GUWonder

ISIL/ISIS/Daeesh got control of Mosul airport years ago. And that airport had WTMDs and other scanners for passengers, cabin baggage and checked baggage, so this isn't new.

FliesWay2Much

Heck, they can just buy as many of the old Cancer Boxes as they want from GSA surplus.

studentff

Serious question. Can a random business just go and purchase an "airport grade" bag x-ray machine to do bag checks at their venue? Is the hardware easy to get but the software more restricted (due to licensing or whatever)?

Carl Johnson

They'd have to be absolutely insane to set off an airplane bomb, or disguise a bomb in any sort of consumer electronic device. Rumors are a much more powerful weapon. The laptop ban, if it goes in, will do more damage than an actual bomb (especially a bomb set off in a place like Britain where the people refuse to panic and the government refuses to encourage panic).

wco81

Markets didn't react too much to the bombing.

But if they can take down an intercontinental flight, you can bet the reaction would be huge.

The casualty so far is about 22 dead and dozens injured, some in critical condition.

An airliner going down would have about 350 casualties? Airline stocks would drop billions in market value and possibly hit hospitality stocks, cause spikes in currency exchange rates, make gold go up, etc.

Of course a lot of the losses would recover but there would be all kinds of concerns about the airline and tourism industries.

notquiteaff

The question is, how would the markets react to a ban of cabin electronics on all flights? In other words, what is the cost of merely the (perceived) threat of taking down that flight?

I guess one answer could be that it is already priced in.

MSY-MSP

Not to take this too far off course from the subject at hand. Having lived in Israel and knowing first hand the impacts of terrorism, the goal of terrorism is to make you feel not safe in your day to day life. If you are constantly looking over your back or not doing things that you normally would, then terrorism works. The targeting of airplanes has been done simply for the "publicity" factor that it gives the organization. Basically it is saying "see what I can do despite your best efforts to stop me."

Carl Johnson

The effect of a ban of cabin electronics isn't a perception issue; it's a direct negative impact on the economy. How are people going to bring their cameras, computers, etc., with them on trips, and how are the airlines going to manage stowage and delivery? And what will be the impact of the greatly increased risk of loss or theft. This can't be addressed simply by bringing cheap expendable electronics because there is so much secret information stored on these things.

And something like this lets ISIS control the actions of the countries they perceive as their adversaries just by leaking ideas about attacks based on contaminating the little dishes of warm nuts served in first class, causing airlines to change to little packets of spiced cashews that no one has ever heard of and that nobody wants...

Boggie Dog

I wonder how DHS will spin the UK bombing. I hardly doubt they will not try to say the threat is real and all precautions have to be expended including a ban on electronics in the cabin.

exerda

It "makes sense" in the way any of the sick, stupid security theater does, I suppose.

This had been the speculation from the beginning. However, even if they have a x-ray, and even an ETD machine, I'd posit that the (1) chances they'd get past an actual checkpoint are smaller than DHS or the would-be terrorists would believe (even with screener incompetence); and (2) the chances they could bring down a plane with such a bomb are smaller still.

Boggie Dog

TSA has been shown to miss a very high percentage of target items in tests. Perhaps TSA is projecting their failures on other countries airport screening operations which may very well be superior to TSA's screening abilities. It's pretty obvious that the EU disagrees with the US on the threat presented by personal electronics.

TheMadBrewer

I guess I am missing something here.

OK, we are going to ban laptops from the cabin because a suicide bomber may have figured out how to fit a bomb in a functional laptop and may set it off in flight.

How are we safer if the bomb is in the cargo hold? If I am technologically sophisticated enough to build an indictable bomb in a laptop, you'd think I'd be sophisticated enough to build all sorts of triggering mechanisms that don't require somebody to push a button.

If the bag is in a cargo container I'd assume that would block any WiFi signals (e.g. GoGo), because that often shows the location and flight information for free. But it wouldn't take a complicated script to analyze data from an accelerometer and say "Oh, we just took off, start counting down."

And if it doesn't go off, maybe it will on a return flight or set if off at baggage claim -- put it in a black roll aboard and you'll have lots of people bending over to check if it is theirs.

So what am I missing?

Gig103

I had a similar thought today. Last week the EU and the US did not reach an agreement on the topic.

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that further talks are underway a mere day after the Manchester attacks. From that article:

Gig103

You aren't missing anything; we aren't safer with a bomb in the cargo hold, but in fact it is more dangerous having all those lithium batteries grouped together and out of line of sight (a genuine battery accident could be noticed and contained in the passenger compartment).

At first I thought that perhaps there was better screening on checked bags, but then I saw that Emirates is gate-checking electronics.

I have come to two conclusions. First, that the administration is trying to close its borders to encourage xenophobia. Second, that it isn't about in-air threats, but rather the DHS and CBP are scanning baggage prior to it entering the airport for other violations (i.e. drugs or currency).

As for an airport attack, I'm sure you aren't the first to suggest that a baggage claim could be a target... Except it wouldn't even need to be something that passes through security, there is no screening being performed to enter the arrivals hall!

guflyer

Why is the EU acting like such a pushover? With the battery safety issue, it seems like they should be fighting this as hard as possible. If they prohibit the flights from flying with batteries in the hold, the US would lose as much, so it seems like they should have as much leverage in this fight.