As you are no doubt aware, travellers flying direct to the US or the UK from a raft of Muslim-majority countries are no longer permitted to take tablets, laptops, e-readers, DVD-players and cameras into the cabin based on supposed intelligence suggesting terrorists plan to convert them into incendiary devices. The new regulation may sound like a sensible precaution until one digs deeper when it begins to look highly suspect.
Firstly, if there is a real threat that can be curbed by placing such electronic items in aeroplane holds, then why aren’t all international civil aviation regulatory agencies recommending a similar practice? In reality, a slew of experts maintain that whereas a cabin fire can be swiftly extinguished by flight crew, a fire in the hold will be less easily accessed.
Moreover, according to some, a more efficient way of doing things would be to ask passengers to switch their computers on pre-flight, a practice which the Israeli carrier El Al and other regional airlines have long implemented.
Secondly, although America and Britain share the same intelligence and reportedly consulted on the measure, their lists of countries to which the ban applies differ substantially. Flights originating from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Turkey are cited on both lists. That’s where the similarity ends.
The US list also includes Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, which do not appear on the British list; instead Lebanon and Tunisia have been added. The fact that US airlines aren’t impacted by the restriction but UK airlines are is yet another peculiar anomaly.
Thirdly, supposing the intelligence portends a genuine threat, what’s to stop a determined suicide bomber from boarding a flight to the US or the UK in one of the many excluded countries? Furthermore, many recent attacks on US cities as well as London, Paris and Belgium have been perpetrated by home-grown radicals, not nationals of Middle East states.
The ban’s irrationality has spawned a number of widely discussed alternative theories. For instance, Trump’s travel bans have both been blocked by courts as being discriminatory and possibly flying in the face of the US Constitution. Could the electronic ban be another route to targeting Muslims? A CNN pundit called it “Travel ban 2.5.”
It’s worth noting that representatives of major US airlines recently met with the US President to complain of unfair competition from Gulf carriers, which they claim are government-subsidised—in particular, the big three, Etihad Airways, Emirates and Qatar Airways. The row has been brewing for several years.
Their greatest rival is the award-winning Dubai airline Emirates, which now flies direct to the US from European capitals. Emirates published this rebuttal: “The allegations about Emirates receiving subsidies or competing unfairly are patently false. There is no ‘secret’ to our success—it’s all here in black and white. What the ‘big three’ US legacy carriers want is protection from competition, but that outcome would only harm American consumers, communities and the national economy.”
A spokeswoman for the Partnership for Open and Fair Skies that represents Delta, American and United said earlier this year that her group looked forward to working with President Trump in the hope that he would “protect American jobs—something that the Obama administration failed to do.”
Protectionist leanings
Trump has displayed his protectionist leanings by binning the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP) and announcing his intention of renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) so the idea that he would attempt to give US airlines an advantage over others, especially the flagship carriers of Muslim countries, isn’t as off-the-wall as you might imagine.
The question of why Britain jumped on board remains. The simplest answer would be that Trump’s new best friend, Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May, was asked to do so to give the White House political cover.
When Britain’s continued access to the EU’s single market looks increasingly shaky, she would not want to jeopardise Trump’s promised US-UK trade deal. At the same time, she would not wish to upset Britain’s traditional Gulf allies, also serious investors, which could explain the discrepancy between the US and UK country lists.
Furthermore, her inclusion of British airlines fends off accusations of discriminatory practices in arguably the most politically-correct nation on the planet.
As for her decision to swap Morocco with Tunisia, could the fact that Morocco is a favourite with British holidaymakers as opposed to Tunisia where 38 lost their lives at the hands of a gunman, among them 30 Britons, in 2015 be a factor?
As always, the truth is elusive. But let’s put scepticism aside for a moment on the premise that there may, indeed, be valid concerns prompting the ban. In that case, the restrictions on electronic devices should apply to all airlines everywhere.
Terrorists aren’t immovable objects. They can travel just like everyone else; they can begin their nefarious journeys from states not featured on US/UK lists. And those who are so disposed with a minimum of intelligence will do exactly that.
Linda S. Heard is an award-winning British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.
RSS
Laptop ban is irrational and discriminatory
Posted on March 30, 2017 by Linda S. Heard
As you are no doubt aware, travellers flying direct to the US or the UK from a raft of Muslim-majority countries are no longer permitted to take tablets, laptops, e-readers, DVD-players and cameras into the cabin based on supposed intelligence suggesting terrorists plan to convert them into incendiary devices. The new regulation may sound like a sensible precaution until one digs deeper when it begins to look highly suspect.
Firstly, if there is a real threat that can be curbed by placing such electronic items in aeroplane holds, then why aren’t all international civil aviation regulatory agencies recommending a similar practice? In reality, a slew of experts maintain that whereas a cabin fire can be swiftly extinguished by flight crew, a fire in the hold will be less easily accessed.
Moreover, according to some, a more efficient way of doing things would be to ask passengers to switch their computers on pre-flight, a practice which the Israeli carrier El Al and other regional airlines have long implemented.
Secondly, although America and Britain share the same intelligence and reportedly consulted on the measure, their lists of countries to which the ban applies differ substantially. Flights originating from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Turkey are cited on both lists. That’s where the similarity ends.
The US list also includes Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, which do not appear on the British list; instead Lebanon and Tunisia have been added. The fact that US airlines aren’t impacted by the restriction but UK airlines are is yet another peculiar anomaly.
Thirdly, supposing the intelligence portends a genuine threat, what’s to stop a determined suicide bomber from boarding a flight to the US or the UK in one of the many excluded countries? Furthermore, many recent attacks on US cities as well as London, Paris and Belgium have been perpetrated by home-grown radicals, not nationals of Middle East states.
The ban’s irrationality has spawned a number of widely discussed alternative theories. For instance, Trump’s travel bans have both been blocked by courts as being discriminatory and possibly flying in the face of the US Constitution. Could the electronic ban be another route to targeting Muslims? A CNN pundit called it “Travel ban 2.5.”
It’s worth noting that representatives of major US airlines recently met with the US President to complain of unfair competition from Gulf carriers, which they claim are government-subsidised—in particular, the big three, Etihad Airways, Emirates and Qatar Airways. The row has been brewing for several years.
Their greatest rival is the award-winning Dubai airline Emirates, which now flies direct to the US from European capitals. Emirates published this rebuttal: “The allegations about Emirates receiving subsidies or competing unfairly are patently false. There is no ‘secret’ to our success—it’s all here in black and white. What the ‘big three’ US legacy carriers want is protection from competition, but that outcome would only harm American consumers, communities and the national economy.”
A spokeswoman for the Partnership for Open and Fair Skies that represents Delta, American and United said earlier this year that her group looked forward to working with President Trump in the hope that he would “protect American jobs—something that the Obama administration failed to do.”
Protectionist leanings
Trump has displayed his protectionist leanings by binning the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP) and announcing his intention of renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) so the idea that he would attempt to give US airlines an advantage over others, especially the flagship carriers of Muslim countries, isn’t as off-the-wall as you might imagine.
The question of why Britain jumped on board remains. The simplest answer would be that Trump’s new best friend, Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May, was asked to do so to give the White House political cover.
When Britain’s continued access to the EU’s single market looks increasingly shaky, she would not want to jeopardise Trump’s promised US-UK trade deal. At the same time, she would not wish to upset Britain’s traditional Gulf allies, also serious investors, which could explain the discrepancy between the US and UK country lists.
Furthermore, her inclusion of British airlines fends off accusations of discriminatory practices in arguably the most politically-correct nation on the planet.
As for her decision to swap Morocco with Tunisia, could the fact that Morocco is a favourite with British holidaymakers as opposed to Tunisia where 38 lost their lives at the hands of a gunman, among them 30 Britons, in 2015 be a factor?
As always, the truth is elusive. But let’s put scepticism aside for a moment on the premise that there may, indeed, be valid concerns prompting the ban. In that case, the restrictions on electronic devices should apply to all airlines everywhere.
Terrorists aren’t immovable objects. They can travel just like everyone else; they can begin their nefarious journeys from states not featured on US/UK lists. And those who are so disposed with a minimum of intelligence will do exactly that.
Linda S. Heard is an award-winning British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.