dinanm3atl

I agree. All 3 major legacies should have a combined response to thwart the level of stupidity of "We ban from cabin and move to hold. All is safe now!"

NickP 1K

If Canada doesn't go along with this I'll start doing a connect through YVR or YYZ and plan enough time to claim bags, and use my items on the Canada onwards to the world flights. Just as easy for me to fly AA less and fly AA/AS to YVR or YYZ and then fly BA, CX or JL more.

The earlier comment on TSO's as a risk in the future. STILL amazes me on the known crew member program. If these risks are TRULY real you would be closing up that program before you attempted any ban. The hypocrisy of some crew members getting essentially ZERO screening is beyond logic. Hell have behavioral officers with proper training screening those with electronics but to say there is a risk and have a HUGE gaping hole with people who bypass screening is insane.

dinanm3atl

Funny. Some travel buddies and I had this very discussion.

artemis

But if traveling with one's own gear is no longer an inexpensive option (or even an impossible option), what alternatives would there be?

artemis

I don't think you can count on that being an option unless you're going to be willing to enter Canada by land. The DHS has been hinting that the ban will involve ALL international flights, both outgoing and incoming, not just incoming flights from Europe.

Canarsie

Not traveling at all, which is the “safest” option available.

Besides, money talks. If this policy pertaining to the ban on electronic devices came into effect and the number of passengers traveling by airplane substantially decreased as a result, do you believe that the policy will remain in effect unchanged regardless?

NickP 1K

If it wasn't clear I'm FINE checking my electronics items to Canada in checked luggage - short flight and don't care for those flights up to YVR, having my bag only checked to YYZ or YVR, pull the bag with my electronics and move them to carry ons (reverse on arrival). I'm NEXUS as well so entering Canada quickly via Transborder arrivals and departing via international departures isn't an issue for me. Done it loads of times before when I was Star Alliance focused vs OneWorld.

Himeno

EK has reduced flights to the US due to lower demand following the ban on DXB-US flights.

GrayAnderson

Even something to the effect of "Look, we support more and better security...but this isn't it!" would seem to be the order of the day.

TBH there's one way they could cover themselves and still hammer this down hard, if they worked with their alliance partners: "We support enhanced measures and are prepared to work with the government to develop them. However, if those measures rise to the projected level, we also project a decline in travel of X% for business and Y% for leisure. In such a case, we collectively expect to cut the following routes, downgauge these others, etc."

Realistically this would probably mean that some "secondary" airports (BOS and either BWI or IAD on the NEC, probably DTW or MSP in the midwest for DL/Skyteam, etc.) get trashed. A lot would depend on the magnitude of the projected hit. On the other side of the Atlantic, I could see a retrenching into Paris, London, and Frankfurt from other airports. Keep in mind that it wouldn't take a big hit to load factors to knock out (or knock back to seasonal status) quite a few secondary routes.

DeltaFlyer IntrepidClass

You wouldn't have the same level of confidence you do when using your own gear. Also, I AFMA all of my bodies and lenses for critical autofocus. If there will be no practical way to bring along digital SLRs on planes and I have no option but to travel, I'll just do the best I can with my smartphone.

notquiteaff

New app. Flickr. You stay at home and look at someone else's amazing photos (taken before the ban). Airlines suffer massive decline in passenger numbers.

I assume Secretary Kelly has a government aircraft at his disposal?

Do members of Congress and their staff not travel with devices?

NickP 1K

You assume these guys know any tech. Our local not so old congresswoman has her staff do nearly everything for her that involves a computer. Now staff tend not to make a fuss and most congressional members have staff in home districts and DC, so they won't miss much which is a sad reality.

RadioGirl

You keep suggesting this 1+1 solution but I don't see how it addresses the risk. If a laptop is dangerous, it's dangerous. The only thing this would do is (theoretically) reduce the number of devices to be swabbed/scanned/whatever at the checkpoint, but (in practice) only for people who would otherwise have 3 or more devices. Is that really such a significant number of passengers that it reduces the checkpoint workload from "impossible" to "possible"?
If past evidence is anything to go by, they're that stupid.

Recent discussion above has focused on cameras and leisure travel but (as discussed earlier in the thread), a total ban (or even "in hold baggage only") is going to kill business travel. Mostly I fly to attend conferences and meetings which would literally be pointless if I didn't have my own laptop. Loading software and documents on a loaner is not an option. The risk of theft or damage from checked bags will substantially affect my travel decisions if this goes ahead.
The US3 were silent (or cheering) when the previous ban on flights from the ME was introduced, because not only did it not affect US3 flights, it harmed their competitors. It's really hard for the US3 to turn around now and complain that an electronics ban on flights from Europe etc will hurt their business.

GrayAnderson

@RadioGirl:
Your point about it not solving the problem reminds me of an old saying: The government will misidentify the problem and then misapply the wrong solution. Now, once in a while we get lucky and in all of that blundering they actually solve something by accident.

Trying to be realistic here, the hope would be to keep the load vaguely under control. 1+1 at least puts a cap on what needs to be screened. My guess is that some sort of "laptop fee" isn't far behind (and it might even go to offsetting additional security costs), which would nudge the load down a bit more. In essence, I think his proposed 1+1 solution falls under the "art of the possible": It doesn't fully solve the problem but it takes a step towards doing so that isn't so grossly disruptive as a total ban.

As to the US3, there's the thought that even if they tacitly concede the hypocrisy there's still the fact that it was DHS that came up with the initial list (and let's face it, some of the action between the US3 and the ME3 has been transparent enough that even if they admitted that they supported the inital action to screw the competition I'm not sure it would have much of an impact unless it came out that they helped gin it up to begin with rather than rolling with it). In the meantime, failing that they can probably call for some backup from their various alliance partners (e.g. BA, AF, LH, etc.) who will also take a hit from this. They might even consider stage-managing it whereby their partners start complaining and they simply take up the torch. FWIW I would not be surprised if they could show that security in Europe is more competent than in the US. Particularly if the ban were to start spilling domestically (even by way of mixed-use terminals) there's just so much damage to be had here that I suspect it exceeds falling on the hypocrisy sword.

FliesWay2Much

I still keep coming back to the rampant theft from checked luggage that will inevitably occur. I suspect a lot of us who need to travel with laptops will buy a hard case of some kind in which to pack the laptop. Of course, this will have to be opened back in the baggage areas. Rather than fight the ban or simply stop flying, most of us will spend our own money working around this idiocy. The terrorists win and DHS wins.