what do you think of the recent electronics ban?
I have read easily a dozen stories about it and none of them make a bit of logical sense. The ban apparently only applies to certain airports/airlines in the middle east, not all airlines. It only applies to electronics in CARRY ONS, because apparently laptop bombs in the cargo hold won’t be a problem? (Even though, as far as I can tell, the only time a bomb disguised as an electronic device brought down a plane it was IN the cargo hold? Might be wrong about that, but I can’t find any reports otherwise.)
One would also think that a laptop as a carry on would be safer, because they could have the owner power up the laptop to check that it is really a functioning laptop rather than a bomb (I have had to do this before, because my podcasting microphone freaked the TSA out when I was flying to DC and they put me through a secondary screening process, always fun.)
Also if there is a real security threat of Al-Shabab turning laptops or other large electronics into bombs, why would a ban on these on flights from only a handful of Middle Eastern airports be effective? Does Trump really think that terrorists will be like “oh, oops, can’t fly out of the Middle East with my laptop bomb that will apparently only work if I have it with me at my seat, I guess there’s no possible way I could modify it to work in the cargo hold or no way I could send these plans to someone and have them build it and fly out of another airport that will allow them to carry their laptop on the plane.”
If there’s a credible threat, shouldn’t ALL airlines flying into the US, including airlines based in the US, have to comply to this rule as well?
For that matter if the issue is the threat to American lives, why aren’t all domestic or outbound flights being told to follow this rule? Can terrorists suddenly not fly from Topeka to Atlanta or buy laptops in the United States that they could modify based on plans from Al-Shabab?
Then of course there is this little nugget of news from February of this year.
President Donald Trump told U.S. airlines he would help them compete with foreign carriers that are aided by their governments, a crucial signal of White House support for an industry campaign that began in 2015.
“A lot of that competition is subsidized by governments, big league,” Trump said at a White House meeting Thursday with the nation’s largest airlines, air freight companies and airports. “I’ve heard that complaint from different people in this room. Probably about one hour after I got elected, I was inundated with calls from your industry and many other industries, because it’s a very unfair situation.”
Active involvement by Trump would answer two years of prodding by Delta Air Lines Inc., United Continental Holdings Inc. and American Airlines Group Inc. to act on claims that $50 billion in government support have enabled three Persian Gulf carriers to compete unfairly. While Trump didn’t name individual foreign companies, the U.S. airlines last week asked to meet with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to discuss their allegations against Emirates, Etihad Airways PJSC and Qatar Airways Ltd.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-08/u-s-airline-chiefs-set-to-talk-jobs-traffic-control-with-trump
In case anyone was wondering, the electronics ban effects 9 airlines...includng Emirates, Etihad Airways, and Qatar Airways.
So there’s that. Since this ban doesn’t apply to American airlines, which have no direct flights to the US from those airports, that’s convenient for them. Which maybe sounds like a conspiracy theory, but Alex Jones is supposed to have White House Press Credentials now so I figure conspiracy theories are “real news” now anyway.
In any case, there are too many loopholes in this rule to really be effective at stopping ANY attack, whether this is based on credible threat intel or not (which is possible, since the U.K. did put similar rules in place immediately after the U.S. did, which could mean they have similar intel OR it could just mean they are responding to a perceived threat based on the U.S. action).
Anyway, that’s my two cents on the issue.