Idiotic Laptop ban
Posted by: winkyincanada on 28 May 2017
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40077955
I've already been affected by this islamophobic hysteria that cannot do other than increase the risk of air travel. I recently elected for route that avoided Heathrow, incurring an additional flight and lengthy layover just to avoid hold-checking my electronics. What I really want to know Is there some legitimate way to invest in the pilfered-from-checked-bagge laptop industry?
Wow! Four, six, eight hours without a laptop. What's one to do? Possibly read a book? Remember those?
The "pilfered-from-checked-bagge laptop industry". I was recently reading about that one on Forbes' list of Hottest Industries To Start A Business. Should I consider investing?
It must be tough to fly convinced that airline employees have their sights set on stealing your checked laptop. On the other hand, the (proposed) restriction probably has some credible basis related to airline safety, part of that being that it has become increasingly difficult for personnel reading the security scanners to be confident in short order that they have allowed a safe electronic device to pass. More stringent scanning is one option, but that will result in longer lines at security. I'm happy to check my notebook with no bitching, avoid the paranoia, and get home sooner. The real paranoia is that lithium batteries in the hold represent more a risk than one in the cabin; that ignition of one is more likely or controllable than the other.
As for the particular nations involved, there is a case history of airline terrorism and inferences to be made thereupon, as well as the current politics of said nations. Chalk this up to "Islamophobia"? There is some basis in reality for these measures and I don't see it as some sort of nefarious religious witch-hunt. Airline security is not about to defrock Islam.
winkyincanada posted:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40077955
I've already been affected by this islamophobic hysteria that cannot do other than increase the risk of air travel. I recently elected for route that avoided Heathrow, incurring an additional flight and lengthy layover just to avoid hold-checking my electronics. What I really want to know Is there some legitimate way to invest in the pilfered-from-checked-bagge laptop industry?
Not sure what "route" you were flying or which airline, but we don't have any problems carrying our laptops and i-pads between Kelowna and Heathrow or Gatwick via Vancouver or Calgary !
We fly Westjet, Air Transat, Air Canada and BA. No real problems.
And likewise from Heathrow to a couple of places in Europe and India. No problems.
If it meant you avoided BA at the weekend, then it was a veritable blessing in disguise.
I travel with my laptop for work, and even though I don't use it on the plane for entertainment (although work sometimes), I would be worried about it in the hold, partly because things do go missing - the handlers have access to x-ray equipment after all. I really wouldn't trust the baggage procedures or some of the staff (not airline employees) at Charles de Galling for one.
But also because the batteries in a laptop can easily go south when exposed to the very low temperatures that your baggage sometimes gets to in the hold of an aeroplane (presumably when it's nearest the fuselage, although I'm not an expert). I know that anecdote is not evidence, but this very thing has happened to two of my friends. It also seems rather at odds with the fact that you are not allowed to put other lithium battery stuff - like power packs - into the hold in the first place. Are we just replacing one risk with another?
I'm sure there are valid concerns, based on some kind of intelligence - just another sign of just how shitty this world has become I suppose.
One the fears described by El Reg was that company laptops could be held for further investigation on arriving in certain countries. No guarantees that there would be no commercial exploitation of knowledge gleaned from the laptop.
Don Atkinson posted:winkyincanada posted:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40077955
I've already been affected by this islamophobic hysteria that cannot do other than increase the risk of air travel. I recently elected for route that avoided Heathrow, incurring an additional flight and lengthy layover just to avoid hold-checking my electronics. What I really want to know Is there some legitimate way to invest in the pilfered-from-checked-bagge laptop industry?
Not sure what "route" you were flying or which airline, but we don't have any problems carrying our laptops and i-pads between Kelowna and Heathrow or Gatwick via Vancouver or Calgary !
We fly Westjet, Air Transat, Air Canada and BA. No real problems.
And likewise from Heathrow to a couple of places in Europe and India. No problems.
I was coming from Asmara via of Cairo.
joerand posted:Wow! Four, six, eight hours without a laptop. What's one to do? Possibly read a book? Remember those?
The "pilfered-from-checked-bagge laptop industry". I was recently reading about that one on Forbes' list of Hottest Industries To Start A Business. Should I consider investing?
It must be tough to fly convinced that airline employees have their sights set on stealing your checked laptop. On the other hand, the (proposed) restriction probably has some credible basis related to airline safety, part of that being that it has become increasingly difficult for personnel reading the security scanners to be confident in short order that they have allowed a safe electronic device to pass. More stringent scanning is one option, but that will result in longer lines at security. I'm happy to check my notebook with no bitching, avoid the paranoia, and get home sooner. The real paranoia is that lithium batteries in the hold represent more a risk than one in the cabin; that ignition of one is more likely or controllable than the other.
As for the particular nations involved, there is a case history of airline terrorism and inferences to be made thereupon, as well as the current politics of said nations. Chalk this up to "Islamophobia"? There is some basis in reality for these measures and I don't see it as some sort of nefarious religious witch-hunt. Airline security is not about to defrock Islam.
I can survive without my electronics on the flight, but I don't check any bags at all on most trips, so that's a bit of an inconvenience. It is not really an issue coming home, but my business trips would be severely affected by the loss (due to theft) or delay (due to "lost luggage") of my laptop enroute to the client. There are a number of work-arounds, but for now the easiest thing is for me to just avoid the routes that would require me to check my electronics. I feel no less safe because others on the flight have their laptops.
The other side of the coin is a guy who was about to take a TWA flight from Athens to NY in 1974. Prior to boarding the plane he visited the Israeli Embassy in Athens where their security officer (a friend of mine) asked him why he wasn't flying El Al which was considered a much safer airline. The man took his advice, switched carriers at the last minute and lived. TWA flight 841 never reached its destination, blowing up in mid-air over the Atlantic.
Our flight a few days ago on BA back from Italy to Heathrow was predominantly "carry-on" luggage only. Many EU flights (and internal flights) are predominantly carry-on luggage. The cost of putting a bag in the Hold is c.£30 each way paid in advance, or £65 each way paid at the desk.
So, many airlines are encouraging carry-on luggage only v Governments dictating Hold Luggage for laptops to/from certain countries.
It's a risk-balancing act !
Haim Ronen posted:The other side of the coin is a guy who was about to take a TWA flight from Athens to NY in 1974. Prior to boarding the plane he visited the Israeli Embassy in Athens where their security officer (a friend of mine) asked him why he wasn't flying El Al which was considered a much safer airline. The man took his advice, switched carriers at the last minute and lived. TWA flight 841 never reached its destination, blowing up in mid-air over the Atlantic.
That's not the other side of the coin. That's an anecdote. For all the fear-mongering and hysteria, those that would wish to harm us are either rare or are spectacularly poor at doing so (it's both). Flying remains extremely safe, in spite of generally ineffective security theatre. I'd have no issue with flying on planes where there were no laptop scans, where my fellow passengers didn't have to remove their shoes, and where my fellow passengers were allowed bring drinks on board.
winkyincanada posted:Haim Ronen posted:The other side of the coin is a guy who was about to take a TWA flight from Athens to NY in 1974. Prior to boarding the plane he visited the Israeli Embassy in Athens where their security officer (a friend of mine) asked him why he wasn't flying El Al which was considered a much safer airline. The man took his advice, switched carriers at the last minute and lived. TWA flight 841 never reached its destination, blowing up in mid-air over the Atlantic.
That's not the other side of the coin. That's an anecdote. For all the fear-mongering and hysteria, those that would wish to harm us are either rare or are spectacularly poor at doing so (it's both). Flying remains extremely safe, in spite of generally ineffective security theatre. I'd have no issue with flying on planes where there were no laptop scans, where my fellow passengers didn't have to remove their shoes, and where my fellow passengers were allowed bring drinks on board.
Windy, I think your personal experience on your trip via Cairo, was just as anecdotal as Hain's. And whilst your comment above is YOUR assessment, it's not mine. At the moment it seems that we shall continue with security checks etc.
Don Atkinson posted:winkyincanada posted:Haim Ronen posted:The other side of the coin is a guy who was about to take a TWA flight from Athens to NY in 1974. Prior to boarding the plane he visited the Israeli Embassy in Athens where their security officer (a friend of mine) asked him why he wasn't flying El Al which was considered a much safer airline. The man took his advice, switched carriers at the last minute and lived. TWA flight 841 never reached its destination, blowing up in mid-air over the Atlantic.
That's not the other side of the coin. That's an anecdote. For all the fear-mongering and hysteria, those that would wish to harm us are either rare or are spectacularly poor at doing so (it's both). Flying remains extremely safe, in spite of generally ineffective security theatre. I'd have no issue with flying on planes where there were no laptop scans, where my fellow passengers didn't have to remove their shoes, and where my fellow passengers were allowed bring drinks on board.
Windy, I think your personal experience on your trip via Cairo, was just as anecdotal as Hain's. And whilst your comment above is YOUR assessment, it's not mine. At the moment it seems that we shall continue with security checks etc.
My experience is of course an anecdote. But I don't infer anything from it, other than my own preferences. You don't think that flying is safe? All the statistics I've ever seen show that it is. Happy to be corrected. 100% agree that we shall be subjected to continued security checks. In fact, it will likely become even more onerous and inconvenient.
winkyincanada posted:Don Atkinson posted:winkyincanada posted:Haim Ronen posted:The other side of the coin is a guy who was about to take a TWA flight from Athens to NY in 1974. Prior to boarding the plane he visited the Israeli Embassy in Athens where their security officer (a friend of mine) asked him why he wasn't flying El Al which was considered a much safer airline. The man took his advice, switched carriers at the last minute and lived. TWA flight 841 never reached its destination, blowing up in mid-air over the Atlantic.
That's not the other side of the coin. That's an anecdote. For all the fear-mongering and hysteria, those that would wish to harm us are either rare or are spectacularly poor at doing so (it's both). Flying remains extremely safe, in spite of generally ineffective security theatre. I'd have no issue with flying on planes where there were no laptop scans, where my fellow passengers didn't have to remove their shoes, and where my fellow passengers were allowed bring drinks on board.
Windy, I think your personal experience on your trip via Cairo, was just as anecdotal as Hain's. And whilst your comment above is YOUR assessment, it's not mine. At the moment it seems that we shall continue with security checks etc.
My experience is of course an anecdote. But I don't infer anything from it, other than my own preferences. You don't think that flying is safe? All the statistics I've ever seen show that it is. Happy to be corrected. 100% agree that we shall be subjected to continued security checks. In fact, it will likely become even more onerous and inconvenient.
Given my current job and historic work, sure I think flying is safe............
...........but it's not entirely without risk -
We need to have elements of both optimism and caution. The balance keeps changing.
Haim Ronen posted:The other side of the coin is a guy who was about to take a TWA flight from Athens to NY in 1974. Prior to boarding the plane he visited the Israeli Embassy in Athens where their security officer (a friend of mine) asked him why he wasn't flying El Al which was considered a much safer airline. The man took his advice, switched carriers at the last minute and lived. TWA flight 841 never reached its destination, blowing up in mid-air over the Atlantic.
Interesting that you should quote that particular incident, which (like Lockerbie) was caused by a device in the hold, not by any sort of carry-on. You know, the hold. Where they are making us put our devices that are apparently too risky for the cabin.
winkyincanada posted:Haim Ronen posted:The other side of the coin is a guy who was about to take a TWA flight from Athens to NY in 1974. Prior to boarding the plane he visited the Israeli Embassy in Athens where their security officer (a friend of mine) asked him why he wasn't flying El Al which was considered a much safer airline. The man took his advice, switched carriers at the last minute and lived. TWA flight 841 never reached its destination, blowing up in mid-air over the Atlantic.
That's not the other side of the coin. That's an anecdote. For all the fear-mongering and hysteria, those that would wish to harm us are either rare or are spectacularly poor at doing so (it's both). Flying remains extremely safe, in spite of generally ineffective security theatre. I'd have no issue with flying on planes where there were no laptop scans, where my fellow passengers didn't have to remove their shoes, and where my fellow passengers were allowed bring drinks on board.
This is exactly the other side of the coin, someone willing to inconvenient himself by changing flights, perhaps even paying a little more, to be able to fly in a safer manner. On that particular day and flight it was a question of living or dying.
I find it childish using the term 'idiotic' when you have no way to know the severity of the threat.
I am fully aware that the primary way that civilians should combat terrorism is to carry on with their daily lives as usual. However, you have to balance it against precautions taken when specific threats appear. The airlines have to cover their liability and make their flights as safe as possible despite the inconveniences caused to the passengers.
You don't have to tell me about security turning into paranoia. I can't count how many times I was stopped in the US by Homeland Security and local police for taking pictures of bridges and Federal buildings with my Nikon. If I were using a smart phone no one would bother me.
As one who knew personally three individuals who parishes in separate terrorist attacks taking place on two different continents in a span of 20 years, I couldn't care less about stats.
A friend of mine flew from Cape Town to Seattle, via Dubai a month ago. He had his laptop with him on the first leg, and a six hour layover in Dubai - enough time to go to the lounge, shower, freshen up, have a meal, some drinks, maybe a rest.
You'd think.
No.
Enough time - just - for him and almost everyone else to recheck laptops and tablets into special hold container(s) for the next flight(s). The queue/wait for doing this was five hours. And Dubai is a pretty efficient airport. London cannot cope with more than three snowflakes at a time, or en electrical fault that the rest of us cure with a fuse. Charles de Galling cannot cope full stop. With anything.
Just another anecdote, but I fear the shape of things to come
(Yes, next time he will put his laptop in his checked hold luggage, but he was assured in advance that it would be 'easy'.)
Haim Ronen posted:As one who knew personally three individuals who perished in separate terrorist attacks taking place on two different continents in a span of 20 years, I couldn't care less about stats.
It's sad that you have been personally affected. The statistical risk of dying at the hands of terrorists remains extremely small.
rodwsmith posted:A friend of mine flew from Cape Town to Seattle, via Dubai a month ago. He had his laptop with him on the first leg, and a six hour layover in Dubai - enough time to go to the lounge, shower, freshen up, have a meal, some drinks, maybe a rest.
You'd think.
No.
Enough time - just - for him and almost everyone else to recheck laptops and tablets into special hold container(s) for the next flight(s). The queue/wait for doing this was five hours. And Dubai is a pretty efficient airport. London cannot cope with more than three snowflakes at a time, or en electrical fault that the rest of us cure with a fuse. Charles de Galling cannot cope full stop. With anything.
Just another anecdote, but I fear the shape of things to come
(Yes, next time he will put his laptop in his checked hold luggage, but he was assured in advance that it would be 'easy'.)
We'll soon have no choice. Security hysteria is pretty much on a one-way trajectory. All electronics will have to be secured in the hold on all flights. The next logical step is no baggage whatsoever. I've already seen that (temporarily) in the case of carry-on. Not even a paperback. But at least I was "safe". They looked between every single page of my passport, leafed between the notes in my wallet and removed each individual credit card etc, one by one. But at least I was "safe". They then parked they plane on the corner of the airfield while Homeland Security vetted every single passenger before we could take off. But at least I was "safe". This was between Heathrow and the US. But at least I was "safe".
Haim Ronen posted:winkyincanada posted:Haim Ronen posted:The other side of the coin is a guy who was about to take a TWA flight from Athens to NY in 1974. Prior to boarding the plane he visited the Israeli Embassy in Athens where their security officer (a friend of mine) asked him why he wasn't flying El Al which was considered a much safer airline. The man took his advice, switched carriers at the last minute and lived. TWA flight 841 never reached its destination, blowing up in mid-air over the Atlantic.
That's not the other side of the coin. That's an anecdote. For all the fear-mongering and hysteria, those that would wish to harm us are either rare or are spectacularly poor at doing so (it's both). Flying remains extremely safe, in spite of generally ineffective security theatre. I'd have no issue with flying on planes where there were no laptop scans, where my fellow passengers didn't have to remove their shoes, and where my fellow passengers were allowed bring drinks on board.
This is exactly the other side of the coin, someone willing to inconvenient himself by changing flights, perhaps even paying a little more, to be able to fly in a safer manner. On that particular day and flight it was a question of living or dying.
Wait, so your friend, the security officer at the Israeli Embassy, had information of such relevance that he advised a potential passenger to not fly on a particular flight, yet that flight was still allowed to take off? Or was this a coincidence? If the former, it is unconscionable. If the latter, it's just that a coincidence and merely an anecdote.
winkyincanada posted:Wait, so your friend, the security officer at the Israeli Embassy, had information of such relevance that he advised a potential passenger to not fly on a particular flight, yet that flight was still allowed to take off? Or was this a coincidence? If the former, it is unconscionable. If the latter, it's just that a coincidence and merely an anecdote.
Winky,
I am really not in the mood for arguing. The security officer told the traveller that EL Al, the Israeli airlines, was the safest to fly with because of their security arrangements on the ground as well as on board of their airplanes. I believe this is still true today. It is a story of one person and a single flight which ended up tragically, nothing more. How can you even think that someone in the field of security would have a specific intelligence about a risk to a particular flight and not share it immediately with the local authorities and the other airlines? You may ignore the whole thing since it was a one time event which took place 43 years ago or you can put yourself there in 1974 with a courageous attitude ,hating inconveniences, armed with the proper stats receiving the advice from the embassy man. What would you have done?
Have a good night.
winkyincanada posted:rodwsmith posted:A friend of mine flew from Cape Town to Seattle, via Dubai a month ago. He had his laptop with him on the first leg, and a six hour layover in Dubai - enough time to go to the lounge, shower, freshen up, have a meal, some drinks, maybe a rest.
You'd think.
No.
Enough time - just - for him and almost everyone else to recheck laptops and tablets into special hold container(s) for the next flight(s). The queue/wait for doing this was five hours. And Dubai is a pretty efficient airport. London cannot cope with more than three snowflakes at a time, or en electrical fault that the rest of us cure with a fuse. Charles de Galling cannot cope full stop. With anything.
Just another anecdote, but I fear the shape of things to come
(Yes, next time he will put his laptop in his checked hold luggage, but he was assured in advance that it would be 'easy'.)
We'll soon have no choice. Security hysteria is pretty much on a one-way trajectory. All electronics will have to be secured in the hold on all flights. The next logical step is no baggage whatsoever. I've already seen that (temporarily) in the case of carry-on. Not even a paperback. But at least I was "safe". They looked between every single page of my passport, leafed between the notes in my wallet and removed each individual credit card etc, one by one. But at least I was "safe". They then parked they plane on the corner of the airfield while Homeland Security vetted every single passenger before we could take off. But at least I was "safe". This was between Heathrow and the US. But at least I was "safe".
I thought I was in the "Best Jokes" thread for a moment or two.
Nice one winky !
Don Atkinson posted:winkyincanada posted:rodwsmith posted:A friend of mine flew from Cape Town to Seattle, via Dubai a month ago. He had his laptop with him on the first leg, and a six hour layover in Dubai - enough time to go to the lounge, shower, freshen up, have a meal, some drinks, maybe a rest.
You'd think.
No.
Enough time - just - for him and almost everyone else to recheck laptops and tablets into special hold container(s) for the next flight(s). The queue/wait for doing this was five hours. And Dubai is a pretty efficient airport. London cannot cope with more than three snowflakes at a time, or en electrical fault that the rest of us cure with a fuse. Charles de Galling cannot cope full stop. With anything.
Just another anecdote, but I fear the shape of things to come
(Yes, next time he will put his laptop in his checked hold luggage, but he was assured in advance that it would be 'easy'.)
We'll soon have no choice. Security hysteria is pretty much on a one-way trajectory. All electronics will have to be secured in the hold on all flights. The next logical step is no baggage whatsoever. I've already seen that (temporarily) in the case of carry-on. Not even a paperback. But at least I was "safe". They looked between every single page of my passport, leafed between the notes in my wallet and removed each individual credit card etc, one by one. But at least I was "safe". They then parked they plane on the corner of the airfield while Homeland Security vetted every single passenger before we could take off. But at least I was "safe". This was between Heathrow and the US. But at least I was "safe".
Nice one winky !
No, it's a 100% true story. Right after some underpants/shoe guy was caught.
I'm not sure anyone here can strategically evaluate the propriety of airline security measures at more than a casual level. Even if someone could, I doubt they'd be in a position to comment on this venue. To call a security measure "idiotic" because it causes you an inconvenience is just that; idiotic. There are several of traffic lights on my way to work I could just as well do without, though it's the folks coming from the left and right directions that probably appreciate them.
Nobody enjoys air travel in this age, but most airlines are for-profit ventures and it doesn't make sense for them to unnecessarily inconvenience patrons without merit. The larger question for me is what the safety status of airline travel would look like if the industry put passenger convenience ahead of flight security or attempted to infuse anti-Islamic sentiment into their business practices. Granted, there is governmental involvement.
Passenger safety is paramount as it should be. As well, from a purely business perspective, these are $200-300M aircraft subject to potential lunacy. Where else does a private industry put that kind of money on the line thousands of times daily? Maybe frequent travelers take air safety for granted. As you say Winky, air travel is part of your job, so maybe suck it up and treat associated inconveniences as part of your job.
Your OP would have read more sympathetic if you said that you normally don't check bags and the changes in security on flights to/from certain countries will force you to check your laptop causing you more time spent in queues at airports. That's really all it amounts to. Otherwise, if you can't stand the heat, maybe it's time to get out of the kitchen.