To wonder how people will work on planes?

[KenAdams]

The new rules about no laptops in the cabin seem very restrictive for people who are travelling on business.

AIBU to think it's too restrictive? Surely a laptop bomb anywhere on the plane will cause significant damage?

It only applies to Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia. Don't think too many people will be travelling to these countries in business.

Er yes these ARE business routes and quite key ones for any company where MENA business is key (global banks, global oil/engineering companies are just an example). The UAE only deals with a small amount of MENA business. My guess is that they will launch a certification system whereby staff from specific companies would be able to use them on flights. Otherwise it would make business travel really really difficult.

The us ban applies to airlines though, Carrie - not airports.

I don't quite see the Aussie problem. Layovers are just as likely to be Singapore as ME (and of course not every ME airport is on the list).

I usually fly Emirates from Melbourne as I can go into Birmingham Aiport rather than Heathrow. If I can't take my laptop in my carry on, then I'll switch to Singapore Airlines so I don't have to go via Dubai, but it means going to Heathrow and having to get a train up to where I visit. Annoying, but there's no way I'm checking my laptop, phone and camera into my hold luggage. I can't imagine just how many items are going to get damaged or stolen.

I don't think the worry is about laptop bombs. Security experts have said a bomb in the cabin or hold is still a bomb. So it makes no sense.

They talked about this on the Today programme yesterday, the laptop bomb that went off last year was manually detonated.

Apparently getting the explosives into a laptop/tablet/kindle is not the problem it is the detonation. If the laptop bomb is in the hold then it has to be detonated via remote control or a timer.

There may be other issues such as temperature and pressure that make the programming of a timer difficult. It is possible to make a detonator that responds to pressure but you have to know more about the pressure in the hold of a particular aircraft on a particular route.

Now I'm not sure what the logistics are but since Lockerbie airlines have been taking precautions about electronic devices in the hold.

My major confusion re the US ban is that US airlines are exempt from it. I genuinely need somebody to explain this to me. Are we saying that a terrorists are not capable of booking flights on US airlines if they have intentions to blow up a plane? The whole thing is incredibly bizarre to me.

Perhaps the intelligence suggests that an IS supporter has got a job with one of these airlines or at one of the airports. Isn't that how the Russian plane out of Egypt got blown up a couple of years ago? IS sympathisers working at the airport?

Maybe for those people travelling to those countries it will be an inconvenience. It will be nothing compared to the ill-treatment and lack of basic consideration and respect that many in the countries concerned have, especially women.

Agree that the winners here will be the airport bookshops. If I was separated from my kindle at an airport without notice, the bookshop would be my first stop.

If the Isis sympathiser has a job at one of the airports, it would affect US airlines using that airport as much as any others.

Maybe for those people travelling to those countries it will be an inconvenience. It will be nothing compared to the ill-treatment and lack of basic consideration and respect that many in the countries concerned have, especially women.

I don't understand the relevance of this. Two completely separate issues surely?

@MidniteScribbler Dubai not currently on the UK list. Neither is AbuDhabi or Qatar. All three are big hubs, and the US have blocked them.

It only applies to Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia. Don't think too many people will be travelling to these countries in business.
Err yes they do. Lots. I've flown to two of those on business and colleagues have covered the others.

It'll be an inconvenience. And I totally agree with those scared that their hold stuff will get damaged. But it's less of an inconvenience than getting blown up. If it makes it safer then its a good thing.

Perhaps the intelligence suggests that an IS supporter has got a job with one of these airlines or at one of the airports. Isn't that how the Russian plane out of Egypt got blown up a couple of years ago? IS sympathisers working at the airport?

I'm inclined to agree with unicorns on this. Airlines don't just hire people of the nationality that the airline originates from and surely that view only serves to perpetuate the view of terrorism being synonymous with specific nationalities? We hear stories all the time about people being radicalised that reside in the UK, US, etc and are not necessarily of a nationality that is a predominantly Muslim country. This is why I genuinely do not understand the logic behind this.

I genuinely don't understand some of the comments on here. Its in the interests of safety. Surely that overrides the minor inconvenience of not having an electronic device for a while.

'm inclined to agree with unicorns on this. Airlines don't just hire people of the nationality that the airline originates from and surely that view only serves to perpetuate the view of terrorism being synonymous with specific nationalities?

True but perhaps these airlines' vetting procedures and background checks are not deemed good enough by the intelligence services. I don't know, I'm just guessing, but what reason would their otherwise be for targeting particular airlines? They must have a reason, they don't do this shit for the fun of it.

And I don't think the security services give much of a shite about stereotyping when it comes to preventing citizens getting blown up.

Isn't that how the Russian plane out of Egypt got blown up a couple of years ago? IS sympathisers working at the airport?

Worse! The staff regularly take baksheesh (small monetary "thank you") to let you skip the queu. Like the queu for X-raying your luggage at airport security.

Because when you're a bi shot with money, you can't be bothered with a queu and all.

That's how the bomb got on. Someone let a suitcase through without a scan.

Oh and this was a known security risk that was already flagged up by Britain, who warned Egyptian authorities the exact scenario that happened was imminent unless they sorted it.

Just as an alternative viewpoint, I check my laptop and tablet the whole time and they've always been fine. My frequent business class trips also lead me to believe that the amount of work allegedly getting done by passengers is somewhat exaggerated or maybe I just fly on the lazy mofo routes . The main PITA is it means you can't travel for business with just carry on if you go to or through those countries.

Also the national carrier exemption by the US is fucking bullshit.

People's worries and concerns regarding their expensive equipment either being lost, stolen or broken are perfectly valid and shouldn't just be dismissed as a minor inconvenience.

what reason would their otherwise be for targeting particular airlines? They must have a reason, they don't do this shit for the fun of it. It's this part that I'm trying to get my head around. I doubt it's to do with security vetting procedures for those airlines. Qatar airways is just as secure as British Airways (Doha not affected by UK ban I know but just a comparison).

And I don't think the security services give much of a shite about stereotyping when it comes to preventing citizens getting blown up. Not as simplistic as stereotyping but what I'm saying is, "home" airlines are not subject to this ban so it doesn't even make sense from a security POV in my eyes.

Airlines don't just hire people of the nationality that the airline originates from and surely that view only serves to perpetuate the view of terrorism being synonymous with specific nationalities?

A high percentage of terrorism is linked to specific nationalities/countries/beliefs though. That's simply a fact at this current point in time and I say this as someone with close family members from two of the countries on this list. That is not the same thing at all as saying that all/most people from these countries are terrorists which is clearly not the case and would be a ridiculous statement.

I genuinely don't understand some of the comments on here. Its in the interests of safety. Surely that overrides the minor inconvenience of not having an electronic device for a while.. It's weird isn't it? Everyone seems to think they know better!

People's worries and concerns regarding their expensive equipment either being lost, stolen or broken are perfectly valid and shouldn't just be dismissed as a minor inconvenience.

True but people will just need to take the decision to either leave them at home or package them as well as they possibly can to avoid damage.

They are things at the end of the day and clearly not as valuable as people's lives which are clearly thought to be at risk for such steps to be taken.

I am about to take a 13 hour flight in a weeks' time and would really rather have electronics with me. But I will simply have to cope without.

A high percentage of terrorism is linked to specific nationalities/countries/beliefs though. That's simply a fact at this current point in time I understand that but I still don't get the relationship between this ban only affecting airlines from those countries but not US/UK airlines that also operate in and out of those countries. It just doesn't make sense which is why I struggle to see how it is going to keep anybody safer. For example, when the 100ml liquid thing was brought in, that affected everyone flying too and from anywhere. If this ban affected all airlines going too and from those named countries, I'd understand it. But it isn't. It's essentially saying *American airlines are safer, not those foreign operated terrorist passage ways". It's just doesn't make sense to me.

to*

My understanding is that its to do with the fact that those particular airlines don't have flights which originate at those airports (the US list has specified particular airports rather than the countries whereas the UK list specifies countries)