IATA criticizes U.S., UK electronics bans as ineffective

[webfact]

IATA criticizes U.S., UK electronics bans as ineffective

By Alana Wise and Nelson Wyatt

REUTERS

 

Flags are seen at the 2016 International Air Transport Association (IATA) Annual General Meeting (AGM) and World Air Transport Summit in Dublin, Ireland June 1, 2016. REUTERS/Clodagh Kilcoyne

 

NEW YORK/MONTREAL (Reuters) - The leading international airline trade organization's top official on Tuesday denounced U.S. and British bans on some electronic devices on flights from several Muslim-majority countries, criticizing the policies as a move toward "more restricted borders and protectionism."

 

Alexandre de Juniac, director general and chief executive of the International Air Transport Association (IATA), questioned the efficacy of the bans on devices larger than a cellphone, in a speech to the Montreal Council on Foreign Relations.

 

The restrictions, announced last week, apply to direct flights to Britain and the United States from certain airports in the Middle East and North Africa.

 

"The current measures are not an acceptable long-term solution to whatever threat they are trying to mitigate," de Juniac said. "Even in the short term it is difficult to understand their effectiveness."

 

The American regulations were prompted by reports that militant groups want to smuggle explosive devices in electronic gadgets. They require that devices larger than a cellphone, including laptops and tablets, must be stowed with checked baggage on U.S.-bound passenger flights from airports in 10 Muslim-majority countries.

 

Britain followed suit shortly after with a similar ban on larger carry-on electronics on direct flights from six countries. France and Canada said last week that they were examining their policies.

 

A U.S. security official told Reuters on Tuesday that the electronics restrictions were a "calculated move" based on reliable intelligence. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, indicated that the United States would stick with the policy.

 

The White House and the Department of Homeland Security, which enforces U.S. national security measures, did not immediately respond to requests for comment on de Juniac's criticisms.

 

De Juniac said the bans created severe "commercial distortions."

 

"We call on governments to work with the industry to find a way to keep flying secure without separating passengers from their personal electronics," he said.

 

In a phone interview with Reuters following his speech, de Juniac admonished the U.S. and UK governments for what he characterized as "no coordination at all" in enforcing the policy.

The airports covered by the U.S. ban differ from those in the UK one, and de Juniac questioned why the two countries did not have a common list.

"The discrepancy is harming the credibility of the measure itself," he said.

 

(Reporting by Nelson Wyatt in Montreal and Alana Wise in New York; Additional reporting by Mark Hosenball and Ayesha Rascoe; Writing by Alana Wise; Editing by Jonathan Oatis)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-03-29

[Scott]

Exactly what this is all about, alludes me, but it reminds me of when the Hippies started spreading the rumor that smoking banana peelings could get you high and there were police that were actually checking people for banana peelings.   I have no idea what charge they would have arrested someone for if they had banana peelings, though.  

 

I remember the time when if you had a computer, you had to turn it on before you passed screening.   Maybe that would be effective.  

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Scott said:

Exactly what this is all about, alludes me, but it reminds me of when the Hippies started spreading the rumor that smoking banana peelings could get you high and there were police that were actually checking people for banana peelings.   I have no idea what charge they would have arrested someone for if they had banana peelings, though.  

 

I remember the time when if you had a computer, you had to turn it on before you passed screening.   Maybe that would be effective.  

 

I don't know that the bans are helpful, but they seem to be relate to a specific terrorism threat, rather than of a permanent nature. Then again, once such provisions are in, lifting them is another matter.

[Grouse]

5 hours ago, Scott said:

Exactly what this is all about, alludes me, but it reminds me of when the Hippies started spreading the rumor that smoking banana peelings could get you high and there were police that were actually checking people for banana peelings.   I have no idea what charge they would have arrested someone for if they had banana peelings, though.  

 

I remember the time when if you had a computer, you had to turn it on before you passed screening.   Maybe that would be effective.  

Yes, it does seem counter intuitive. I would want all electronics in carry on bags. Turn them on, weigh them and sniff them in a dedicated line....

[ukrules]

I read somewhere that these bans are going to be expanded so I doubt they're a temporary measure.

[Andaman Al]

All you have to do is turn them on and put them through/past a 'sniffer' machine.

[Ulic]

The one thing missing from the IATTA statement is that these flights would be 100% safe without these restrictions. Personally I am not sure what is the correct position but if being separated from your electronics (other than cell phones) makes your

direct flight safer, so be it. !0 -12 hours away from your laptop/tablet is really not a big deal. You would still have access to your e-mail and communication on your phone.  They banned Samsung Note 7's with much smaller batteries/fire capability.  Suck it up I say.

 

[Andaman Al]

2 hours ago, Ulic said:

Suck it up I say.

There in lies the problem and the terrorists continue to laugh at us.

 

The ban is because allegedly intelligence says that terrorists want to put explosives in iPads etc. So now everything just got easier, as suit cases will now be stuffed full of electrical garbage and any security staff will quickly become desensitised to seeing electronic devices in checked in baggage. Before it would be unusual to see laptops and iPads in checked in baggage , now it will be the norm on these routes. Checked in baggage is not scrutinised as well as hand baggage. So a terrorist can now pack an iPad full of explosives or incendiary and set it off from the blue tooth in their phone. Wait for the first fire due to lithium batteries going up, when if they were in the overhead luggage they can easily be dealt with. We just made the terrorists job simple for them. This ban makes no sense and does not make passengers safer, on the contrary it is 5 steps backwards.

[darksidedog]

It does make more sense than the US Travel ban though. This at least looks as though it is targeting a specific threat, not just being discriminatory on people.

[Andaman Al]

20 minutes ago, Credo said:

As skeptical as I am of Trump and some of the shenanigans that go on, I tend to like the idea of erring on the side of caution.    

Well that strategy is simple to follow really - don't travel.

 

The entire thing is nonsense and designed to instil and maintain fear. You can only carry 100ml of liquids incase they are worried about you mixing something. Yet you can take a liter bottle of cask strength Brandy, vodka or Whiskey on board from Duty free with a lighter. Have you seen the fire you can make with cask strength spirits? The move on electronics is protectionism, nothing more, it involves countries with the 3 top airlines in the world who receive Government subsidies, with a few poor countries thrown in to take us off scent. The crappy American carriers are losing customers hands down to Emirates, Etihad and Qatar. It would not surprise me if these three airlines cancel their current Boeing orders and go for Airbus. They will hit back that is for sure.

Edited March 30, 2017 by Andaman Al

[cdnvic]

Removed some conspiracy theories.