susiesan

What would happen if DHS put this ban in place and the airlines banded together and said no, we won't implement it. Would DHS then ground all international flights? Do they have the power to tell the airlines they cannot fly at all?

chollie

I don't know if DHS specifically has the power, but yes, the government has the power and has exercised it.

Post 9/11, all air traffic was suspended for a few days. A co-worker was left stranded in LAS and had to rent a car to drive home because it wasn't initially clear how long the ban would last. I remember being struck by how quiet and clear the skies were driving home. I had never realized how much air traffic there was in the vicinity until it was all stopped.

guflyer

Is it foreseeable that Europe's disagreement may mean that Canada might not follow along with the ban (such as for the people who discussed taking short flights to Canada on their way to somewhere else, etc)?

quillbin

http://www.politico.eu/article/us-te...-laptop-ban-2/

EU-US Large Electronics ban is off the table (for now). Kelly's spokesman said he would still consider it if threat level shoots up.

Boggie Dog

Looks like some kind of power playis going on.

susiesan

Yes, I do remember that as we were supposed to leave for a vacation in China on Sept. 12 and had to postpone it for a few months. But everyone knew air traffic would have to resume eventually. If the airlines hung together to not enforce the ban it would be interesting to see who caved first. No airlines flying to the US at all would leave tens of thousands of Americans stranded overseas for an indefinite amount of time. Who would pay for their care overseas until they could find a ship to sail home on? And who would pay for that?

wco81

Kelly was going around doing media and visiting members of Congress, talking up the ban.

Just last week.

They can't be happy about having to eat crow so fast, especially when DHS spokesman said "this was not a negotiation."

It's a new administration so maybe they're not aware of the laws and international treaties?

NickP 1K

<deleted>

The Politico article mentioned "Technical Talks" - well as my senior law enforcement neighbor said it's either an issue where you stopped everything NOW and did 100% invasive explosive screening until you roll in a ban or it really wasn't a valid issue. I'm all for electronics getting more detailed scrutiny and even put limits on larger electronics (e.g. ONE larger device) but to force only a ban and not go down an extensive new regime for screening tells me that those with subject matter expertise just DON'T EXIST IN DHS ANYMORE. To many idiotic politicians bringing their cronies in with no understanding that 100's of thousands of people enter the US DAILY and that a blanket ban will have a major backlash. <deleted>.

GUWonder

General Kelly probably still thinks with a force protection condition mentality geared for a hot spot like Iraq with lots of exposed US boots on the ground. The mentality and ways of protecting military personnel and assets in rather hostile environment does not migrate all that well to protecting civilian personnel and assets in a different environment under different conditions. But for the paranoid to get their way, "lock down" and "fortress" mentality is the order of the day. Not that ordering others around the world -- or even just in the US -- is going to fly all that well and easily in an environment with as many angles as this, one where civilian dynamics are still in play despite what a general may or may not want.

Yes.

dinanm3atl

Likely not wrong. Spin.

Exactly.

And don't like being embarrassed so need to put their spin on it.

FL390

Confusion over laptop flight ban as US denies EU claim that proposals have been scrapped

One of the last lines about batteries is the most concerning and I hope this narrative doesn't expand. "This is disputed by other experts who say there is little evidence of the danger. According to Federal Aviation Administration, there have only been 152 incidents over 25 years involving lithium ion batteries. "

25 years is a miss leading time frame to downplay the seriousness of this threat as battery use is much more prevalent today. Imagine if each incident took down a plane compared to terrorist attacks.

Here is the data I quickly extracted from the FAA report: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...dent_chart.pdf



1994 1
1995 0
1996 1
1997 0
1998 2
1999 2
2000 2
2001 0
2002 2
2003 1
2004 3
2005 3
2006 10
2007 13
2008 6
2009 6
2010 6
2011 7
2012 9
2013 8
2014 9
2015 16
2016 31
2017 17
Total 155

richarddd

Which is far more than the number of airline terrorism incidents.

studentff

Thanks for the chart. It's also worth noting that only a handful (1 or 2) of the listed incidents might be attributed to the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 issues (based on being labeled as Samsung phone or tablet), so the 2016 spike was not a result of that one bad model as the article tries to claim.

25 years is a terrible timeframe to use; the first FAA LiIon report was from only 21 years ago. In the early/mid 90s lithium-ion was an expensive new technology used only in high-end laptops (still lots of NiMH), and the batteries were expensive ($150+ in 90s dollars) and likely manufactured to correspondingly high standards. I think even my cell phone in the early 2000s had a NiMH battery. Now we have cheap commodity lithium-ion batteries manufactured in Chinese factories with who-knows-what quality control or protection circuitry.

There are at least 4 incidents in the FAA list from the past 6 months involving items that would be banned under the proposals that IMO would have a high chance of uncontrolled fire had the incident occurred in flight in the cargo hold: 12/3/16 Delta laptop, 2/19/17 Air China noise-cancelling headphones; 3/30/17 Southwest laptop, 4/11/17 Frontier camera.

Edit: driving home the point that the claims in the Telegraph article are bogus, it looks like a JetBlue flight from NY to SFO diverted last night due to a laptop fire in a carry-on bag. http://www.fox5ny.com/news/258002846-story

FL390

I just saw that article as well. I'm glad it was a laptop and not another electronic device because all the news articles are focusing solely on laptops even though this ban would apply to all electronic devices. It's a solid talking point that correlates directly to the headlines.

TomMM

With all of the "concerns " with laptops i found it somewhat ironic the announcements this morning at IAH to keep your laptops and tablets in your bag.