Laptop Ban May Expand to Flights Coming to U.S. From Europe

[sirdir]

Not long ago, you were supposed *not* to check in your notebook because of the fire hazard... and now they want the luggage compartment *full* of li-ion batteries.
Sounds like a really safe idea.

 

[0388631]

Mind you, airliners, at least the 787, has li-on batteries. Which caused fires in early testing and delayed the plane's debut.

 

[MacSince1985]

Latest development:

http://www.theonion.com/article/faa-considering-passenger-ban-44

Wow, that article is already 15 years old. They're taking their sweet time implementing it.

 

[sir1963nz]

Everyone hates the rule until a bomb goes off. I feel bad for the intelligence community. A lot of cat and mouse.

********, if this were true the USA would have had gun control decades ago, but no you wait yet again for another mass shooting at a primary school, wave hands in the air in anguish and then do nothing.

Over the 20 years of the Vietnam war, 58,209 Americans were killed
Over that same 20 year period over 250,000 americans were murdered in the USA, it was safer to be in a war zone than to be in the USA.

 

[DotCom2]

Am I reading that this would also include banning iPads??.
I am planing a trip from US to Europe in September and I was planning on taking my iPad.

 

[sir1963nz]

Ok, here's there thing.
Yes, once you REALLY think about what will happen you are 100% right

HOWEVER

The current POTUS is not one for thinking, the idea that there may be a downside is totally beyond him.

 

[cube]

Mind you, airliners, at least the 787, has li-on batteries. Which caused fires in early testing and delayed the plane's debut.

787 was the first. They implemented some workarounds after the problems.

So A350 started with ni-cd but they later switched to li-ion. I think they are smaller than those in the 787.

CSeries just stayed with ni-cd because of the 787.

Those are all the new-tech airliners in service.

I don't if any of the new versions of old designs went this route.

 

[s15119]

It's all about control.

 

[Ted13]

There are these things called books.

Some of read our books on a thing called an iPad, we are thrilled that we don't have to carry 5 books for a vacation...

And I'd really like an explanation of why an iPad is dangerouse, but a large smartphone is not

 

[sudo1996]

It does not matter.

It could. They make me put away my laptop during takeoff and landing but say tablets are allowed, which makes no sense.
[doublepost=1494465919][/doublepost]

The US is getting pretty ********. They are seeing terrorist everywhere, ridiculous.

Yes, and the most frustrating part is that it's exactly what terrorists want.

 

[usarioclave]

Yes, and the most frustrating part is that it's exactly what terrorists want.

No, the terrorists want to make a statement by killing lots of people in a dramatic fashion.

In general, inconveniencing large numbers of people isn't a real goal of terrorists.

 

[sudo1996]

Do you believe in strict gun control? People in the US are way more at risk than most Europeans due to the lack of gun control and the constant mass murders that result. If France "wasn't cautious enough", what is the US? Criminally negligent?

It's for militia and arguably self-protection. Americans want the right to defend themselves. If only the Syrians had guns! A few armed ISIS fighters come in, and the town is captured. The only reason some of the Kurdish towns in Iraq stand any chance is they're armed.

I wouldn't blame legalized guns for mass murders. I'd blame them for individual murders. If they're easier to obtain, small crimes will involve them more. I'm sure the number of homicides would be lower if guns were banned. But a mass murderer is going to either obtain guns anyway or use something else. And mass murders are very rare and unpredictable.

 

[Ted13]

Other than that? That was also 31 years ago.

More pertinent: the Pan Am 103 bomb was in checked in luggage- so forcing the checking of laptops isn't going to prevent a similar attack, just discourage business travel to the USA.

 

[sudo1996]

No, the terrorists want to make a statement by killing lots of people in a dramatic fashion.

In general, inconveniencing large numbers of people isn't a real goal of terrorists.

Not the inconvenience, the terror. And also the massive resources the world powers have to spend on them. The point is they have limited resources, so they stretch them really far by targeting weak points like civilian populations. And then everyone freaks out ("seeing terrorists everywhere"), which can be reasonable. And as a result, politicians start doing stupid things like trying to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., which helps terrorists raise more anti-American hell.

 

[cube]

It could. They make me put away my laptop during takeoff and landing but say tablets are allowed, which makes no sense.

No, they also banned tablets in the current blacklist.

 

[Squeak825]

This has nothing to do with Terrorists, this has everything to do with high profit legitimate customers being forced onto US owned aircraft.

By taking out the hubs for competing airlines, these passengers will instead use a flight where they CAN use their devices, and these hubs are where US owned aircraft have better access.

For example the USA has about 38 "Hubs" where various companies fly through , so instead of a direct flight you have a stop over in one of these hubs. It concentrates passengers and allows a greater efficiency and profit. If you ruin a hub (such as not allowing portable devices in the cabin) high profit customers will use an alternative airline.

This is all about removing competition for high paying customers in the from/to USA flight sector.

I am sorry, but what are you talking about? According to the article it would impact ALL flights from Europe to the US, regardless of which airline, or what country the airline is domesticated out of it. United flight from MUC to EWR? No laptop allowed in the cabin. Doesnt matter if it is a US airline or a foreign one.

Or am I missing something here that you have not explained?

 

[cube]

I am sorry, but what are you talking about? According to the article it would impact ALL flights from Europe to the US, regardless of which airline, or what country the airline is domesticated out of it. United flight from MUC to EWR? No laptop allowed in the cabin. Doesnt matter if it is a US airline or a foreign one.

Or am I missing something here that you have not explained?

The current ban does not apply to US airlines, which makes no sense.

The UK applies it to ALL airlines and less countries.

 

[CrystalQuest76]

No wonder we're perceived worldwide as a country of morons.

Not really. They all want to come to the United States for an education and then stay for the great quality of life.

 

[sudo1996]

Being overcautious is better than not being cautious enough, like most European countries have been. Look at what has happened in France. All it takes are a few maniacs to kill a large number of people. I don't think the people who have died in France would share your sentiment. Obviously, the French were not careful enough.

What were they supposed to do, ban trucks? In any city, someone can easily kill hundreds.

 

[0388631]

Or the water supply.

 

[M5RahuL]

It's for militia and arguably self-protection. Americans want the right to defend themselves. If only the Syrians had guns! A few armed ISIS fighters come in, and the town is captured. The only reason some of the Kurdish towns in Iraq stand any chance is they're armed.

I wouldn't blame legalized guns for mass murders. I'd blame them for individual murders. If they're easier to obtain, small crimes will involve them more. I'm sure the number of homicides would be lower if guns were banned. But a mass murderer is going to either obtain guns anyway or use something else. And mass murders are very rare and unpredictable.

Interesting school of thought here..

Americans have the right to bear arms and defend themselves ( 2nd Amendment )

So, if guns were banned ..

Oh wait, you're from Kommifornia.. Facepalm!

.. drops mic ..

 

[pesos]

The reasoning I've read is that there is supposed intel that terrorists have or are close to perfecting small explosives that fit in these battery cavities. However the explosions are only large enough to cause issues if placed perfectly with regard to the fuselage - hence needing them to be in the passenger cabin in the hands of a suicide bomber. If they simply go off in the middle of luggage down below they are not a threat. Time for the security tech to step up its game.

 

[MacSince1985]

The current ban does not apply to US airlines, which makes no sense.

The UK applies it to ALL airlines and less countries.

In the initial ban, "No U.S. airline is affected by the ban because none currently operates direct flights to and from the above destinations." That's not the case for Europe. So both European and US airlines will be affected. After all, they all use the same security in the airport.

 

[macsmurf]

I like your thinking; Make it so painful to travel to the US that only terrorists would want to do it. Then they'll be easy to spot. Brilliant!

 

[JRobinsonJr]

A majority (by a few million) didn't. The election system is the joke, especially by the supposed "most democratic" country in the world. They've even legalized bribing (by labeling it lobbying).

Actually the electorial system is quite rational. Everyone gets a vote, then regional votes are aggregated based on population distribution. The US is not now nor has it ever been a democracy. We are a Republic... and that makes a difference.
[doublepost=1494471854][/doublepost]

I am willing to bet that you will be the first in line yelling at government representatives, "why did you not protect my family member" when they are a victim of a terrorist attack. (yes, I know that statistically its rather low that it will happen to you but that is what many family members of victims thought right up to the time it did happen.) The reality is that these horrific things do happen and they have happened more than once, and government policy makers are required to plan and act accordingly.

Not at all. I already dont expect that the government can protect me and mine. Safety is but an illusion.