luchtzak wrote:

Emirates introduces laptop and tablet handling service for US flights #electronicsban

- Enables US-bound passengers to use their laptops and tablets until just before boarding
- Customers can continue to use smart phones on board, staying connected with mobile telephone services and free Wi-Fi
- Electronics ban does not apply to Emirates’ US-bound flights via Milan and Athens
- Passengers encouraged to pack their electronic devices into their check-in luggage, to avoid delays

something i found somewhat surprising in the press release:

Our historical data shows that on Emirates’ US flights, 90% of passengers using our onboard mobile and Wi-Fi connectivity services do so via their smart phones. Only 6% connect via their laptops, and 4% via their tablets.

while i have no reason to believe EK is lying, i would also say that HVFs are more likely to use laptops. using a laptop in Y is cumbersome, and biz travelers are the ones who have work to do. also - EK wifi is free. the userbase will be different than on airlines that require payment.

all in all, kudos to RJ and EK - and especially to EY's "make flying great again" - for taking the ban in stride. i'm sure sir tim and others are fuming at this, but at least they're not letting it show. i noticed that a UA polaris ad was the top result when i did a youtube search for "etihad". i wonder if the US3 will try to capitalize on this with directly related marketing.

rnav2dlrey wrote:

i wonder if the US3 will try to capitalize on this with directly related marketing.

Come on now. I know demonizing the US3 is now a trademark of this website, but really? Nobody in their right mind is going to run to their marketing department and say "hey lets capitalize on this security threat"

bennett123 wrote:

As I understand it, the guy in London was born in Kent.

He had a criminal record, but the last offence was in 2003.

His main weapon was a hire car.

+1.
This really shows how ill specified security issues seem to be nowadays.

We are not going to ban hire cars, are we ? Giving up freedom is not an effective way to fight terrorism. Quite the opposite. I am not claiming it is obvious. Just that the news at the origin of this thread can only be a ridiculous dead-end.

B737900ER wrote:

rnav2dlrey wrote:

i wonder if the US3 will try to capitalize on this with directly related marketing.

Come on now. I know demonizing the US3 is now a trademark of this website, but really? Nobody in their right mind is going to run to their marketing department and say "hey lets capitalize on this security threat"

as i stated, i did a youtube search for "etihad", and an ad by UA for polaris was the first result. it doesn't mean the US3 will run an all-out ad blitz demonizing the ME3 and stoking fear. all i mean is that they can fine tune their ads so that people searching for US-india flights, for example, will get a UA ad emphasizing non-stop service to BOM/DEL from EWR. the laptop ban doesn't have to be mentioned, but potentially disloyal ME3 flyers can be targeted.

Loading large numbers of Notebooks into the belly hold is not conform wih the DG rules. Even when each notebpook is separately packed. Travelling without a Notebook is not an Option eitheras many technicians, Service and repair staff etc cannot work without their tools

MoonC wrote:

Or an Arab/Turk airline doing ME - Europe !
So far, only the U.K. decided to follow suite with the ban.

And the UK has a significantly different and shorter list of countries.

Switzerland and Germany were not convinced. Neither were the Dutch or Italians. France is analysing the situation.
You would think that everyone would jump on board if there was anything concrete.

So far there's been a lot of attention given to the US regarding Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Qatar as high risk and the UK disagreeing.
There's also Morocco as a point of disagreement. Of course what the UK and the rest of the EU know quite well is that Morocco is literally in sight of Spain. It is also in sight of Gibraltar. Very large numbers of Moroccans are in Spain at any one time (with proper immigration clearance) as agricultural workers. They travel back and forth seasonally or to visit their families, by ferry. There's also a huge trade in fresh fruit and vegetables into Europe from Morocco itself, by ferry and by cargo plane.

So getting a bomb, or bomb makers, into Spain and then the rest of Europe including the UK, from Morocco is not in any way dependant on how effective airport security is at Casablanca.

Firstly the incident yesterday will have nothing to do with the new security rules that is in place. Anybody can use a car and knife to cause untold damage and the attacker yesterday most likely took his cue from Nice and Berlin and replicated it. Building a device with parts from different devices that you need to assemble to set it off will take the cooperation of others on your flight as you will need many laptops to complete the task.

I have this nagging idea that while there is a security threat and chatter from terrorist organizations will have bringing a airliner down as a big objective (London has been under high alert for an attack for a while now so they were expecting and still are expecting attacks), this is being used against the ME4 for the benefit of the US3 and their partners. That is what happens when you have liars ("more people at my inauguration", "Obama tapp me") in charge, you don't believe anything they say.

TK came up with some solutions;
On a statement today, TK says if US/UK bound pax want to keep their electronics they can do so all the way to the boarding gate. There, TK personnel will collect electronics before boarding, give pax claim tickets, take them down to the belly ( just like gate-checking) and distribute all electronics at arrival at a predetermined place. I imagine near the baggage claim belt.
Another piece of news I did not catch before; for UK flights there are no restrictions on cameras. Pax can keep them on board.
I am sure this will be all confusing to pax. Probably most of them will come unprepared. As of now no insurance company in Turkey has a specific extra insurance you can purchase for your checked electronics luggage and TK does not cover these expensive items in the hold.
Let's see how this will play out in the US/UK airports, if actually there will be an increase in stolen/damaged bags?

rnav2dlrey wrote:

as i stated, i did a youtube search for "etihad", and an ad by UA for polaris was the first result. it doesn't mean the US3 will run an all-out ad blitz demonizing the ME3 and stoking fear. all i mean is that they can fine tune their ads so that people searching for US-india flights, for example, will get a UA ad emphasizing non-stop service to BOM/DEL from EWR. the laptop ban doesn't have to be mentioned, but potentially disloyal ME3 flyers can be targeted.

May be algorithm is not working properly, you should get Arab singles ad.

Joke aside, as I said multiple times up-thread, none of the legacies are equipped to recapture the market Only a handful offer F on TATL. They labeled India as low-yield destination and completely dropped out. They cannot order new planes and deploy overnight, even if they have equipment, unions will never agree to start new ULH, LH and MH routes quickly.

Do you know for how many years Lufthansa has been mulling a low cost long haul to India, FOUR freaking years still cannot reactivate scrapped A343s and reconfigure cabin because union won't accept. Every six month show a power point with different name, one time it is called Jump next day ...

AI has just 5 more WBs on order 4x788 and one net B77W. Do you know what is the total strength of AI's WB cabin crew. 1500 for 40 planes. Compare that 20,000 for 240 planes at EK. AI need 500 more WB CC right now.

LH has 6 A346 alone on storage in Spain and Arizona. They just signed a MoU with the Cockpit Union. If this is a Long term story they can hire young FOs who have been in the waiting line. Even better, they can ask and get higher fares as well

mi5flyer wrote:

[quote=

His son already has criticized the mayor or London over today. I would certainly hate to think he wants to see something tragic happen just so he can say "I told you so" and blame it on the media.

You failed to mention that he criticized the Mayor of London for basically saying that terrorism is just one reality of living in a big city. A pretty stupid statement really - worthy of rebuff IMHO. I don't care what city one lives in, terror should never be thought of as commonplace.[/quote]

And you failed to mention that the Donald, Jr. took that from a headline in an article from September 2016, but the *body* of the article said clearly that London must be prepared and vigilant. He said this after the bombing in New York in September. If there was ever a time when 'out of context' was actually true, it is this.

From the article...

"The Mayor of London revealed he had a “sleepless night” after the recent bombing in New York, and said major cities around the world “have got to be prepared for these sorts of things” to happen when people least expect them.

“That means being vigilant, having a police force that is in touch with communities, it means the security services being ready, but it also means exchanging ideas and best practice”, Mr Khan told the Evening Standard shortly before a meeting with New York mayor Bill de Blasio."

Link to full article.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sadiq-khan-london-mayor-terrorism-attacks-part-and-parcel-major-cities-new-york-bombing-a7322846.html

But back to the actual aviation issue at hand, as mentioned by many upthread, this will creep worldwide, after all, if bad actor can do it from Kuwait, why can't bad actor, radicalized and a local to Britain, France, German, or the US, just do it on a flight from those countries? If the issue is the Lithium Ion batteries, as part of making the improvised bomb, then perhaps taking the batteries out, storing them in a secured place in the cabin, but you get to keep the laptop itself, albeit not usable, with you?

From TK website:

"Information Regarding the On-board Use of Electronic Devices on our U.S. and U.K. bound flights:
Turkish Airlines introduces its new offerings to make their U.S. and U.K. bound passengers’ journeys more comfortable during the implementation process of the electronics ban that declared by the concerned authorities.
-Our passengers will continue to use the on board internet with their mobile phones.
-Laptops, tablets and other electronic devices may be used until the boarding gate where they will be handed over.
-Our transfer passengers will have to deliver their respective devices at the boarding gate on their arrival in Istanbul.
-If passenger prefers not to place his/her electronical devices to the checked baggage during the check-in, according to the amendments, these devices will be handed over to be tagged at the boarding gate for a safe and secure transportation, and will be handed back to the passengers upon arrival at the destination. At this destination there will be Turkish Airlines’ authorized staff who will collect the luggages that contain electronic devices. These staff will take them all to the designated place in baggage reclaim area, and all devices will be delivered to owners by these staff by matching the given luggage tags with the record list they have.

Why do we do that?
As per the directive issued by the relevant authorities in their respective countries, which will be effective as from 25th of March 2017, passengers of U.S. and U.K. bound flights from/through Istanbul Ataturk Airport are not permitted to carry electronic devices, with the exception of medical devices, larger than a cell phone or smart phone on board.
All laptops, tablets, cameras*, e-readers and gaming devices must be placed in checked-in baggage at the start of any U.S.-bound or U.K.-bound journey. Turkish Airlines offers a special service from Istanbul Atatürk Airport that gives its passengers a safe and secure method of carrying their electronics in a special area in the cargo hold of the aircraft.
Transit passengers may hand over their electronic devices at the boarding gate.
The ban does not affect flights leaving from the U.S. or U.K. for Turkey and beyond.
* Bringing aboard cameras is not restricted for U.K. bound flights.

Dear Passengers,
​As being the Europe’s Best Airline for the last six years;
Our award-winning catering,
In-flight Wi-Fi availability,
Nearly 400 movies, Universal My Music Planet offerings of 1500 music albums with over 20,000 tracks,
Over 750 TV series, documentaries, short programs, live TV and sports broadcasting,
are sure to make your flight experience enjoyable."

I've heard they will put the electronics in foam supported special items cases. Not sure what it is, but I hope it is some kind of a "Pelican" brand hard case. I wonder what percentage of pax will pack their electronics in their suitcase, and what percentage will take it all the way to the gate. I have a feeling TK might end up with at least 50% pax opting for the gate check. That means 150-200 pieces of electronic devices they have to collect, gate check and deliver at destination. This will be time consuming and with extra cost. Turkish FA should think about raising the e-visa fees for US/UK citizens to recoup some of the cost.

PanHAM wrote:

LH has 6 A346 alone on storage in Spain and Arizona. They just signed a MoU with the Cockpit Union. If this is a Long term story they can hire young FOs who have been in the waiting line. Even better, they can ask and get higher fares as well

Should be simple, correct. Lets wait and see how many more years before first flight is announced by Lufthansa.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Joke aside, as I said multiple times up-thread, none of the legacies are equipped to recapture the market Only a handful offer F on TATL. They labeled India as low-yield destination and completely dropped out. They cannot order new planes and deploy overnight, even if they have equipment, unions will never agree to start new ULH, LH and MH routes quickly.

Do you know for how many years Lufthansa has been mulling a low cost long haul to India, FOUR freaking years still cannot reactivate scrapped A343s and reconfigure cabin because union won't accept. Every six month show a power point with different name, one time it is called Jump next day ...

AI has just 5 more WBs on order 4x788 and one net B77W. Do you know what is the total strength of AI's WB cabin crew. 1500 for 40 planes. Compare that 20,000 for 240 planes at EK. AI need 500 more WB CC right now.

UA will have polaris-equipped 77W flying EWR-BOM/DEL shortly (i'd say Q2/Q3).... as long as zodiac can keep delivering the seats.

Hey idk if anyone has thought about this... but those 5th freedom flights via Milan and Athens just got a whole lot more interesting. I could definitely see biz travellers who are accustomed to EK opting to fly through.

rnav2dlrey wrote:

UA will have polaris-equipped 77W flying EWR-BOM/DEL shortly (i'd say Q2/Q3).... as long as zodiac can keep delivering the seats.

May be good for DEL, but BOM-EWR still could be an issue for B77W because of constant restrictions of various kind.

I think DL could act swiftly and ask 9W to connect secondary Indian cities to AMS,CDG and LHR, giving one stop to US.

dtw2hyd wrote:

rnav2dlrey wrote:

as i stated, i did a youtube search for "etihad", and an ad by UA for polaris was the first result. it doesn't mean the US3 will run an all-out ad blitz demonizing the ME3 and stoking fear. all i mean is that they can fine tune their ads so that people searching for US-india flights, for example, will get a UA ad emphasizing non-stop service to BOM/DEL from EWR. the laptop ban doesn't have to be mentioned, but potentially disloyal ME3 flyers can be targeted.

May be algorithm is not working properly, you should get Arab singles ad.

Joke aside, as I said multiple times up-thread, none of the legacies are equipped to recapture the market Only a handful offer F on TATL. They labeled India as low-yield destination and completely dropped out. They cannot order new planes and deploy overnight, even if they have equipment, unions will never agree to start new ULH, LH and MH routes quickly.

Do you know for how many years Lufthansa has been mulling a low cost long haul to India, FOUR freaking years still cannot reactivate scrapped A343s and reconfigure cabin because union won't accept. Every six month show a power point with different name, one time it is called Jump next day ...

AI has just 5 more WBs on order 4x788 and one net B77W. Do you know what is the total strength of AI's WB cabin crew. 1500 for 40 planes. Compare that 20,000 for 240 planes at EK. AI need 500 more WB CC right now.

So I think you are missing the big picture. No alliance has walked away from India. OneWorld has BA (as well as Qatar who's main use for OW was India), Star has LH plus all the other ones that serve India and Sky has AF with DL aligning with 9W. India isn't really low yield per se, its just very competitive. The ME3, LH and BA all fly premium hevey planes to BOM, DEL and many times BLR. As VFR goes Indian Americans are one of the wealthiest ethnic groups, many of whom are top tier elites. Plus India peak is TATL low season (winter), so flights to India from the US can also help fill planes. The ME3 have used various methods to basically always have just enough excess capacity to not allow others to prospers (other than a very few). The laptop ban will absolutely affect premium pax as well as professional Y pax (and these are the ones who pay the extra and are not bottom feeders). These are the pax that give you the profit as they can always fill the back with cheap seats. Lets see what US3 do. Remember they dont need excess capacity (although they have it, you would just move a plane from a marginal route) as a partners can also add flights. So even if UA doesn't start SFO-DEL/BOM/BLR, LH could add India flights (btw the A350 will fly to both BOM and DEL - putting best product usual means not low yield). DL is the interesting one in my mind. They have a strong premium partner in India (9w). Either 9W or DL should start JFK-BOM and 9W should add CDG or AMS to BLR, HYD, MAA. If banning laptops would affect any group I would say Indians traveling to and from the US are probably a group on the high end of being irritated (relative to other groups). After all many are tech people and Indians have a huge fear of theft from checked baggage (much higher than your average american). Finally, the ME3 model is driven by India. If they lose pax to and from India their huge networks cannot survive. So the US3 should be all over this.

CaliguyNYC wrote:

So I think you are missing the big picture. No alliance has walked away from India. OneWorld has BA (as well as Qatar who's main use for OW was India), Star has LH plus all the other ones that serve India and Sky has AF with DL aligning with 9W. India isn't really low yield per se, its just very competitive. The ME3, LH and BA all fly premium hevey planes to BOM, DEL and many times BLR. As VFR goes Indian Americans are one of the wealthiest ethnic groups, many of whom are top tier elites. Plus India peak is TATL low season (winter), so flights to India from the US can also help fill planes. The ME3 have used various methods to basically always have just enough excess capacity to not allow others to prospers (other than a very few). The laptop ban will absolutely affect premium pax as well as professional Y pax (and these are the ones who pay the extra and are not bottom feeders). These are the pax that give you the profit as they can always fill the back with cheap seats. Lets see what US3 do. Remember they dont need excess capacity (although they have it, you would just move a plane from a marginal route) as a partners can also add flights. So even if UA doesn't start SFO-DEL/BOM/BLR, LH could add India flights (btw the A350 will fly to both BOM and DEL - putting best product usual means not low yield). DL is the interesting one in my mind. They have a strong premium partner in India (9w). Either 9W or DL should start JFK-BOM and 9W should add CDG or AMS to BLR, HYD, MAA. If banning laptops would affect any group I would say Indians traveling to and from the US are probably a group on the high end of being irritated (relative to other groups). After all many are tech people and Indians have a huge fear of theft from checked baggage (much higher than your average american). Finally, the ME3 model is driven by India. If they lose pax to and from India their huge networks cannot survive. So the US3 should be all over this.

this is spot on.

you mentioned it briefly, and this is unrelated to the topic of this thread - but UA must start SFO-BLR with the 789, if it's technically possible. even if they had to block some Y seats in the winter, i think it'd be well worth it. i've been saying this for a couple of years now, well before the laptop ban.

Don't know if this has been posted, the thread is long, and I'm tired from a red eye to look through the thing. Posted today on ARS. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/electronics-ban-on-some-flights-reportedly-stems-from-ipad-as-a-bomb-plot/. Likely old news, but just another source.

IATA are not impressed by this ban and I cannot say I blame them. Looks like they can see straight through it;

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-39425532

So let's look at a little history of terrorism in the US.

9/11: mostly Saudi nationals who entered the country legally, used locally acquired weapons and Saudi nationals aren't subject to any travel restrictions. Makes sense to me.

Oklahoma City; A couple of nice, pale skinned, Christian All American lads, filled a rental truck full of locally acquired fertilizer and diesel fuel and killed a bunch of people.

So far, the terrorism happening in the US is either home grown of from 'friendly' countries. Gee....it's almost as if these new regs have nothing to do with history, facts or reality, and are simply pandering to right wing nut jobs.

Smart phone, (not banned), have as much computing power as many laptops...and there's probably a much better chance of an iphone or galaxy phone spontaneously combusting, than purposefully being used as a weapon. What's preventing would be terrorists from travelling via friendly countries, maybe even using false id, thus avoiding the nasty ban? Or...since millions of people sneak across the seemingly extremely porous borders ever day, why not just fly to Mexico and stroll across?

....and....it seems to mostly effect routes flown by non US carriers. Cynics might suggest that something other than terrorism is behind this.

It's like the nonsense about refugees. Most refugees have spent months or years living in virtual hell, to make their way to the west. They also have to go through a number of official investigations by international police forces, before they are even allowed to be considered 'refugees'...and investigation is something I naively think that terrorists would rather avoid.

It would seem to me that any self respecting terror organization would be able to pass the hat around and maybe buy a bus ticket for their intrepid terror spreaders, instead of taking all of the time and effort to move your entire family across continents, only for the chance to be turned away at the last second.

Doesn't seem very efficient to me...especially for a bunch of terrorists who just happen to be smart enough to keep the strongest country on the planet cowering for decades.

So terror attacks by Americans or friends of Americans on American soil; 2. Attacks by Iranians, Iraqis, Afghanis or Yemenis, on American soil; zero. (Which, of course, doesn't keep the US from killing thousands of them on their home soil, ironically enough).

I can feel the IQ of the west dropping faster than a kardashian's undergarments.

Apparently, Etihad's solution is to offer all first and business pax flying to the US free wifi and airline-provided iPads from 2nd April. Smart.

TK news, yesterday:
"Hand in your tablets/laptops during boarding to USA and use our free inflight WIFI service starting on March 31st."
About ipads; why can't they use the same ipad screening service for the pax that they use to screen the "airline-provided ipads"? In terms of Turkey/TK to US/UK we are talking about 3000 or so pax a day, if that....

What a step forward for safety, when you double the number of devices with lithium ion power packs. If the idea is something like the Somalia A321 incident, where a bomb was hidden in a laptop, you can make sure to avoid this by demanding every passenger to start the machine and show it works in addition to checking it for explosives.
If you doubt that the security screening at the listed airports would not do this correctly, you have way bigger problems.

Well, if they want to avoid the Somali-type incident, then they have to take the risk that "laptop-bomb" will explode inside the terminal, rather than the in the air (inside the plane). You decide which kind of fatality is better/more favorable?

And such probability is valid for any passenger, for any destination, at any airport!...

The only fool-proof way is to place each and every pax inside a explosion-proof sealed chamber at the entrance of the departures hall for the first security screening, once more while passing to the airside, and for a third time at the gate!... And such a precaution is practically impossible!...

seahawk wrote:

What a step forward for safety, when you double the number of devices with lithium ion power packs. If the idea is something like the Somalia A321 incident, where a bomb was hidden in a laptop, you can make sure to avoid this by demanding every passenger to start the machine and show it works in addition to checking it for explosives.
If you doubt that the security screening at the listed airports would not do this correctly, you have way bigger problems.

I expect the terrorists could/have figure(d) out a way to make a bomb inside a working laptop battery if it came to that. Replace half the lithium-ion cells with explosive, add timer and detonation control to the battery electronics...

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

seahawk wrote:

What a step forward for safety, when you double the number of devices with lithium ion power packs. If the idea is something like the Somalia A321 incident, where a bomb was hidden in a laptop, you can make sure to avoid this by demanding every passenger to start the machine and show it works in addition to checking it for explosives.
If you doubt that the security screening at the listed airports would not do this correctly, you have way bigger problems.

I expect the terrorists could/have figure(d) out a way to make a bomb inside a working laptop battery if it came to that. Replace half the lithium-ion cells with explosive, add timer and detonation control to the battery electronics...

Terrorists that good, that they can replace part of an OEM battery and still have the devices work, without creating modifications obvious on the machines used to scan the hand luggage , while also leaving no trace of explosive that you could sweep from the device, surely can make the thing explode in the hold just as well.

seahawk wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

seahawk wrote:

What a step forward for safety, when you double the number of devices with lithium ion power packs. If the idea is something like the Somalia A321 incident, where a bomb was hidden in a laptop, you can make sure to avoid this by demanding every passenger to start the machine and show it works in addition to checking it for explosives.
If you doubt that the security screening at the listed airports would not do this correctly, you have way bigger problems.

I expect the terrorists could/have figure(d) out a way to make a bomb inside a working laptop battery if it came to that. Replace half the lithium-ion cells with explosive, add timer and detonation control to the battery electronics...

Terrorists that good, that they can replace part of an OEM battery and still have the devices work, without creating modifications obvious on the machines used to scan the hand luggage , while also leaving no trace of explosive that you could sweep from the device, surely can make the thing explode in the hold just as well.

That's my line of thinking...

Terrorists that good, that they can replace part of an OEM battery and still have the devices work, without creating modifications obvious on the machines used to scan the hand luggage , while also leaving no trace of explosive that you could sweep from the device, surely can make the thing explode in the hold just as well.

Those security geeks assume:
1) On those trans oceanic ER flights, the laptops etc. are first stuffed inside LDE containers before being placed in the luggage/cargo bay.
2) If such an explosion ever takes place inside some luggage, it may not penetrate into the aircrafts fuselage and cause adequate de-pressurising damage, most likely. A laptop-bomb in the cabin, esp. one that explodes in the vicinity of the window line will certainly cause a sizeable hole in the fuselage (as in the Mogadishu incident) and if the plane is at high altitude, it will be "gone with the wind"!...

And in the hold I put them into a suitcase, next to bottles filled with Vodka or other high percentage alcohol and have a nice cargo hold fire.

...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04 ... officials/

Britain’s airports and nuclear power stations have been told to tighten their defences against terrorist attacks in the face of increased threats to electronic security systems.

Security services have issued a series of alerts in the past 24 hours, warning that terrorists may have developed ways of bypassing safety checks.

Intelligence agencies believe that Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) and other terrorist groups have developed ways to plant explosives in laptops and mobile phones that can evade airport security screening methods.

It is this intelligence which is understood in the past fortnight to have led the US and Britain to ban travellers from a number of countries carrying laptops and large electronic devices on board.

Well that is definitely a piece of the puzzle solved. Still doesn't account for the fact that those same laptops would then be riding in the belly of the plane. Unless they don't think that they would be able to detonate it unless accessing it.

I'm starting to wonder if more than just concealing bombs within the laptops that they are more concerned with their ability to take control of the airplane in flight or cause complete disruption to the controls.

I'm sure more to come.

For the time being, the Trump bashers will have to find something else to hang their hats on for his supposed hatred of middle eastern countries.

piedmontf284000 wrote:

Well that is definitely a piece of the puzzle solved. Still doesn't account for the fact that those same laptops would then be riding in the belly of the plane. Unless they don't think that they would be able to detonate it unless accessing it.

I'm starting to wonder if more than just concealing bombs within the laptops that they are more concerned with their ability to take control of the airplane in flight or cause complete disruption to the controls.

I'm sure more to come.

For the time being, the Trump bashers will have to find something else to hang their hats on for his supposed hatred of middle eastern countries.

Nor does it account for the fact that these bad hombres could just make a quick connection with that same laptop in the cabin. I assume it's no better for the US if it's the DEL-SFO flight that's blown up or taken over electronically, compared to the DXB-SFO flight??

piedmontf284000 wrote:

Well that is definitely a piece of the puzzle solved. Still doesn't account for the fact that those same laptops would then be riding in the belly of the plane. Unless they don't think that they would be able to detonate it unless accessing it.

I'm starting to wonder if more than just concealing bombs within the laptops that they are more concerned with their ability to take control of the airplane in flight or cause complete disruption to the controls.

I'm sure more to come.

For the time being, the Trump bashers will have to find something else to hang their hats on for his supposed hatred of middle eastern countries.

Still doesn't explain why the UK thinks the UAE is fine for laptops on flights but the US bans laptops from airports from the UAE. In any case the article mentions that airport security equipment has been obtained by ISIL and they have been experimenting on ways to get explosives through using a laptop. Surely this will mean an all round ban for laptops on all flights wherever the origin if they have figured out a way to bypass security. Unless scanning machines work differently in the Middle East and Africa versus the US and Europe.

enzo011 wrote:

piedmontf284000 wrote:

Well that is definitely a piece of the puzzle solved. Still doesn't account for the fact that those same laptops would then be riding in the belly of the plane. Unless they don't think that they would be able to detonate it unless accessing it.

I'm starting to wonder if more than just concealing bombs within the laptops that they are more concerned with their ability to take control of the airplane in flight or cause complete disruption to the controls.

I'm sure more to come.

For the time being, the Trump bashers will have to find something else to hang their hats on for his supposed hatred of middle eastern countries.

Still doesn't explain why the UK thinks the UAE is fine for laptops on flights but the US bans laptops from airports from the UAE. In any case the article mentions that airport security equipment has been obtained by ISIL and they have been experimenting on ways to get explosives through using a laptop. Surely this will mean an all round ban for laptops on all flights wherever the origin if they have figured out a way to bypass security. Unless scanning machines work differently in the Middle East and Africa versus the US and Europe.

Before this ridiculous ban, the US gov deemed AUH good enough so that passengers arriving from there could connect to a US domestic flight without clearing security at all. Think about that for a minute. And then to suddenly decide that it warrants this ban.

The fact that the UK doesn't include AUH, DXB, or DOH in the ban, yet the US does is rather telling... there is most likely a threat, but piggybacking the ME3 hubs onto the list is just the icing on the cake for the US3 lobby groups.

MaksFly wrote:

...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04 ... officials/

Britain’s airports and nuclear power stations have been told to tighten their defences against terrorist attacks in the face of increased threats to electronic security systems.

Security services have issued a series of alerts in the past 24 hours, warning that terrorists may have developed ways of bypassing safety checks.

Intelligence agencies believe that Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) and other terrorist groups have developed ways to plant explosives in laptops and mobile phones that can evade airport security screening methods.

It is this intelligence which is understood in the past fortnight to have led the US and Britain to ban travellers from a number of countries carrying laptops and large electronic devices on board.

Bearing mind that the tabloid press is inclined to put the most sensational spin on news stories, the quoted article does nothing to address the question, especially pertinent in light of the fact that ISIS / DAESH inspired terrorists have actually carried out most of their attacks against western society on the European mainland, of late, why the ban doesn't extend to all flights.

Surely, if these terrorists have found ways to bypass, not defeat, airport security; nuclear installations are a whole different kettle of fish, they'll be able to do so anywhere? this sort of counts against the claims that the named airports and airlines are at more susceptible to their security arrangements being bypassed than any other airport?

Thinking about it, the fact that UK airports are reported to have been told to tighten their security would seem to indicate that it is believed that these terrorists have developed the ability to bypass the security measures at UK airports as well. Therefore, following the logic of the existing restrictions, the ban on in-cabin electronic items should be extended to all flights leaving the UK; perhaps someone should have a word with the US DOT & have direct flights from the UK, on BA, Virgin and the UK based holiday charter airlines added to the list?

GlenP wrote:

Therefore, following the logic of the existing restrictions, the ban on in-cabin electronic items should be extended to all flights leaving the UK; perhaps someone should have a word with the US DOT & have direct flights from the UK, on BA, Virgin and the UK based holiday charter airlines added to the list?

If so, why omit American Airlines, Delta, and United, whose passengers go through the same security when leaving the UK? And then there's Norwegian...

i dont get it
Laptops pass to secutiry checks NO?
what can i do with it ? i would not check in my laptop

for me this is a complete stupid ban(and shows how little self opinion got the UK)

spacecookie wrote:

i dont get it
Laptops pass to secutiry checks NO?
what can i do with it ? i would not check in my laptop

I believe Qatar airways and Emirates have put in place a system where travellers can use their electronics until boarding, and then give it to the airline who will keep it in a 'safe place' and give it back to you at the end of the flight 'making sure nothing happens to it'. Also, Qatar and other airlines are offering laptops owned by the airlines for business class travellers who need it.

I love how laptops are powered by lithium ion batteries which are volatile, and you have hundreds of them in a cargo hold that doesn't have systems to deal with lithium ion battery fires. That is a much bigger threat than a bomb in a laptop-for all the hassle, most laptop batteries are easily accessible: what is the problem with taking batches of laptops to the side, and taking out a few screws, looking at the battery, and putting it back on? Any electric screwdriver could do this in 10 seconds per laptop, while the passenger goes through the metal detectors.

Whalejet wrote:

I love how laptops are powered by lithium ion batteries which are volatile, and you have hundreds of them in a cargo hold that doesn't have systems to deal with lithium ion battery fires. That is a much bigger threat than a bomb in a laptop-for all the hassle, most laptop batteries are easily accessible: what is the problem with taking batches of laptops to the side, and taking out a few screws, looking at the battery, and putting it back on? Any electric screwdriver could do this in 10 seconds per laptop, while the passenger goes through the metal detectors.

Firetrace is happy with the ban. Their business is doing well....

Whalejet wrote:

I love how laptops are powered by lithium ion batteries which are volatile, and you have hundreds of them in a cargo hold that doesn't have systems to deal with lithium ion battery fires. That is a much bigger threat than a bomb in a laptop-for all the hassle, most laptop batteries are easily accessible: what is the problem with taking batches of laptops to the side, and taking out a few screws, looking at the battery, and putting it back on? Any electric screwdriver could do this in 10 seconds per laptop, while the passenger goes through the metal detectors.

Apple would love to void a warranty if they found a tampered screw. Same case with newer ultrabooks which are not so easy to open and check.

If the device is put in the hold and is lost or damaged, would the airline compensate.

The news, if anybody cars to hear it, is that intelligence believes terrorists have acquired an airport bomb screener and are believed to be using it to perfect undetectable bombs. They already know how to make laptop bombs that will boot up, the Somali attack used the DVD drive space. The list of restricted airports has to do with their *general* ability to ensure safety.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/31/politics/ ... -security/

Gaspard wrote:

spacecookie wrote:

i dont get it
Laptops pass to secutiry checks NO?
what can i do with it ? i would not check in my laptop

I believe Qatar airways and Emirates have put in place a system where travellers can use their electronics until boarding, and then give it to the airline who will keep it in a 'safe place' and give it back to you at the end of the flight 'making sure nothing happens to it'. Also, Qatar and other airlines are offering laptops owned by the airlines for business class travellers who need it.

It's not the same using your device than otter devices, I would also not give away my device with a smile if its privat it's yours and if it's company, Maybee important information are on it....

I am not from this country's, but it would pi.. me off a lot.

Gaspard wrote:

spacecookie wrote:

i dont get it
Laptops pass to secutiry checks NO?
what can i do with it ? i would not check in my laptop

I believe Qatar airways and Emirates have put in place a system where travellers can use their electronics until boarding, and then give it to the airline who will keep it in a 'safe place' and give it back to you at the end of the flight 'making sure nothing happens to it'. Also, Qatar and other airlines are offering laptops owned by the airlines for business class travellers who need it.

Add Turkish Airlines to the list. As of now, you may take your laptop all the way to the US/UK bound flight's gate. Just before boarding you hand over your electronics to a TK employee, where they are put inside bubblewrap envelopes and then inside big suitcases marked "TK Electronics" and they are handed back to you at destinations. It is just like gate checking here in the US.
Also, TK is offering free internet now on board to Y pax, plus about to roll out EXphone product in MAY where you can use your own cell phone provider to connect/email with your cell phone on board.
Plus, TK might join the crowd in terms of handing out laptops to J pax.
Last, they are upgrading the headphones in Y with their pretty nice on board content; 700+ movies, music, games, books, poetry.... such.

spacecookie wrote:

It's not the same using your device than otter devices, I would also not give away my device with a smile if its privat it's yours and if it's company, Maybee important information are on it....

I am not from this country's, but it would pi.. me off a lot.

I'm with you on that one. But I think that at least the airlines are making an effort, and I think that there's not much more they can do.

mafaky wrote:

Terrorists that good, that they can replace part of an OEM battery and still have the devices work, without creating modifications obvious on the machines used to scan the hand luggage , while also leaving no trace of explosive that you could sweep from the device, surely can make the thing explode in the hold just as well.

Those security geeks assume:
1) On those trans oceanic ER flights, the laptops etc. are first stuffed inside LDE containers before being placed in the luggage/cargo bay.
2) If such an explosion ever takes place inside some luggage, it may not penetrate into the aircrafts fuselage and cause adequate de-pressurising damage, most likely. A laptop-bomb in the cabin, esp. one that explodes in the vicinity of the window line will certainly cause a sizeable hole in the fuselage (as in the Mogadishu incident) and if the plane is at high altitude, it will be "gone with the wind"!...

you should read the Story about PA103. That Bomb was flown in the bellly of the Feeder B722 from FRA to LHR where it was loaded into an LD3 which was then loaded in the bellly of a 747.
Notebooks do not belong in the cargo holds, regardless. Certainly not put into luggage by People who have no professional knowledge about DG handling

As many know Australia has increased security on flights from the ME3 and I think this quote is important

Taking place at the boarding gate – rather than the main airport security checkpoints – passengers will be randomly selected for the additional checks as they prepare to board with targeted screening of electronic devices

I believe there has been intel received about potential insiders at Middle Eastern Airports with laptop bombs being handed over after security checks, thus the complete onboard ban.

If you have insiders handing over explosives after passing security, you are screwed anyway.

It means the employee screening is not secure. It means the employees are terrorist supporters and in the end it means the whole security system is compromised. This opens the door for much bigger devices than laptop bombs.