Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Terrorist organizations, unlike the lone wolf, are not interested in killing 6 people and blowing a hole in the fuselage.
Terrorist organizations generally don't care if people are killed or not, they want the attention of whoever they are targeting. Daallo Airlines incident from last year is specifically attributed to Al-Shabaab, and there they blew a hole in the fuselage and only the person who brought the laptop containing explosives onboard were sucked out and died. It is not known if he was just used or in on this knowingly. Investigation claimed that there was airport workers who planted the laptop on the person.

Luckily for the passengers they did not fly at an high altitude, where a breached fuselage quickly would have been fatal.
 
Yep. Saudi = birthplace of Islamic Jihadism and birthplace of 9-11 and Al-Qaeda.


But I already know the result. All the rich Saudi billionaire businessmen (there are tons of them) will howl in protest, then they will bribe the Trump administration, and then Trump White House will eventually exempt Saudi Arabia once more.
Saudi billionaires don't fly commercial. They use their own jets.
 
So I don't think the concern is someone hiding a bomb in a tablet or laptop.
That is the only thing they specifically have said they are concerned about. And all officials specifically say that they are worried about smuggling of explosives. And this have repeatedly been attempted as well.

Usually when they decide on these measures they have come across persons who have created such device and/or someone knowing about specific operations to be committed.

It doesn't necessarily have to be good measures but more something in the line of we did what we could to keep the public safe. I believe these measures are just that.

The last years have shown however that for except the Russian aircraft the onboard attacks have failed. And for the Russian flight it was in the cargo hold not in the cabin, and while it is yet to be confirmed, IS in Sinai have claimed they did it with a bomb created around a soda can. A soda can can contain around 600 g of typical explosives which is not far from the investigators assessment of the amount.

The attacks that have been most successful are those targeting the airports and I believe that is what will happen in the future. Now security have been more boosted in this regard. And explosives used on airports must be of a much bigger size as they are not inside a pressurized container like an aircraft fuselage. Assault weapons are also not so easy to hide.
 
Security, protectionism, or both? One does not know what to believe anymore.
 
Security, protectionism, or both? One does not know what to believe anymore.
That's what is nice about thinking. You can take available evidence and come to a conclusion. If more, or varied evidence is brought forth, you can change your conclusion.

If you want to have unchanging belief, try a religion. That way you can stop thinking and just go with what you are told.
 
That's what is nice about thinking. You can take available evidence and come to a conclusion. If more, or varied evidence is brought forth, you can change your conclusion.

If you want to have unchanging belief, try a religion. That way you can stop thinking and just go with what you are told.
Well, the UK list does not seem to be the same as the US list.
 
Luckily for the passengers they did not fly at an high altitude, where a breached fuselage quickly would have been fatal.
I'd forgotten about Daallo. Word on the street was Turkish had not paid their protection money to AS. Then found out an attack was imminent. Cancelled its flights, which were picked up by Daallo.
Similar damage to TWA 840 in the 80s, when Aircraft bombings were more common.
Edited content from aerospaceweb.org:
23 January 1985 - Lloyd Aèreo Boliviano
Boeing 727 left La Paz, Mexico, for Santa Cruz, Bolivia. While en route with 127 occupants a passenger entered the forward lavatory carrying a suitcase. Inside the suitcase was dynamite that exploded, killing the passenger. Plane landed safely with no additional fatalities.
30 October 1985 - American Airlines
A bomb hidden in a tote bag exploded aboard a Boeing 727. The blast occurred in the forward baggage hold while being unloaded and there were no fatalities.
2 April 1986 - Trans World Airlines Flight 840
A Boeing 727 preparing to land at Athens, Greece, was badly damaged by a bomb explosion. The device consisted of 1 lb of plastic explosive placed under a seat cushion. The detonation blew a 24 ft² (2.25 m²) hole in the fuselage resulting in a rapid decompression that sucked four people from cabin.
3 May 1986 - Air Lanka Flight 512
A Lockheed L-1011 carrying 148 was parked at Colombo terminal, preparing to continue on to the Maldives when an explosive concealed in an onboard cargo crate exploded. The blast ripped the plane in half killing 21 and injuring 41 people. The bomb was most likely planted by Tamil rebels to sabotage peace talks with the Sri Lankan government.
26 October 1986 - Thai Airways International Flight 620
Airbus A300 from Manila to Osaka with 239 occupants; while cruising at 33,000 ft over Tosa Bay off the coast of Japan, an explosion occurred in the aft lavatory. The blast caused a rapid decompression and damaged two of the plane's hydraulic systems. The captain and co-pilot initiated an emergency descent and managed to land heavily damaged aircraft safely at Osaka with no fatalities. The cause of the blast was a hand grenade a passenger was attempting to smuggle into Japan that exploded in the lavatory.
Most of the planes were repaired.

Mythbusters maniacs experiment

 
Last edited:
Here is a theory. The US owned airlines have been losing money as the middle eastern airlines provide better planes and excellent service. This move is to inconvenience the passengers so much that they don't travel through these airports.
You are not alone in thinking this. Below link is to the professional pilots rumor network, although many posters are not pilots. Another interesting topic on that forum is the possibility of IS agents manning the security scanners.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/592517-lap-top-tablet-ban.html
 
Speculation on my part, but someone probably figured out how to make a bomb out of a lithium ion battery with what would be available to her or him while sitting on a passenger airplane. So you wouldn't need to bring the device yourself. You could hijack the plane and use any device anyone brought on board.

So I don't think the concern is someone hiding a bomb in a tablet or laptop. I think it is someone being able to use a tablet or laptop battery to make a bomb once on the aircraft.

Allowing smartphones was a compromise. They figured it would completely end relations with these countries if they tried to do that and that the threat from a smartphone battery wasn't as great as from are larger battery.
Now that actually makes some sense. I don't about the feasibility, but at least it makes sense as to how this ban makes the plane safer.
 
That will stop all business travels from those airports. There is no way
I will check my laptop period. Not only it will break while thrown by the amazing
baggage handlers, but if it gets stolen, I have sensitive information stored there...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-the-underlying-story/?utm_term=.6d519aa90977

Quite likely this is intended to screw over the airlines involved. If you can't use a laptop, part of the rationale associated with buying a business class seat disappears. Airlines are profitable largely because of premium seating...
 
The Compost headline and story died in a fire when the UK announced a similar ban.

UK does follow up on most security measures that USA is implementing and may have asked for justification or explanations which could just as well be partly bogus to satisfy their enquires.

Another thing to note is that there are a total of 15 airports serving US from muslim majority countries, two are served by an US airline (Delta, flying to Dakar and Lagos) and outside the ten affected by the "laptop-ban", three with a national carrier (Azerbaijan Airlines; Baku, Uzbekistan Airways; Tashkent, and Pakistan International Airlines; Lahore). So by targeting 10 you are targeting 67% of airports in muslim majority countries.

However, I don't believe that neither Trump or the US Airlines would do this for competitive reasons, although it is surely easier to go forward with these measures when no US airlines will be involved. The reason is that Turkish Airlines, Egyptair are United Airlines partners, Etihad and Qatar Airways are American Airlines partners, JetBlue with almost all of the larger, etc. So they sell their own tickets on those airlines and therefore some of their customers will be affected. I believe that if United still flew to these airports as they did just a few years ago, they would be affected by the order. Neither do I believe this is result of Trumps malice policies. I think there will be more pain than gain from this as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: webbuzz
American airlines have been lobbying the US government to protect them from the ME3 for years.

That is not to say that kind of thing does not happen in Europe too, where they have a much larger impact. But Airbus sells half of their A380's to them.
 
Another interesting topic on that forum is the possibility of IS agents manning the security scanners.
There are procedures and routines in place at all large airports to avoid that a person can be sure that the person checking the bag is known beforehand to the passenger. Newer scanners are also connected so several people can see objects, and there are also automatic analysis, so you need quite many persons to be able to infiltrate security checkpoints at the large airports. I doubt that it is easy to get this job at the airports in Dubai, Riyadh, Amman, Ataturk and avoid scrutiny by the intelligence in their countries. I think it is much easier in western countries where these are low paid, quick turn-around jobs.
 
If the real reason for some of this is an eventual unfair competition, it should be handled in the proper manner.
 
When you search for porn online do you have a fear that all you will see on a porn site is scat porn? No? Then why do you fear of some terrorist trying to board the plane with some bomb? This type of terrorist act is considered fetish among terrorists, just like the scat porn. Sure it could happen no one is denying it, but so it could happen that you win the lottery too.

Domestic terrorists, US born citizens are still the #1 threat in the country by a long margin.
 
Domestic terrorists, US born citizens are still the #1 threat in the country by a long margin.
This is true. Indeed the rift between Al Qaeda and its offspring, Islamic State, was caused by bin Laden's desire to attack "the far enemy".
But why wait until that situation changes?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.