Back to Squawk list

Electronics banned from cabins on some Middle Eastern and African flights to U.S.

Submitted
 
Airlines that fly from certain countries in the Middle East and Africa to the U.S. must soon require passengers to check in almost all electronic devices rather than carry them into the cabin, a U.S. official said. (money.cnn.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


tjperez927
Tony Perez 6
Sp this includes Dubai...one of the busiest transfer airports? This will affect everyone connecting in Dubai to come here.
wopri
Wolfgang Prigge 10
This makes no sense. It would be very easy to simply use flights from other origins to get around the ban, if someone has bad intentions. Just another case of grandstanding.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
I found an article that does say just that Wolfgang..yes you have to subscribe to read it but it's free and I have actually found the reads quite informative...what is really interesting of note is the fact CBP has a pre-clearance facility at Abu Dhabi.
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/electronics-ban-ultimately-everyone-will-lose
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
It's the only one in the area. Next nearest ones are Ireland and Carabbean.
https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/ports-entry/operations/preclearance
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
Yes joel...but Abu Dhabi is also one of the electronics ban flight airports.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Outside of N. America they're thin on the ground with N=2.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
Ive had a few friends, traveling through from Australia to the US, and they have stated on more than 1 occasion that the US Customs and security at Abu Dhabi was very strict and conforming with state of the art equipment and stearn officers.
Kairho
Kairho Carroll 0
Define N.
joelwiley
joel wiley 0
Re: N=2
http://www.conceptstew.co.uk/pages/nsamplesize.html
Re: N. America
North, Norte, Nord
andyc852
andyc852 4
Strange that it only impacts foreign carriers and from airports where US airlines do not fly. DAL used to have an ATL-DXB until quite recently. None of it makes any sense to me, but there is little in this world today that does!
GringoZX
uhm...I don't think there are any US carriers that fly direct flights from those countries. Ban is only for carriers with direct flights from those countries to US.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
DHS released Q&A as "Q&A: Aviation Security Enhancements for Select Last Point of Departure Airports with Commercial Flights to the United States"
published at:
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/21/qa-aviation-security-enhancements-select-last-point-departure-airports-commercial
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
This is not about politics nor who's who does what...I read a tech article a while back and remembered something very interesting...a desktop/laptop with WiFi capability and Windows 7 through 10 on it (even as far back as Win XP Pro but that is a crap shoot) or even some MacBooks, can be accessed remotely (remote desktop assistance)...I don't think they thought of this...leave the people to use their smartphones, those are used to access the laptops, which are now smothered in checked baggage in the cargohold and what could potentially happen?? Li-Ion battery fires are not pretty, nor is a remotely accessed explosive device...smh
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
A article in the Financial Times reports an alternative hypothesis for the action. Rather than Homeland Security, they postulate the focus is economic Unfortunately it is behind a paywall. The Washington Post's reprise is linked here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/21/trump-wont-allow-you-to-use-ipads-or-laptops-on-certain-airlines-heres-the-underlying-story/?tid=hybrid_content_2_na&utm_term=.db220f375f36
travistx
travistx 2
The ban doesn't extend to Delta's flight from Lagos Nigeria.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
I dont believe that airport is on the list
travistx
travistx 3
Right, it's not on the list, but the Lagos airport is at least as much (probably much more) of a security risk than those that are on the list.
wopri
But then the airline serving this destination is Delta, as you said. One more reason to suspect politics over safety requirements. Security in Istanbul is second to none, but it's on the list, Abu Dhabi pre-clearance conforms to all US CBP requirements, but it is on the list. Just another way to put foreign airlines at a competitive disadvantage.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
AVHerald posted a news item on the subject. Some of the comments are of interest, including ones questioning the propriety of posting it on an aviation website.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4a67fce7&opt=0
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
Careful joel...that article is along the same lines of what I was mentioning, yet I got downvoted
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 3
I can see this has turned into a bit of a political debate as well as a who does what debate of opinons etc...For this much, I shall comment no more on this matter..I just hope those involved know what they are doing and do it correctly...as Wolfgang pointed out, it would be very easy to slip around just these airports.
Flightdog
Roger Curtiss 1
What am I missing here? A bomb that explodes in the baggage compartment instead of the cabin is still a bomb. Is the implication that these countries have proper screening of checked bags but not of carry-ons?
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 0
First off, the Trump administration has just ran roughshod over an international ruling that was imposed last year...NO Li-Ion batteries are allowed into the cargohold of any passenger craft..laptops, cameras, kindles etc are all powered by Li-Ion batteries.
Here is another perspective of the story, Torsten http://time.com/4707584/electronics-ban-overseas-flights/
Whats far reaching is, I don't see any airports from India or Pakistan on there nor do I see some of the airports on there that have the immigration ban imposed..this also means that any passenger, from anywhere in the world, cannot take their electronics on board, at the beginning of the trip, when connecting through these airports...
joelwiley
joel wiley 3
From the time article:
"Officials said they coordinated with the FAA about the placement of additional lithium ion batteries in aircraft cargo holds and determined that the risk of a potential attack outweighed the potential risk of battery fire—an emerging FAA concern."

One wonders how much coordination was done, given the administration's recent historical failure to get their ducks lined up in the first place. The attack risk determination justification will be published shortly on the LOTUS twitter account.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
So basically what they are saying is the FAA is empowered worldwide and ta heck with the IACO ruling...makes me wonder joel.
GringoZX
Robert Cheeseman -1
When it relates to flights that originiate or depart the US or it's territories, yes.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
Robert...what I am saying is the FAA has no jurisdictional knowledge of how checked baggage is handled at foreign airports...most passengers carry their expensive electronics onboard to prevent such damage..a laptop can take some abuse of being pounded around...a kindle or digital camera not so much and if those Li-Ion batteries break open..not good
GringoZX
Whether or not the FAA has jurisdiction or not, obviously they are able to influence or make certain demands of those CAA authorities in order for those countries to continue to send flights to the USA. I travel through international airports that have additional requirements when traveling to the USA. An example, flying from Panama to US they ban liquids from carry-ons and require additional screening (x-ray and shoes removed) at the gate prior to boarding a US bound flight. But not for flights to other countries.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 0
That last part is more to do with combination of CBP and FAA and it also happens here with flights not bound to the US
GringoZX
Actually, laptops and other personal electronic devices with Li-Ion batteries INSTALLED are allowed as checked baggage and has been for some time now. Only spare (uninstalled) Li-Ion batteries have been banned from checked baggage.
https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/hazmat_safety/more_info/?hazmat=23
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 0
Again that is the FAA's ruling NOT the ICAO's ruling..the FAA has no jurisdiction in foreign countries.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve -1
The FAA has not mandated nor said in a statement to make sure this doesnt happen "2. Passengers must not pack spare lithium ion batteries in checked baggage. Spares must be packed in carry-on baggage or carried on the person."
Kairho
Kairho Carroll 1
FAA has jurisdiction over aircraft landing in the US, regardless of origin ... thus the ICAO doesn't have to be involved.
jeffbeaumont
Jeffrey Beaumont -4
Get a life and stop complaining and do something constructive!
rapidwolve
rapidwolve -1
You mean like you do, sit at home with my finger up my nose?..you don't like my comments or my voicing my opinion, DON'T read them!
mrlahjr
Louis Holder -8
They've spent so much money on those x-ray machines and not this? The machines work. No trust in the machines anymore? What happened to paying a little extra attention to the devices. Trump thinks he can disrupt the world. I knew the apprentice was nothing but a trial rUn for what he would do in the WH.
linbb
linbb 2
Find another place to whine because you don't like him.
jeffbeaumont
Amen, to that comment.
tisom2
Terry Isom 2
This is where political remarks are to be posted:http://discussions.flightaware.com/general/the-banter-thread-t4618-5500.html?hilit=banter thread&sid=8e49cb2ab5c798631d878a91d39dd355
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
Agree. Just seems nobody has used it for years
jeffbeaumont
Jeffrey Beaumont -2
Another Trump Hatemonger!
dee9bee
dee9bee -4
There may be some validity to the need for the restriction, don't know. But look at the source, CNN. They've become a 'One Trick Pony'. Every story has to contain a negative Trump comment. No credibility left.
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 0
A couple of people have alleged that this ban would be ineffective, or that it is motivated by President Trump's political agenda. However, the UK is following suit, and flights connecting through other European countries would be expected to have more stringent screening than the regions targeted by this ban.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/politics/electronics-ban-devices-explosives-intelligence/index.html

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/21/news/uk-europe-airline-electronics-ban/index.html
wopri
This only works if the ban is applied to all flights, regardless of origin. A laptop transformed into a bomb can be brought inside the cabin at Oklahoma or at Casablanca.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 0
I agree Wolfgang...and what about these newer cell phone "phablets"..1 would think enough charge packed into 1 of them could severely damage a craft, or worse yet render it unflyable (new word for Webster dictionary) if placed in a strategic location.
picturetaker
Christian Parada -2
They should also make people physically remove the batteries from their devices when they're packed in the suitcases. Can't be too careful.
royhunte92
Roy Hunte 8
What about those devices with non-removable batteries?
picturetaker
Christian Parada -6
Ban them! Ban them all!

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!