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.

I think a possible terrorist attack Trump's in the situation. A reasonable conclusion or an obvious one to me the reason for them and putting them all them in the bags it so that they can check them and test them somehow without causing huge long lines and delays

bennett123 wrote:

Frankly I would be amazed if El Al are affected.

Yea I like there system of security.

bennett123 wrote:

Frankly I would be amazed if El Al are affected.

I don't think they will be. But it would be a perfect way to say "hey this isn't another muslim ban."

#1 This is no stupider than the water ban at checkpoints. Actually less stupid.
#2 Doing it for selected airlines smells of politics.

Confirmed: Saudia also has electronic ban.
https://twitter.com/Saudi_Airlines/stat ... 1795926016
Can anybody translate the image in their tweet?

aemoreira1981 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.

When you agree to join the organization, you agree to their rules. If Trump doesn't want to be bound by the rules, he can have the USA leave the IATA or ICAO and deal with the consequences and fallout.

Relax there it's the DOT with a 96 hour alert due to security concern. This does not appear to be a Trump issue rather a security issue and they seem to be deeming that it's safer to put them into the cargo hold where they can possibly be checked and looked at before they go into the hold who knows No Trump racism going on here.

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.

Since the sovereign county made a commitment to abide by and uphold the international law?

LAXintl wrote:

I dont know what alternate universe some of you live in, but checking personal electronic devices containing lithium type batteriesis widely allowed.

Things like cameras, tablets, phones, laptops, etc are carried every single day in checked luggage.

Additionally, in the US, other types of batteries - alkaline, carbon zinc, silver oxide and nickel metal hydride batteries are allowed in checked luggage as well.

Just check out contracts of carriage for airlines I found quickly.

Delta:
Lithium ion batteries installed in a personal electronic device can be transported as checked or carry on baggage.
http://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/ ... items.html

United:
Personal devices (except for e-cigarettes and personal vaporizers) installed with a lithium battery of less than 100 watt hours are permitted in carry-on and checked baggage.
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/conten ... erous.aspx

Even FAA has guidance
Lithium ion (rechargeable lithium, lithium polymer, LIPO) as used in small consumer electronics, such as cell phones, tablets, tools, cameras, PDAs, and laptops. Limited to 100 watt hours or less per battery are allowed in checked baggage.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/he ... teries.pdf

Also TSA has guidance of what is allowed
https://phmsa.dot.gov/safetravel/batteries


For reference of how much the 100 watt hour battery might be, of my two laptops one contains a 44Whr battery, other 31Whr. According to Apple and Ipad Air 2 has a 27Whr battery.

Thank you for the post. It was getting crazy here.

grbauc wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

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.

When you agree to join the organization, you agree to their rules. If Trump doesn't want to be bound by the rules, he can have the USA leave the IATA or ICAO and deal with the consequences and fallout.

Relax there it's the DOT with a 96 hour alert due to security concern. This does not appear to be a Trump issue rather a security issue and they seem to be deeming that it's safer to put them into the cargo hold where they can possibly be checked and looked at before they go into the hold who knows No Trump racism going on here.

That is nonsense. When one flies to the US from most countries, one has to go through additional screening at the gate anyway that is just as thorough as baggage screening. I flew ADD-DOH-LAX on QR a few weeks ago and had to go though ADD security, transit security at DOH, and a full additional screening at the the gate that included x-rays, metal detectors, pat-downs and turning on electronic devices for the security staff. Since the "Muslim" ban fizzled this is just another attempt to discourage travelers from majority- Islamic nations from traveling to the US....

Leslieville 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.

Since the sovereign county made a commitment to abide by and uphold the international law?

International law IATA?

You're all misunderstanding here. ICAO Dangerous Goods Regulation state that SPARE litium ion batteries are forbidden in hold while PED's cointaining lithium ion batteries actually can be transported in or as checked baggage.

Somehow, I didn't think that the United States had authority over what passengers carried on foreign flag carriers. They can request additional security on some of these airlines, but I seriously wonder about the rationale. And I don't automatically try and yell "Trump." But some of these carriers are generally considered pretty safe, i.e., at least SV, RJ, ET, EK, QR, and TK. Don't know about the others, but then I'm also not booked on any of them

The dumb part about all of this is, if there was a credible threat, wouldn't the "badguys" just switch airlines since the ban is public now?

I would be very interested to know the security risk they believe is present here. If they are still allowing mobiles in the cabin, then the communication with an external / other entity is still there. What is stopping an iPad or laptop protecting? It is not possible AFAIK to interfere with the aircraft systems through any wireless communications or hacking the IFE.

Wild speculation, but is this politically motivated, i.e 'putting American airlines first' by annoying passengers on carriers from the 'enemy world'.

Sandyb123

DDR wrote:

The dumb part about all of this is, if there was a credible threat, wouldn't the "badguys" just switch airlines since the ban is public now?

...or wait until after the 96-hour alert...

KFLLCFII wrote:

DDR wrote:

The dumb part about all of this is, if there was a credible threat, wouldn't the "badguys" just switch airlines since the ban is public now?

...or wait until after the 96-hour alert...

Very good point.

Update: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) seems to have acted on intelligence over a threat from AQAP (Al Qaeda in the Arabic Peninsula), which have the knowledge to build small explosive devices that can be hidden in laptops, etc.

From http://www.luchtzak.be/forums/viewtopic ... 91#p348691

OK so if i have understood correctly, this is not targeted directly to e.g Jordanian passengers but rather transit passengers that will use (e.g) RJ to transit in AMM to continue to the USA.
So my question is, since these 13 airlines ( i know only two have been confirmed so far) fly to some ( i'm guessing specific) points in Africa and the Middle East, why aren't European carriers advised to follow these steps? Some European airlines have an extensive African and Middle Eastern network too. Surely some fly to these points too and have transit passengers to the USA.

Interesting this is targeting airlines rather than departure cities/countries. I take it none of the airlines concerned fly the same route in competition with a US carrier who the rule wouldn't apply to.

bergkampsticket wrote:

Interesting this is targeting airlines rather than departure cities/countries. I take it none of the airlines concerned fly the same route in competition with a US carrier who the rule wouldn't apply to.

If the UAE is on the list, then EK on MXP-JFK will be a route shared with US carriers.

Y'all might want to wait with comments until it's official. Honestly this stuff is popping up on major news networks, no one references anything beyond a non-working link to the RJ tweet and an executive at Saudia, no one published a list of countries, nor an effective date, nor which U.S. government agency told Royal Jordanian.

Yet here we are, comments about the Trump administration's stupidity, comparisons on how inconsistent that would be with say US 3 or EU 3 policies, so much speculation ahead of any official news release. RJ managed to delete the tweet, better to go with facts than speculation. None of the US gov't officials have been named, DHS has said they'll comment once there's an official news release.

ua900 wrote:

Y'all might want to wait with comments until it's official. Honestly this stuff is popping up on major news networks, no one references anything beyond a non-working link to the RJ tweet and an executive at Saudia, no one published a list of countries, nor an effective date, nor which U.S. government agency told Royal Jordanian.

Yet here we are, comments about the Trump administration's stupidity, comparisons on how inconsistent that would be with say US 3 or EU 3 policies, so much speculation ahead of any official news release. RJ managed to delete the tweet, better to go with facts than speculation. None of the US gov't officials have been named, DHS has said they'll comment once there's an official news release.

CNN and other major news orgs are reporting on a significant aviation-related story. this is an avation-related message board.

we're going to speculate. we're going to comment. we don't have to wait for a press release to begin, nor should we.

just be thankful it's not the 1000th "will boeing bring back the 757?" thread.

Is it again some half-baked US "policies"?

I thought batteries are banned in checked luggage. And now they ban laptops in cabin? They do recognize that there is a battery in all the laptops, right?

DDR wrote:

The dumb part about all of this is, if there was a credible threat, wouldn't the "badguys" just switch airlines since the ban is public now?

Yep and I think that's why there upset with RJ for letting the cat out of the bag.

While I agree that this is an aviation related board and half the fun is reading the speculation on the reason for the ban, we honestly have no clue what the reason for this is. I would speculate that the security agencies have some very credible information. I would also think that this was not done in a vacuum. I believe that the countries involved where included in most of the information that is triggering this alert. In fact the ruling may be in concert with the other countries and Airlines. Lets see what we find out before we point fingers at individuals or agencies. My $2

According to AP:

"The U.S. government is temporarily barring passengers on certain flights originating in eight other countries from bringing laptops, iPads, cameras and most other electronics in carry-on luggage starting Tuesday....

"A U.S. official told The Associated Press the ban will apply to nonstop flights to the U.S. from 10 international airports serving the cities of Cairo in Egypt; Amman in Jordan; Kuwait City in Kuwait; Casablanca in Morocco; Doha in Qatar; Riyadh and Jeddah in Saudi Arabia; Istanbul in Turkey; and Abu Dhabi and Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. The ban was indefinite [my bold], said the official.

"A second U.S. official said the ban will affect nine airlines in total, and the Transportation Security Administration will inform the affected airlines at 3 a.m. Eastern time Tuesday."

Thus, although the government is "temporarily" barring electronics, the ban is "indefinite."

Also, "Another aviation-security expert, professor Jeffrey Price of Metropolitan State University of Denver, said there were disadvantages to having everyone put their electronics in checked baggage. Thefts from baggage would skyrocket, as when Britain tried a similar ban in 2006, he said, and some laptops have batteries that can catch fire — an event easier to detect in the cabin than in the cargo hold."

Source: http://www.apnews.com/8cd639cf27584645a ... nd-flights

https://www.apnews.com/8cd639cf27584645 ... P_Politics

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. government is temporarily barring passengers on certain flights originating in eight other countries from bringing laptops, iPads, cameras and most other electronics in carry-on luggage starting Tuesday.

The reason for the ban was not immediately clear. U.S. security officials would not comment. The ban was revealed Monday in statements from Royal Jordanian Airlines and the official news agency of Saudi Arabia.

A U.S. official told The Associated Press the ban will apply to nonstop flights to the U.S. from 10 international airports serving the cities of Cairo in Egypt; Amman in Jordan; Kuwait City in Kuwait; Casablanca in Morocco; Doha in Qatar; Riyadh and Jeddah in Saudi Arabia; Istanbul in Turkey; and Abu Dhabi and Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. The ban was indefinite, said the official.

Indefinite.

ME3 getting hit big time, wonder how long this will last.

StrandedAtMKG wrote:

Per Fox News's Jennifer Griffin, the ban only applies for the next 96 hours. They must have (what the administration views as) a credible threat of some kind.

https://twitter.com/JenGriffinFNC/statu ... 1926223874

No, apparently they have 96 hours to comply


and where are the moderators this evening ? Title of the thread should be changed. It is the US government that demands this, not RJ

grbauc wrote:

DDR wrote:

The dumb part about all of this is, if there was a credible threat, wouldn't the "badguys" just switch airlines since the ban is public now?

Yep and I think that's why there upset with RJ for letting the cat out of the bag.

RJ forced their hand on coming forward with it now, so the ban will probably be pointless as it is public, but even though RJ deleted the tweet, they have now replaced it with one stating that further details will be announced shortly. We may not have to wait too long to find out what 13 airlines or countries are affected. However, it is ludicrous to think that such an order would have any effect, because if indeed it is the airlines that are effected as a pose to points of origin, the bad guys will just use a different airline!

As a side note, I would be particularly surprised if either EK or QR (EY has preclearance) is on this list, because out of all the possible airlines, those two have a lot of weight to throw against such a restriction, and if this is a security concern, EK and QR have safety standards more stringent than those in the US. Both utilize a series of public and plainclothes measures, and already comply with US standards, and then some. If even airlines as tight as EK and QR are included in this measure, that raises some serious red flags about the severity of intel that was intercepted.

EDIT: Damn, they are on the list! If this is indefinite, I'm starting to think this was less about intel and more about paranoia.

richcandy wrote:

lesfalls wrote:

Why is this rule being implemented on their YUL flights?

Guess no flying RJ for me anytime soon .

Is the DTW and YUL service the same flight?

Yes, in winter only. Summertime they each get their dedicated non stops.

I can't help but think this is politically, rather than security, motivated. I can see my employer prohibiting travel on the effected flights as our laptops are restricted to carryon bags. I guess the US3 and their European partners are the winners here...

Given that 100% of cabin baggage is security screened and the same is not true of hold luggage, presumably its not a one only device that can still be detonated if in the hold - if so then the new measures are less safe? Ie it must require assembling in the cabin to be effective and hence putting it in the hold prevents it being assembled?

IADCA wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Putting delicate electronic equipment in the hold so the ramper can play rugby with it.

Considering the marks on my Samsonite the chance of my camera working again would be close to zero.

Not to mention putting dozens, if not more than a hundred, laptops with lithium ion batteries in the hold to create a fire hazard. This is really bizarre: on U.S.-flagged carriers, they specifically tell you to take laptops out of bags that are getting gate-checked because the LIBs aren't permitted in the hold. So now RJ is telling people that they MUST be in the hold. That's not good.

Not good at all. More airlines are providing fireproof boxes for burning lithium batteries in flight. But in the cargo hold . . ?

PBS News Hour citing Associated Press: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/ap- ... d-flights/

Maybe you have to put the laptop in the hold but take out the battery and keep it in your hand luggage. This would put me off flying to the US on one of these airlines - there's no way I'd feel comfortable checking in my laptop. I'd rather take the boat than do that.

Well...that's one way of trying to give the US3 a leg up on the ME3

Why does everything have to be political? As avgeeks, we all know that countries are sensitive to threats against aircraft, especially after the events of 9/11. We were caught with our backside showing. Get off the politics, or take it to the non-av board. Now that rant is over, here is my contribution to the actual thread:

The regulatory authority of a country has the authority to say and require anything it wants of any and all aircraft (private and commercial) that it deems necessary. YES, the ICAO standards (read: NOT LAW) state that SPARE lithium batteries are not permissible in checked baggage. However, the ICAO also says that LiOn batteries that are INSTALLED are permissible. I dont know anyone who would check a laptop and uninstall their battery. The primary safety concern with LiOn batteries is that when that are UNINSTALLED there can be arcs between the contacts that create heat and/or fire and are thus not permissible. Overall, LiOn batteries are safe for air travel.

As an additional side note, having worked below (and above) the wing for a US flagged legacy, I can say that the standards of baggage examination differs whether it is carry-on or hold. The hold luggage is processed differently. In the grand scheme of things, it seems to me that carryon luggage screening would be insufficient to detect the (specific) threat, but that checked baggage screening would be sufficient to detect the threat. (in this particular incident)

A lot of companies are utilizing the cloud more and more. This should negate the effect of needing "your" laptop.

On the non-av side, I have not done my research yet to see if this should also implicate US flagged carriers. Sure, the order states an "indefinite" status...I expect this to fade quietly into the sunset as everyone debates issues of less significance.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -countries

The email – described as a “circular” – is not a public regulation, but airlines will be expected to enforce the new rule. Airlines were issued the circular on Monday and given 96 hours to comply; the rules apply to flights both to and from the US, according to Royal Jordanian airlines.

So The Guardian says airlines have been given 96 hours to comply, while most other sources say the ban is in place for 96 hours...

Guess who had met with CEOs of American, Delta, United etc and told them that he will "do everything to help them".
This is one way to move passengers away from EK, EY, QR, TK and let UA, DL, AA pick them up. After all the CEOs need that new yacht and vacation home pronto.

Even a 5 year kid can tell you this is not about security. What is stopping terrorists from using a one stop flight via Europe/Asia to come to the US with their dangerous laptops?

SURPRISE! Old man used to flying on gold-plated private plane does not understand the concept of connecting flights!

RJ took their tweet down. It is Difficult to get the real status. SV also is putting the same alert that RJ put last night !!
there is no smoke without a fire, maybe someone leaked this information from DOT before the official announcement.

Finally, AI to US has a big edge over ME3!

US3 will not benefit from this at all. They don't have any flights to the entire region.

anshabhi wrote:

Finally, AI to US has a big edge over ME3!

US3 will not benefit from this at all. They don't have any flights to the entire region.

For those who dont like long hauls they can go the can take these carriers to Europe and fly onwards on others including US3.

This thread is so political, everything imaginable is done to construe this as something aimed at the ME3, when any US carrier flying non-stop from these countries would be subject to the same regulations.

Where was the outcry when Obama upheld ESTA for VWP travelers? We as Europeans have become used to the fact that flying to the U.S. comes with a unique subset of rules when compared to flying elsewhere, just like flying to say DXB requires that you eat or discard any pork prior to entry, flying to Saudi Arabia requires that you don't come in with liquor, that flying into Iran requires headscarves if you're female, that wifi may be unavailable in PRC airspace, that landing in some countries means not being able to use your cell phone during taxi after landing, etc.

Like it or not, each country makes its own rules in a lot of different areas, including air travel. As travellers, most of us will try to comply with these rules as part of traveling to another country provided we are aware of them.

peterinlisbon wrote:

Maybe you have to put the laptop in the hold but take out the battery and keep it in your hand luggage. This would put me off flying to the US on one of these airlines - there's no way I'd feel comfortable checking in my laptop. I'd rather take the boat than do that.

at many orgs, it's against policy for employees to put their work-issued laptops into checked baggage. it must stay with the employee.

It does seem political just because you are a trumper dosent make it any different, by the way Arabian peninsula does not extend to West Africa.

anshabhi wrote:

Finally, AI to US has a big edge over ME3!

If it takes something like this to give AI an edge then they should quit while they're ahead.

This has nothing to do with them, so let's drop that part of the discussion...

Moving on.

I highly doubt SA will be affected by this, and if they were, would it only be for their flights that route via DKR?

It does raise an interesting point though.

Where does the line end?

Surely this won't apply to SA's JNB-JFK direct, or DL's JNB-ATL?

I feel like it's more of a regional thing, surely?

Which other airlines in the ME have flights to the US?

EK
EY
QR
RJ (confirmed)
MS (why Africa may have been included)
KU
SV (confirmed)

And then there's this link that "confirms" EK and EY...

http://www.shortlistdubai.com/around-to ... hts-to-usa

Royal Air Maroc too,.

If they threw in PIA, Uzbek and Azerbaijan it would cover all Islamic airlines flying there.

rnav2dlrey wrote:

peterinlisbon wrote:

Maybe you have to put the laptop in the hold but take out the battery and keep it in your hand luggage. This would put me off flying to the US on one of these airlines - there's no way I'd feel comfortable checking in my laptop. I'd rather take the boat than do that.

at many orgs, it's against policy for employees to put their work-issued laptops into checked baggage. it must stay with the employee.

Yes but if the US government says that passengers must check laptops in then company or organisation policy is pretty much irrelevant.

anshabhi wrote:

US3 will not benefit from this at all. They don't have any flights to the entire region.

I would not jump to this conclusion so fast. If you do not want to check in your electronics (because it is expensive, more convenient to have with you on the flight to remain productive or other) and know the risk of such a ban to come up the day before your flight between middle east and the US, you may consider booking only trips via Europe, with a TATL sector likely to be on a US airline.

On the other hand, as someone who is based in Europe and should fly to the US this summer, I am looking at ways to just avoid doing that trip. Such last minute policies does not give me much confidence (we have seen visa policy changes, now we see this ---which would impact me big time, I carry about $10k of electronics on each flight I take, cannot afford to have it stolen or broken or to simply not have it when I arrive due to a lost piece of luggage...).

So, it plays both ways, but it plays.