NickP 1K

It's seen as unpatriotic to question DHS - plain and simple. Disagree with how idiotic that is but it's the primary reason people won't step up and contradict DHS/TSA rules.

richarddd

One issue is that discrimination is explicitly illegal, and therefor suing makes sense, while crap policy is not illegal. The courts have given the DHS a tremendous amount of discretion, so long as they don't trip explicit laws, such as anti-discrimination. So the courts are not at all likely to be an effective remedy.

I'd bet a majority of the public favors security theater. "Anything to make us safer", especially given the majority of the public doesn't travel that often and therefore isn't really inconvenienced. Appeal to the broader public doesn't seem like an effective remedy either.

Airlines are very much against such a ban, as is most of the travel industry. If the ban is enacted, it would be an illustration of the lack of power these businesses have regarding security issues.

wco81

As profitable as the airlines are these days, you'd think they'd ramp up lobbying.

Maybe they'll wait and see if their business, particularly their premium cabin ticket sales, dro off enough for them to bother.

Boggie Dog

Whats make you think they aren't lobbying? They already have almost no security cost.

84fiero

I would think that maybe a lot of the public doesn't feel they have the expertise to really judge the necessity of a laptop ban because they don't know anything about how to make a bomb in the first place, so they probably figure "well if this is some fancy new terrorist way to make a bomb, and some experts are worried about it, then I guess we have to".

And there are a fair number of people afraid of flying in and of itself (aside from any security threats) plus, in my experience, many more who aren't afraid per se, but find it still makes them a bit nervous. So their uneasiness is easily made worse by thoughts of an additional specific danger such as (supposedly) hard-to-detect laptop bombs, on top of anxiety about a "regular" accident or crash. These extra measures by "the authorities" help them feel better - "I don't have to worry about a laptop bomb now that the security authorities have implemented such-and-such procedures to keep me safe".

wco81

Because it sounds like they're resigned to it happening, ready to acquiesce, make the best of it.

Why not play hardball, like "our political donations may be greatly affected by reduced revenues from loss of passengers who expect to be able to work during the flight?"

GrayAnderson

From what I saw reading the stories on this over the last month or so, there was a decent amount of hell raised behind the scenes. The main issue with them doing certain things in public is that, for example:
(1) Retaliation. I could see the TSA "maliciously staffing" checkpoints at some airports (either under-staffing a given terminal or simply moving a bunch of new employees to said terminal) to screw a given airline. While some airports have a bunch of connected terminals (e.g. ATL), at airports that don't (e.g. LAX, SFO, JFK) it'd be possible to make a total hash of one or two airlines' operations with "bad" staffing.
(2) "Hostile work environment" complaints. If an airline were to start campaigning hard against a new or highly-expected initiative, I could see some guff coming back onto TSA agents (think of a stereotypical 'customer haranguing a floor associate about a policy change' situation and imagine a checkpoint dealing with a few hundred of those in a day on top of everything else). In light of their well-known, long-standing track-record of success I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for the TSA but I could see an issue arising.

Informal, unseen lobbying is probably better in getting them to achieve their objectives than a big public stink. The fact that we saw some statements edging in that direction was itself stunning in what seemed to be getting telegraphed.

Edit: One idea I've had, if they wanted to hardball it on a device ban, would be to adjust the boarding pass machines to kick out a second piece of paper: "Not happy being unable to work on the flight? Your Senators are XXX and YYY, your representative is ZZZ. Their office numbers are (numbers). Call them and tell them to come up with a better solution."

notquiteaff

From CNN tonight http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/26/politi...ban/index.html

Boggie Dog

And what happens in terminals where both domestic and international flights depart? DFW terminal D for instance. My last flight departing D had an international gate next to my domestic. TSA wouldn't be capable of managing that kind of situation so the result would be a total ban out of that type of terminal if not the whole airport.

bseller

One of the major issues that we face w/r/t TSA is the fact that safety is ALWAYS easier with a BAN. See: "Water, Dangerous".
Irrespective of other means to "keep us safe", those charged by government to prevent events will always choose the more restrictive.

Dave

TWA884

Folks,

We have the following rule:
The subject of this thread is the Electronic Devices Ban on flights from Europe to the US, not the TSA's eagerness to ban various items.

Discussing the logistics of screening passengers on international flights departing the US from terminals serving both domestic and international flights for electronic devices is relevant. General discussion of the TSA's methods of "keeping us safe" is not.

Thank you for understanding,

TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator

mauve

Probably, but I can imagine other ways.

Maybe just gate checks. Maybe something really disruptive like trying to rearrange terminal assignments on short notice.

GUWonder

The USG would pick which flights departing the US would be subject to the ban. In other words, it would be some international flights leaving the US but not necessarily all international flights leaving the US. Also, given the TSA's history, it's possible that such ban may be enforced (only or additionally) at the US departure gate by TSA employees assigned to work the gate of the selected flights leaving the US.

DHS still doesn't have the audacity to just flip the switch on for a general domestic electronics ban, even as a ban is a lazy approach to try to mitigate for the ineffectiveness/failures that are a product of the TSA's people, processes and technology currently in play together.

NickP 1K

And industry is now speaking up; guess it's the same guys who want to sell more to the TSA (and other governments who have to abide to DHS/TSA standards)

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/05/26...-scanners-tsa/

New airport scanners could end bans on laptops and liquids

SNIPPET
Manufacturers of airport security equipment have a message for travelers who fear they will have to give up laptops and tablet computers on international flights: They have a solution.

At least four of the largest companies making screening devices say they are developing scanners so much better at detecting explosives than existing X-ray machines that passengers could leave laptops, other electronics and even liquids in their bags, vastly simplifying airport security.

“It’s a no brainer,” said Joseph Paresi, chief executive officer of Integrated Defense & Security Solutions Inc., which has developed one of the new scanning machines that has passed initial U.S. government testing. “It’s not if. It’s when it’s going to happen.”

Boggie Dog

Never let a crisis go to waste.