84fiero

Take it for what it's worth (which isn't much):

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN18K2AP

yet...

Boggie Dog

The ban would already be in place if the EU was a pushover.

wco81

So DHS thinks it can unilaterally impose the ban, even if the EU objects to putting lithium battery devices in the cargo hold and even if they don't want to drastically change their screening and boarding procedures?

What is DHS going to do if EU airports refuse to comply, ban flights from the EU?

Boggie Dog

That would be an interesting outcome. Who would blink first?

studentff

It sounds to me like DHS may have already "blinked." My guess is that the career bureaucrats at DHS know pulling a stunt like this could destroy their agency and that's a big driver behind the EU's "success" so far in this standoff.

If EU bans LiIon from cargo hold (maybe a good idea anyway) and US DHS bans electronics larger than a phone from carry-on,
tens of thousands of passengers are stranded in Europe with thousands of dollars of electronics they have no reasonable way to get home. Even those willing to pay exorbitant FedEx/UPS prices might be stymied if those carriers get overloaded and stop accepting them.

If DHS is dumb enough to let this happen, maybe/hopefully passengers actually revolt/riot against DHS and the airlines demanding compensation and fixes. People aren't just going to blindly abandon their expensive laptops/cameras like sheep the way they did with shampoo bottles, and public sentiment (as measured by news articles I see online) is leaning toward opposing this ban instead of blindly accepting it.

Global air travel grinds to a halt with anticipated economic damage. And maybe, just maybe, the US as a whole comes to our senses and realizes the real solution is banning DHS, not banning non-WEI items from aircraft cabins. (returning aviation safety to FAA where it belongs; FAA will do actual risk assessment based on real threats like cargo-hold fires instead of DHS's habit of knee-jerk bans for security theater.)

wco81

Well if DHS imposes it, it sounds like eventually they would impose it on ALL flights inbound to the US, maybe even domestic.

If they don't apply it everywhere, then you have to question whether there's a political agenda.

But even if US applies it everywhere, it may be that other regions do not, such as Asia to Europe flights.

Does Israel impose such a ban on US or Europe to Israel flights?

If other countries and regions do not impose such a ban, DHS may come off looking suspect.

FL390

One thing is for sure: They will never announce that they are not doing it. Inaction is the only sign we will get.

TWA884

Reminder!
Additional posts have been deleted.

The next member to inject political commentary into this thread and those responding will be have their posting privileges suspended for a minimum of one week without a further warning.

If you believe someone has ventured into politics into this thread, do not respond. Instead, report the post to the moderation team by clicking on the "Alert a Moderator to this Post" icon (), which appears in the lower left-hand corner of each post.

TWA884
Travel Safety Security co-moderator

NickP 1K

So this is US side - TSA screening of electronics, but you can assume what is learned here will go nationwide and asked to other governments to be followed for US bound flights:

Highlight on the linkAnnounced May 24 - 3PM Eastern Time)
TSA to tighten screening of electronics at select airports
-TSA will be testing enhanced screening of carry-on bags and items at about a dozen U.S. airports.
-The program has the potential to be expanded to other airports nationwide.
-The extra screening targets electronics larger than a cell phone for X-ray screening.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/24/tsa-t...-airports.html

Interesting area of the article that ties right into what FL390 posted: Curious why the CEO of United would allow himself to be quoted like this when this can impact their business quite a bit.

At the United Airlines annual meeting in Chicago, CEO Oscar Munoz said the carrier is in touch with the Trump Administration and it is ready to implement a laptop ban on flights from Europe.

So far, it has not been given a date when a laptop ban could start.

"We understand there is a security threat out there," said Munoz.

whitearrow

Nobody is arguing against enhanced screening. If that's the worst of it, we'll be exceedingly fortunate.

notquiteaff

Is there a possibility that the US imposes rules for US flagged carriers that are different from rules for EU-flagged carriers?

E.g., if you fly on an EU carrier, you get to carry on your electronics, but not check them. US carriers are the opposite. Airlines are responsible for enforcing their rules. (I don't see how DHS can tell EU authorities how to perform their screening or enforce rules if there is simply no agreement on rules)

Perhaps a bad analogy, but US carriers flying to Europe are not subject to EC 261/2004 compensation rules.

MSY-MSP

Oscar's comments make complete and total sense. Of course they would be in touch with administration over this, and of course they have to be ready to implement it. The last thing that any airline wants to be is caught completely off guard over something of this magnitude. Most airlines probably started planning a contingency plan as soon as the ban was announced for the 10 cities. Even though they weren't effected by the first ban.

Looking at some of the articles recently posted, I think it is a foregone conclusion that the question is not if a ban is coming but when. The articles have indicated that the discussions were related to "technical implementation" of a ban. The Reuters article that indicated that there would be a three week advance notice on the ban indicates to me that there is a desire on both sides to make sure that people are not blindsided by the ban and that they have time to make appropriate arrangements. It also confirms to me, that it is likely the ban will extend to hold baggage as well. If hold baggage wasn't an issue, then i am almost 100% sure this would have been implemented already. Giving a three week notice of an upcoming change gives most folks who have already left before an announcement a chance to get back from a trip without having to leave things behind. (Sure there will be folks who get stuck by the rules, but i would figure the number would be low). It would also give folks a chance to adequately prepare for future trips.

The biggest hold up on the entire expansion is the practical implementation of the ban given the positions of both sides, as well as other players. The issue may simply be how do we beef up the checkpoint to do 100% screening of electronics at the checkpoint, and not completely bring the screening process to a standstill. I think, based on what I have heard, that both sides agree that some form of restriction on electronics on the plane is prudent. Both sides I believe have agreed that 100% screening of electronics at the checkpoint would be an acceptable position. So the issue comes down to management.

MSY-MSP

If the EU says no electronics in checked luggage, it applies to all flights out of Europe regardless of the carrier, even if allowed by that carrier's country. If the US says only a phone, then that applies to all flights into the US. So you end up with the battle of the rules, which ends up leaving the passenger with just a phone.

studentff

The problem is that advance notice makes a mockery of the supposed urgency of the threat. If 3 more weeks are safe, why not forever? And if a bad actor exists and knows there are three weeks of notice they will move up their plans and execute during the 3 weeks.

The liquid ban was done with zero notice because of an alleged urgent threat. That was a disaster and a farce as well, but the media mostly bought it. Given the public (press) pushback against this ban already, they will rake DHS over the coals during the three week buildup.

notquiteaff

Why, though? Why can the US impose rules on flights departing from the EU to the US, and the EU apparently cannot impose EC 261/2014 rules on non-EU carriers flying *to* the EU? (Or could they and just chose not to?)