Tobias-UK

This is one very big concern for me, none of my devices/laptops will be checked in. I cannot take the risk.

DYKWIA

Surely everybody has their sensitive data encrypted on a laptop?

GrayAnderson

Basically there are three problems:
(1) Risk of the computer being stolen and hacked. Presuming solid encryption this can be mitigated.
(2) Risk of the computer being "sent on an alternate routing" or just plain lost. This may be mitigated depending on the setup and the circumstances.
(3) Lost productivity. Functionally I don't think this can be mitigated in some cases while in some other cases it might be through some kludges like combining a loaner laptop with a flash drive.

Even if you could, with 100% reliability, remote-blank the system in the event of an attempted hack there is still the potential loss of the system due to baggage going astray and the resulting inconvenience. At significantly <100% reliability, the risk of a system being broken rises as well. Add in limitations on airline liability for lost valuables (a tablet plus a laptop can easily come to $1500, to say nothing of the effective cost of lost software licenses if the software company is a twat) and your "tail risks" start mounting under #2 .

And #3 is definitely an issue, especially with longer flights: If nothing else, an attorney who could work through a daytime TATL or TCON round-trip before but who cannot do so now could easily have just lost $2-3k in billables. On a TPAC flight you're potentially looking at a lost workday each way.

Fredrik74

And the encryption is strong enough to withstand the government's efforts?

DYKWIA

You use an encryption level that is relevant for the sensitivity of the data. Using strong encryption, it's pretty much impossible to decrypt without the master password.

frank_poulankh

Probably strong enough to withstand the larcenous baggage handler's mate's friend from the pub's efforts

rapidex

I predict you are about to become resident in the MEX lounge

johnspenceruk

This may be a stupid idea, but why not introduce a "laptop fee", say $100, at major terminals. Anyone who pays, can bring it on-board, the fee would be used for dedicated, additional electronics screening.

I bet most business folk would pay.

SchmeckFlyer

Does most travel insurance cover damage to electronics in the hold? I always bring all my (valuable) electronics in my carryon because I seem to remember the airline is not liable for damage to fragile items in the hold and/or most insurance does not cover it.

This ban is only part of a never ending cat-and-mouse game. Ban laptops and the enemy will find a way to fit bombs into mobile phones.

I wonder if rumoured 3D scanners might make a difference; they seem to work like medical CT-scanners, in which case a great amount of details can be seen plus using various settings different types of materials can be more easily visualised. Plus, no need to takes laptops and liquids out of bags, and greatly speeding up the security process and reducing false negatives.

missdimeaner

I personally think putting electronics in the hold is more of a risk to aviation than in the cabin.
As a leisure traveller I can suck it up and travel with my iPhone (did it last year and it was fine). The problem will be business travellers who are a more lucrative market. This could drive some businesses into difficulties and the loss of revenue to airlines could also be significant.
Personally I am resigned to this happening - I think it is when and not if.

Worcester

If it becomes the norm on flights to the US how long before inter European flights or flights to the Far East?

Ber2dca

Well, if it's something they really can't detect then surely it's only logical for it to be banned everywhere. Why would a flight from Dublin to Boston be more likely to be a target than a flight from New York to L.A. or from Detroit to Narita?

If detection is the issue then surely it is relevant all over the place, not just in Europe and the Middle East.

rickg523

Not about Yemen, not about laptop bombs, not about situational security at all. Those are the fig leaves.
The Trump voters want Fortress America. This is the third step in the process.
They couldn't care less about inconvenience to "foreign" businesses or travelers coming to the States. They'd prefer you just didn't. They wouldn't care if Europe grounded all flights to the US permanently.
Don't trust them elitist, socialist Euros at all.

Watch Kelly's response to European ministers concerns. See if doesn't remind those with a regard for history of von Ribentropp in the 1930's.
Same kind of arrogant bullyboys who think they're only opposed by ineffectual limp wristed pansies.

DrDank

Now imagine this on the LOS-ATL flight. Things being stolen in the Lagos airport isn't all that common. I can bet some people will be selling Macbook Pros and Jewelry at the market (the luggage security who looted the luggage).

Since Delta runs that flight 5 times a week around. 221 passengers max on a flight so around 1105 maximum. The flight is pretty much always full.

Since a good portion of people on that flight are foreigners (45 maybe), most of them have a laptop (around $150 in Nigeria each, $275 if they can haggle well enough). Most of the other passengers around 50% (111 passengers) won't have laptops. Around 20% of the stuff will be looted anyways in the airport

So in total the ground security can make a grand total of maybe $2000+ per month from looting luggage. Thats in total. Not per person. Divide that across maybe the 21 people running the ground security for the Delta flight and its a pretty healthy profit considering the average salary in Nigeria. (Probably some peoples entire salaries for a month).

I know I am saying this is bad but DL55 (LOS-ATL) flight has always had bad luck in general.

Started in 2006 as an A330 then in 2008 as a 777-200 then dropped back to an A330 in 2009 and then to a 767-400ER in 2010 (August 30th I think) (I was on the final A330 flight from Lagos to Atlanta) and then dropped again at some point to a 767-300ER and now they have resulted to dropping frequencies.

Several things have happened. Bomb threats on the flight requiring a diversion to Senegal, woman gave birth on board and another diversion. Another bomb threat which caused profiling of arrivals and a few times they diverted cause crew would go over hours and that one time the inbound flight had to divert to Bremuda.

GrayAnderson

My thinking is that, with such a ban, in the case of some overseas "problem airports" (LOS would perhaps be a stereotypical one if only because of both the above note and because of the bad reputation Nigeria and Nigerians have acquired) you might have some airlines demanding to bring in their own (supplemental) security for luggage or threatening to cut service. I know I cite LOS, but if you have documented problems somewhere in, say, Latin America I could see this happening in conjunction with a ban. FWIW if it's "just" the one DL flight that's one thing, but if this did spread I could easily see some of the European carriers getting in the act as well. When you can avoid this sort of problem by taking almost everything valuable onboard that's one thing, but if/when you can't (and you've presumably got elements of this cascading elsewhere, especially with through baggage issues and the like) I can see other carriers getting in the act if they don't want to start playing "short check" games (e.g. BA letting folks going LOS-LHR-JFK short-check one of their bags to LHR and then re-check it so they can transfer electronics at LHR).

(Also do remember...you're citing the inbound flight above, but there's room for it to happen on the outbound flight as well, albeit in lesser quantities due to presumably having a bit less time with the bags.)