Wonder what is going on at RJ...

https://twitter.com/RoyalJordanian/stat ... 25/photo/1

What the hell?
Good luck enforcing this. You think everyone travelling tomorrow on RJ will read this and put their laptops in their checked bags? What are they going to do? Refuse boarding to like 70% of passengers at the gate?

Putting delicate electronic equipment in the hold so the ramper can play rugby with it.

Considering the marks on my Samsonite the chance of my camera working again would be close to zero.

Clearly a security alert.

Compliance should not be an issue. You notify passengers at check-in to deposit their electronics in luggage and then rescreen at gate to ensure.

I believe LHR had a similar alert for few days, several years ago.

It appears some sort of regulations have been told to selected airlines Jon Ostrower is tweeting about it as well

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 7845842945

bennett123 wrote:

Putting delicate electronic equipment in the hold so the ramper can play rugby with it.

Considering the marks on my Samsonite the chance of my camera working again would be close to zero.

Not to mention putting dozens, if not more than a hundred, laptops with lithium ion batteries in the hold to create a fire hazard. This is really bizarre: on U.S.-flagged carriers, they specifically tell you to take laptops out of bags that are getting gate-checked because the LIBs aren't permitted in the hold. So now RJ is telling people that they MUST be in the hold. That's not good.

Why is this rule being implemented on their YUL flights?

Guess no flying RJ for me anytime soon .

lesfalls wrote:

Why is this rule being implemented on their YUL flights?

Guess no flying RJ for me anytime soon .

Is the DTW and YUL service the same flight?

12 other countries affected (which ones???), reason why unknown.

richcandy wrote:

lesfalls wrote:

Why is this rule being implemented on their YUL flights?

Guess no flying RJ for me anytime soon .

Is the DTW and YUL service the same flight?

Yes, flight continues on from YUL to DTW. Probably linked to that, or Canada is also enforcing similar rules. Seems too early to tell.

This is a bigger deal than RJ. Stay tuned.

codc10 wrote:

This is a bigger deal than RJ. Stay tuned.

Jon Ostrower says 13 airlines. I wonder if this rule only targets carriers from certain (religious) countries what the response will be and whether it will similarly be seen as discrimination, or whether a concrete and imminent threat was picked up.

Could the USA enforce something similar to what was done out of SSH last year but on a larger scale ? Time well tell.

This sounds like some more Trump administration nonsense...
(sarcasm) Sketchy electronics are so much safer in the hold where no can see them than in the cabin (sarcasm off)...

IADCA wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Putting delicate electronic equipment in the hold so the ramper can play rugby with it.

Considering the marks on my Samsonite the chance of my camera working again would be close to zero.

Not to mention putting dozens, if not more than a hundred, laptops with lithium ion batteries in the hold to create a fire hazard. This is really bizarre: on U.S.-flagged carriers, they specifically tell you to take laptops out of bags that are getting gate-checked because the LIBs aren't permitted in the hold. So now RJ is telling people that they MUST be in the hold. That's not good.

IINM after the London attacks in the summer of 2006 laptops had to go in the hold on US-bound flights for a month or two. I think that ban may have applied to cell phones as well but cannot remember clearly.

Putting lithium batteries in your checked luggage as opposed to you carry-on luggage is actually a violation of the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations. As RJ is an IATA member they should not (willingly) allow passengers to put the lithium batteries in their checked bags..

Martijn

CrimsonNL wrote:

Putting lithium batteries in your checked luggage as opposed to you carry-on luggage is actually a violation of the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations. As RJ is an IATA member they should not (willingly) allow passengers to put the lithium batteries in their checked bags..

Martijn

And what's going to happen if you violate IATA rules? And do you think IATA rules are more important than directives from the country you are flying passengers into?

codc10 wrote:

This is a bigger deal than RJ. Stay tuned.

Yes: https://mobile.twitter.com/ahfahad/stat ... wsrc%5Etfw

I think the title is misleading, it is not RJ banning electronics, it is the US Gov't to 13 countries, please change the title accordingly.

I think I read somewhere that South African Airways asked passengers to turn off cell phones. It doesn't relate to this, but every airline handles technology differently.

I've flown many times before with a camera or cell phone (on Air Canada, Air Transat, and WestJet) and nobody seemed bothered if I was filming or taking pictures onboard.

Finally, this isn't related to this topic, but is it true that it is illegal to take pictures + film landings/takeoff in flight in certain countries?

Some airline needs to take the USDOT to the IATA or ICAO arbitration panel, as they are being asked to violate regulations set forth by the IATA.

CrimsonNL wrote:

Putting lithium batteries in your checked luggage as opposed to you carry-on luggage is actually a violation of the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations. As RJ is an IATA member they should not (willingly) allow passengers to put the lithium batteries in their checked bags..

This is also the FIRST thing I thought of.

So… no "unnecessary" electronics in the cabin. Why? So that a passenger can't initiate a dangerous situation? You know… one of the passengers who are all scrutinized and examined before boarding an aircraft? Instead, it sets the stage for a dangerous situation, a battery fire in the hold, where there is no chance anyone on board could possibly do anything to stop it. This truly makes no sense to me. The only similar order which could possibly improve safety would be to disallow all electronic devices, either in the cabin, or in baggage. This is the only thing that could possibly make any sense.

This really sounds like some political power play. It doesn't seem well thought out, at all.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Some airline needs to take the USDOT to the IATA or ICAO arbitration panel, as they are being asked to violate regulations set forth by the IATA.

It's not the airline that came up with the ban but US authorities.

mict wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Some airline needs to take the USDOT to the IATA or ICAO arbitration panel, as they are being asked to violate regulations set forth by the IATA.

It's not the airline that came up with the ban but US authorities.

The USDOT is violating IATA rules on not Li+ batteries in cargo holds (this is the reason why hoverboards can't be carried on pressurized aircraft).

The list is amazing

keitherson wrote:

CrimsonNL wrote:

Putting lithium batteries in your checked luggage as opposed to you carry-on luggage is actually a violation of the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations. As RJ is an IATA member they should not (willingly) allow passengers to put the lithium batteries in their checked bags..

Martijn

And what's going to happen if you violate IATA rules? And do you think IATA rules are more important than directives from the country you are flying passengers into?

Those rules exist for a valid and substantial reason, which is that in the event of a lithium fire, electronics can quickly be brought under control and extinguished by trained personnel. Meanwhile, if true, this administration's ban on electronics in the cabin from 13 countries is so stupid that even somebody with half a brain could tell you that it is fundamentally flawed and an egregious threat to public safety. For an administration that prides itself on public safety, they really don't give a shit about people's safety. Lithium fires happen more frequently than a lot of people think, and it's not just Note 7's. A lot of safety videos now even have added warnings about the danger of lithium battery punctures in the seat (Ex. Qantas) and now it's ok to put them in the hold? Yeah, Valujet 597 didn't deal with lithium batteries, but the idea is exactly the same. If you're going to ban electronics, at least do the research and apply it across the board. It is almost indefensible to argue that some flights should be forced to comply while others are given a free pass as if the danger has somehow magically vanished into thin air. Why is it ethically acceptable to endanger the lives of some people but not others? Nobody can predict lithium fires, but your ability to put one out should not be affected by unwarranted paranoia pulled straight out of somebody's ass. If electronics contain something sinister, does it really make a difference whether it's in the cabin or hold!?!

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Some airline needs to take the USDOT to the IATA or ICAO arbitration panel, as they are being asked to violate regulations set forth by the IATA.

Since when does some BS international organization have authority over a sovereign nation. If a foreign carrier doesn't like it, they free to not come to the US and nobody will miss them here.

KTPAFlyer wrote:

keitherson wrote:

CrimsonNL wrote:

Putting lithium batteries in your checked luggage as opposed to you carry-on luggage is actually a violation of the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations. As RJ is an IATA member they should not (willingly) allow passengers to put the lithium batteries in their checked bags..

Martijn

And what's going to happen if you violate IATA rules? And do you think IATA rules are more important than directives from the country you are flying passengers into?

Those rules exist for a valid and substantial reason, which is that in the event of a lithium fire, electronics can quickly be brought under control and extinguished by trained personnel. Meanwhile, if true, this administration's ban on electronics in the cabin from 13 countries is so stupid that even somebody with half a brain could tell you that it is fundamentally flawed and an egregious threat to public safety. For an administration that prides itself on public safety, they really don't give a shit about people's safety. Lithium fires happen more frequently than a lot of people think, and it's not just Note 7's. A lot of safety videos now even have added warnings about the danger of lithium battery punctures in the seat (Ex. Qantas) and now it's ok to put them in the hold? Yeah, Valujet 597 didn't deal with lithium batteries, but the idea is exactly the same. If you're going to ban electronics, at least do the research and apply it across the board. It is almost indefensible to argue that some flights should be forced to comply while others are given a free pass as if the danger has somehow magically vanished into thin air. Why is it ethically acceptable to endanger the lives of some people but not others? Nobody can predict lithium fires, but your ability to put one out should not be affected by unwarranted paranoia pulled straight out of somebody's ass. If electronics contain something sinister, does it really make a difference whether it's in the cabin or hold!?!

If they're that dangerous, ban they from flying period, passenger plane or cargo plane...

DiamondFlyer wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Some airline needs to take the USDOT to the IATA or ICAO arbitration panel, as they are being asked to violate regulations set forth by the IATA.

Since when does some BS international organization have authority over a sovereign nation. If a foreign carrier doesn't like it, they free to not come to the US and nobody will miss them here.

When you agree to join the organization, you agree to their rules. If Trump doesn't want to be bound by the rules, he can have the USA leave the IATA or ICAO and deal with the consequences and fallout.

Do we know which 13 countries other than Jordan are?

I take it this rule will not apply to the US3 as well.

Are electronic devices safer on US3 than on other aircraft.

Per Fox News's Jennifer Griffin, the ban only applies for the next 96 hours. They must have (what the administration views as) a credible threat of some kind.

https://twitter.com/JenGriffinFNC/statu ... 1926223874

DiamondFlyer wrote:

If they're that dangerous, ban they from flying period, passenger plane or cargo plane...

A quick search for "phone fire site:avherald.com" will reveal quite a few incidents. And that's just the reported incidients involving phones. There's also laptops, wireless headphones, bluetooth earpieces, wireless speakers, backup batteries, cameras, and a whole host of other items containing Li-ion batteries. Basically, Li-ion fires are a manageable risk, but ONLY if the devices are somewhere trained staff can access them.

It's completely reasonable that the IATA says that they should not go in the hold. If a sovereign nation wishes to override good sense, that's up to them. After that, it's up to the airlines to decide if they want to comply, and thus put their passengers, staff, and equipment at risk. Perhaps, some of these airlines will suspend their flights to the US, rather than comply. I have a feeling that many passengers will find another carrier if they can't bring any devices with them.

If this order turns out to be legitimate, I would not be surprised if the real (but unspoken) motive is to stop flights from certain countries.

Edited to add:

StrandedAtMKG wrote:

Per Fox News's Jennifer Griffin, the ban only applies for the next 96 hours. They must have (what the administration views as) a credible threat of some kind.

https://twitter.com/JenGriffinFNC/statu ... 1926223874

Okay… that seems more reasonable. So, my alarmist concern above is a bit overblown.

Nonetheless, it does surprise me that some people don't see the danger in Li-ion batteries. Personally, I would not fly on an aircraft where everyone had packed their devices into their checked bags. I would be concerned about flying with a company whose response to this order is to tell people to do this.

aerolimani wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

If they're that dangerous, ban they from flying period, passenger plane or cargo plane...

A quick search for "phone fire site:avherald.com" will reveal quite a few incidents. And that's just the reported incidients involving phones. There's also laptops, wireless headphones, bluetooth earpieces, wireless speakers, backup batteries, cameras, and a whole host of other items containing Li-ion batteries. Basically, Li-ion fires are a manageable risk, but ONLY if the devices are somewhere trained staff can access them.

It's completely reasonable that the IATA says that they should not go in the hold. If a sovereign nation wishes to override good sense, that's up to them. After that, it's up to the airlines to decide if they want to comply, and thus put their passengers, staff, and equipment at risk. Perhaps, some of these airlines will suspend their flights to the US, rather than comply. I have a feeling that many passengers will find another carrier if they can't bring any devices with them.

If this order turns out to be legitimate, I would not be surprised if the real (but unspoken) motive is to stop flights from certain countries.

I know how dangerous they are. I'm saying, if they're too dangerous to be inaccessible on a passenger plane, they're too dangerous to be inaccessible on a cargo plane as well...

aerolimani wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

If they're that dangerous, ban they from flying period, passenger plane or cargo plane...

A quick search for "phone fire site:avherald.com" will reveal quite a few incidents. And that's just the reported incidients involving phones. There's also laptops, wireless headphones, bluetooth earpieces, wireless speakers, backup batteries, cameras, and a whole host of other items containing Li-ion batteries. Basically, Li-ion fires are a manageable risk, but ONLY if the devices are somewhere trained staff can access them.

It's completely reasonable that the IATA says that they should not go in the hold. If a sovereign nation wishes to override good sense, that's up to them. After that, it's up to the airlines to decide if they want to comply, and thus put their passengers, staff, and equipment at risk. Perhaps, some of these airlines will suspend their flights to the US, rather than comply. I have a feeling that many passengers will find another carrier if they can't bring any devices with them.

If this order turns out to be legitimate, I would not be surprised if the real (but unspoken) motive is to stop flights from certain countries.

At least three planes have caught fire in the last 10 years because of this. This is also why batteries in the cargo hold cannot be charged higher than 30 percent. If I'm RJ, I would suspend the New York route and instead route passengers through London, and make other flights terminators in Montreal (arrange for onward connections via Air Canada, or via AA/BA in London).

IATA is a trade organization, not a legal authority.

Things like US DOT, Transport Canada, UK CAA, etc are the ones that define that is permissible or not.

Personally, I am not aware of such restriction for check luggage. Airlines cannot accept such shipments as cargo on passenger aircraft, but not see anything as such for pax baggage in France atleast.

Matter of fact Air France says lithium-ion batteries located in personal devices are OK for baggage.
https://www.airfrance.fr/common/image/p ... ium_en.pdf

DiamondFlyer wrote:

If they're that dangerous, ban they from flying period, passenger plane or cargo plane...

Let's ban planes altogether while we're it? They're pretty dangerous too, right?

CrimsonNL wrote:

Putting lithium batteries in your checked luggage as opposed to you carry-on luggage is actually a violation of the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations. As RJ is an IATA member they should not (willingly) allow passengers to put the lithium batteries in their checked bags..

Martijn

The normal procedure is for the device to go in the hold and the battery in the carry on. Most airlines will not accept tools in carry on but will permit them checked in and the battery as part of the carry on.

I am guessing items with a non removable battery like an iPad/iPhone would be fine onboard.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

I know how dangerous they are. I'm saying, if they're too dangerous to be inaccessible on a passenger plane, they're too dangerous to be inaccessible on a cargo plane as well...

They are regarded as dangerous cargo, and they cannot fly as cargo on passenger aircraft. While they can fly on cargo-only aircraft, there are still strict regulations as to their transport. Plenty of items are considered too dangerous for passenger flights, but are permitted on cargo-only flights. Have a read of the Purolator info sheet re Li-ion batteries: https://www.purolator.com/assets/pdf/da ... by-Air.pdf

Edited for spelling

mercure1 wrote:

IATA is a trade organization, not a legal authority.

Things like US DOT, Transport Canada, UK CAA, etc are the ones that define that is permissible or not.

Personally, I am not aware of such restriction for check luggage. Airlines cannot accept such shipments as cargo on passenger aircraft, but not see anything as such for pax baggage in France atleast.

Matter of fact Air France says lithium-ion batteries located in personal devices are OK for baggage.
https://www.airfrance.fr/common/image/p ... ium_en.pdf

And in any event the US is not "forcing" airlines to accept Li batteries in their cargo holds in violation of IATA rules. The US is just telling the airlines the pax cannot have the electronics in the cabin. The airline is free to ban them from their cargo holds as well (and thus their transportation period), I doubt the US government would care. The passengers on the other hand...

Even if the IATA was a legal authority the airlines would have no case.

Has the DHS made an announcement, or is it just Fox News.

mercure1 wrote:

IATA is a trade organization, not a legal authority.

Things like US DOT, Transport Canada, UK CAA, etc are the ones that define that is permissible or not.

Personally, I am not aware of such restriction for check luggage. Airlines cannot accept such shipments as cargo on passenger aircraft, but not see anything as such for pax baggage in France atleast.

Matter of fact Air France says lithium-ion batteries located in personal devices are OK for baggage.
https://www.airfrance.fr/common/image/p ... ium_en.pdf

Woah! I made a giant assumption when I thought everybody would have the same policy, similar to that of AC. https://www.aircanada.com/ca/en/aco/hom ... items.html

Maybe I just read too much avherald, but this just doesn't seem like a good plan.
http://avherald.com/h?article=49a73611
http://avherald.com/h?article=498b4f61
http://avherald.com/h?article=4a5309fb
http://avherald.com/h?article=495aeb31

That's just a very quick search.

I dont know what alternate universe some of you live in, but checking personal electronic devices containing lithium type batteriesis widely allowed.

Things like cameras, tablets, phones, laptops, etc are carried every single day in checked luggage.

Additionally, in the US, other types of batteries - alkaline, carbon zinc, silver oxide and nickel metal hydride batteries are allowed in checked luggage as well.

Just check out contracts of carriage for airlines I found quickly.

Delta:
Lithium ion batteries installed in a personal electronic device can be transported as checked or carry on baggage.
http://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/ ... items.html

United:
Personal devices (except for e-cigarettes and personal vaporizers) installed with a lithium battery of less than 100 watt hours are permitted in carry-on and checked baggage.
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/conten ... erous.aspx

Even FAA has guidance
Lithium ion (rechargeable lithium, lithium polymer, LIPO) as used in small consumer electronics, such as cell phones, tablets, tools, cameras, PDAs, and laptops. Limited to 100 watt hours or less per battery are allowed in checked baggage.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/he ... teries.pdf

Also TSA has guidance of what is allowed
https://phmsa.dot.gov/safetravel/batteries


For reference of how much the 100 watt hour battery might be, of my two laptops one contains a 44Whr battery, other 31Whr. According to Apple and Ipad Air 2 has a 27Whr battery.

LAXintl wrote:

I dont know what alternate universe some of you live in, but checking personal electronic devices containing lithium type batteriesis widely allowed.

Things like cameras, tablets, phones, laptops, etc are carried every single day in checked luggage.

Additionally, in the US, other types of batteries - alkaline, carbon zinc, silver oxide and nickel metal hydride batteries are allowed in checked luggage as well.

Just check out contracts of carriage for airlines I found quickly.

Delta:
Lithium ion batteries installed in a personal electronic device can be transported as checked or carry on baggage.
http://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/ ... items.html

United:
Personal devices (except for e-cigarettes and personal vaporizers) installed with a lithium battery of less than 100 watt hours are permitted in carry-on and checked baggage.
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/conten ... erous.aspx

Even FAA has guidance
Lithium ion (rechargeable lithium, lithium polymer, LIPO) as used in small consumer electronics, such as cell phones, tablets, tools, cameras, PDAs, and laptops. Limited to 100 watt hours or less per battery are allowed in checked baggage.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/he ... teries.pdf

Also TSA has guidance of what is allowed
https://phmsa.dot.gov/safetravel/batteries


For reference of how much the 100 watt hour battery might be, of my two laptops one contains a 44Whr battery, other 31Whr. According to Apple and Ipad Air 2 has a 27Whr battery.

I think I was the first person to raise a related issue on this thread, but my comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek and more a poke at being asked to remove laptops from gate-checked bags than anything else. Taken together the two directives don't make sense. As you mention, being told to remove items from gate-checked luggage makes even less sense when you can just check the same stuff back at the check-in counter.

bennett123 wrote:

Has the DHS made an announcement, or is it just Fox News.

Here's Guardian on the story. Apparently the airlines are just being informed so not official release yet.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -countries

ty97 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Has the DHS made an announcement, or is it just Fox News.

Here's Guardian on the story. Apparently the airlines are just being informed so not official release yet.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -countries

That same article says RJ should not have mentioned it publicly yet. Wonder if they will get into trouble for this ?

CNN story: http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/20/news/co ... index.html

Airlines that fly from certain countries in the Middle East and Africa to the U.S. must require passengers to check in almost all electronic devices rather than carry them into the cabin, said a U.S. official.

The official told CNN that there is a security concern regarding passengers boarding non-stop flights to the U.S. from some specific countries. The directive is to ensure enhanced security measures at select airports for a limited duration.

The source said it will impact over a dozen airlines flying into the US. Another US administration official says this covers devices larger than a cellphone.

Key words there: limited duration.

I'm curious what kind of threat they're responding to. If it's from the devices themselves (e.g. explosives), having them in checked luggage isn't going to be much safer.

Assuming the articles are correct and that there are 13 airlines:

Already confirmed: Royal Jordanian
Rumoured: Saudia
Extremely Likely: PIA, Kuwait, RAM, Uzbekistan, AZAL
Likely: Turkish, Ethiopian
Possible: Qatar, Emirates, Etihad, Air India
Unlikely: El Al
Questionable: Air Algérie, Tunisair (these two don't fly to USA but Canada. Assuming USA manages to convince Transport Canada to impose similar rules), SAA (due to transit point at DKR)

Remove Air Algérie, Tunisair, SAA and El Al from the list above and you magically get 13 airlines.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Some airline needs to take the USDOT to the IATA or ICAO arbitration panel, as they are being asked to violate regulations set forth by the IATA.

Since when does some BS international organization have authority over a sovereign nation. If a foreign carrier doesn't like it, they free to not come to the US and nobody will miss them here.

If thats not arrogant i dont know what is.

let's speculate which 13 airlines would be affected. i'm guessing they would be those who have non-stop flights from the middle east (and apparently africa as well, according to the generally clueless CNN aviation reporter rene marsh). i'll include TK to get me to 13 instead of LY.

here are my 13:

SV
RJ
ET
EK
EY
QR
MS
AT
W3
SA
PK
TK
KU

Frankly I would be amazed if El Al are affected.

usflyer msp wrote:

This sounds like some more Trump administration nonsense...
(sarcasm) Sketchy electronics are so much safer in the hold where no can see them than in the cabin (sarcasm off)...

Appears to be a security alert.