artemis

Don't you know that terrorists don't understand the world is round, and are confused by the mysteries of connecting flights?

Boggie Dog

If terrorists really wanted to impact air travel they don't need to get on an airplane to meet that objective. Airport check in terminals, arrival halls, and even parking garages are ripe targets for attack that would leave airplanes flying with reduced passenger loads. Even a few shoulder fired missiles would have a significant impact. In the U.S. TSA is reluctant to screen airport workers and that opens an even larger target of opportunity to be exploited. If some group wishes to disrupt air travel the means are present now no matter what kind of ban is enacted.

jkhuggins

Or, perhaps, airlines could change their model to actually provide this service for all passenger luggage. After all, they've already got all this space in the belly of the aircraft that is sitting there, waiting to be used.

What would have to change, of course, is the airlines would have to take responsibility for delivering passenger luggage, intact and unopened, to passengers at their final destinations. No more passing the buck for lack of security to TSA inspectors, or third-party airport staff, or anyone else who might happen to wander by.

Otherwise ... I'm seeing a model developing where a passenger pays some exorbitant amount of money to a third-party agent (e.g. FedEx) at the airport to transport their luggage "safely", where those bags end up sitting in the hold of the same aircraft that the passenger is riding. Of course, those "secured" bags will be sitting right next to the ordinary "unsecured" bags checked with the original airline.

Need

The airlines are going to like this change... the average laptop with power adapter is going to weight about 10 lb. Putting that into the checked luggage is likely going to put it into the overweight category. $$$

wco81

Until there are fires in several of their flights and they have to divert or worse.

AZDeltaFlyer

Maybe not the regular "schmo employees", but I would strongly suspect that CIA and FBI and other law enforcement agents are not subjected to the same humiliating experience that a normal people are.

I don't think anybody employed by the government should be eligible for Pre ... they should experience the worst of what they impose on our citizens.

And they should be forced to participate in Social Security (not their private retirement plan) and should be forced to use the ACA instead of their special medical plans.

No special treatment. They should experience exactly what they impose on the least of our society.

GUWonder

Unless the CIA or FBI employees are traveling under specific conditions granting a TSA exemption or traveling under diplomatic status if there is an exemption that way (not usually a given), the procedures by which the screening is conducted at the airport is basically the same as for random US persons. The key difference outside of the US when diplomatic status of sorts isn't part of the picture is that the chance of being hit with a targeted secondary drops off -- but even that varies.

beachmouse

From a normally reliable source, I have also heard the story of a Secret Service agent who got himself watch listed by the TSA for an indefinite amount of time because of a work trip where he was photographed standing next to members of assorted Palestinian political types as part of doing his job.

The different law enforcement agencies apparently don't always talk well with each other.

artemis

This would be wonderful! (And basically re-establishing the status quo from the days before 9/11, when luggage could be securely locked.)

Unfortunately, this is what I am afraid we are actually going to get.

84fiero

Or traveling to the US first and doing the same on domestic flight. Oh yeah I forgot, no one can obtain bomb materials within the US - we have that magical force field keeping it all out!

Your suspicion is quite wrong except with very limited exceptions as GUWonder mentions above. And most civil servants have nothing to do with airline security laws, TSA procedures, etc. Do you really think the Forest Service ranger, the Contracting Officer at the Dept of Labor, the Army accounting clerk, the Air Force electronics engineer, etc. are "imposing" TSA procedures on anyone?

Eligible DoD employees (and military) receive PreCheck because they have already had a background check and been fingerprinted (at a minimum - some have of course much more extensive security clearance investigations), so it's not clear what your concern is in connection with Precheck or with the potential laptop ban. Seems unlikely that any possible implementation would see Pre participants exempt in any case.

(Not that it's relevant to the topic, but Federal civilians do participate in Social Security - have for about 30 years.)

MSY-MSP

To jump back in to the conversation and to again answer some of the questions that were asked above as well as to provide some additional commentary.

Someone mentioned up thread about why Russia hasn’t been targeted since they have a large number of extremists in their country. My guess is that the western governments don’t see them as a big threat to the west because they are more likely to target Russian interests as opposed to Western interests. Not to say that could be used as a base to attack Western interests. But by the end of this exercise, they will be in the restrictions as well anyway.

One question that was asked was why are battery devices being targeted and the issues with detecting explosives in them. From my understanding what the bad guys have figured out what to do is replace some of the cells of the battery with the explosive material. They also figured out how to make the explosive material look like a normal cell in the battery. They have acquired or have access to, from what I understand, airport quality x-ray scanners and are using this to compare their modifications with an unmodified baseline. The authorities believe that they have gotten this to the point where it is extremely difficult to identify the modification via x-ray. Because the bad guys have to only replace a part of the battery cells, the device can still fully operate as intended, thus defeating the power on and show it works prior test. The explosives can still be detected by trace explosive techniques and via the higher powered CT type devices. This is why the particular devices have been targeted.

We are starting to hear and read comments from other countries about the potential for a ban on these devices. This confirms what I have been hearing that we are on the verge of a worldwide set of restrictions on these type of devices on board aircraft. I think we will hear something later this week via a joint EU/US announcement of the restrictions. ICAO will likely publish a similar recommendation around the same time, after which it will be adopted by most if not all countries, either by regulation or default. Since the restrictions will be worldwide, trying some circuitous routing won’t really matter.

It does look like the rules will be fairly draconian. It will severely limit the number of devices that a person can bring with them. The burden on security checkpoints is going to be very high. The rules are likely going to require swabbing of all electronic devices. It seems there will be no limit on “micro” electronic devices, e.g. hearing aids, watches, and devices of that size. There will be a limit on large electronic devices, e.g. laptops, cameras, and the like. This number will likely be limited to one per passenger. The two open questions that I have heard are how are they going to classify devices such as ipad mini’s and small e-readers. The big ones of these fall into the laptop category. There is debate on these hybrid sized devices. The likely place is that they will fall with the laptops, but it is possible they will fall with the phone restrictions. It looks like the phone restriction will be no more than two phone sized devices.

It further looks like that there will be a ban on these items in the hold as well. As I have mentioned previously, the EU is close to banning these items from the hold, if the cabin restrictions are implemented. Further, I have heard from several pilots who have basically have said they won’t fly the planes if the hold is full of batteries like this. One of them mentioned that many planes don’t have a way to fully keep these devices from bouncing around in the hold, and that he believes that the bouncing in the hold is more likely to cause the device to experience thermal runaway. Currently there is no system that can put out one of these fires in the hold.

The restrictions will be applied to medical devices as well. The ADA has a carve out for what is considered “direct threats”. That is in section 12111, and would apply to aircraft security regulations promulgated by the government. Specifically, “The term “direct threat” means a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation.” The regulations limiting electronics would be based on the “significant risk” side of things. This would be similar to how in the initial days of the liquid ban, prescription drugs and such had to be checked as well. The regulation will list what devices are permitted, and medical devices will likely be permitted devices. However, the limitation on the number of devices will apply. So the person with the medical device will likely have to decide between the medical device and the laptop. The limitation on the number of devices is based on the ability to do the screening of the devices needed for them to be cleared. Each extra device will add more time to the screening process and increase the waiting times.

I do think that we will have somewhere between 5 and 30 days before the rules come to effect. I think into the US will come sooner, and then the roll-out to the US checkpoints will come towards the later end of this. The only reason for the delay on the domestic side may be related to the ability to screen these items in some relatively fast manner.

Fredrik74

Can I ask what your credentials are?

You're presenting this as if this is a summary of what is actually happening.

ashill

Not if it causes even a few passengers not to fly. Excess baggage fees are nice for the airlines, but they can't replace significant lost airfare. EK cutting many flights to the US after the Middle East laptop ban is pretty clear evidence that this has a real impact in depressing bookings.

rickg523

Isn't there some kind of confab tomorrow?
This guessing is kinda fun, but won't we all know at least a little more by Thursday
Still, I'm betting that this will never apply to domestic American flights. Because potential bombs is not what this is about at all. Inconveniencing travel TO the US is my take on what's happening here. Why? Take a ride down Highway 61, stop at roadside restaurants, ask about Europe. A lot of Americans - especially this gang's supporters - see Europe as a part of the Middle East, living under Sharia (this is a huge bugaboo among these folks) and, wittingly or not, giving haven to terrorists who will "KILL US ALL if we let them in" I quote ex- Presidential candidate and Senator (and Blanche DuBois voice double) Lindsay Graham (R-NC).

Fredrik74

It's my take too but I will admit it's guesswork. I will change opinion if there's a reason for that though.

I won't believe any claims of a security threat unless it affects US domestic flights too.