Didn't you hear there is a new Sheriff in town? And he has surrounded himself with the 'Most Intelligent Cabinet in History'! Clearly evidentWhat on earth? This "policy" does not make any sense at all. What is the reasoning behind it?
What on earth? This "policy" does not make any sense at all. What is the reasoning behind it?
Response to intelligence of a credible threat?
What on earth? This "policy" does not make any sense at all. What is the reasoning behind it?
RJ alerts its pax with initial details of the new bans. I'm sure there is a lot more to come. View attachment 94333
The #electronicsban bears the marks of a targeted reaction to a specific threat. “It just feels like there was an intel briefing that they had,” says Kip Hawley, who ran the TSA between 2005 and 2009. Grouping several airlines and electronic devices in one advisory can protect specific intelligence while defusing the threat and minimizing the number of people impacted by the action, he says.
Allowing cell phones but prohibiting larger devices also makes sense, because smaller devices are less likely to conceal enough explosives or other contraband to cause serious damage. “You actually need physical size to get the pop that you need to knock down a plane,” Hawley says. And the cargo hold is a better place for a bomb. An explosion there is surrounded by suitcases, not passengers, and the belly of a plane is robustly reinforced. “You really need a big bomb to knock a plane down underneath the floor,” Hawley says. Yes, the threat of a midair explosion supersedes concerns that the lithium-ion batteries powering those laptops and DVD players will catch fire down below
The WaPo agrees. It's not a security thing, it's something to disadvantage the subsidised airlines of the ME.Well Trump did say that he planned to give advantages to US businesses.
AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements
The WaPo agrees. It's not a security thing, it's something to disadvantage the subsidised airlines of the ME.