sleuth

Agree 100%. I'm so thankful I grew up in the 80s. Yeah we had video games that our parents had to pry us from, but we also grew up in a highly social atmosphere. I cringe at restaurants when I see a pair of millennial parents texting and playing on their phones while their two year olds play the newest game on their tablet while wearing a pair of Beats.

Laughed out loud when I saw a poster wonder what they were going to do on a 15 hour flight if the IFE didn't have any good movies.

So sad...

NYTA

I can live without the IFE, but it's the kindle I can't live without. The volume of books I'd have to carry around would double the size of my carry on bag, not to mention all the work documents I have on my laptop that I'd have to print out so that I could work on the plane. Don't get me wrong - I lived that way until about 5 years ago, but still, it's a pain in the butt for no reason other than protectionism against cheap foreign airlines.

Himeno

There is no reason to ban devices at all when you can use the power on 'test', xray and ETD swabs.

NWIFlyer

There's probably two issues at play here: firstly, there's an almost infinite amount of time that can be dedicated to checking hold luggage compared to hand luggage, with the resources to open and fully examine any suspicious objects.

Secondly, and far more importantly, the capability of the scanning equipment for checked luggage is likely to be much more extensive - x-rays taken in multiple planes, for example, which would make it much harder to conceal something.

There's simply a much higher chance of detecting something amiss.

alanR

UK list doesn't cover the ME3

leungy18

I'm sorry, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of the thread. You can condescend to us about how things were so much better in "the good ole' days", doesn't change the reality that this so-called policy is a sham.

DaveS

I can't help thinking that the assumptions about smuggled explosives and poor security procedures have nothing to do with this ban. I pass through quite a few of these airports. QAA last week, IST regularly and even CMN regularly. The security might have deficiencies in places, but the odds are that they are almost as likely to catch something as any other airport in the world. The fact tat people are not being caught regularly suggests they are not trying because the risk of being caught is too high.

There have been some comments about lithium batteries and of course up to a certain size they are permitted in hold luggage if they are installed in equipment. That size includes laptops. Having said that, I do suspect this ban is the result of lithium batteries, but maybe because of the risk associated with deliberately damaging them. That cannot happen if they are in the hold.

GUWonder

There was such an "urgent" need for a kind of ban that the US said airlines have 96 hours to implement it. Such an emergency.

There was such an urgent need for a kind of ban that the US said the UAE and Qatar must be blacklisted too in this way but the UK says the UAE and Qatar need not be blacklisted. So much for intelligence.

There was such an urgent need for a kind of ban built on "intelligence" that the US decided to ban all personal electronics in the cabin excepting phones and yet the UK decides the only items needing such a ban should be limited to large phones, laptops, tablets and ereaders that exceed certain dimensions while even large boomboxes are allowed if they fit in with the airline's cabin baggage policy. So much for consistency.

There was such an urgent need for a kind of ban built on "intelligence" that the UK told the carriers there was no deadline for implementation of the ban, while the US told the blacklisted countries/carriers they had 96 hours to implement the ban. So much for imminent threat as if that is anything new.

This whole ban episode is an episode in the ridiculous nature of governmental actions that take place when the government needs to show its doing something or to put up a distraction.

Electronics -- or even books -- sent by FedEx to the US can sometimes get stuck at customs for weeks and weeks and weeks. Personally accompanying one's own electronics at ports of entry is generally the fastest and most reliable way to have an item clear customs and be available for use as soon as possible.

Smid

It strikes me there are multiple flaws:

1) Fragile items into non fragile environment of hold/baggage handlers.
2) Lithium batteries not allowed in hold. Yet now enforced to be in hold.
3) Known theft of valuable items from the hold in various airports (warned of never having cash or valuables in Budapest airport by airline staff, for instance), I'm more worried by the unapproachable TSA over the middle eastern airports.

Less important (but still):

4) Back to books over ereaders .
5) Can't now work on some routes in some directions.
6) Alternatives to IFE problems now a watching movie on a 6 inch screen.

waffle

Thanks, preventing deliberate damage to large batteries is the first attempt at an explanation that I've heard that makes some sense. But if that really is the reason, this ban merely shifts the risk from the security risk of deliberate damage to the safety risk of accidental damage. Baggage handlers are not renowned for their gentle treatment of the things placed in their care. And the Galaxy Note fiasco proved that even the batteries in smaller devices can cause quite enough damage to be getting on with.

DaveS

This has been stated many times in this thread and it is wrong. Lithium batteries are permitted in the hold up to 100Wh size so long as it is installed in equipment. So a laptop with a typical 60Wh battery installed is OK. The IATA rules are here:

http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/cargo/d...um-battery.pdf

Oldtiger

I would have thought that there would be far more kudos for any terrorist group if they were to blow a plane out of the sky over the USA, rather than on route from some middle east country. No doubt whatever such a group may be planning it, would be just as easy to carry it out from within the USA. Remember, 911 was carried out from within the USA.

This ban only affects flights heading to the USA from certain countries, why? What’s to stop the terrorist from flying to one of the major airports in Europe and then transferring to an American or other national carrier flight to the USA?

Surely, if Homeland Security are that concerned about the of a possibility of terrorist threat they would be calling for the ban applied to both domestic and all international flights. Just applying the ban to certain flights makes no sense.

I am mindful that there may be an ulterior motive for this ban, but I’ve tried to avoid becoming involved in that argument.

DaveS

Accidental damage would probably only cause the sort of burn up that we have seen on various news stories. Deliberate damage could cause something much more rapid and dangerous.

GUWonder

The ban is direction specific. The same person with the same battery flying out of the UK in the opposite direction (or flying into the UK via a country not hit with such a ban) would be allowed to have it in the passenger cabin. Deliberate damage caused in the flight cabin is possible on flights out of the UK too.

KARFA

I don't see how this UK restriction or indeed the US one is in any way relevant to your EWR-ORD flight.