New US & UK Laptop/Tablet ban on up to 8 countries

[Deleted member 29185]

Are you trolling me?

If not, go back and read what I wrote. The "why bother?" was referring to a quite different point. Cheers.

I'm not trolling anyone and I understand as to what the "why bother" comment referred. It was to the laptop issue and the fact it's a limited ban. My answer is relevant. Why bother? Because it's better to stop lunatics intent on doing harm to airline pax before boarding, rather than after. This is a requirement determined by people with a far better level of understanding of the problem than me ... and likely most, if not all, the respondents to this thread so you'll have to excuse me if I prefer to place my faith in their ability over uninformed emotional criticism based on what? "Woe is me, I can't have my laptop". Heavens sake, it sounds like a pack of spoilt toddlers sitting on a supermarket floor whining for lollies.

 

[levelnine]

Re: Electronics ban

I'm a bit amazed by this threads overtone. Woe is us, the sky is falling, Trump's an idiot (well, definite possibility admitted), the authorities know nothing, batteries will explode, etc, etc.

I was of the impression that these measures were in direct response from "credible" intel. UK even stated they were privy to the same intel as the US and after reading all the posts in this thread, I can't recall anyone stating the intel is false. Without getting into a "Iraq had no WMD's so intel can't be trusted" debate, I tend to think that due to the worlds mongrels who think mass murder is a simple political/ideology statement, all of us do have to pay a price. So what if we can't have a laptop to keep up with the latest saga of Desperate Housewives, or some equally riveting drivel. For me, air travel is all about safety over entertainment value. For those that "need" to work on the trip, rubbish. You need to manage your workload better and for those that argue the gear will be damaged or stolen in transit, then invest in more robust cases and ensure your gear is covered by your insurance policy. The world is full of lunatics I'm afraid and if I have to pay a price, I'd prefer that price be paid by loss of entertainment rather than loss of life.

The upside of course, may be that airlines might stop ripping out IFE and start seriously considering upgrading IFE to a hybrid model with computing/wifi facilities for those who "need" to be tapping away furiously at a keyboard. I find these measures infuriating, but not so much because of the measures themselves, but because they're deemed to be needed in the first place!

Credible intel suggests that knives and cars are used in terrorism offences. Indeed, at a rate far more prevalent than explosives on aircraft. I'm glad to hear you will be the first person willing to support a ban on knives and cars as the price to be paid for safety. There is no "need" to use a knife or a car, rubbish. Humans managed perfectly well before the use of knives and cars. You just need to manage your life better. The world is full of lunatics I'm afraid and if I have to pay a price, I'd prefer that price be paid by loss of utility rather than loss of life.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Re: Electronics ban

Credible intel suggests that knives and cars are used in terrorism offences. Indeed, at a rate far more prevalent than explosives on aircraft. I'm glad to hear you will be the first person willing to support a ban on knives and cars as the price to be paid for safety. There is no "need" to use a knife or a car, rubbish. Humans managed perfectly well before the use of knives and cars. You just need to manage your life better. The world is full of lunatics I'm afraid and if I have to pay a price, I'd prefer that price be paid by loss of utility rather than loss of life.

Nothing like taking a thread totally off topic.

 

[Skyring]

I'm not trolling anyone and I understand as to what the "why bother" comment referred. It was to the laptop issue and the fact it's a limited ban. My answer is relevant. Why bother? Because it's better to stop lunatics intent on doing harm to airline pax before boarding, rather than after.

That's like wishing for a fine day. So general a desire as to be meaningless.

There's four billion passengers carried every year. Only a handful would be terrorists equipped to destroy the aircraft. Even if you had a pipedream device that was 99.9% accurate at picking out the terrorists, that's still a million false positives to every terrorist.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

That's like wishing for a fine day. So general a desire as to be meaningless.

So because stopping 100% of terrorists is probably impossible, it's better to do nothing and allow a free for all.

Have a read of this post.

 

[Skyring]

So because stopping 100% of terrorists is probably impossible, it's better to do nothing and allow a free for all.

Have a read of this post.

Yes, I read it. That's a given. I don't know anybody who has a problem with metal scanners, semi-random explosives checks and so on. That system is working just fine.

I was talking about this new laptop ban - as per the thread title - and I assumed you were as well.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Yes, I read it. That's a given. I don't know anybody who has a problem with metal scanners, semi-random explosives checks and so on. That system is working just fine.

I was talking about this new laptop ban - as per the thread title - and I assumed you were as well.

I think we all are. The point is that every time a new security measure is proposed/implemented, there are all kinds of opponents with all kinds of reasons against it. The laptop ban is just another one and may be long lived or short lived, but it's a reality none the less and like all the other security measures implemented as deemed necessary, it may even save planes from being targeted and save pax in the process.

 

[levelnine]

I think we all are. The point is that every time a new security measure is proposed/implemented, there are all kinds of opponents with all kinds of reasons against it. The laptop ban is just another one and may be long lived or short lived, but it's a reality none the less and like all the other security measures implemented as deemed necessary, it may even save planes from being targeted and save pax in the process.

So you'd be happy with whatever security measures are deemed necessary no matter the inconvenience they cause to passengers?

 

[LordGarlic]

something on the light side

 

[Deleted member 29185]

So you'd be happy with whatever security measures are deemed necessary no matter the inconvenience they cause to passengers?

You seem to be struggling with the concepts of this thread. As much as I appreciate your unwavering belief that the universe revolves around me, it doesn't. What I'd be happy with is a world with no terrorism or crime whatsoever, but that is as irrelevant as what you'd be happy with.

 

[levelnine]

You seem to be struggling with the concepts of this thread. As much as I appreciate your unwavering belief that the universe revolves around me, it doesn't. What I'd be happy with is a world with no terrorism or crime whatsoever, but that is as irrelevant as what you'd be happy with.

The wonderful and hilarious New Yorker cartoon posted by LordGarlic above is the perfect illustration of why I ask the question. I'm asking you a very simple question that should be very simple to answer. Do you place any weight on the competing values at issue? Security is, of course, a deeply important concern in air travel as in all other parts of life, but it is not the only concern. I am trying to work out whether you place any weight on these other concerns -- or whether security is the only thing that is of importance no matter the trade-offs.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

The wonderful and hilarious New Yorker cartoon posted by LordGarlic above is the perfect illustration of why I ask the question.

You do realise that is a cartoon, meant for a laugh? It doesn't actually bear (bare? ) any relevance to reality. Your question was answered. I'd be happy with a world where none of these security measures are needed. Sadly that is not reality.

 

[opusman]

You do realise that is a cartoon, meant for a laugh? It doesn't actually bear (bare? ) any relevance to reality. Your question was answered. I'd be happy with a world where none of these security measures are needed. Sadly that is not reality.

I think it's a valid question. How much would it take for you to start to question the security measures?

Laptop ban is fine with you - what if mobiles were banned too? No electronics at all? Would that be ok?

Ok, how about no carry-on baggage at all? Would you object to that?

No shoes allowed? Would that be ok? Remember the shoe bomber.

What if the cartoon came true, and no personal belongings at all including clothes were allowed. The airline could issue all passengers with approved onesies that you had to change into before boarding, to preserve modesty.

You might say that's ridiculous but each restriction is just a small increment from the previous one. At what point would you personally start to question it?

 

[Skyring]

What if the cartoon came true, and no personal belongings at all including clothes were allowed. The airline could issue all passengers with approved onesies that you had to change into before boarding, to preserve modesty.

I hadn't even seen the cartoon, but that's exactly the thought that was going through my mind.

And even then, it wouldn't work. Drug mules routinely transport quite large shipments on the inside. Easily do the same with explosives. You could either retrieve them for precise placement through the regular process, or if the charge is large enough, just explode them in situ.

I think that the key point with this laptop ban is that it is not uniform. It is aimed at only a few routes and carriers. There is nothing to stop someone with an explosive ipad from choosing a route not covered by the ban. Therefore it is now useless, because a specific ban is only going to guard against a specific threat.

I lean more to there being a vague threat that has been seized upon to disadvantage non-SA airlines. More trumpery.

 

[mushez]

You do realise that is a cartoon, meant for a laugh? It doesn't actually bear (bare? ) any relevance to reality. Your question was answered. I'd be happy with a world where none of these security measures are needed. Sadly that is not reality.

Choice of option to carry on my laptop - or wear clothing .............................. I would choose to go naked and carry on laptop.

Feel more naked, anxious for whole flight, and vulnerable without laptop than without clothing.

I don't see on giving it serious thought, that the cartoon was too far off the mark with how some feel about such an idea as this laptop ban is.

 

[mushez]

...I think that the key point with this laptop ban is that it is not uniform. It is aimed at only a few routes and carriers. There is nothing to stop someone with an explosive ipad from choosing a route not covered by the ban. Therefore it is now useless, because a specific ban is only going to guard against a specific threat.

That sums up how I look at it also, nothing in my mind and eyes is stopping someone with an exploding Laptop, Ipad, or camera - from flying on EK205 or EK209 to the USA from Dubai with their gear and doing what they suggest could happen on a direct flight.

The measure is saying that Dubai etal suck at security, and it is that lacking that justifies the measures rolled out - until they sort out having better security checks in place to allow carry on electronic devices like they once were allowed - and still allow AUS-USA flights.

But something deep inside me doesn't feel it has anything to do with Dubai etal not doing a similar job in security, but some other underlying reason - that or a very poorly thought out patch on what might be genuine intel.

 

[Radio8tiv]

For those with a spare 5mins and a sense of humour you should check out Adam Ruins Everything s1e2 where he has a little blurb about airport security (backed up by facts) here's a small segment of the episode where he talks about airport security
[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QKEdKdgi2hg[/video]

 

[suze2000]

The reason I believe it's economic protectionism for the US airlines is simply because it's not universal. If it were, I would give it more credence.

*MY* problem with it is: it's not just laptops. I often use my phone for music while playing a game on my iPad while in-flight. Now my iPad will likely not even travel with me. (I will take extra pairs of glasses though since I can't see the phone or a seat-back screen without them!) I guess that means I'll be travelling lighter. But what else will they ban? (I'm not even going to mention the thing I fear the most, in case nobody's realised that yet)

And when they take away our phones? I see that cartoon on the previous page, and I'm not sure that's too far-fetched. (except for the part where everyone appears to have enough space and armrests)

 

[Deleted member 29185]

I think it's a valid question.

As I said, the question was answered. The rest is just hypothetical and perhaps if you are so consumed by "what if's", may I suggest re-runs of Geoffrey Robertson may prove more entertaining than any answer I can imagine!

 

[Himeno]

You seem to be struggling with the concepts of this thread.

As do you.