rukundo wrote:

And terrorists would never come to the idea, that they could simply use a connecting flight?

Depending some airports, hold bags are screened during the connecting. At Paris we have various TBM (Tri Bagage), you can read this on their website:

"Connected to the baggage sorting system at Terminal 2C is the TBM-TBS, equipped especially with seven PEDS machines and two tomographs (including one CTX 9000DSi), with the capacity to process 2,500 bags per hour. The baggage inspected is primarily bags on long layovers, stored before their onward flight. "

http://www.parisaeroport.fr/en/professi ... e-handling

But the issue is not that. This ban is a ban on carry-on electronics from 10 airports to the US. But you can still fly with a carry-on device to these airports to any other airport in Europe or Asia and fly from these to the US, never checking in your electronic device.

[quote="rukundo"]Depending some airports, hold bags are screened during the connecting. At Paris we have various TBM (Tri Bagage), you can read this on their website:/quote]

All checked bags are screened at MAN, for instance, and both connecting PAX and those who's flight simply makes a stop to take on fuel and additional passengers, are subject to screening.

However, the hold luggage doesn't get taken off the aircraft and screened.

But the issue is not that. This ban is a ban on carry-on electronics from 10 airports to the US. But you can still fly with a carry-on electronics to these airports to any other airport in Europe or Asia and fly from these to the US, never checking in your electronic device.

In deed, that's why i added at the end of my comment " rule must be very clear". If we have one pax flying from Paris to Istanbul then New York, flying with Turkish Airlines, what security agent at Paris have to do ?

Probably att the check in, when the customer agent will see the final destination of the pax, he or she will ask her or him to check its computer, in the aircraft hold.

Before the secuirty check, we scan tickets, so we can also know what is the final of destination of the passenger. If the pax has a computer in its cabin bag, we will asky him or her to put it in the aircraft hold

But that is impossible. The passenger may not even be traveling on a single PNR. How will one even know he is originating from these airports?

Which assumes the terrorist is too lazy to check-in again at the connecting airport and has booked his final trip on one ticket.

Can Emirates change all their US flights to depart from Sharjah? Since this airport it's not on the list and it's close to DXB the ban will not affect the flights. Can TK flights operate to the US from another airport in Turkey? The same as for Saudi Airlines and for RAM?

The statement from Homeland Security:

"These enhancements apply to 10 specific airports. The affected overseas airports are: Queen Alia International Airport (AMM), Cairo International Airport (CAI), Ataturk International Airport (IST), King Abdul-Aziz International Airport (JED), King Khalid International Airport (RUH), Kuwait International Airport (KWI), Mohammed V Airport (CMN), Hamad International Airport (DOH), Dubai International Airport (DXB), and Abu Dhabi International Airport (AUH)."

"These enhanced security measures will only affect flights from 10 of the more than 250 airports that serve as last points of departure to the United States. A small percentage of flights to the United States will be affected, and the exact number of flights will vary on a day to day basis. Airlines will know in advance which flights are affected by these measures"

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/21/fac ... e-airports

Maybe all these airlines can add a EU stop on the way till then, not a fan of long hail nonstops personally anyways.

So the ban is for select flights only?

CanadaFair wrote:

Maybe all these airlines can add a EU stop on the way till then, not a fan of long hail nonstops personally anyways.

In fact, flying from alternate airports might make more sense - Sharjah for EK or Ankara for TK.

The more I think, the more ridiculous this gets. And the press release states "innovative ways by terrorists". Are these terrorists incapable of first flying to the US, then devising their plans on an outbound or domestic flight? And if the issue is explosives, what happened to the use of explosive detection devices in place at most airports? Why ban rather than take precaution? All this hurts is business. Not the bad guys.

Ban is for selected flights only and will vary daily basis.

leftyboarder wrote:

CanadaFair wrote:

Maybe all these airlines can add a EU stop on the way till then, not a fan of long hail nonstops personally anyways.

In fact, flying from alternate airports might make more sense - Sharjah for EK or Ankara for TK.

Yes because Kuwaits Shannon stopover on some flights is not exempting them from the ban, or maybe those will be exmpted as the link above says its on select flights.

B737900ER wrote:

bgm wrote:

How does placing these devices in the hold increase safety? It does exactly the opposite. Battery fires are easier to contain in the cabin than in the cargo hold.

Why only certain airports? A terrorist can then just book a connecting flight via Europe and bypass this restriction.

And you wonder why there's suspicion of politics at play? if there was a genuine security risk, ALL flights to the US would have this restriction. It makes absolutely no sense.

1. You can already check your device batteries in luggage, and have been able to do so for years. So big non issue

2. If you read the NYT article is mentions security lapses at these airports. The TSA recently implemented new rules also to correct security lapses but very few here would argue that's politics.

And for your third point, once again, every security situation is different, and some airports have requirements that others don't. Put in its proper context it's not all that unusual

With all due respect, I call BS on that.

Is it a coincidence that all the countries affected are Muslim countries? No other parts of the world with direct flights to the US that are deemed substandard? I've connected in DXB/DOH/AUH and the security there is much better than in the US. On numerous occasions, I've gone through US security with large bottles of water and it was never picked up. In Doha, I had a small bottle of hand sanitizer that was picked up as it wasn't in the liquids bag and had to be re-screened. Also had to power on all my electronics, etc.

Curious if Etihad is affected by this, seeing that they have pre-clearance in AUH, and afterwards you go through TSA security before boarding. Is the TSA screening in AUH not deemed good enough?

angelopga wrote:

Can Emirates change all their US flights to depart from Sharjah? Since this airport it's not on the list and it's close to DXB the ban will not affect the flights. Can TK flights operate to the US from another airport in Turkey? The same as for Saudi Airlines and for RAM?

Answer is no. To operate a non-stop to US the airport has to certified by FAA and TSA. Both assess the security situation and TSA trains local security staff before first flight takes off. It is an expensive and time consuming process. There was a thread where FAA asked a foreign airport to install cameras at their mx facilities to monitor remotely.

This is just the US government trying to get all the content on laptops. Absolutely ridiculous.

angelopga wrote:

Can Emirates change all their US flights to depart from Sharjah? Since this airport it's not on the list and it's close to DXB the ban will not affect the flights. Can TK flights operate to the US from another airport in Turkey?

Bilaterals often mention airports.

Malayil wrote:

This is just the US government trying to get all the content on laptops. Absolutely ridiculous.

Yes I'm thinking the luggage of some targeted people will be visited for sure.

Aesma wrote:

Malayil wrote:

This is just the US government trying to get all the content on laptops. Absolutely ridiculous.

Yes I'm thinking the luggage of some targeted people will be visited for sure.

They can do that officially sitting in a comfy office chair with all the equipment at a US port while you are waiting.

The Telegraph is reporting that the UK is considering introducing similar restrictions as it too has seen the intelligence reports on the threat.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03 ... um=twitter

The only other explanation is that US might think that the security at these airports is either compromised or don't have means to do proper screening to identify the suspicious objects. If the terrorists go through, say Europe, it feels they will do a better job of stopping the terrorists.

Given available encryption and the cloud, any terrorist on an international flight (or any flight for that matter) will have all that sort of stuff off their traveling phones and other electronics. I assume this is mostly the case already.

blrsea wrote:

The only other explanation is that US might think that the security at these airports is either compromised or don't have means to do proper screening to identify the suspicious objects. If the terrorists go through, say Europe, it feels they will do a better job of stopping the terrorists.

If this were the case then the restrictions would apply to all flights, on any carrier, originating from these airports, or, due to codeshares, etc., any PAX originating at one of these airports and transiting at another airport, on route to the USA.

The fact that this is not the case would indicate that it isn't a general concern regarding security at these airports.

If the intelligence is credible, i'd expect more agencies in other countries to act (such as those in Europe for instance). Perhaps a few of these will announce similar measures very shortly.

With regards to the decision to target these 10 airlines rather than all airlines that operates flights 'Eastbound towards the US', I think all they are aiming to do is to try and minimise the stated security threat. There is no way to practically stamp out this sort of threats completely and they are just trying to lower it to a acceptable level. Obviously, I'd expect the authorities responsible for these 10 airports and airlines to reach out to the DHS very soon to work towards understanding the new order and removing themselves from the list hopefully very shortly.

As for the point about US3, I'd expect no overall benefit to them at all from this. Sure this will benefit their TATL business in a small way, but this will be negated by a decline in travel between ME-SA and the US. I also don't see the US administration giving favour to the US3 at the expense of Boeing, GE and other aeronautic suppliers, not to mention the overall US business sector. The money at stake tied to the latter groups is simply too great.

Adam Schiff, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee (so not someone likely to fall in line if this were something concocted by Trump for no reason) has also put out a statement in support of the ban. So take that for what it's worth.

https://twitter.com/jessicaschulb/statu ... 1240605697

Sorry, to disagree, but rather than minimising the stated security threat, they are actually making an implicit statement that flights on specific airlines, from specific airports are more prone to possible terrorist attacks.

In effect they are warning potential passengers off flying these routes and the airlines; it could be argued that they are reinforcing the stereotype of all Muslim majority countries being hotbeds of terrorism and their Governments and security services quite happy to overlook any threat posed by terrorist groups.

Emirates can work with Panasonic and Thales to port Open Office suite to ICE, have Bluetooth/USB keyboard/mouse. Business travelers can bring their work on USB drive, plug into ICE and start working. They may be even able to access cloud storage with free WiFi.

GlenP wrote:

In effect they are warning potential passengers off flying these routes and the airlines; it could be argued that they are reinforcing the stereotype of all Muslim majority countries being hotbeds of terrorism and their Governments and security services quite happy to overlook any threat posed by terrorist groups.

But if British authorities completely ban an Egyptian airport, it is balanced.

I think it was 2005 or 2006 that the U.K. banned almost all carry-ons for flights departing from any U.K. airport, and for all flights destined for a U.K. airport. British authorities were in the process of breaking up a terror plot that involved materials being combined in airplane cabins while aloft, IIRC.

My wife's employer had offices in London, Manchester, and Belfast. So, employees were encouraged to postpone travel until the U.K. relaxed travel rules.

For travel that had to be taken, employees traveling to Belfast booked for flights to Dublin, and then traveled by ground to Belfast. Employees going to London and Manchester were booked for Paris. Then, they took the Chunnel to London.

The company was very concerned about company laptops. Besides the possibility of damage or theft, the company had several competitors, mostly foreign, who had reputations for corporate espionage. Already, employees were prohibited from using company laptops in public areas (airplanes, airport gates, hotel lobbies, restaurants, commuter buses and trains, etc.). The idea that a laptop was going to be outside the employee's control for 8, 10, or 12 hours had corporate security on edge.

This ban on larger electronics will either force travelers to put off flying to the U.S. until rules are relaxed, or they will simply book travel with a connection in Europe or Canada.

GlenP wrote:

blrsea wrote:

The only other explanation is that US might think that the security at these airports is either compromised or don't have means to do proper screening to identify the suspicious objects. If the terrorists go through, say Europe, it feels they will do a better job of stopping the terrorists.

If this were the case then the restrictions would apply to all flights, on any carrier, originating from these airports, or, due to codeshares, etc., any PAX originating at one of these airports and transiting at another airport, on route to the USA.

The fact that this is not the case would indicate that it isn't a general concern regarding security at these airports.

The job of the US is to care about flights to the US, so they're not going to care about flights from Jordan to India or Turkey or wherever (not to say they don't care, but it's not their jurisdiction to enact policies regarding those flights). If someone was transiting from one of those airports via another airport that they did have confidence in (let's say AMM-AMS-JFK), their carry-on luggage would get screened at AMS and thus there would be no problem. So yes, one reason could be that the US does not have confidence in the security at those airports.

Whether or not there is reason for such lack of confidence is something we don't really know, though if other countries start implementing the ban as well then it would give support to the reasoning.

GlenP wrote:

blrsea wrote:

The only other explanation is that US might think that the security at these airports is either compromised or don't have means to do proper screening to identify the suspicious objects. If the terrorists go through, say Europe, it feels they will do a better job of stopping the terrorists.

If this were the case then the restrictions would apply to all flights, on any carrier, originating from these airports, or, due to codeshares, etc., any PAX originating at one of these airports and transiting at another airport, on route to the USA.

The fact that this is not the case would indicate that it isn't a general concern regarding security at these airports.

Not actually. If you are flying say DXB-FRA-JFK, then you will again have to go through security clearance again at FRA, you won't get a free pass because you already had screening in DXB. Hence my assumption.

dtw2hyd wrote:

But if British authorities completely ban an Egyptian airport, it is balanced.

Utterly irrelevant.

The ban on flights to an from SSH is in a response to a proven incident.

However, you are asking us to believe that security agencies are stating that they are aware of a specific threat that will be on a flight by one of 9 airlines, flying from one of 10 airports.

Not exactly indicative of high quality intelligence is it?

The ban will be on select flights varying daily, ridiculous.

bltsea, what he is saying is if the airports are unsafe to fly out of all airlines should have these restrictions no matter where they are flying to, however threat is US specific for now, doubt Royal Brunei needs this for it London and Brunei flights from Dubai.

blrsea wrote:

GlenP wrote:

blrsea wrote:

The only other explanation is that US might think that the security at these airports is either compromised or don't have means to do proper screening to identify the suspicious objects. If the terrorists go through, say Europe, it feels they will do a better job of stopping the terrorists.

If this were the case then the restrictions would apply to all flights, on any carrier, originating from these airports, or, due to codeshares, etc., any PAX originating at one of these airports and transiting at another airport, on route to the USA.

The fact that this is not the case would indicate that it isn't a general concern regarding security at these airports.

Not actually. If you are flying say DXB-FRA-JFK, then you will again have to go through security clearance again at FRA, you won't get a free pass because you already had screening in DXB. Hence my assumption.

But there is no ban on carrying such electronic devices DXB - FRA, and as none of the listed airlines operates direct flights from any European airport to the USA; with the exception of EK's 5th Freedom flights. Again, no flights originating at a European airport are subject to these restrictions, nor are flights on any European carrier.

Therefore, it is still the case that it is perfectly possible to bypass these restrictions, even when travelling on one of the listed airlines, simply by using indirect flight itineraries.

GlenP wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

But if British authorities completely ban an Egyptian airport, it is balanced.

Utterly irrelevant.

The ban on flights to an from SSH is in a response to a proven incident.

However, you are asking us to believe that security agencies are stating that they are aware of a specific threat that will be on a flight by one of 9 airlines, flying from one of 10 airports.

Not exactly indicative of high quality intelligence is it?

Most preventive actions come before an incident.

Hypothetical argument. If you hire staff from 140 countries and in the middle of bad neighborhood, you are more susceptible than a airport run by only citizen government employees.

Looks like the UK will join the ban, "but in a different way." What ever that means???

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39343971

Where is this coming from? I keep seeing Homeland Security but was this Trump? Its hard to believe that this was in the works for years... the timing is just too right.

readytotaxi wrote:

Looks like the UK will join the ban, "but in a different way." What ever that means???

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39343971

Oh, well this makes me feel better. If others are following suit of their own accord then there must be something real happening here.

GlenP wrote:

But there is no ban on carrying such electronic devices DXB - FRA, and as none of the listed airlines operates direct flights from any European airport to the USA; with the exception of EK's 5th Freedom flights. Again, no flights originating at a European airport are subject to these restrictions, nor are flights on any European carrier.

Therefore, it is still the case that it is perfectly possible to bypass these restrictions, even when travelling on one of the listed airlines, simply by using indirect flight itineraries.

Yes , but US appears to trust EU security screening more than the other 10 airports in the notification. It is assumed that if you use any of the non-notified airports, say in EU, then you will be caught if engage in any suspicious activity. Whether you are connecting in EU airports or boarding from there, you are always subjected to screening again before boarding flight.

Either way this thing could be in effect till fall and this will be deeply damaging for ME3. Like for serious

readytotaxi wrote:

Looks like the UK will join the ban, "but in a different way." What ever that means???

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39343971

UK can't get over being US' puppy dog.

The uk follows the US ban...

So far, just the headline.

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/new ... 41796.html

dtw2hyd wrote:

GlenP wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

But if British authorities completely ban an Egyptian airport, it is balanced.

Utterly irrelevant.

The ban on flights to an from SSH is in a response to a proven incident.

However, you are asking us to believe that security agencies are stating that they are aware of a specific threat that will be on a flight by one of 9 airlines, flying from one of 10 airports.

Not exactly indicative of high quality intelligence is it?

Most preventive actions come before an incident.

Hypothetical argument. If you hire staff from 140 countries and in the middle of bad neighborhood, you are more susceptible than a airport run by only citizen government employees.

If there were perceived to be failings in security or heightened risks then you would apply restrictions to all passengers originating at those airports; more generally you'd apply your restrictions to one airport or all airports within a specific country, you would not apply them only to passengers travelling on the flag carriers of those countries.

Your hypothetical argument is, quite frankly, ridiculous and appears to be little more than an attempt to disguise prejudice as rational argument.

You seem to be unaware that most airport staff, even within the USA, are not employed by the Government, nor do you appear to have the slightest inkling that security functions at the listed airports will be performed by Government employees and that the same Government employees will undertake security screening of all staff.

By writing off vast chunks of the world as a, "bad neighbourhood", you are implying that, simply based on geography, or ethnicity, those living in this region are more inclined to terrorist acts.

What about flights from US to those "banned" airports? Can laptops and tablets carried in cabin?

Uh oh, this will certainly hurt premium loads for those airlines! EK, QR. TK and EY will be the most affected by this.

angelopga wrote:

What about flights from US to those "banned" airports? Can laptops and tablets carried in cabin?

Only if you fly with an US carrier. Good luck

ExDubai wrote:

angelopga wrote:

What about flights from US to those "banned" airports? Can laptops and tablets carried in cabin?

Only if you fly with an US carrier. Good luck

Not so. Any flight to the affected airports from the US, even on the affected airlines, is not subject to the electronics ban.

Emirates has issued this following statement on their website:

Cabin luggage restrictions to the United States

"The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has issued a directive regarding electronic devices in cabin luggage on US routes from Dubai.

As per the directive, except for medical devices, electronic devices which are larger than a cell phone/smart phone cannot be carried in the cabin of the aircraft. This would be effective on 25 March 2017, and is valid until 14 October 2017. This is applicable to all US-bound passengers from Dubai International Airport, whether originating or transiting through. Emirates requests that all passengers travelling to the US pack all electronic devices larger than a smart phone in their checked-in baggage.

More details will be provided as they become available."

http://www.emirates.com/ca/english/abou ... tes.aspx#/#4086177

GlenP wrote:

If there were perceived to be failings in security or heightened risks then you would apply restrictions to all passengers originating at those airports; more generally you'd apply your restrictions to one airport or all airports within a specific country, you would not apply them only to passengers travelling on the flag carriers of those countries.

Again, it's not the US' place to put restrictions on flights that don't involve the US. And passengers originating at those airports but transiting through trusted airports will receive screening at those airports.

As far as airlines go, only the flag carriers of those countries fly to the US from those airports, so there's nothing really special there. If Delta was still flying to Dubai and still wasn't affected by the ban, then you'd have a point.

If they are genuinely worried about bombs disguised as laptops and camera... how is getting people to put them in hold baggage supposed to improve safety?

This makes no sense to me!

avherald has put up a notice that it's a disaster in making: http://avherald.com/h?article=4a67fce7&opt=0

MileHFL400 wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Some airline needs to take the USDOT to the IATA or ICAO arbitration panel, as they are being asked to violate regulations set forth by the IATA.

Since when does some BS international organization have authority over a sovereign nation. If a foreign carrier doesn't like it, they free to not come to the US and nobody will miss them here.

If thats not arrogant i dont know what is.

That's not arrogance - it's either childish ignorance from a juvenile, or else it's outstanding xenophobia from a total wanker, someone who is incapable of understanding how the entire world benefits from organisations like ICAO and IATA. Obviously ignorant of the fact that any US airline that did not comply with ICAO standards would have a hard time flying anywhere (maybe even domestically)! Enjoy your isolation from the rest of the world. Playing the Trump card!

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

If they are genuinely worried about bombs disguised as laptops and camera... how is getting people to put them in hold baggage supposed to improve safety?

This makes no sense to me!

I "think" they are trying to stop people taking various parts of a devise on board an aircraft, then putting all the parts together onboard the aircraft. Rather than looking for a bomb disguised as a single laptop etc.