Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

Electronic devices ban Europe to the US [merged threads]

Electronic devices ban Europe to the US [merged threads]

Old May 12, 17, 6:18 pm
  #436  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 759
Originally Posted by WalterSFO View Post
so the DHS should just ignore this threat?

Pan Am 103 victims would surely disagree.
By that logic, the national speed limit should be 20 miles/hour. Think of the lives that would be saved!

Just as we settle for "reasonably safe" instead of "maximally safe" when it comes to car travel, we should settle on "reasonably safe" instead of "maximally safe" when it comes to air travel.
artemis is offline  
Old May 12, 17, 6:23 pm
  #437  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brunei
Programs: Enrich Sapphire. Kris Flyer Silver.Le Club Accorhotels,Starwood.
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by WalterSFO View Post
so the DHS should just ignore this threat?

Pan Am 103 victims would surely disagree.

I think if we live like this, nobody better travel unless they are willing to travel without: a mobile phone/lap top/ipad or tablet/toothpaste/perfume/cosmetics/shampoo/creams/medicines in liquid form/CPAC devices

Let's just not let people travel and let the bad guys win.

Because that's what they want. Economic and social turmoil and to make society afraid of them and for us to give in to their demands.
wolf72 is offline  
Old May 12, 17, 6:26 pm
  #438  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 759
Originally Posted by NickP 1K View Post
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.
I'd certainly prefer that to a hard limit on the number and types of electronic devices allowed on board, even if it meant having to arrive at the airport significantly earlier.
artemis is offline  
Old May 12, 17, 6:29 pm
  #439  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,415
Originally Posted by artemis View Post

I think that's a big part of the problem. The DHS in many ways is like a carpenter with only a hammer: everything they see is a nail. OF COURSE nothing could be more important than improving security! It never occurs to them that perhaps that's not true. Did they ever stop to think that perhaps the public would prefer to face the very small risk of a laptop bomb going off on a plane in order to enjoy the convenience of being able to travel with their camera and Kindle in the plane cabin? Maybe not every potential security threat needs a response.

What happened in Nice at the Bastille Day celebration was horrible, but in the aftermath I didn't see anyone serious proposing greatly restricting access to trucks, even though that would certainly prevent that particular form of attack from happening again. Ditto pressure cookers and the Boston Marathon bombings. Why can't responses to potential aviation threats be measured and proportionate to the actual danger?
Totally agree! Somehow there has developed a fetish over airline travel where it supposedly has to be completely free from any potential threat no matter the risk level.

Everything in life is a tradeoff. We could drive tank-like cars that are nearly 100% safe, but they'd probably get horrible mileage, would be inconvenient, and fewer people could afford them.
84fiero is offline  
Old May 12, 17, 6:37 pm
  #440  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,945
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
Emirates reported a 82% drop in profits and blamed the electronics ban for it.
That's a real stretch for Emirates to make that statement as the electronics ban was only in effect for 11 days of its fiscal year.
ND Sol is offline  
Old May 12, 17, 6:39 pm
  #441  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,349
Things that make air travel more difficult or inconvenient can cause people to use other, more dangerous forms of travel, such as driving, and therefore increase injuries and deaths.

Here's a good economic analysis on an analogous topic. The concepts are applicable here. http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wo...-seat-edition/
richarddd is offline  
Old May 12, 17, 6:51 pm
  #442  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NJ, USA
Programs: DL Skymiles
Posts: 50
Are there any reports of ME airline loads and revenue on each segment of their US routes? Do more people book the direct flights out of the US but connect in another country and likely take a different airline back?
mywanderlust is offline  
Old May 12, 17, 6:58 pm
  #443  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Prince Edward Island
Programs: Air Canada P25K, Hilton Honors Gold, Marriott Gold, Caesar's Diamond
Posts: 1,507
If it expands to Canada, I can see it being a problem for Air Canada rouge which streams entertainment to passengers' personal ipads/laptops instead of having a seatback IFE system.
Low Roller is offline  
Old May 12, 17, 7:40 pm
  #444  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 18,869
Originally Posted by artemis View Post
By that logic, the national speed limit should be 20 miles/hour. Think of the lives that would be saved!

Just as we settle for "reasonably safe" instead of "maximally safe" when it comes to car travel, we should settle on "reasonably safe" instead of "maximally safe" when it comes to air travel.
There were an estimated 40,000 traffic related fatalities in the U.S. last year. A similar action, on the order of banning PED's, would be to park all personal vehicles?
Boggie Dog is online now  
Old May 12, 17, 7:44 pm
  #445  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 63
For what it's worth, discussion of this at the pprune.org, the professional pilots' forum, is running just as negative as here. Lot of them *really* don't like the idea of their holds chock full of inaccessible Li batteries. For that matter, they don't seem to have much more faith in the integrity and tender touch of baggage handlers than do flyertalk travellers...
flyerguy99 is offline  
Old May 12, 17, 7:46 pm
  #446  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brunei
Programs: Enrich Sapphire. Kris Flyer Silver.Le Club Accorhotels,Starwood.
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by flyerguy99 View Post
For what it's worth, discussion of this at the pprune.org, the professional pilots' forum, is running just as negative as here. Lot of them *really* don't like the idea of their holds chock full of inaccessible Li batteries. For that matter, they don't seem to have much more faith in the integrity and tender touch of baggage handlers than do flyertalk travellers...
Glad to hear they also have similar opinions and feelings.

Is there a real threat out there from the use of lap tops and tablet type devices????
wolf72 is offline  
Old May 12, 17, 8:04 pm
  #447  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 63
Is there a real threat out there from the use of lap tops and tablet type devices???
And specifically, from having them in the cabin vs in the hold. They can still blow up in the hold, after all.

One thought would be that with equipment in hand, a bomber could more precisely control the point of detonation -- hold up up against a window or whatever. And that presumably that would make a big enough difference vs blowing up in a random spot in the baggage hold as to justify the ban. Pilots seemed fairly dubious about that.

Second thought, that the device terrorists are discussing requires command detonation within a very short range, like bluetooth. Why someone couldn't use a timer instead if they had to, not at all clear to me.

Third thought, which I did see a pilot mention as something they'd heard dsicussed in relation to recent threats, is that the plan would be to sneak components of a bigger bomb on board in multiple laptops, possibly with multiple bombers working together, then collect and assemble the components on board during the flight. I guess that way you could get a bigger 'boom' by having access in flight, but sounds like a pretty cumbersome thing to pull off (and potentially w/other ways to disrupt).

Fourth thought could be that bombs are much more detectable in checked bags than carry-on. That seems unlikely given depth and technical capability of current screening, but who knows.

Final thought is that TSA figures they take more political blame from an in-cabin bomb than an in-hold bomb...
flyerguy99 is offline  
Old May 12, 17, 8:08 pm
  #448  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bay Area
Programs: DL SM, UA MP.
Posts: 12,730
Thing is they could conceal the explosives in any kind of object right?

Or is it that electronics make for good bombs? Or that it's more difficult to scan electronics and detect bombs within the shell of a laptop for instance?

People bring back bottles of wine from Europe. Seems like they'd have more volume to put explosives in a wine bottle than a 1-inch thick laptop.
wco81 is offline  
Old May 12, 17, 8:10 pm
  #449  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: PHL suburbs
Posts: 216
Originally Posted by wolf72 View Post
Because that's what they want. Economic and social turmoil and to make society afraid of them and for us to give in to their demands.
They don't even need to make demands now. the TSA manages to be a step ahead of them in cultivating fear.
ntr91 is offline  
Old May 12, 17, 8:28 pm
  #450  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 18,869
Originally Posted by flyerguy99 View Post
And specifically, from having them in the cabin vs in the hold. They can still blow up in the hold, after all.

One thought would be that with equipment in hand, a bomber could more precisely control the point of detonation -- hold up up against a window or whatever. And that presumably that would make a big enough difference vs blowing up in a random spot in the baggage hold as to justify the ban. Pilots seemed fairly dubious about that.

Second thought, that the device terrorists are discussing requires command detonation within a very short range, like bluetooth. Why someone couldn't use a timer instead if they had to, not at all clear to me.

Third thought, which I did see a pilot mention as something they'd heard dsicussed in relation to recent threats, is that the plan would be to sneak components of a bigger bomb on board in multiple laptops, possibly with multiple bombers working together, then collect and assemble the components on board during the flight. I guess that way you could get a bigger 'boom' by having access in flight, but sounds like a pretty cumbersome thing to pull off (and potentially w/other ways to disrupt).

Fourth thought could be that bombs are much more detectable in checked bags than carry-on. That seems unlikely given depth and technical capability of current screening, but who knows.

Final thought is that TSA figures they take more political blame from an in-cabin bomb than an in-hold bomb...
Cell phones make a dandy remote detonator.
Boggie Dog is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: