Since the US received credible intelligence that Daesh (the self-proclaimed IS) has developed the capability to conceal explosive devices within laptops, tablets and other large electronic devices, these devices have been banned, as of late March, from the airline cabins of US-bound flights originating from 10 airports in the Middle East and North Africa. However, within the last week the US has been hinting that the ban could be extended to European airports, as well.
During a hearing Thursday on Capitol Hill, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security John Kelly reiterated that he has not yet made a final decision about whether to expand the ban. But he noted that it is still on the table as DHS monitors “a number of very, very sophisticated advanced threats”. The expectation is that nothing would go into effect until President Donald Trump returns from his overseas trip this weekend. The US would give airports at least the same four-day notice it gave Middle Eastern and other airlines although the heads-up for Europe could be longer.
Like the Middle East and North Africa ban, the same complaints will be forthcoming from a Europe-wide ban: it could lead to longer travel times, departure delays, cost increases and fewer trips flown by business customers. A European ban would also dwarf in size the current one. It is estimated that a ban could affect 390 transatlantic flights a day from the EU. In 2016, 30 million people flew to the US from Europe.
But passengers should try to see the ban exclusively for its intent to better bolster airplane security and safety. It is perfectly understandable for the US to want to take every precautionary measure to ensure the safety of airline passengers. It is fair to assume these strict measures would not have been implemented in the first place unless the US had incontrovertible intelligence that terrorists were planning to use laptops and other electronic devices to smuggle explosives into the passenger cabins of commercial airliners.
Discussions about banning laptops have been going on for more than a year, long before Trump became president. The policy is the result of an attack on a Somali airliner last year, in which a man hid a bomb inside a laptop. He was sucked out of the jet without causing it to crash but the incident focused attention on the threat of bombs hidden inside ordinary-looking gadgets.
The security and protection of air travelers is a priority. At the end of the day, the No 1 priority is the safety of a public transportation system. Terrorist attacks could originate from a diverse array of places. And while a laptop ban doesn’t really ensure that terrorist attacks will not happen, it could help ensure that terrorist attacks on certain flights will not occur.
Genuine security risks must be addressed. As last week’s summit in Riyadh attested, the world faces a constantly evolving threat from terrorism and must respond accordingly to ensure the protection of the public against those who would do harm. People should continue to fly but understand that security procedures are being implemented for their own good.
If polls suggest that some people would reconsider their flight plans or stop flying altogether if they were forced to be without their electronic devices during a journey, what would have been their answer had the question been whether they could keep their laptops on board but always with the looming threat of one of them exploding in mid-flight?
The impact on airlines and fares would be far greater if an aircraft was actually brought down by a laptop bomb operated by a passenger.
