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 24, 2017, 4:26 pm
  #976  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 579
Originally Posted by MSY-MSP

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.
1. If it is in the hold as well, this means that those who need electronics for work often have no viable way of transporting their equipment. Do you think that this will go through?

2. Are the other options that you discussed earlier (such as one laptop and one phone, which you thought was the most likely possibility) still options, or did these go away?
guflyer is offline  
Old May 24, 2017, 4:27 pm
  #977  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Rochester, MN
Programs: UA GS, AA PLT, HH Diamond
Posts: 1,437
Originally Posted by 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?)
The difference is that the EC261/2014 specifically defines its applicability. For what ever reasons the EU did not decided to apply it to flights into the EU flown by non EU airlines. However, there is nothing that would prevent them from applying it to non-EU airlines flying to EU destinations.

Here is the applicability text:

(a) to passengers departing from an airport located in the terri-
tory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies;
(b) to passengers departing from an airport located in a third
country to an airport situated in the territory of a Member
State to which the Treaty applies, unless they received
benefits or compensation and were given assistance in that
third country, if the operating air carrier of the flight
concerned is a Community carrier.

The US can and does apply different security requirements to flights into the US than are applied to other destinations from those countries. Basically it is the US says if you don't do this you cannot fly here. That is how they are able to do this.

The main difference is that the EU tends not to manage as much flights into their country as much as the US, but it doesn't mean they couldn't. For example, they could say that no electronics in hold luggage into the EU and the US would have to comply with that restriction.
MSY-MSP is offline  
Old May 24, 2017, 4:30 pm
  #978  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: LAX, EWR, LHR
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 227
Originally Posted by whitearrow
Nobody is arguing against enhanced screening. If that's the worst of it, we'll be exceedingly fortunate.
I agree. I don't care what they do just don't force us to check batteries into hold or limit the amount of electronics we can carry on board.
FL390 is offline  
Old May 24, 2017, 4:39 pm
  #979  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by notquiteaff
Is there a possibility that the US imposes rules for US flagged carriers that are different from rules for EU-flagged carriers?
Yes, to some degree. It's why, for example, haraSSSSment was more applicable and worse with US carriers on Schengen-US flights than with EU carriers on Schengen-US flights.
GUWonder is offline  
Old May 24, 2017, 4:58 pm
  #980  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Rochester, MN
Programs: UA GS, AA PLT, HH Diamond
Posts: 1,437
Originally Posted by guflyer
1. If it is in the hold as well, this means that those who need electronics for work often have no viable way of transporting their equipment. Do you think that this will go through?

2. Are the other options that you discussed earlier (such as one laptop and one phone, which you thought was the most likely possibility) still options, or did these go away?
So long as the EU holds to the no electronics in the hold, then the 1+1 is on the table as an option. I haven't heard of it being taken off the table so to speak.

As for options to get stuff home, FEDEX and the like as well as shipping by ship are options. Not the best options but options.
MSY-MSP is offline  
Old May 24, 2017, 5:03 pm
  #981  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
The EU rule doesn't prevent all electronics in the hold. Rather it prohibits some electronics from being placed in the hold.
GUWonder is offline  
Old May 24, 2017, 5:21 pm
  #982  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, AS 75k, AA Plat, Bonvoyed Gold, Honors Dia, Hyatt Explorer, IHG Plat, ...
Posts: 16,632
Originally Posted by MSY-MSP
So long as the EU holds to the no electronics in the hold, then the 1+1 is on the table as an option. I haven't heard of it being taken off the table so to speak.
Anyone remember those "courier" services where people got a cheap/free ticket in exchange for some priority freight company getting access to their carry-on and checked bag allowance?

Seems that pretty much went away due to security concerns (although a quick Google showed a company called Airmule that appears to have limited "service").

Maybe this will come back and also make mileage runs more profitable.

Fly a long-haul roundtrip and get the ticket paid for in exchange for letting some executive or photographer use your electronics allowance.
notquiteaff is offline  
Old May 24, 2017, 6:18 pm
  #983  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bay Area
Programs: DL SM, UA MP.
Posts: 12,729
Well even if they don't expand the ban, the plan is for more tedious screening.

You will have to tray a whole bunch of other stuff.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/24/1...s-remove-worse
wco81 is offline  
Old May 24, 2017, 9:21 pm
  #984  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,704
Originally Posted by MSY-MSP
..., 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."
(Highlighting mine.)

I agree with the first underlined bit. The second may be true in terms of "publicity" but does not need to drive the gov't response.

Of course this is FlyerTalk, so we should pause to consider that for most people in the Western world, flying is not part of "day to day life". While I don't fly as often as many here, my friends and family think I fly "a lot." For my friends, things like concerts (ahem), shopping centres, train stations, office buildings or restaurants are "day to day life." They may fly a few times a year for work, or once every three years to see Grandma, or never.

Yet governments focus on air travel threats, such as modified electronics, based on an assumption that terrorists are concentrating on air travel, rather than on things that are really "day to day life" for most people. Or maybe it's just easier for governments to be seen to be "doing something" by adding more layers of security at airports than dealing with the underlying problem of terrorism.

In my opinion, the terrorists have already succeeded in making air travel miserable. Billions spent in direct costs by governments, plus untold billions more in lost productivity by passengers arriving hours early; acres of landfill of harmless shampoo and water and yogurt and small pointy things; thousands shuffling shoeless through packed checkpoints, waiting to be groped by rude gov't "agents"; the humilation of cancer survivors and amputees and breast-feeding mothers - in the category of "disruption" it takes the gold medal.

So to me it seems unlikely that they would undertake a technically complicated and costly scheme, like modified electronics, to add yet another layer of misery to air travel which affects mainly frequent flyers, rather than creating a fear in the day to day lives of a different demographic such as, say, teenage girls and their parents.
RadioGirl is offline  
Old May 24, 2017, 9:55 pm
  #985  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, AS 75k, AA Plat, Bonvoyed Gold, Honors Dia, Hyatt Explorer, IHG Plat, ...
Posts: 16,632
Originally Posted by RadioGirl
Yet governments focus on air travel threats, such as modified electronics, based on an assumption that terrorists are concentrating on air travel, rather than on things that are really "day to day life" for most people. Or maybe it's just easier for governments to be seen to be "doing something" by adding more layers of security at airports than dealing with the underlying problem of terrorism.
Yes. I am a flyertalker and fly more than than my friends and family, but I still probably spend more time overall in crowded spaces that are soft targets. Can't wait to see bag searches at the doors of supermarkets and malls.

It's not just the government that is "obsessing" about airliner crashes (whether accidents or terrorism or mysteries). 40,000 people died on US roads last year. That's about 110 per day. Or close to a United A319 or Boeing 737-700.... every.single.day. Plane crashes get wall-to-wall coverage on all news channels. Car accidents generally don't. What is it about airplanes that makes deaths so much more sad/interesting/newsworthy when the person was in a plane?
notquiteaff is offline  
Old May 24, 2017, 10:23 pm
  #986  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,483
Exclamation Moderator's Note: Please let's get back on topic

Folks,

We have the following rule:
5. Stay On Topic
FlyerTalk exists for the discussion of frequent flyer programs and the related travel experience. With the exception of the few areas specifically designated for the discussion of other topics, confine your comments as closely as possible to these topic areas and to the topic of the thread and forum in which you are posting.
The subject of this thread is the Electronic Devices Ban on flights from Europe to the US, not the goal of terrorism at large or the aspirations of individual terrorists.

You are welcome to start new threads to discuss why terrorists target airplanes, how the effects of such attacks compare to those of attacking stadiums, arenas, concert halls, shopping malls, train stations, office buildings, restaurants, etc., and how the number of casualties from terrorist acts compares to highway death statistics.

Thank you for understanding,

TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator
TWA884 is offline  
Old May 25, 2017, 3:19 pm
  #987  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: California
Programs: AA EXP, lowly UA 1K; Hyatt Diamond, SPG Gold, Hilton Gold; National EC, Hertz PC
Posts: 2,212
Politico is reporting US Airlines are bracing this may be back on the table and announced as soon as today.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...flights-238835
adambadam is offline  
Old May 25, 2017, 3:30 pm
  #988  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: NZ
Programs: NZ*E, Global Entry
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by adambadam
Politico is reporting US Airlines are bracing this may be back on the table and announced as soon as today.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...flights-238835
I've really been hoping that common sense would prevail, but chatter like this indicates that my expectations may have been too high

My fear of a bomb when flying is zero, but I will certainly carry a fear of a baggage hold Li-Ion fire as soon as this goes into effect.

Morbid as it may be, we can only hope that the first battery incident prompts a swift re-evaluation of this madness.
Fast6 is offline  
Old May 25, 2017, 4:02 pm
  #989  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: LIS/ATL/other
Programs: UA 1K, Avis PC, Hertz PC, Sixt Plat, Marriott Gold, HH Silver
Posts: 1,983
Originally Posted by Fast6
Morbid as it may be, we can only hope that the first battery incident prompts a swift re-evaluation of this madness.
Problem is if there is a battery incident and the airplane goes down in the ocean silently like AF447, we may not know the cause for years, if ever. There will be wild speculation of a bomb. A swift re-evaluation without good information will, as an abundance of caution, tighten the restrictions even more.
CaptainMiles is offline  
Old May 25, 2017, 4:31 pm
  #990  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bay Area
Programs: DL SM, UA MP.
Posts: 12,729
If a battery fire takes down a plane, the reaction will be to ban all electronics from planes.
wco81 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.