Again, I’m going with a specific credible threat.
Cool. Appreciate the sentiment, and I’m the first to admit my cynicism can cloud my judgement, especially when it comes to this administration.
1 Like
Here’s the problem with your position. the attacks you referenced didn’t circumvent the security measures at the time, they complied with them, and found a way around it. That’s far easier with ten airports affected. That’s why it theater. It’s ineffective.
We have a real-world example of an airline that is under threat constantly -El Al. Their security measures include anti-rocket defenses on their planes, interviews for every passenger, They have mantraps at the cockpit door. They are the only airline utilizing blastproof cargo containers.
THAT is real flight security. It is annoying as hell, incredibly invasive, and effective. That’s what you do if every plane you fly may become a target (or a weapon). It means your flights will be more expensive, it means you need to get to the airport a couple of hours early every time, but that’s real security.
13 Likes
The attacks I referenced circumvented security measures in place at the time, just as any future attack will likely circumvent our present-day security measures. (Circumvent literally means find a way around.) Security has changed since then to adjust for the very real threats we faced. And we update those security measures based on new information, which makes perfect sense. We are not going to be attacked exactly the same way twice, and if we are, it’s because of our own complacency.
If US intelligence has information that there is a possible attack involving electronics from a specific region, it makes sense to act on that. My argument is that this is likely the reason these measures are being enacted, based on the fact that this is not unilateral and is very specific in its application, much like previous measures have been. Is it 100% guaranteed to be effective? No. Is it only going to affect terrorists who are plotting attacks and inconvenience no one who is just a tourist or business traveler? No. Would we all be safer with Israel levels of security? Sure. But what we do for security is balanced with the threat and the intelligence.
And made the problem much worse.
6 Likes
In 1996, it wasn’t expected that business travelers (the most lucrative section of the market, coincidentally) would arrive with a laptop in tow, ready for an immediate meeting and nor was it expected that executives would continue to work while they were in the air.
But I’m sure you’re right; this must be about security, because everyone knows terrorists only travel on the eight Middle Eastern airlines affected by the ban. Because blowing up an Etihad plane with predominantly Muslim passengers is much more in line with their goals than blowing up, say, an American Airlines flight, right? Boy howdy, I sure am glad that terrorists don’t operate in any other countries and have no way of communicating with each other internationally, or flying with airlines that aren’t affected by the ban.
I’m sure you’re right, and it has nothing to do with this whatsoever:
If you are a business traveller flying from the Middle East to the US, you now have a choice: fly on a US carrier or don’t fly at all. If this is based on a specific, credible threat, why does it only target these specific airlines that, coincidentally, shut out US carriers from an incredibly lucrative market?
8 Likes
No American airline has direct flights from those locations affected by the restriction. In other words, there is no competitive advantage for US carriers.
I just did about two minutes of research and found 18 direct flights between DXB and US airports. Lots from AUH as well. 2 from CAI.
8 Likes
The lack of direct flights is rather the point. If you want to travel to the US from the Middle East with a secure laptop that you can’t risk being stolen or being accessed without your knowledge (read: all business laptops) the only way you can now do so is to take a connecting flight to somewhere else and fly from there on a US carrier.
American carriers were never going to be able to get Middle Eastern airports to allow them to fly direct as most (if not all) of these carriers are heavily subsidised by their respective governments and opening up their airports to US competition makes no sense to them financially. Making direct flights impossible for business travelers and forcing them to take connecting flights is an incredibly effective method of clawing back market share.
5 Likes
Here’s the Washington Post saying the same thing far more eloquently than me:
From the article:
"It may not be about security. Three of the airlines that have been targeted for these measures — Emirates, Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways — have long been accused by their U.S. competitors of receiving massive effective subsidies from their governments. These airlines have been quietly worried for months that President Trump was going to retaliate. This may be the retaliation.
These three airlines, as well as the other airlines targeted in the order, are likely to lose a major amount of business from their most lucrative customers — people who travel in business class and first class. Business travelers are disproportionately likely to want to work on the plane — the reason they are prepared to pay business-class or first-class fares is because it allows them to work in comfort. These travelers are unlikely to appreciate having to do all their work on smartphones, or not being able to work at all. The likely result is that many of them will stop flying on Gulf airlines, and start traveling on U.S. airlines instead.
As the Financial Times notes, the order doesn’t affect only the airlines’ direct flights to and from the United States — it attacks the “hub” airports that are at the core of their business models. These airlines not only fly passengers directly from the Gulf region to the United States — they also fly passengers from many other destinations, transferring them from one plane to another in the hubs. This “hub and spoke” approach is a standard economic model for long-haul airlines, offering them large savings. However, it also creates big vulnerabilities. If competitors or unfriendly states can undermine or degrade the hub, they can inflict heavy economic damage."
So, this does literally nothing to improve security and yet it somehow, entirely by coincidence, targets several airlines that are in direct competition with leading US carriers for market share. I’m sure that’s not what was intended at all!
11 Likes
I don’t know what you were researching but as far as I can tell there are no American carriers who fly direct from DXB to USA. It is widely reported that no US carriers are affected by this restriction because none fly direct flights.
@anon26625345; I remain open to being convinced this is some sort of opening salvo in a trade war, but that WaPo piece seems highly speculative, and again, the US isn’t alone in this. It would be a stretch to suggest that the UK went along with this based on a US suggestion, give the the current state of our relationship.
Unintended consequences:
He apparently shared a name with someone on the list.
If a toddler is blocked because of a simple name match, then the list has a large component of security theatre. If Canada goes along with this ban, it might not be confirmation of a real threat.
2 Likes
Are you confusing direct for nonstop? There’s lots of direct flights from those airports to the US, but nonstop is hard to find.
Not sure about semantics, but either way, wouldn’t anything that stopped have to go through additional security?
What I know is that NY Times, Bloomberg, NBC… all reporting no US carriers are affected because they have no direct (presumably nonstop) flights.
Nonstop is point to point with no stops in-between. Direct means there’s layovers on the way but it’s all on the same plane.
You sometimes need to deplane but often times you can stay in your seat. Usually there’s no need to go back through security unless you leave the terminal or gate (all depends on the airport).
1 Like
I could be wrong but I don’t think it works that way for international flights, or at least not to the US - I’ve had to deplane and go through security again.
Are you saying all the news sources are wrong about US carriers not being affected because they have no direct (nonstop or non-additional security check) flights?
I can’t find any US airlines that fly to those destinations from the US. I’m surprised there aren’t any direct flights to Doha or Riyadh on Delta or AA, but I’m only seeing Emirates, Eithad, Qatar…
2 Likes
As a Brit who no longer lives there, the UK ban doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. If the US implements a piece of security theatre, the UK always follows suit.
Partly this is because of intelligence sharing relationships (in the sense that there is a recognition that having the same security systems in place makes some kind of sense when you are both using the same Intel) and partly this is because of a desire to pander to the “but the US has banned this! Why haven’t we?” crowd, who seem to make up the majority of UK voters. Heathrow is also a transport hub between Europe and the US and any risk of not being compliant with US aviation rules is taken very seriously indeed, because of the economic threat that losing transatlantic flights poses.
As far as I can tell, the justification given by the US is that there was a laptop bomb on a plane in Mogadishu in early 2016. If the UK took the US’ justification for the ban at face value, it makes sense that they would also implement the ban; it’s not about actual security, just providing enough security theatre that people don’t feel scared to fly.
However, the UK ban affects all direct passenger flights, including those of six UK airlines in addition to foreign carriers. Why doesn’t the US’ ban do the same thing?
2 Likes
Yes.
Here’s two examples of nonstop flights from affected airports to the US:
I know United used to do DXB nonstop to BWI but apparently they stopped doing that a year or so ago.
Those aren’t US carriers.
2 Likes
