We are not talking about security checkpoints but about verifications at the gate.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Samsung's Galaxy Note 7 Smartphone Banned From All U.S. Flights
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't know what you are referring to as a Carry on check. You are herded through metal detectors as soon as you get your ticket, at which point you take phones and metal off of your persons and put it in a bin. This is when the phone should be verified to not be a note 7. You asked what would happen if you don't have a phone and they want to see it...you would say I don't have a phone, they would walk you through the detector and you would get your belongings out of the plastic bin and be on your way
I assume that is only because the ban went live while the airport already had some note users inside who had been through the detectors before the ban.
The poster said the gate agent asked people to show them their phone before boarding.
It is not banned in the vast majority of countries, even if specific airlines do.
I saw bans in Canada, and several international airlines, including 4 Australian.
That poster is based in Germany.
It's not airline to airline in the us, right? It's an all out ban by the government is how I understand it.
Actually no they likely aren't. This issue is battery related and iPhones and iPads use the same battery tech so they are probably getting hit with tons of questions about whether the new iPhones could also catch fire, especially from paranoids who refuse to actually believe it when they are told no about one of their crazy beliefs.
Also, no one wants to win cause the other side is out of the game. It's not really a victory for Apple to say their new iPhone outsold something that was recalled. And if they try, someone will bring up the dozen or so quality programs Apple has had over the years as proof that they can't talk cause they aren't perfect.
[doublepost=1476635338][/doublepost]
these are bloggers not journalists, which is why they didn't go to school etc and learn about journalistic integrity, source validity etc.
Personally I wish they would be more myopic and not talk about Samsung, Microsoft etc at all. If I want to know that Samsung is releasing a new Galaxy VR headset I'll go to a Samsung related site
Wrong, here is just one report by Forbes reporting on the first batch dated September 4th:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2016/09/04/samsung-note7-battery/#516336921eb2
And here is a report from The Verge about the recall of the Note 7 first batch dated September 2nd.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/2/12767670/samsung-galaxy-note-7-recall-fire-risk
So I've no idea why you think Samsung only had 3 to 4 days when they had know about the issue for a over a month at least.
No, that's what you are saying (along with some Samsung apologists who think all these measures taken are totally unnecessary) You may have well trained cabin crew to put a fire down. however you can not guarantee that one of these fire incidents cant escalate into something much more serious and even life threatening. I only gave the benefit of a doubt and said "Maybe you are right" about the well trained cabin crew.
Agreed, problems are ultimately the responsibility of the company selling a product (even if they didn't design or manufacture it entirely themselves, which is true about many modern products, including every smartphone).
Still, it's very easy for us outside observers to diss testing failures at Apple, Samsung, and others. Testing is like the red headed stepchild of engineering. Nobody notices when they get it right, which is most of the time. But oh man, everyone notices when they miss something!
I don't recall anyone here saying that the measures taken were unnecessary. Only that the way it was presented.
Exactly. But now it sounds like you're arguing that every lithium powered device should be banned. Onboard fires aren't going to stop just because the Note 7 is banned.
Side note: remember that crew credit card reader I mentioned that caught fire? Son of a gun, it turns out that it was actually an iPhone 6 in a GuestLogix XPDA-IP6 card reader case.
And with the Note 7 out of the equation, any future iPhone fires on board will now get elevated publicity.
Moreover, some people say that the public doesn't know the difference between Samsung and Apple phones. So any news about one always applies to the other. Maybe so. I'll know it's true if/when my 92 year old Mother asks me if I've heard about iPhones being banned from aircraft (and she's usually pretty accurate when it comes to brand names).
Last edited:
If a battery was labeled and sold as being OEM, as being made by the original manufacturer, and it was not, then it would be fake, yes. But a battery sold as an after-market battery, with a different brand name, is in no way fake. It's just not the OEM battery.
Is Energizer battery "fake" because it is not Duracell? Is one of the cheaper batteries you get at Dollar Tree stores "fake" because its neither Duracell or Energizer?
An effective argument is that you should stick with OEM batteries, as you have a much better idea what quality you are getting. But that does not make after-market third-party batteries fake. There are brands that are legitimate and decent quality.
It is a silly question with a non-obvious answer in our silly world.
And banned in Italy. Boarding announcement today stated that all Samsung Note 7's had to be surrendered or you couldn't board the plane. Doh!
[doublepost=1476646745][/doublepost]
Yes. At least in Italy that was the case.
[doublepost=1476646745][/doublepost]
Yes. At least in Italy that was the case.
here's two minutes on Google...
http://www.recode.net/2016/9/2/12778440/samsung-note-recall-concerns-feds
http://www.consumerreports.org/smar...amsung-should-officially-recall-galaxy-note7/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ng-make-exploding-battery-issue-official.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/samsung-recall-raises-questions-about-consumer-watchdog-1476301296
CPSC is pretty limited in statements they can make but Chairman Kaye has implied he was upset with Samsung's lack of prompt communication on the matter. Given CPSC's restrictions on public comment I'd take that as a pretty strong indicator (even though we're forced to read between the lines) that CPSC is upset with Samsung withholding information and/or attempting to circumvent legally required processes.
Wall Street Journal said:
It makes for a great sound bite to boost his agency, too
As I've already pointed out, Apple has done the same thing, announcing their own hazardous product recall program weeks before the CPSC did. This year in fact. And I think they've done it more than once in the past.
Yet there was no faux outrage about Apple's announcing (and even beginning) an exchange program ahead of the CPSC.
FYI, one of my best friend who works at Sandisk (WDC now) just Wechated me his company now forbids employees using Samsung phones and he was forced to choose i7 plus, two months ago when I had dinner at his home, he touts how his Galaxy is great and innovative. HAHAHA!!!
Actually I believe he is referring to my post about an Airport in South America, where there is no legal ban, it was just the airline (Lufthansa) who were checking passengers for their phones. I am however still baffled by his questions and what answers he expects.
I wasn't sure what he meant, I still don't know what poster he was talking about.
It makes for a great sound bite to boost his agency, too
As I've already pointed out, Apple has done the same thing, announcing their own hazardous product recall program weeks before the CPSC did. This year in fact. And I think they've done it more than once in the past.
Yet there was no faux outrage about Apple's announcing (and even beginning) an exchange program ahead of the CPSC.
I was answering the question asked.
"Has the CPSC claimed Samsung should have informed them earlier?"
Due to CPSA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Product_Safety_Act) gagging the CPSC on all reported incidents we rarely know when and how a company started working with the CPSC on recalls. Again, due to the CPSA, the CPSC chairman making a statement like Kaye did is exceptional and I think it's not an unreasonable jump to infer that he is unhappy with the approach Samsung took. I have not seen anything similar in the Apple travel adapter recall. The dates of press releases are really meaningless in either case; we don't have insider information (such as Kaye's implied dissatisfaction with Samsung) that would lead us to believe Apple hadn't already made the legally required reports regarding the travel adapters.
So, as I pointed out originally, this is a bit of reading the tea leaves but we KNOW Samsung has a duty to report to CPSC and it would APPEAR that CPSC is dissatisfied with the actions Samsung has taken.
In any case, questioning Apple's processes is a red herring/tu quoque ... and I guess I just took the bait, shame on me.