fbpixel
  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 74 posts | 
by photoman4343 on Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:45 pm
photoman4343
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1656
Joined: 01 Feb 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Heads up to airline travelers!

I just heard on the evening news about a TSA Circular that will ban certain electronic devices larger than a cell phone such as laptops, ipads, cameras, etc from cabins on airlines originating from 13 countries. Such electronics will have to be placed in checked luggage. Full details have not yet been published.  More information in the article below.  


https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/20/us-forbids-devices-larger-cell-phones-flights-13-countries

Joe
Joe Smith
 

by Tim Zurowski on Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:51 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18640
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
They don't seem to say which 13 countries they are? Presumably Canada will not be one of them? If it is, I guess my traveling dollars will not be going to the USA anymore.
Cheers
Tim Zurowski
www.timzphotography.com
 

by signgrap on Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:47 pm
User avatar
signgrap
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1451
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Delaware Water Gap, PA
Member #:00424
It was countries in the middle east.
Dick Ludwig
 

by SantaFeJoe on Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:29 pm
User avatar
SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5304
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Countries listed here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/electronics-ban-on-some-us-bound-flights/
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.  -Pablo Picasso
 

by baldsparrow on Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:52 am
User avatar
baldsparrow
Forum Contributor
Posts: 408
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
The UK are also going to bring in the same restrictions - presumably other countries will follow
 

by Mike in O on Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:45 am
Mike in O
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2022
Joined: 22 Dec 2013
The real reason that this ban is being implemented
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/?utm_term=.b470be1d0d78&wpisrc=nl_&wpmm=1
 

by photoman4343 on Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:21 pm
photoman4343
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1656
Joined: 01 Feb 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Here is information on what the UK is implementing:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39343971

It includes 6 UK carriers and 8 foreign carriers, all named in the link.
Joe Smith
 

by DChan on Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:20 pm
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1600
Joined: 09 Jan 2009
Canada could be next....
 

by E.J. Peiker on Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:36 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 80308
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
The scary thing about these things is that the restrictions tend to grow not ease. I fear this is a slippery slope that eventually will find itself onto all flights from anywhere. Remember that the airlines make more money if they force you to check your luggage. I can easily see this expanding and turning into another revenue grab. Of course it's completely at odds with battery rules. Lets say you are traveling on a flight from India to the USA on Emirates which stops in the UAE - this is one of the most popular ways to travel from India to the USA. You have your camera gear and spare batteries that aren't allowed into checked luggage but now must be put into checked luggage... You are screwed, the only option you have is to throw away the expensive batteries.
 

by Mike in O on Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:23 pm
Mike in O
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2022
Joined: 22 Dec 2013
What will it be worth to you to rent a laptop or camera fully loaded at your destination, sort of like airbnb.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:16 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 80308
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Yeah that's what I want to do, spend 10's of thousands of dollars on gear rental every year...
Not to mention, availability of the gear that you need.  Just can't see 10 people showing up for a workshop in Cuiaba Brazil, or Mongolia, or pretty much anywhere and expecting to be able to rent 10 500 f/4's in three different mounts, 10 100-400's, 20 pro camera bodies, 10 high end laptops, etc, etc...  Or shgowing up in the Australian outback and expecting to rent 15 Phase One systems with complete lens sets...  Just not evean a remotely plausible scenario.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:38 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 80308
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
The more I think about this the more I'm actually wondering how much of this was actually initiated by US Air Carriers putting a bug in the TSA's ear through lobbying them.  The US Air Carriers have been having a major tantrum for some time now about middle eastern airline access to the US as they offer a drastically better product at about the same price - they are heavily subsidized by their billionaire sheik owners and shareholders and can operate with much lower load factors than the US carriers can.  For a while the US international carriers have been lobbying Congress, the FAA and whoever will listen very hard to make access to the US much harder for these carriers...  What a great backdoor to making these carrier's business model break down than to single them out with targeted legislation or rules to decrease their business...

It seems to me if security were the actual motivation here, they would simply insist on higher security measures that have to be vetted and monitored by the US in order to allow their planes to fly to the US.  As it stands, this does absolutely nothing to enhance security since anyone with malicious intent can simply fly first to another country and then book through another carrier Without these restrictions.

Oh, and which two regulations did we get rid of in order to enact this new one???
 

by SantaFeJoe on Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:05 am
User avatar
SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5304
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
E.J. Peiker wrote:
The more I think about this the more I'm actually wondering how much of this was actually initiated by US Air Carriers putting a bug in the TSA's ear through lobbying them.  The US Air Carriers have been having a major tantrum for some time now about middle eastern airline access to the US as they offer a drastically better product at about the same price - they are heavily subsidized by their billionaire sheik owners and shareholders and can operate with much lower load factors than the US carriers can.  For a while the US international carriers have been lobbying Congress, the FAA and whoever will listen very hard to make access to the US much harder for these carriers...  What a great backdoor to making these carrier's business model break down than to single them out with targeted legislation or rules to decrease their business...

It seems to me if security were the actual motivation here, they would simply insist on higher security measures that have to be vetted and monitored by the US in order to allow their planes to fly to the US.  As it stands, this does absolutely nothing to enhance security since anyone with malicious intent can simply fly first to another country and then book through another carrier Without these restrictions.

Oh, and which two regulations did we get rid of in order to enact this new one???

That's exactly what this link Mike posted is about:


Mike in O wrote:
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.  -Pablo Picasso
 

by Royce Howland on Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:10 am
User avatar
Royce Howland
Forum Contributor
Posts: 11700
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Member #:00460
I call BS on this new regulation. I believe it has more or less zero to do with security on any intelligent or pragmatic level. Anybody who could build a threat into a laptop and make it sophisticated enough to get through the screening that's in place for people with carry-on luggage, probably can build a threat into a laptop that goes into checked baggage. Or simply go the human route, and bribe or otherwise suborn somebody in the airport logistics pipeline. Humans are the ultimate loophole in all security measures.

And if it's really about security against potential threats from these types of devices, then the regulation stops far too short. It simply needs to ban the devices being on airplanes period, and ban them on all flights (both foreign and domestic carriers), as well as from far more points of origin.

Rather, I feel it's simply a hardball international trade relations type of move, gussied up with a bit of security theatre to take the attention off what's really going on. And then executed with a ham-fisted lack of flair, subtlety or ability to withstand casual but informed scrutiny...
Royce Howland
Visit my web site for photo galleries, my blog and photo tours & workshops
 

by E.J. Peiker on Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:07 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 80308
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
SantaFeJoe wrote:
E.J. Peiker wrote:
The more I think about this the more I'm actually wondering how much of this was actually initiated by US Air Carriers putting a bug in the TSA's ear through lobbying them.  The US Air Carriers have been having a major tantrum for some time now about middle eastern airline access to the US as they offer a drastically better product at about the same price - they are heavily subsidized by their billionaire sheik owners and shareholders and can operate with much lower load factors than the US carriers can.  For a while the US international carriers have been lobbying Congress, the FAA and whoever will listen very hard to make access to the US much harder for these carriers...  What a great backdoor to making these carrier's business model break down than to single them out with targeted legislation or rules to decrease their business...

It seems to me if security were the actual motivation here, they would simply insist on higher security measures that have to be vetted and monitored by the US in order to allow their planes to fly to the US.  As it stands, this does absolutely nothing to enhance security since anyone with malicious intent can simply fly first to another country and then book through another carrier Without these restrictions.

Oh, and which two regulations did we get rid of in order to enact this new one???

That's exactly what this link Mike posted is about:


Mike in O wrote:



Oh wow, hadn't even seen that article - nice to know I'm not the only one thinking this.
 

by Vivek on Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:23 am
Vivek
Lifetime Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 05 Aug 2008
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Member #:01186
VERY interesting and disturbing at the same time. I just landed in the USA yesterday on one of those airlines mentioned in the article and transited at one of the said airports. Either they did not know about the ban or we just missed it by a hair's breadth. One more reason for me to love South America. The air travel is really becoming PITA very fast. I cannot imaging traveling without my laptop and other gear like the cameras and lenses with me.

That said, on a separate note, I had a rather interesting experience entering Colombia this past February. After I put the carry on through their scanner, they saw the 500/4 and my two Canon bodies. I was questioned about my need for the "professional" equipment. I just told them that photographing birds is a hobby which they did not seem to totally believe. So they made me write down the serial number of all high value items including my Swarovski bin and my wife's Leica. They also weighed the bag. Then they gave me a list on paper signed by a DIAN official (their customs department). I had to save this piece of paper till I departed when they checked it all line item by line item. Rather straight-forward and no "corruption" of any kind expected or encountered, but it took > 1 hour getting into Colombia and another 30 minutes or so getting out. Traveling is becoming more and more PITA as time passes and I am starting to detest it.
-- Vivek Khanzode
http://www.birdpixel.com
 

by neverspook on Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:56 pm
neverspook
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1028
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
This provision is very troubling, especially if it expands to many/all carriers. It makes no sense at all safety wise. The reason you are now supposed to have your Li-Ion batteries in your carryon and not checked is because of the fire hazards these pose. http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a17824/faa-lithium-ion-batteries/  If the batteries start to burn in the cabin, you can douse them with a fire extinguisher pretty quick so that is why they want them in your carryon luggage. But if the batteries catch fire when they are in cargo, you could end up with a plane crash instead.

I know I am far from alone in not wanting to check my camera and laptop for fear or loss, damage, theft, gear ending up somewhere different than I am going etc. Under these new rules I would have to check everything in heavy Pelican cases which, aside from the excess baggage fees, would leave me wondering what to do with the big heavy Pelican cases once I am at my destination. I do a lot of trips on ships where they strongly prefer soft sided luggage as it is easier to stow. And weight limits on local small aircraft flights would be quickly exceeded if I had to bring along a bunch of heavy Pelicans. 

If the real reason US carriers want to do this is to force people to check more luggage that they can be charged fees for, why not just charge a fee for carryon luggage? I would happily pay a fee to keep my camera and laptop with me if that is what it took.

If the motivation behind this was really security, they could just take a bit more time at checkin and have everyone turn on their devices for a few minutes to show they are functional and not rigged up as a bomb.

This whole thing is just crazy. 

Roberta Olenick
www.neverspook.com
 

by DChan on Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:07 pm
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1600
Joined: 09 Jan 2009
The guy in the White House said it was for your security and other countries know sh#t about checking stuff. And he's the smartest guy in the world. So there. "Trust me" he says, "What you got to lose??" :wink:
 

by E.J. Peiker on Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:21 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 80308
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
neverspook wrote:
This provision is very troubling, especially if it expands to many/all carriers. It makes no sense at all safety wise. The reason you are now supposed to have your Li-Ion batteries in your carryon and not checked is because of the fire hazards these pose. http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a17824/faa-lithium-ion-batteries/  If the batteries start to burn in the cabin, you can douse them with a fire extinguisher pretty quick so that is why they want them in your carryon luggage. But if the batteries catch fire when they are in cargo, you could end up with a plane crash instead.

I know I am far from alone in not wanting to check my camera and laptop for fear or loss, damage, theft, gear ending up somewhere different than I am going etc. Under these new rules I would have to check everything in heavy Pelican cases which, aside from the excess baggage fees, would leave me wondering what to do with the big heavy Pelican cases once I am at my destination. I do a lot of trips on ships where they strongly prefer soft sided luggage as it is easier to stow. And weight limits on local small aircraft flights would be quickly exceeded if I had to bring along a bunch of heavy Pelicans. 

If the real reason US carriers want to do this is to force people to check more luggage that they can be charged fees for, why not just charge a fee for carryon luggage? I would happily pay a fee to keep my camera and laptop with me if that is what it took.

If the motivation behind this was really security, they could just take a bit more time at checkin and have everyone turn on their devices for a few minutes to show they are functional and not rigged up as a bomb.

This whole thing is just crazy. 

Roberta Olenick
www.neverspook.com

It is becoming pretty clear that this was a protectionist move for the US airline industry disguised as a security threat.
 

by signgrap on Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:19 pm
User avatar
signgrap
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1451
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Delaware Water Gap, PA
Member #:00424
E.J. Peiker. . . . . wrote:
It is becoming pretty clear that this was a protectionist move for the US airline industry disguised as a security threat.

E.J. I agree with you BUT if you listen to the way the TV is positioning the story it is purely a security matter by displaying images of an airliner with a hole blown in its side, blown out by a "laptop bomb". The whole thing is crazy since they will allow these "bombs" to be stowed in with the checked luggage. England has joined the US in the ban so this thing has "legs" and airlines everywhere may start using it as a means of controlling all carryons.
Dick Ludwig
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
74 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group