. Then toy will be lined up and after a wait in the line the actual X-ray takes place. Everything is OK, including laptops as they don't know where you are going to.
The CPT-DXB leg it is still legal to take a laptop.
In DXB: You enter the big terminal building and go to security. The boarding pass for EK215 to LAX is checked for access to security only, then you will be in an (long) line. After that the actual X-ray checking takes place, the guys have no idea what your destination is so the laptop is OK.
Go on to the plane and voilŕ, enjoy the 16 hour flight to LAX with the laptop.
To prevent this, all security staff worldwide should be instructed to check the final destination at every security check X-ray tunnel itself, which will generate for more hassle, extra costs for airports and airlines.
Imagine a (fictional) flight CPT-DXB-LAX.
Checkin at CPT for EK771: You drop your bags and the clerk will tell you that you should check in laptops, etc. You ignore that an keep in in the carry-on.
Then go to security where they check the boarding pass to be allowed into the security and they don't check the final destination. Then toy will be lined up and after a wait in the line the actual X-ray takes place. Everything is OK, including laptops as they don't know where you are going to.
The CPT-DXB leg it is still legal to take a laptop.
In DXB: You enter the big terminal building and go to security. The boarding pass for EK215 to LAX is checked for access to security only, then you will be in an (long) line. After that the actual X-ray checking takes place, the guys have no idea what your destination is so the laptop is OK.
Go on to the plane and voilŕ, enjoy the 16 hour flight to LAX with the laptop.
To prevent this, all security staff worldwide should be instructed to check the final destination at every security check X-ray tunnel itself, which will generate for more hassle, extra costs for airports and airlines.
Mar 23, 2017, 1:39 pm
#347
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,618
@ kmersh, thanks so much for the additional details and information for FedEx.
- do you happen to know if your brother insured the shipment contents and for what insured amount if he did?
I am staying at the Grosvenor in the Marina district and will also try to ask them for any feedback they may have.
Please do share with us any additional information you may find out if you hear back more.
- do you happen to know if your brother insured the shipment contents and for what insured amount if he did?
I am staying at the Grosvenor in the Marina district and will also try to ask them for any feedback they may have.
Please do share with us any additional information you may find out if you hear back more.
Mar 23, 2017, 2:22 pm
#348
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 661
I stand by my earlier observation - it's more likely that a suspicious device will be caught at security screening than in a checked bag. There are strong arguments why this type of equipment should not be in the cargo hold... fires can be more controlled in the cabin vs the cargo hold. So what we are doing here is trading one set of risks for another with a zero net effect but causing a huge amount inconvenience to hordes of people for no reason at all.
And I just went through Abu Dhabi US preclearance a few months ago and the security was about 10X tighter than anything I have seen anywhere... they made me turn on my cell and my laptop which has never happened elsewhere.
Edit - I have gone through various airports with absolutely ...... security heading to the US, somehow that does not seem to be an issue. What about some airports originating in places like Lagos, Nigeria which is a hotbed for terrorist activity? These rules are just arbitrary and totally useless.
Last edited by k374; Mar 23, 2017 at 2:31 pm
Mar 23, 2017, 5:32 pm
#349
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA 1K MM, Bonvoy LT Titanium
Posts: 435
Thanks again for everything kmersh, fingers crossed here when I fly April 8th I'll keep everyone posted here as well to help on what/how I decided to handle my Electronics.
Mar 27, 2017, 8:25 pm
#351
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,396
A bit more detail on why: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-uk-laptop-ban
Mar 28, 2017, 1:43 am
#352
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
A bit more detail on why: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-uk-laptop-ban
Mar 28, 2017, 12:06 pm
#353
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Lausanne, CH
Programs: BA Executive Club Bronze; SAS Eurobonus
Posts: 1
Since we tend to "get used to" ever increasing security measures, I doubt this new electronics ban will be rescinded soon (if ever). More likely is an extension.
Just look at the liquid ban, that was supposed to be temporary and now it seems to have become as permanent as the X-raying of carry-ons. If (when?) this becomes universal, the risk is that it will never go away.
Mar 28, 2017, 4:03 pm
#354
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,582
Moderator's Note:
This is the Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate forum.
It is the place to debate, argue, comment and discuss security policy.
This particular thread is for discussing the merits and wisdom of this ban, the reasons behind its implementation and how it impacts travelers.
Practical information concerning the electronics ban, i.e., what travelers need to know before they travel, belongs in the:
And specifically in the following threads:
Please do not cross-post.
Thank you,
TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator
It is the place to debate, argue, comment and discuss security policy.
This particular thread is for discussing the merits and wisdom of this ban, the reasons behind its implementation and how it impacts travelers.
Practical information concerning the electronics ban, i.e., what travelers need to know before they travel, belongs in the:
And specifically in the following threads:
Electronics Banned in Cabin on Flights to US from 8 ME and North African Countries
Electronic Devices Ban on Direct Flights to UK from 6 ME and North African Countries
Posts have been moved.Electronic Devices Ban on Direct Flights to UK from 6 ME and North African Countries
Please do not cross-post.
Thank you,
TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator
Mar 30, 2017, 11:12 am
#355
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 661
Why can't the affected airlines simply add a 45 minute stopover at another airport for flights to the US, that would completely circumvent this ban.
It would be an inconvenience to the passengers to add a connection to a nonstop flight but I would imagine it's less of a inconvenience than being separated from your electronics and not being able to use them.
And you could even have passengers simply get off the plane to the boarding area and then get them back on LMAO! so fight the ridiculous ban with and equal amount of ridiculousness!
It would be an inconvenience to the passengers to add a connection to a nonstop flight but I would imagine it's less of a inconvenience than being separated from your electronics and not being able to use them.
And you could even have passengers simply get off the plane to the boarding area and then get them back on LMAO! so fight the ridiculous ban with and equal amount of ridiculousness!
Mar 30, 2017, 12:09 pm
#356
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Global
Posts: 5,992
Why can't the affected airlines simply add a 45 minute stopover at another airport for flights to the US, that would completely circumvent this ban.
It would be an inconvenience to the passengers to add a connection to a nonstop flight but I would imagine it's less of a inconvenience than being separated from your electronics and not being able to use them.
And you could even have passengers simply get off the plane to the boarding area and then get them back on LMAO! so fight the ridiculous ban with and equal amount of ridiculousness!
It would be an inconvenience to the passengers to add a connection to a nonstop flight but I would imagine it's less of a inconvenience than being separated from your electronics and not being able to use them.
And you could even have passengers simply get off the plane to the boarding area and then get them back on LMAO! so fight the ridiculous ban with and equal amount of ridiculousness!
Mar 30, 2017, 12:25 pm
#357
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
But using the rights isn't necessarily all that great an idea, so they don't use most of the possibilities.
Mar 30, 2017, 12:52 pm
#358
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: VPS
Programs: IHG Diamond, Delta PM, Hilton Gold, Accor Gold, Marriott Silver
Posts: 7,253
If memory serves the inbound Royal Jordanian flight to Detroit has a refueling stop in Montreal for part of the year for technical reasons (not sure if it's got fifth freedom for passengers to board or exit) and is on the electronics ban list anyways.
Mar 30, 2017, 6:53 pm
#359
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: DTW/MBS
Programs: UA 1K, HHonors Diamond, Hyatt Globalist, Formerly Starbucks Gold
Posts: 3,525
RJ does not have fifth freedom to transport between DTW and YUL. But similar to Qantas JFK-LAX-SYD...what's to stop a "technical" stop on the way?
