Electronic devices ban Europe to the US [merged threads]
May 11, 2017, 11:27 pm
#301
Join Date: Jan 2014
Programs: Amtrak Guest Rewards (SE), Virgin America Elevate, Hyatt Gold Passport (Platinum), VIA Preference
Posts: 3,134
My agency loans out "travel laptops" when we travel overseas. When I prep for an overseas meeting or conference at a UN location, I have documents with the U.S. negotiating position and delegation guidance. Even after the meetings, there's no way I am going to let that stuff out of my sight.
Now that I think about it, we have stricter rules about what to do with your IT devices in a hotel. Placing a USG laptop in one's checked luggage is as bad as leaving the same laptop on the desk in your room when you're out for dinner.
My speculation is that a lot of agencies will do what the DoD and IC did years ago when many of us had to carry pouches of classified materials on domestic and overseas flights. We were given courier letters to show to the checkpoint contractors (or TSA, I suppose) that said we were official USG couriers and that the pouch was not to be opened. Our security staff consulted the FAA to make sure our letters said the right things. We were told to leave the airport and miss our flights rather than be forced to open our pouches. It may come down to having to carry a similar letter asking the security people to allow us to carry the laptop because we are USG employees with USG IT hardware. That doesn't mean crap overseas, but I suspect we will soon have a domestic electronics ban. The TSA has to keep inventing threats in order to keep being funded.
Now that I think about it, we have stricter rules about what to do with your IT devices in a hotel. Placing a USG laptop in one's checked luggage is as bad as leaving the same laptop on the desk in your room when you're out for dinner.
My speculation is that a lot of agencies will do what the DoD and IC did years ago when many of us had to carry pouches of classified materials on domestic and overseas flights. We were given courier letters to show to the checkpoint contractors (or TSA, I suppose) that said we were official USG couriers and that the pouch was not to be opened. Our security staff consulted the FAA to make sure our letters said the right things. We were told to leave the airport and miss our flights rather than be forced to open our pouches. It may come down to having to carry a similar letter asking the security people to allow us to carry the laptop because we are USG employees with USG IT hardware. That doesn't mean crap overseas, but I suspect we will soon have a domestic electronics ban. The TSA has to keep inventing threats in order to keep being funded.
With that said, the bold is my suspicion as well. The sorts of knock-on effects for this will get "interesting" given that this basically requires checking a bag for most travelers...I suspect that such a move would trigger public pressure for requiring all airlines to offer one checked bag for free (since you're basically forcing probably 80% of all travelers to check a bag if they can't take a tablet, laptop, or presumably an e-reader through security), or at least a compromise of allowing pax to check their computer bag. I also expect lawsuits.
On the other hand, I also expect that an electronics ban and the attendant hassles could easily do a number on a decent number of short-haul domestic routes...for example, I think this could put a knife in the WAS-NYC/NYC-BOS shuttles. MIA-MCO also has room to go down pretty hard, and there are a few other city pairs that are probably going to take this pretty hard (either because they're driveable or because there are time-effective alternatives). Even the LA-SF pair has room to take a thumping.
As to the existing proposed ban, I'm wondering how much traffic is going to start getting re-routed through Canada or elsewhere (for example, I could see flights bound for the Southeast doing a stop at the Bahamas, while TIJ has a direct ground connection to the US and could easily "pinch hit" for SAN and/or LAX to some extent).
May 11, 2017, 11:35 pm
#302
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,935
This is so stupid it is beyond comprehension. It is all about appearing effective - and not about what actually matters.
I seriously question the specific threat mentioned.
And why are these items a danger in the cabin - but not in the hold??
It seems the current US administration will go to lengths to effectively close the country.
Neither great nor yuge.
I seriously question the specific threat mentioned.
And why are these items a danger in the cabin - but not in the hold??
It seems the current US administration will go to lengths to effectively close the country.
Neither great nor yuge.
May 11, 2017, 11:37 pm
#303
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,935
Spot on. But facts does not matter here.
May 11, 2017, 11:55 pm
#304
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 180
This is so stupid it is beyond comprehension. It is all about appearing effective - and not about what actually matters.
I seriously question the specific threat mentioned.
And why are these items a danger in the cabin - but not in the hold??
It seems the current US administration will go to lengths to effectively close the country.
Neither great nor yuge.
I seriously question the specific threat mentioned.
And why are these items a danger in the cabin - but not in the hold??
It seems the current US administration will go to lengths to effectively close the country.
Neither great nor yuge.
May 11, 2017, 11:57 pm
#305
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
No, it has nothing to do with Lithium batteries. Read the original thread for about 10 reasons why it can't.
May 12, 2017, 12:32 am
#306
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 65
At this rate how long before my mobile will be confiscated as dangerous goods? I use it as a PDA, but the old pen and paper idea seems more and more lucrative by the minute. Is Day Timer still in business? It was a friend for couple of decades, and I don't mind reunification, if necessary. (Unless of course a border agent takes my pen away. It looks really threatening, and it has a sharp point on one end).
May 12, 2017, 12:50 am
#307
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brunei
Programs: Enrich Sapphire. Kris Flyer Silver.Le Club Accorhotels,Starwood.
Posts: 2,201
Had lunch today with a Chinese delegation who are building the super port in Brunei and had the opportunity to talk to the head of the delegation. I asked him if all these ban's on lap tops and computers for investors heading to the United States was a blessing or a hinderance to economic development and growth in his opinion for America in the long term.
He felt it was over reaction on the part of the american's that will benefit everyone else globally but the American's who he felt had fallen behind on so many front's that they had lost sight of just how far back they had fallen not only in investing overseas but in how investors and tourist were not very welcome to visit America.
He also felt it was America's loss (something I echoed on here) and everyone elses' economic gain. A tourist not flying to the US means a tourist visiting Asia, Europe or potentially Australia/NZ instead to spend their dollars and cents.
He felt it was over reaction on the part of the american's that will benefit everyone else globally but the American's who he felt had fallen behind on so many front's that they had lost sight of just how far back they had fallen not only in investing overseas but in how investors and tourist were not very welcome to visit America.
He also felt it was America's loss (something I echoed on here) and everyone elses' economic gain. A tourist not flying to the US means a tourist visiting Asia, Europe or potentially Australia/NZ instead to spend their dollars and cents.
May 12, 2017, 3:16 am
#308
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: LIS/ATL/other
Programs: UA 1K, Avis PC, Hertz PC, Sixt Plat, Marriott Gold, HH Silver
Posts: 1,983
Let the market forces drive this
It is pretty clear that, if the threat is explosives on a laptop or iPad, the danger is only to the people on the aircraft and not to anyone on the ground. The aircraft can't be turned into a missile with an exploding iPad. Worst case is the explosion would occur over the Atlantic where the aircraft would go down and all aboard would die. This ban is only trying to protect the aircraft and the people in it, not the public interest of other non-participants.
As such, let the involved participants decide. Proposed rule: odd-numbered flights have electronics banned, even-numbered flights are as of today with electronics allowed. Then let airlines and pax decide how to operate and what flights to take.
If an airline believes that there is a real and significant threat, they will only operate odd-numbered flights. If not, they will operate even-numbered flights. After all, they want to preserve their aircraft and crews, but also their revenues.
If passengers value preserving their life over access to their electronics and data, they will choose to take odd-numbered flights. Otherwise, they will take even-numbered flights.
Eventually the market would sort this out. If passengers overwhelmingly prefer safety over electronics, the ban will effectively exist. If passengers overwhelmingly prefer electronics over safety, the ban will die. If there is a mix, everyone is happy because the people that care about their electronics convenience will have it, and the people that care about protecting their lives will have that too.
As such, let the involved participants decide. Proposed rule: odd-numbered flights have electronics banned, even-numbered flights are as of today with electronics allowed. Then let airlines and pax decide how to operate and what flights to take.
If an airline believes that there is a real and significant threat, they will only operate odd-numbered flights. If not, they will operate even-numbered flights. After all, they want to preserve their aircraft and crews, but also their revenues.
If passengers value preserving their life over access to their electronics and data, they will choose to take odd-numbered flights. Otherwise, they will take even-numbered flights.
Eventually the market would sort this out. If passengers overwhelmingly prefer safety over electronics, the ban will effectively exist. If passengers overwhelmingly prefer electronics over safety, the ban will die. If there is a mix, everyone is happy because the people that care about their electronics convenience will have it, and the people that care about protecting their lives will have that too.
May 12, 2017, 3:47 am
#309
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
It is pretty clear that, if the threat is explosives on a laptop or iPad, the danger is only to the people on the aircraft and not to anyone on the ground. The aircraft can't be turned into a missile with an exploding iPad. Worst case is the explosion would occur over the Atlantic where the aircraft would go down and all aboard would die. This ban is only trying to protect the aircraft and the people in it, not the public interest of other non-participants.
As such, let the involved participants decide. Proposed rule: odd-numbered flights have electronics banned, even-numbered flights are as of today with electronics allowed. Then let airlines and pax decide how to operate and what flights to take.
If an airline believes that there is a real and significant threat, they will only operate odd-numbered flights. If not, they will operate even-numbered flights. After all, they want to preserve their aircraft and crews, but also their revenues.
If passengers value preserving their life over access to their electronics and data, they will choose to take odd-numbered flights. Otherwise, they will take even-numbered flights.
Eventually the market would sort this out. If passengers overwhelmingly prefer safety over electronics, the ban will effectively exist. If passengers overwhelmingly prefer electronics over safety, the ban will die. If there is a mix, everyone is happy because the people that care about their electronics convenience will have it, and the people that care about protecting their lives will have that too.
As such, let the involved participants decide. Proposed rule: odd-numbered flights have electronics banned, even-numbered flights are as of today with electronics allowed. Then let airlines and pax decide how to operate and what flights to take.
If an airline believes that there is a real and significant threat, they will only operate odd-numbered flights. If not, they will operate even-numbered flights. After all, they want to preserve their aircraft and crews, but also their revenues.
If passengers value preserving their life over access to their electronics and data, they will choose to take odd-numbered flights. Otherwise, they will take even-numbered flights.
Eventually the market would sort this out. If passengers overwhelmingly prefer safety over electronics, the ban will effectively exist. If passengers overwhelmingly prefer electronics over safety, the ban will die. If there is a mix, everyone is happy because the people that care about their electronics convenience will have it, and the people that care about protecting their lives will have that too.
May 12, 2017, 3:53 am
#310
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
You do realize that there are means to detect and interdict explosives, and it's not present-day science-fiction?
When it comes to AQAP, the Saudis and Emiratis always find a way to try to justify and US military "assistance"/"engagement" against their local/regional opposition. They come up with this stuff through "human" sources more than US raids come up with stuff through raids for "goods".
Before I get to the bold, what I suspect you're going to get is agencies (and corporations) putting in orders for computers with totally removeable hard drives and/or simply keeping sequestered systems overseas and in the US and using portable HDs to move data back and forth. This exceeds my technology knowledge, but is it possible to set something like this up with no real risk of data remaining on the "core" computer?
With that said, the bold is my suspicion as well. The sorts of knock-on effects for this will get "interesting" given that this basically requires checking a bag for most travelers...I suspect that such a move would trigger public pressure for requiring all airlines to offer one checked bag for free (since you're basically forcing probably 80% of all travelers to check a bag if they can't take a tablet, laptop, or presumably an e-reader through security), or at least a compromise of allowing pax to check their computer bag. I also expect lawsuits.
On the other hand, I also expect that an electronics ban and the attendant hassles could easily do a number on a decent number of short-haul domestic routes...for example, I think this could put a knife in the WAS-NYC/NYC-BOS shuttles. MIA-MCO also has room to go down pretty hard, and there are a few other city pairs that are probably going to take this pretty hard (either because they're driveable or because there are time-effective alternatives). Even the LA-SF pair has room to take a thumping.
As to the existing proposed ban, I'm wondering how much traffic is going to start getting re-routed through Canada or elsewhere (for example, I could see flights bound for the Southeast doing a stop at the Bahamas, while TIJ has a direct ground connection to the US and could easily "pinch hit" for SAN and/or LAX to some extent).
With that said, the bold is my suspicion as well. The sorts of knock-on effects for this will get "interesting" given that this basically requires checking a bag for most travelers...I suspect that such a move would trigger public pressure for requiring all airlines to offer one checked bag for free (since you're basically forcing probably 80% of all travelers to check a bag if they can't take a tablet, laptop, or presumably an e-reader through security), or at least a compromise of allowing pax to check their computer bag. I also expect lawsuits.
On the other hand, I also expect that an electronics ban and the attendant hassles could easily do a number on a decent number of short-haul domestic routes...for example, I think this could put a knife in the WAS-NYC/NYC-BOS shuttles. MIA-MCO also has room to go down pretty hard, and there are a few other city pairs that are probably going to take this pretty hard (either because they're driveable or because there are time-effective alternatives). Even the LA-SF pair has room to take a thumping.
As to the existing proposed ban, I'm wondering how much traffic is going to start getting re-routed through Canada or elsewhere (for example, I could see flights bound for the Southeast doing a stop at the Bahamas, while TIJ has a direct ground connection to the US and could easily "pinch hit" for SAN and/or LAX to some extent).
Nearly 20 years ago, when I would fly on some "domestic" routes -- domestic as in domestically in some countries other than the US -- it wasn't that unusual for me to be flying on routes where carrying my laptop in the passenger cabin was banned. I found ways around the bans, but the most common ways around the bans resulted in ridiculous outcomes that delivered nothing positive in terms of flight security and safety.
I know a fair amount of current and former senior government officials in the US and abroad, and a huge proportion of them seem to rarely (if ever) travel with a laptop. When it comes to cabinet level officials, the proportion who travel with a laptop has never been very high (and has generally been even lower for long-haul international trips on common carriers), but it seems to have dropped and not recovered since smartphones became so ubiquitous. Go figure, but smartphones keep getting a pass even as there is very little to nothing that can't be concealed behind two or three iPhone 6/7 Plus sized phones but can be concealed inside an iPad or Macbook Air.
Last edited by GUWonder; May 12, 2017 at 4:19 am
May 12, 2017, 5:40 am
#311
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Denver, Colorado
Programs: IHG Spire, Hilton Honors Gold, Marriott Titanium, Mileage Plus Gold
Posts: 1,736
Well, I'm heading to Europe next week on vacation but need my MacBook Pro. Its the latest one out so I just ordered the Pelican 1090 case today. I'm going to take it with me just in case things change while I'm out of the country.
May 12, 2017, 6:55 am
#312
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,719
For operational security and/or preservation of legal self-interest, plenty of US persons route by land to/from the US via Mexico or Canada and then fly out of and back into Mexico or Canada and cross by surface means back into the US. This kind of ban will only encourage more of that kind of routing.
May 12, 2017, 8:58 am
#314
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NJ, USA
Programs: DL Skymiles
Posts: 50
I'm planning a trip to Europe this fall. My plan is to fly directly to the destination, and then connect through Canada on the way back. Since I'm in the Northeast, Amtrak could be an option out of Toronto or Montreal. (Bonus points for Amtrak's more liberal free baggage allowance)
I don't know if I'll need my laptop, but I have a DSLR that I don't want stolen or damaged. I might just route back through Canada in general regardless of an electronic ban to get around anti-American harassment from foreign security agencies.
I don't know if I'll need my laptop, but I have a DSLR that I don't want stolen or damaged. I might just route back through Canada in general regardless of an electronic ban to get around anti-American harassment from foreign security agencies.
May 12, 2017, 8:59 am
#315
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,644
Because we've lost sight of our original goal: to prevent the takeover of an airplane, not primarily to protect the plane and its pax.
We're still hung up on a plane, not the number of victims. Post-911, understandably the focus was on airplanes. We created a new organization and approach that provided a huge new business opportunity - the MIC became the military-industrial-SECURITY-complex. It's easier to build up a centralized, well-funded federal organization than it is to try to offer a patchwork of security based on a wide variety of locations and logistical issues.
We're still hung up on a plane, not the number of victims. Post-911, understandably the focus was on airplanes. We created a new organization and approach that provided a huge new business opportunity - the MIC became the military-industrial-SECURITY-complex. It's easier to build up a centralized, well-funded federal organization than it is to try to offer a patchwork of security based on a wide variety of locations and logistical issues.
So I'll take my Nintendo Switch with me, and assume it will be stolen by the TSA in SJC on the way back. (Along with an iPad, camera, and other electronics.) Awesome! #winning
I think it's time to start checking honeypots, so that we can start publicly shaming folks.
I think it's time to start checking honeypots, so that we can start publicly shaming folks.
Mike