exerda

LOL. Unfortunately, I'd pay it, as it would be cheaper and more convenient than FedEx'ing stuff everywhere.

wco81

It would probably solve the problem of business flyers needing to have their laptops on board.

Emirates reported a 82% drop in profits and blamed the electronics ban for it.

So the airlines may have to make contributions to get this exemption for their F and J passengers.

RaginPlainsman

When I went to China with a company laptop I took it everywhere, including a day-long Great Wall hike on my day off. (Didn't swim or have a meaningful encounter of the sort you describe.)

And I will add my voice to this collective lament of my nation's utter inability to accurately and appropriately assess risk when it comes to aviation (not to mention vast swaths of our daily lives.)

chollie

This is a TSA matter being propagated to other nations' airport security.

GE members automatically qualify for TSA Pre, but neither program has anything to do with what a pax can or can't take on the plane or bring into the country.

MSY-MSP

Something else hit me while I was working today. The saving on this may actually come from the companies that are investing in aircraft wifi. It's big money and if folks don't have access to their usual electronics what happens to these companies business models and their business. What happens to the billions the airlines spent procuring installing and certifying these systems?

Lets hope that the EU holds firm on their rumored position of no batteries like these in the hold.

WalterSFO

so the DHS should just ignore this threat?

Pan Am 103 victims would surely disagree.

JakiChan

I don't think you understand the threat. Furthermore, if you're THAT concerned about safety then don't fly. Or fly on an airline where all passengers are catheterized and rendered unconscious before the flight commences. That would be safe.

JakiChan

They will destroy air travel, and thus cause significant economic damage.

Once again the TSA is doing the terrorists job for them.

JakiChan

And those should never been in the cargo hold.

A terrorist attack is a theoretical possibility. A LiIon fire bringing down an airplane is a certainty.

richarddd

What makes you believe this measure would meaningfully reduce threats to aviation?

As always, we should assess the seriousness of the threat and the costs and benefits of dealing with the threat. Clearly as a society, we are not willing to pay an infinite amount to prevent threats to life - see policies on cars and guns, for example. We're willing to allow tens of thousands of deaths to get the benefits of driving and shooting. Is the life of an airplane passenger really worth that much more than the life of a car passenger?

NickP 1K

Sorry WalterSFO, please point how an EU based security screening incident has happened POST Pan Am 103. They reacted and the mandate for screening post 9/11 was taken more seriously there.

I was blasted here for bringing up how MULTIPLE firearms and other things make it past TSA screeners and we have the attitude to point to other countries and tell them how to do things when they've done it better for years.

Compromise would be 100% screening of portable electronics via explosive detection devices (which are in use for secondary screening today). EU can have that up fairly quick based on the equipment being familiar to screening employees today. It does add to the screening burden and time taken but if done right - e.g. electronics in color coded trays, those trays go to secondary always, etc. it could be minimal delays if the staffing handles out.

Right now our government is saying put them in the hold an the EU is rightly fighting this back as "NO - that's a bigger risk with LiIon issues and fire potential"

I give it a month and we will see 100% screening of PED's worldwide - will add 1 min to screening each pax - that 1 min means propagated MORE delays unless staffed up to being PED screening into the process.

exerda

Wasn't that bomb in the hold? Putting laptops in the hold isn't going to prevent bombings. Good screening will go a long way towards preventing them, though of course nothing is perfect.

exerda

My Kindle is thinner than my phone and only a half an inch taller and wider. I'm sure screeners will say "not allowed." Mind you, there are phones larger than that Kindle.

MSY-MSP

agreed. What I am hoping for is at least a workable solution. Granted no one likes it when "freedoms" are taken away. However, there is enough evidence indicating that the theat is real. The question is and always will be. How to mitigate the risk. TSA has always been risk adverse to the point of risk avoidance. Israel is all about risk mitigation. They readily accept things can happen.

I do think the evidence points to some sort of modified ban that allows business travel to still be workable while limiting the known risks that have been acknowledged by most. My suggestion of two devices is based on logistics and the prior handling of the last ban like this the liquid ban. They eventually found something that worked for 98% of travelers. I think that is the goal that we should be aiming for. Given that we it's 99.9% sure that the ban is coming.

notquiteaff

The DHS and the rest of the US Gov is ignoring plenty of other threads to my life and health. Can you demonstrate that this threat is greater?