Electronic Carry-on ban (inc. UAE)
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: South of North
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Hafa Land
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US airlines are subject to the same ban. They just don't happen to offer scheduled service to any of the garden spots captured by the ban. It covers airports not airlines. But Trump hysteria just feels better I suppose.
Last edited by shedsd330; 22nd Mar 2017 at 17:41.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Airmann
Hmmm...except many Americans are former Iranians/Iraqis/Afghanis/Somalians/Nigerians/etc etc etc...do we hate them too? Or just the European Americans? I can't keep up. Maybe you didn't think your silly anti-US comment through too clearly?
Anyway, I have to chuckle at the instant leap to blame Trump and protectionism and blah blah blah oh those poor ME3 victim airlines, and so on and on.
My personal bet is that it just MAYYYYyyyy have something to do with this fine upstanding gentleman Abdullahi Abdisalam Borleh being caught on airport "security" cameras (quotes due to said airport being Mogadishu) being handed a laptop loaded with explosives by another fine upstanding member of society, one of the personnel entrusted with upholding "security" at the airport.
Daallo Airlines Flight 159
Did everyone forget how a few things changed after they found explosives/atempts in LAG's, shoes, and underwear?
Nahhhh. Let's go with the "blame American airlines" meme. More popular these days and everyone knows truth is decided by how many people believe something.
Hmmm...except many Americans are former Iranians/Iraqis/Afghanis/Somalians/Nigerians/etc etc etc...do we hate them too? Or just the European Americans? I can't keep up. Maybe you didn't think your silly anti-US comment through too clearly?
Anyway, I have to chuckle at the instant leap to blame Trump and protectionism and blah blah blah oh those poor ME3 victim airlines, and so on and on.
My personal bet is that it just MAYYYYyyyy have something to do with this fine upstanding gentleman Abdullahi Abdisalam Borleh being caught on airport "security" cameras (quotes due to said airport being Mogadishu) being handed a laptop loaded with explosives by another fine upstanding member of society, one of the personnel entrusted with upholding "security" at the airport.
Daallo Airlines Flight 159
Did everyone forget how a few things changed after they found explosives/atempts in LAG's, shoes, and underwear?
Nahhhh. Let's go with the "blame American airlines" meme. More popular these days and everyone knows truth is decided by how many people believe something.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Permanent JET LAGGG
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Doctor's waiting room
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TangoUniform
It's selective screening which is arguably pointless if there is no profiling done. In TLV the 'chat' you have prior to check in dictates how relaxed or invasive the security process will be but a selective system is not very robust if there is no methodology behind who gets selected.
I myself have never been searched at the gate on a US flight as a passenger out of DXB. Luck of the draw perhaps?
It's selective screening which is arguably pointless if there is no profiling done. In TLV the 'chat' you have prior to check in dictates how relaxed or invasive the security process will be but a selective system is not very robust if there is no methodology behind who gets selected.
I myself have never been searched at the gate on a US flight as a passenger out of DXB. Luck of the draw perhaps?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: SKG
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They don't fly out of those countries that's why... If any other country wants to add restrictions to the US Airlines they have every right to do so... china Japan etc
If they did they would have to comply
In the past same rules applied out of phillipenes... 1994 if I can recall
I think the U.K. Should follow after what happen today there.
Safety First
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: SKG
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it was not for America there would not have been ME
America protects the land there otherwise it would have been called ISIS not Middle East
That's a fact and protection does cost $$$$$
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No. But it's a proven attack vector (in the jargon) and perhaps new intelligence has come to light that there's going to be another attempt by the same method.
And that's the point: the geniuses on PPRune, myself included, are hardly privy to high-level intel. Yet it doesn't seem to stop some from finding an excuse to grind their tired old axes about protectionism and the Great Satan USA etc etc...
And that's the point: the geniuses on PPRune, myself included, are hardly privy to high-level intel. Yet it doesn't seem to stop some from finding an excuse to grind their tired old axes about protectionism and the Great Satan USA etc etc...
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Been around the block
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instead of knocking American pilot unions, perhaps you should welcome them. More than half of all aircraft in the world are N registered. A FO for a US major airline makes more money than an Emirates 777 Captain. The FAA is tightening rest rules while the rest of the world loosens theirs. You must be in management....🙄
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No. But it's a proven attack vector (in the jargon) and perhaps new intelligence has come to light that there's going to be another attempt by the same method.
And that's the point: the geniuses on PPRune, myself included, are hardly privy to high-level intel. Yet it doesn't seem to stop some from finding an excuse to grind their tired old axes about protectionism and the Great Satan USA etc etc...
And that's the point: the geniuses on PPRune, myself included, are hardly privy to high-level intel. Yet it doesn't seem to stop some from finding an excuse to grind their tired old axes about protectionism and the Great Satan USA etc etc...
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hilton, Sheraton or Marriott
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fascinating perspective from the Business Insider that this whole issue may be a ploy to place more pressure on the specified airlines, rather than a specific terror threat -
A very interesting and thought-provoking take on the matter at hand.
On Tuesday, the US Department of Homeland Security announced the introduction of an electronic device ban for select flights coming from 10 airports in the Middle East and Africa.
However, many of the eight affected airlines seemed to have been blindsided by the news.
With only four days to comply, it’s still uncertain how many of the carriers will be able to work out the logistics of the ban.
In addition, the thought process behind the decision and the intelligence on which the ban has been based remains unclear.
According to senior administration officials, the decision to implement these security measures is a result of intelligence showing a risk for terrorist activity involving commercial aviation.
“Evaluated intelligence indicates that terrorist groups continue to target commercial aviation and are aggressively pursuing innovative methods to undertake their attacks, to include smuggling explosive devices in various consumer items,” an official said on Monday.
Whatever this intelligence consists of, it was substantial enough for the national security apparatus to act.
According to James Norton, a former deputy assistant secretary of the DHS during the George W. Bush administration, security actions such as this will take place if there is evidence of a credible threat. An example of this happened in 2006 when the Bush administration issued an immediate ban on liquids after law enforcement in the UK foiled a terrorist plot to blow up airliners traveling across the Atlantic using liquid explosives, Norton told Business Insider.
However, what is confusing is that the UK issued a similar ban on Tuesday, but excluded four airports — Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Doha, and Casablanca — featured in the US ban.
In addition, many in the aviation community question whether a ban of this type is even remotely effective in countering a terrorist attack.
It should be noted that Doha, Dubai, and Abu Dhabi are major international transit hubs with extensive multi-layered security procedures. In addition, US-bound flights are even screened in dedicated facilities using well-trained security professionals — often with law-enforcement and military experience.
In fact, Abu Dhabi International Airport is equipped with a US Customs and Border Protection pre-clearance facility where passengers and bags headed for the US are screened by US customs officials.
First, the electronics ban is not an outright ban. Instead, it forbids electronics such as laptops, cameras and tablets from being brought into the cabin of the aircraft. This means they will most likely have to be stored inside the cargo hold of the aircraft with the checked luggage.
However, such behavior is explicitly prohibited by the Federal Aviation Administration.
“FAA battery fire testing has highlighted the potential risk of a catastrophic aircraft loss due to damage resulting from a lithium battery fire or explosion. Current cargo fire suppression systems cannot effectively control a lithium battery fire,” the agency wrote in an alert in February.
When asked, administration officials told journalists on Monday that they are working with the FAA to maintain a safe flying environment, but did not state specifics. Business Insider asked DHS for specifics on Tuesday, but have not yet heard back from officials.
This is particularly concerning for Michael Mo, co-founder and CEO of Kulr Technologies, a company that specializes thermal management systems for batteries.
“Lithium-ion batteries are inherently volatile with an average of one out of five million units expected to blow. It’s statistics. It’s not a matter of if, but a matter of when one of these things blow,” Mo told Business Insider in an interview.
“So when that happens, it’s better to have humans nearby to react and put out the fire.”
In addition, spare lithium-ion batteries stored in the cargo hold are particularly dangerous because not only are they more susceptible to damage, they also tend to be packed into suitcases with incredibly flammable items like hairspray or deodorant.
Protectionist politics?
Of the 10 airlines affected by the US ban, three — Emirates, Etihad, and Qatar Airways — have been at the heart of a heated rivalry with US carriers American, Delta, and United Airlines. For some, the inclusion of these airlines seem way too convenient to be a coincidence.
“If you squint hard enough, there is some justification on a security basis for this, but the implementation has been haphazard and in manner that is particularly targeted at and does harm to the commercial interests of a set of airlines that has been the source of much competitive hand-wringing from US airlines,” Airways senior business analyst Vinay Bhaskara told Business Insider.
When asked about the topic on Monday, a senior administration official denied any relationship between the electronics ban and the feud between the aforementioned American and Middle Eastern airlines.
However, the UK’s decision to exclude the Middle East’s big three from its ban proves to be particularly troubling. After all, it is believed that the UK government acted on the same intelligence as US officials.
The immediate effect of the ban will likely weaken the Persian Gulf’s three mega-carriers along with Turkish Airlines, Bhaskara said. Based on the latest rankings from respected consumer aviation website Skytrax, Emirates, Qatar, Etihad and Turkish Airlines represent the first, second, sixth, and seventh ranked carriers in the world.
Since the US government’s ban calls into question the security of their home airports, these airlines will have to contend with the resulting negative publicity and uncertainty among customers.
A new Emirates ad argues that one doesn’t need a laptop to have a good time on board its flights.
In addition, many corporate customers do allow their employees to ship work computers in their checked luggage. This is due to concerns over theft of equipment and any sensitive information stored on the computers.
As a result, they may push some clients toward carriers that are not affected by the ban.
Currently, no US carriers offer nonstop flights into the Middle East. As a result, they won’t benefit directly. However, the ban will likely drive lucrative business travelers back towards European hubs such as Frankfurt, London, Amsterdam, and Paris. This means US airlines will benefit through joint ventures and alliance relationships with Lufthansa, British Airways, Air France, and KLM.
That said, not all US carriers will benefit. Airlines like JetBlue and Alaska have partnership agreements with Emirates. A reduction in business for Emirates cuts into the number of passengers who depend on JetBlue’s and Alaska’s planes to connect them to secondary and tertiary cities in the US.
According to Bhaskara, the long-term effects of the ban are unknown. The strategic decisions the affected airlines and their competitors make will be determined by how long with ban is in place.
At the end of the day, it’s still too early to tell what’s going to happen. Hopefully, many of these questions will be answered as airlines and the flying public work through the many issues created by the new guidelines.
However, many of the eight affected airlines seemed to have been blindsided by the news.
With only four days to comply, it’s still uncertain how many of the carriers will be able to work out the logistics of the ban.
In addition, the thought process behind the decision and the intelligence on which the ban has been based remains unclear.
According to senior administration officials, the decision to implement these security measures is a result of intelligence showing a risk for terrorist activity involving commercial aviation.
“Evaluated intelligence indicates that terrorist groups continue to target commercial aviation and are aggressively pursuing innovative methods to undertake their attacks, to include smuggling explosive devices in various consumer items,” an official said on Monday.
Whatever this intelligence consists of, it was substantial enough for the national security apparatus to act.
According to James Norton, a former deputy assistant secretary of the DHS during the George W. Bush administration, security actions such as this will take place if there is evidence of a credible threat. An example of this happened in 2006 when the Bush administration issued an immediate ban on liquids after law enforcement in the UK foiled a terrorist plot to blow up airliners traveling across the Atlantic using liquid explosives, Norton told Business Insider.
However, what is confusing is that the UK issued a similar ban on Tuesday, but excluded four airports — Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Doha, and Casablanca — featured in the US ban.
In addition, many in the aviation community question whether a ban of this type is even remotely effective in countering a terrorist attack.
It should be noted that Doha, Dubai, and Abu Dhabi are major international transit hubs with extensive multi-layered security procedures. In addition, US-bound flights are even screened in dedicated facilities using well-trained security professionals — often with law-enforcement and military experience.
In fact, Abu Dhabi International Airport is equipped with a US Customs and Border Protection pre-clearance facility where passengers and bags headed for the US are screened by US customs officials.
First, the electronics ban is not an outright ban. Instead, it forbids electronics such as laptops, cameras and tablets from being brought into the cabin of the aircraft. This means they will most likely have to be stored inside the cargo hold of the aircraft with the checked luggage.
However, such behavior is explicitly prohibited by the Federal Aviation Administration.
“FAA battery fire testing has highlighted the potential risk of a catastrophic aircraft loss due to damage resulting from a lithium battery fire or explosion. Current cargo fire suppression systems cannot effectively control a lithium battery fire,” the agency wrote in an alert in February.
When asked, administration officials told journalists on Monday that they are working with the FAA to maintain a safe flying environment, but did not state specifics. Business Insider asked DHS for specifics on Tuesday, but have not yet heard back from officials.
This is particularly concerning for Michael Mo, co-founder and CEO of Kulr Technologies, a company that specializes thermal management systems for batteries.
“Lithium-ion batteries are inherently volatile with an average of one out of five million units expected to blow. It’s statistics. It’s not a matter of if, but a matter of when one of these things blow,” Mo told Business Insider in an interview.
“So when that happens, it’s better to have humans nearby to react and put out the fire.”
In addition, spare lithium-ion batteries stored in the cargo hold are particularly dangerous because not only are they more susceptible to damage, they also tend to be packed into suitcases with incredibly flammable items like hairspray or deodorant.
Protectionist politics?
Of the 10 airlines affected by the US ban, three — Emirates, Etihad, and Qatar Airways — have been at the heart of a heated rivalry with US carriers American, Delta, and United Airlines. For some, the inclusion of these airlines seem way too convenient to be a coincidence.
“If you squint hard enough, there is some justification on a security basis for this, but the implementation has been haphazard and in manner that is particularly targeted at and does harm to the commercial interests of a set of airlines that has been the source of much competitive hand-wringing from US airlines,” Airways senior business analyst Vinay Bhaskara told Business Insider.
When asked about the topic on Monday, a senior administration official denied any relationship between the electronics ban and the feud between the aforementioned American and Middle Eastern airlines.
However, the UK’s decision to exclude the Middle East’s big three from its ban proves to be particularly troubling. After all, it is believed that the UK government acted on the same intelligence as US officials.
The immediate effect of the ban will likely weaken the Persian Gulf’s three mega-carriers along with Turkish Airlines, Bhaskara said. Based on the latest rankings from respected consumer aviation website Skytrax, Emirates, Qatar, Etihad and Turkish Airlines represent the first, second, sixth, and seventh ranked carriers in the world.
Since the US government’s ban calls into question the security of their home airports, these airlines will have to contend with the resulting negative publicity and uncertainty among customers.
A new Emirates ad argues that one doesn’t need a laptop to have a good time on board its flights.
In addition, many corporate customers do allow their employees to ship work computers in their checked luggage. This is due to concerns over theft of equipment and any sensitive information stored on the computers.
As a result, they may push some clients toward carriers that are not affected by the ban.
Currently, no US carriers offer nonstop flights into the Middle East. As a result, they won’t benefit directly. However, the ban will likely drive lucrative business travelers back towards European hubs such as Frankfurt, London, Amsterdam, and Paris. This means US airlines will benefit through joint ventures and alliance relationships with Lufthansa, British Airways, Air France, and KLM.
That said, not all US carriers will benefit. Airlines like JetBlue and Alaska have partnership agreements with Emirates. A reduction in business for Emirates cuts into the number of passengers who depend on JetBlue’s and Alaska’s planes to connect them to secondary and tertiary cities in the US.
According to Bhaskara, the long-term effects of the ban are unknown. The strategic decisions the affected airlines and their competitors make will be determined by how long with ban is in place.
At the end of the day, it’s still too early to tell what’s going to happen. Hopefully, many of these questions will be answered as airlines and the flying public work through the many issues created by the new guidelines.
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hilton, Sheraton or Marriott
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This from JP Morgan -
A coincidence? I don't think so. Interesting times.
US security measures relating to personal electronic devices could have wider implications for passenger traffic flows, JP Morgan has suggested in a research note published today.
JP Morgan analysts tell investors that the regulation could lead to altered global traffic flows, with business passengers selecting airlines that are not affected by the restrictions over those that are.
They say that certain hubs – particularly those in the Middle East – may be structurally damaged by the regulation, noting a "gradual shift among long-haul business travellers away from Middle Eastern hubs" in the medium term.
Unlike the liquid ban enacted in 2006, the regulation on electronic devices could materially impact travel choices, in the analysts' view.
Business travellers are expected to work during flights, and this regulation specifically makes that exceedingly difficult on the routes affected.
"Given the uneven application of e-ban regulations, this may in turn cause high-yield traffic flows to shift from the Middle East towards... Europe," says the note.
JP Morgan believes European carriers could "theoretically" benefit as they pick up hub-and-spoke traffic that might have gone via the Middle East, and while this could feed traffic to the USA the analysts believe the lift to US carriers would be minimal.
JP Morgan analysts tell investors that the regulation could lead to altered global traffic flows, with business passengers selecting airlines that are not affected by the restrictions over those that are.
They say that certain hubs – particularly those in the Middle East – may be structurally damaged by the regulation, noting a "gradual shift among long-haul business travellers away from Middle Eastern hubs" in the medium term.
Unlike the liquid ban enacted in 2006, the regulation on electronic devices could materially impact travel choices, in the analysts' view.
Business travellers are expected to work during flights, and this regulation specifically makes that exceedingly difficult on the routes affected.
"Given the uneven application of e-ban regulations, this may in turn cause high-yield traffic flows to shift from the Middle East towards... Europe," says the note.
JP Morgan believes European carriers could "theoretically" benefit as they pick up hub-and-spoke traffic that might have gone via the Middle East, and while this could feed traffic to the USA the analysts believe the lift to US carriers would be minimal.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: usa
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm guessing 90% of people traveling these days have a tablet or laptop.
Now up to 300-400 more lithium battery devices will sit in the cargo hold of these flights.
In event of thermal runaway etc. the cabin CC can isolate the device and use SOPs, not so in hold.
Hope the cargo halon is designed for the increased risk of 100's of these setting each other off.
🤔
Now up to 300-400 more lithium battery devices will sit in the cargo hold of these flights.
In event of thermal runaway etc. the cabin CC can isolate the device and use SOPs, not so in hold.
Hope the cargo halon is designed for the increased risk of 100's of these setting each other off.
🤔
Now up to 300-400 more lithium battery devices will sit in the cargo hold of these flights
