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 18, 2017, 2:07 pm
  #826  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Programs: DL PM, MR Titanium/LTP, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 10,130
Originally Posted by GUWonder
I was flying long-haul international flights as a little kid when the only in-flight entertainment was non-electronics. What worked then doesn't work all the twell now. And the academic studies on children and technology speaks a fair amount to it.

The non-flight use of the electronics devices has its own addictive tendency. And withdrawal for even the marginally addicted can result in outbursts. Parents seem to have way less control over children now than they used to have, and the electronic babysitters have become the ultimate weapon/tool in the parental armory. Which nuclear power voluntary gives up all of its nukes and expects the dynamics on the stage to remain all the same? None, from what I see.
This certainly will immediately cause winners and losers in the US for domestic travel.

Winners: DL (AVOD on much of their domestic fleet), B6 (ironically back to their roots which helped them break out of the clutter in the first place with AVOD on their entire fleet)

Partial Winners: AA (AVOD on A319 and some 737 but may have to rethink their decision to have that 737 MAX order be without AVOD)

Losers: UA, WN, F9, NK, AS

Wouldn't be surprised to see ad campaigns from DL and B6 touting their AVOD and targeted at families with kids if/when this goes into effect domestically. Would be a smart move.
Duke787 is offline  
Old May 18, 2017, 2:15 pm
  #827  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bay Area
Programs: DL SM, UA MP.
Posts: 12,729
Maybe more business fliers who work aboard domestic flights than on international flights.
wco81 is offline  
Old May 18, 2017, 2:17 pm
  #828  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 825
Originally Posted by susiesan
This will also impact leisure travelers. Because this isn't just a laptop ban, it affects cameras, many leisure travelers won't fly for vacation if they cannot carry on their camera.
And don't forget professional photographers. I was chatting with a couple of them last evening, and they were both seriously concerned about the proposed ban because it would make it all-but-impossible for them to do their jobs.

Any airline that figures out a truly secure way to handle camera equipment affected by the ban would have my instant loyalty. Like susiesan, when I vacation I want my good camera along, not just a cellphone.

(Pelican case already placed on my B&H wish list, just in case!)
artemis is offline  
Old May 18, 2017, 2:24 pm
  #829  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Rochester, MN
Programs: UA GS, AA PLT, HH Diamond
Posts: 1,437
Originally Posted by Duke787
As I noted yesterday a worldwide ban is a no-brainer. They'd be daft to only do the EU and pretend that terrorists couldn't just come in from elsewhere - I also agree that it's only a matter of time for domestic flights as well for the same reasoning.

It's also too early to completely assume that this will wipe out air travel, MSY-MSP has been reporting options that would allow you to have your 1 electronic (laptop or iPad for business traveler) + 1 phone which is what I would guess we'd see accompanied by more stringent searching of those devices (if that technology exists).

I do agree a full-fledged ban for domestic and international will completely kill the economy and in particular take down most of the airlines.

My bigger concern remains the lithium battery issue and how they solve it.

If we assume the ban will go in place, the ideal outcome (based on the fact that one outcome is a complete ban in the hold and in the cabin) for me would be 1 laptop/iPad with enhanced security and 1 cellphone, no electronics in the hold.
And I am still hearing from various sources that the 1+1 option is very much on the table. Its not the greatest option, but it is definitely better than nothing larger than a cellphone. It is also the option I expect to be the outcome of this once the ban is announced and implemented.

The EU was apparently given enough information at this meeting that they agreed that significant limitations were likely required. However, they still do not want these items in the hold of the aircraft. One thing I noticed from the FT article was this quote EU and US officials will meet again in Washington next week to discuss the technical practicalities of extending the ban. It looks like they have agreed to the ban, but need to work out the particulars of how it will work. My read on this is , how do we implement this and not kill all travel.

The US apparently proposed/discussed two things that they want to see if they were to allow more than a cellphone. The first apparently was 100% screening of all electronics at the primary screening checkpoint and random screening of electronics prior to boarding for all flights that enter US controlled airspace regardless of destination. Alternative, was 100% screening at a checkpoint/gate area for these flights, if not implemented at the primary checkpoint. The second apparently was no gate checking of electronics. They would have to be checked at check-in or forfeited. The US is wanting the devices to go through a full screening process before being loaded on the plane.

The interesting thing that could be very troublesome is the inclusion of US airspace in the restrictions. It is going to grab a whole lot of routes that people dont often think about. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/inte...erflight_fees/ shows a map of the areas that could be impacted by the US airspace restriction. It is absolutely huge. It pretty much covers anything from Europe to Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean, anything form the Western Hemisphere to Asia, almost any flight from South and Central America to Canada, and almost everything out of New Zealand other than Australia and South America. I guess you could get creative with your routings on some of these, but I am not sure this would be possible or economically feasible. I honestly had no idea the US controlled this much of the worlds airspace.

This reminds me of the initial days of the liquid ban years ago. The UK went first, followed by the US. Shortly thereafter, the rest of the world joined in on it. I feel that this is where this is going to end up. It is just a matter of time.

Now I have heard that there is a potential wild card out there that may stop the ban in its tracks. It is something that I have seen next to no discussion of around here, and it has nothing to do with the governments. It is the insurance companies that insure the aircraft. There is a very high possibility that the insurance companies for the airlines and the aircraft will either not cover an aircraft loss when large numbers of electronics are carried in the hold, or they may charge an extremely high premium for coverage when this is true. These guys look at the actual risks associated with this type of carriage, and it is a known risk that has brought down 2 airplanes already and led to the ban on these items as cargo on passenger planes. All it takes is one of these to get too hot and its game over. Imagine what would happen if the insurance guys said we arent going to cover you if you allow this in the hold, or we are going to charge you 1000% more for this coverage.
MSY-MSP is offline  
Old May 18, 2017, 3:07 pm
  #830  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: IAD/DCA, formerly JFK/LGA, RDU, CHO
Programs: Delta Skymiles (Silver), Hilton Honors (Diamond), Amtrak Guest Rewards, Clear, Nexus
Posts: 15
So it sounds very much like a 100% screening requirement will be implemented, very soon.

I'm still hoping that the airlines will offer some sort of device concierge service; at the gate or at check-in. If the devices have to be screened with the other checked baggage, fine, but I'd prefer individually wrapped items, tamper proof wrapping so that I know no one has opened it in transit, and handling/distribution to passengers by airline staff actually matching the claim tickets. I'd even more prefer a process similar to firearms transport where it is screened in the presence of the passenger and padlocked in a case until it is claimed by the passenger.

Either that, or, an extra per-device fee levied to allow more than 1+1 devices through the checkpoint...the fees will go towards paying for extra screeners and machinery needed to handle the volume of devices. This gives a financial incentive to not bring or check electronics, but doesn't outright prohibit them so long as they are screened. Actually, I'm pretty sure airlines will be pushed into doing this, since any airline that doesn't will lose out in the race to attract business travelers.

I don't see how they can possibly have this up and running by the end of the month...surely there needs to be a good chunk of time to train staff, implement airline-specific procedures, and inform the public of the new rules.
iad2jfk is offline  
Old May 18, 2017, 3:59 pm
  #831  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: BOS
Posts: 15,027
Serious profiling, or the Israeli method, would make all these bans unnecessary. You really think a granny from upstate NY bringing her camera on board to snap pix of the grandkids is a threat??
Dieuwer is offline  
Old May 18, 2017, 4:01 pm
  #832  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,410
Originally Posted by MSY-MSP
Now I have heard that there is a potential wild card out there that may stop the ban in its tracks. It is something that I have seen next to no discussion of around here, and it has nothing to do with the governments. It is the insurance companies that insure the aircraft. There is a very high possibility that the insurance companies for the airlines and the aircraft will either not cover an aircraft loss when large numbers of electronics are carried in the hold, or they may charge an extremely high premium for coverage when this is true. These guys look at the actual risks associated with this type of carriage, and it is a known risk that has brought down 2 airplanes already and led to the ban on these items as cargo on passenger planes. All it takes is one of these to get too hot and its game over. Imagine what would happen if the insurance guys said we arent going to cover you if you allow this in the hold, or we are going to charge you 1000% more for this coverage.

Originally Posted by iad2jfk
I don't see how they can possibly have this up and running by the end of the month...surely there needs to be a good chunk of time to train staff, implement airline-specific procedures, and inform the public of the new rules.
The hull carriers control the industry because, to my understanding, no commercial airplane moves, anywhere in the world, without hull insurance. So if the hull carriers say "No LiOn in the cargo bay" and if the security regulations say "no electronics in the passenger compartment" then that means that no electronics will fly (assuming exceptions will be made for airline operated equipment so that flight crews can still use their stuff).

I don't think they will want to go that far. On the other hand, it depends how credible the threat really is. Because, for the reasons stated, if the security regulators say "well, let's take a reasonable chance, we don't want to harm air travel" the hull carriers could still say "no LiOn devices on airplanes, anywhere, passenger or cargo" then there would be, as a practical matter, a worldwide ban of electronics on planes.

Last edited by sbrower; May 18, 2017 at 5:47 pm
sbrower is offline  
Old May 18, 2017, 4:03 pm
  #833  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: BOS
Posts: 15,027
Additionally: if you can hide a bomb in an iPad, you can hide it an a phone. Makes no sense to ban only electronics smaller than phones.
Dieuwer is offline  
Old May 18, 2017, 4:05 pm
  #834  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bay Area
Programs: DL SM, UA MP.
Posts: 12,729
No electronics on aircraft will hurt air travel of all kind.
wco81 is offline  
Old May 18, 2017, 4:06 pm
  #835  
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 Dieuwer
Serious profiling, or the Israeli method, would make all these bans unnecessary. You really think a granny from upstate NY bringing her camera on board to snap pix of the grandkids is a threat??
The voodoo "security" of profiling is just more dog and pony show in the main and does nothing to detect explosives and thereby interdict contraband explosives.

The failed shoe-bomber was cleared to fly LY more than once, and he flew out of TLV more than once. The failed underwear bomber was cleared by dual-Israeli citizen working at AMS at the time using "the Israeli method".

Also, the risk of IEDs masked by electronics does include that the person transporting the bomb may be unaware that they are transporting a bomb on their own flight.

Originally Posted by Dieuwer
Additionally: if you can hide a bomb in an iPad, you can hide it an a phone. Makes no sense to ban only electronics smaller than phones.
The battery sizes aren't all the same for an iOS phone as for an iOS tablet. Guess which one is more likely to have a bigger battery.
GUWonder is offline  
Old May 18, 2017, 4:07 pm
  #836  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: BOS
Posts: 15,027
Addition #2 : And how is this ban between the EU and US going to impact Canada? Can electronics still fly on LHR-YYZ, and continue on a separate flight YYZ-JFK? How is that helping "safety"?
Dieuwer is offline  
Old May 18, 2017, 4:13 pm
  #837  
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 sbrower
The hull carriers control the industry because, to my understanding, no commercial airplane moves, anywhere in the world, without hull insurance. So if the hull carriers say "No LiOn in the cargo bay" and if the security regulations say "no electronics in the passenger compartment" then that means that no electronics will fly (assuming exceptions will be made for airline operated equipment so that flight crews can still use their stuff).

I don't think they will want to go that far. On the other hand, it depends how credible the threat really is. Because, for the reasons stated, if the security regulators say "well, let's take a reasonable chance, we don't want to harm air travel" the hull carriers could still say "no LiOn devices on airplanes, anywhere, passenger or cargo" and then there would be a worldwide ban of electronics on planes.
It comes down to the reinsurance market.

But, for now, this is just about people just fishing for excuses to try to justify (or otherwise push in place) an expanded ban with insurance market as an excuse for that.

I haven't seen the hull insurance market evaporate for the carriers hit by the current US ban.
GUWonder is offline  
Old May 18, 2017, 4:16 pm
  #838  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: BOS
Posts: 15,027
An option would be to allow people fly with electronics who agree to extensive background checks. Anyone who does not agree to these checks won't be allowed to bring anything onboard.
Dieuwer is offline  
Old May 18, 2017, 4:19 pm
  #839  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 845
You'll see things move more quickly after the G7 summit later this month.
ords is offline  
Old May 18, 2017, 4:19 pm
  #840  
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 Dieuwer
An option would be to allow people fly with electronics who agree to extensive background checks. Anyone who does not agree to these checks won't be allowed to bring anything onboard.
.... as if people with extensive background checks never commit crimes and never get exploited by criminals such as terrorists.
GUWonder 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.