78 Responses

  1. Alister
    Alister at |

    has there been any confirmation of that, or are we seeing it from any other airlines? Sounds concerning.

    Reply
  2. Steven Sullivan
    Steven Sullivan at |

    What the hell?

    Reply
  3. Elizabeth Houck
    Elizabeth Houck at |

    perhaps this a result of intel?

    Reply
  4. Jeb Stuart Johnston
    Jeb Stuart Johnston at |

    I assume most of their travel is business. How many business flyers are going to choose an airline that doesn’t allow them to work?

    Reply
  5. Charles Kennedy
    Charles Kennedy at |

    i wouldn’t only stay away because of the inconvenience and risk of lost/stolen laptops, but because RJ have obviously received a very specific security threat

    Reply
    1. Seth Miller
      Seth Miller at |

      I’ve been thinking about the specific security threat angle a bit. Obviously that’s a reasonable inference to make from the policy announcement and short implementation timing. But does the checked baggage screening offer that much greater detail/sensitivity/whatever to justify the implied outcome that a ‘device” will be caught on one set of scanners but not the other?

      Not to mention that a malicious device in the hold (along with all those extra batteries down there) is still rather risky.

      Reply
  6. Blorg
    Blorg at |

    I’d like to see someone carrying a DVD player on a flight. I’m assuming they meant a portable DVD player with a screen, but I’d like to see someone holding the stand alone DVD player on their lap throughout a flight.

    Reply
    1. Jim
      Jim at |

      I did have a DVD/BluRay player in my carry-on luggage when I returned to the US from living in China. Didn’t trust the airline to not have it stolen and wanted it to play the discs I had with me until my stuff was shipped from China.

      Reply
  7. Seth Miller
    Seth Miller at |

    Now hearing rumor that other countries are likely included in the new policy, as many as 13 possibly. Lots of unknown bits at this point but this is not the whole story at all.

    Reply
    1. Jeremy Dwyer-Lindgren
      Jeremy Dwyer-Lindgren at |

      Stuff is getting weird.

      Reply
  8. NoLaptops
    NoLaptops at |

    According to a friend – All airlines flying out of the Middle East to the US will have to comply with this policy. Airports with a US pre-clearance facility (Abu Dhabi) will be exempt. It will start on the 21st. It’s gonna suck.

    Reply
  9. Austin Paul Thomas Speaker
    Austin Paul Thomas Speaker at |

    The idea of checking a laptop irks me. But doesn’t that violate other regulations for lithium ion batteries?

    Reply
  10. Brian S
    Brian S at |

    If they are concerned about terrorism allowing cell phones seems strange. A smartphone is essentially a computer with the advantage of wireless communication built it.
    Maybe it’s because customs is getting overwhelmed (or about to get overwhelmed?) by the number of (or thoroughness) of the electronic searches they are doing. Discouraging people to bring electronics by making it a pain in the ass would be one way to limit that. One the flip side how do you search a laptop that have been crushed in someone’s carry on?

    Reply
  11. Everton Morris
    Everton Morris at |

    Perhaps a very specific threat of some sort?

    Reply
    1. Steven Sullivan
      Steven Sullivan at |

      Then why allow electronics at all?

      The last time an inbound flight to the US was blown out of the sky due to a bomb concealed in a personal electronic device was PA 103. A timer with nobody on board to trigger the device hidden in checked baggage did what it was supposed to do.

      Banning electronics just from carry-on bags, and requiring them to be checked as luggage doesn’t really secure anything. And, it raises other accidental risks with lithium batteries.

      Reply
    2. Charles Kennedy
      Charles Kennedy at |

      They’re not stupid; this is obviously in response to something specific

      Reply
    3. Seth Miller
      Seth Miller at |

      I believe this is an attempt to end-run the courts on the Muslim Ban EO that they cannot otherwise bring to bear.

      Reply
    4. Lukas Kirchner
      Lukas Kirchner at |

      Seth: Thought of this as well. Very awkward policy…

      Reply
    5. Maarten Van Den Driessche
      Maarten Van Den Driessche at |

      Seems only for 96 hours?

      Reply
    6. Seth Miller
      Seth Miller at |

      Maarten Van Den Driessche Airlines have 96 hours to reach compliance. The new rule is open-ended in duration.

      Reply
  12. Flying into the US? Complete electronics ban for 96 hours on 13 carriers - Live from a Lounge

    […] per a comment on The Wandering Aramean, it seems the ban is all airlines flying out of the middle-east to the USA are affected. Airports […]

  13. howie ray
    howie ray at |

    What about microwaves?

    Reply
  14. MarkM
    MarkM at |

    Immediate pause to airlines considering removing IFE thinking passengers will bring their own device for entertainment?

    Reply
  15. Josef Fuerst
    Josef Fuerst at |

    Only RJ or other Airlines too?

    Reply
    1. richardc020
      richardc020 at |
      Reply
  16. Greg
    Greg at |

    Not sure how horrid this is for most passengers. Do all that many carry a laptop?

    A pain for some biz travelers, especially those that don’t have an office on both ends.

    Seems like a classic trade war salvo. Go after a pain point that hurts a minority of those involved, but enough to get some concessions.

    Reply
    1. Ryan
      Ryan at |

      Laptop? No. Tablet? Loads!

      Reply
  17. secstate
    secstate at |

    @ Greg it is any electronic device other than a phone or medical device so not just laptops. I would guess the number of passengers impacted would be pretty high, probably the majority. Many folks will likely be carrying a camera, tablet, or game device. Heck I still carry an MP3 player and that would technically have to be checked based on RJ’s write up even though it is very small.

    Reply
  18. Charles Kennedy
    Charles Kennedy at |

    RJ only; wonder if this is why

    Reply
    1. Seth Miller
      Seth Miller at |

      I won a bet with John Walton on that theory. RJ was just first to admit the problem. Many more affected as well.

      Reply
    2. Maarten Van Den Driessche
      Maarten Van Den Driessche at |

      Also Saudia

      Reply
  19. Linda Smith Tabb
    Linda Smith Tabb at |
    Reply
  20. usbusinesstraveller
    usbusinesstraveller at |

    Those Twitter posts by Royal Jordanian have been deleted.

    Reply
  21. Brian Wiklem
    Brian Wiklem at |

    The idea of a bunch of lithium ion batteries in the cargo hold scares the hell out of me

    Reply
    1. Maarten Van Den Driessche
      Maarten Van Den Driessche at |

      it’s actually a violation of the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations

      Reply
  22. Tony Reece
    Tony Reece at |
    Reply
    1. Seth Miller
      Seth Miller at |

      Still far too many details missing.

      Reply
  23. Raymonde Thériault
    Raymonde Thériault at |

    Can anyone tell them Montreal is a canadian City! haha @RoyalJordanian #Montréal

    Reply
  24. Seth Miller
    Seth Miller at |

    Saudia is now officially part of the ban and is notifying passengers, though I cannot read the text in the image associated with the tweet announcing such. https://twitter.com/Saudi_Airlines/status/843938021795926016

    Reply
  25. Paul Goldsack
    Paul Goldsack at |

    Worried about people hacking into the flight systems with a laptop from seat 26D??

    Reply
    1. Igor Matlin
      Igor Matlin at |

      Can be done from a cell phone. 😉

      Reply
    2. Seth Miller
      Seth Miller at |

      No.

      Reply
    3. David Fisher
      David Fisher at |

      What’s the purpose of this?

      Reply
    4. Paul Goldsack
      Paul Goldsack at |

      Then they are thinking along the lines of people forcing batteries to explode inflight. However as others have said if that then results in baggage bins full of batteries, it’s another issue.

      Reply
  26. Igor Matlin
    Igor Matlin at |

    Shouldn’t be difficult to figure out 13 ME and Africa destinations that are not served nonstop by US airlines..right, Seth? 🙂

    Reply
    1. Seth Miller
      Seth Miller at |
      Reply
    2. Igor Matlin
      Igor Matlin at |

      It was mentioned somewhere that US airlines are unaffected because they don’t have nonstop flights to/from the destinations in question. So that eliminates DL, LY, and UA.

      Reply
    3. Seth Miller
      Seth Miller at |

      Also, Israel mostly cooperates with US intelligence & security still. I expect TLV will not be an affected destination.

      Reply
  27. David Conklin
    David Conklin at |

    CNN reported it on TV

    Reply
  28. Lesley Fry
    Lesley Fry at |

    This won’t apply to you if you have never flown their airline.because it applies only to their “dearest” passengers, 🙂

    Reply
  29. Seth Miller
    Seth Miller at |

    AP now reporting AMM, CAI, RAK, JED, KWI, DOH, RUH, IST, AUH & DXB are the impacted airports. Still lots of open questions.

    Reply
    1. Idir Aitsahalia
      Idir Aitsahalia at |

      CMN not RAK I think.

      Reply
    2. Seth Miller
      Seth Miller at |

      Indeed.

      Reply
    3. Maarten Van Den Driessche
      Maarten Van Den Driessche at |

      CMN is Casablanca

      Reply
  30. howie ray
    howie ray at |

    I mean no one could ever take a flight to FRA and then do something over the Atlantic. Another move that makes no sense..

    Reply
  31. Scott Weinberg
    Scott Weinberg at |

    I don’t trusted TSA & DHS behaviors. There’s no such things. There’s no banned laptop, iPads, camera and etc. That’s not right. It’s free country. Those passengers had it right to work on laptop.

    Reply
  32. Michael
    Michael at |

    From a security point of view, this makes no sense at all. Those wishing to do harm will travel by carriers / cities outside the ban.

    Allowing cellphones appears to go against the gist of the ban

    Forcing all that equipment with those batteries into the hold is inviting problems with fire etc

    The fact that the Government agency is saying nothing while the story is well publicised at this stage is strange

    I wonder if this is a politically motivated move and nothing at all to do with security

    Reply
  33. Greg Lindsay
    Greg Lindsay at |

    For chrissakes, there’s US Customs pre clearance in AUH!

    Reply
    1. howie ray
      howie ray at |

      Don’t think they knew that…

      Reply
  34. Igor Matlin
    Igor Matlin at |

    I guess US3 finally got rid of ME3 competition. 😮

    Talk about getting government help…

    Reply
    1. Nathan Rau
      Nathan Rau at |

      In some respects yes in some respects no. I do think the me3 got lumped into it because it made sense. I don’t get why AUH is on the list since us CIS is there. But then again….

      I do think there is a legitimate reason for the ban otherwise the UK wouldn’t have joined in. However, putting this stuff in the hold doesn’t solve anything and make some things worse.

      Reply
    2. Igor Matlin
      Igor Matlin at |

      I can see how smaller explosives could be more dangerous in the cabin than in the cargo hold.

      I don’t understand why ME3 airports are on the US list, but not on the UK list. Different intelligence sources? Unlikely.

      I don’t understand what this accomplished, in reality, since it appears once can make a connection through airports where transit passengers don’t have to clear additional security.

      Reply
    3. Igor Matlin
      Igor Matlin at |

      I also don’t see why Nigeria is exempt from this ban. Is security situation in Lagos much better than, say, in Dubai?

      Is Pakistan not a country with a fairly large radicalized population?

      Reply
    4. Seth Miller
      Seth Miller at |

      No flights to the US from Nigeria. Pakistan goes via Manchester, UK but is nonstop on the east-bound leg.

      Reply
    5. Haung Yu
      Haung Yu at |

      I thought Lagos was still on DL’s schedule

      Reply
    6. Igor Matlin
      Igor Matlin at |

      DL has ATL-LOS nonstop.

      Reply
    7. Seth Miller
      Seth Miller at |

      My bad…I thought it was gone.

      Reply
  35. New Details On Nonsensical Electronics Ban | A Thing I Love About...

    […] there is that if certain groups can’t be outright banned from entering the country, then perhaps they can be disincentivized from visiting if the experience and process is onerous enough . Visas in advance versus ESTAs, extra screenings, more expensive flights, no electronics — […]

  36. Eric M. Monte
    Eric M. Monte at |

    Exactly what I was thinking Igor Matlin!

    IT’S A TRADE BARRIER.

    What? You didn’t think all those AMERICAN Airlines’ CEOs were at the White House just to discuss free markets?

    Reply
    1. Igor Matlin
      Igor Matlin at |

      America First! America First! America First!

      Reply
  37. Eric M. Monte
    Eric M. Monte at |

    With a whoosh of a pen, you just made it entirely inconvenient to connect or O&D on any ME3 carrier or the national flag carrier from any of those airports. What’s brilliant about it is that since no US3 carrier had direct flights to those cities, there is no direct benefit to them, so you they can plausibly deny it isn’t a barrier.

    European carriers are just as complicit, guess how many more people are going to transit in FRA, LHR, etc.

    Reply
  38. Mike Holovacs
    Mike Holovacs at |

    So this is how the US3 choose to get even with the ME3? This is churlish at best.

    Reply
  39. Seth Miller
    Seth Miller at |
    Reply
  40. Andrew Fielding
    Andrew Fielding at |

    This is corporate greed.

    Reply
  41. Seth Miller
    Seth Miller at |

    Continuing the confusion over this new policy, maybe there are no new threats. https://apnews.com/b5232028af3a453ca8cf62d16efc0c07

    Impressively bad on the confusion front here.

    Reply

Leave a Reply