APEX Media Spotlight: Electronics Ban
Share
APEX Insight: APEX Media Spotlight gathers different perspectives on a passenger experience announcement, product launch or issue from top industry sources. In this installment, we highlight the media’s reactions to the Trump administration’s carry-on electronics ban.
The United States’ cabin ban on electronic devices larger than a cellphone on flights from 10 airports in eight Muslim-majority countries came into effect on Saturday, following its introduction last Tuesday. US officials say the measure restricting laptops, tablets, cameras and gaming consoles in the aircraft cabin is the result of intelligence showing an increased risk of “terrorist activity” in the commercial aviation sector and a response to recent incidents where bombs hidden in these types of devices exploded in flight. The ban has created logistical challenges for travelers, airlines and airports, and has been met with opposition from the general public and experts alike.
With the UK government adopting similar restrictions on electronic items that passengers can carry on board with them, APEX estimates that the ban will affect three million airline passengers per year. APEX CEO Joe Leader has engaged with US and UK government officials to prevent the spread of the electronics ban, suggesting passenger-centric solutions, like chemical detection and a requirement to demonstrate that electronic devices can be powered on. “The expense of hand-searching every carry-on for the personal electronics ban could instead be directed to a long-term solution that serves airline passengers and safety,” he said.
What the Media Says
Journalists skeptical of the motives behind the ban have argued that the legislation protects security at the expense of safety, asserting that devices in cargo hold are no less dangerous than in the cabin. Aviation writer Christine Negroni writes in Forbes, “One has to wonder why an explosive device in the cargo hold is less threatening than one in the passenger cabin, but that was not explained in the statement issued by the Department of Homeland Security. It is a curious omission because, forget about security – battery-powered devices are a known safety risk on airliners.”
Despite such claims of the ban being ill-thought-out, Alex Davies argues in WIRED that the restriction may be warranted: “While it seems draconian, it actually does make some sense – especially if it’s in response to a specific threat.” In addition to supporting the specification on device size (explosives large enough to cause serious damage simply cannot be concealed in a cell phone), Davies belies those who insist an explosive in cargo hold would cause just as much damage as it would in the cabin. “The cargo hold is a better place for a bomb,” he writes. “An explosion there is surrounded by suitcases, not passengers, and the belly of a plane is robustly reinforced.”
Safety aside, multiple sources, including the Washington Post and Aviation Week, have challenged one of the ban’s underlying assumptions: that security at the 10 airports affected by the regulation is inadequate. “Anybody flying to the United States from these points of departure knows there are already significant and often time-consuming additional security measures in place at these airports to screen US-bound passengers,” notes Ishaan Tharoor of the Washington Post. “Now the Trump administration has created yet another reason to consider different routes.”
In an opinion piece entitled “Electronics Ban: Ultimately Everyone Will Lose,” Aviation Week‘s Jens Flottau calls the ban “poorly thought through” for reasons similar to those presented by Tharoor. “[A] terrorist could simply take a connecting service from, say, Dubai or Cairo via Frankfurt or Milan to the US and, assuming the explosives somehow evade security, then blow up the second flight over the Atlantic,” writes Flottau. “In this case, it could even be an aircraft operated by a US airline, as many American airlines serve all of the European gateways, which are not covered by the ban. The alleged risk is simply moved from a nonstop to a connecting flight.”
The ban has generated widespread opprobrium amongst the press, but some concede that the American government may well have its people’s best interest at heart. The Economist writes, “[American intelligence agencies] are well-placed to assess Al Qaeda’s operational capabilities and the concomitant weaknesses in airports around the world; we are not.” This concession is, however, accompanied by misgivings: “Perhaps there is top-secret evidence showing how hubs like Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport are immune to threats that imperil ones like Dubai International Airport. But it is doubtful.” Ultimately, the writer recommends the ban be extended to all countries or revoked, arguing that any other course of action would be “prejudicial and ineffectual.”
But what does the ban mean for the Middle Eastern airlines affected? According to Andrew Sheivachman of Skift, airlines could in fact benefit from the surge in disconnected passengers. “In-flight entertainment options could once again become a selling point for airlines,” Sheivachman writes, meaning the ban may not be all bad news for airlines. Logistical nightmares aside, Emirates may be onto something in its Twitter video, which asks, “Who needs tablets and laptops anyway?”