United States and Britain Ban Carry-On Electronics, Including Cameras, on Flights From Eight Countries

United States and Britain Ban Carry-On Electronics, Including Cameras, on Flights From Eight Countries

Citing intelligence that terrorists are targeting commercial flights by "smuggling explosives in portable electronic devices," both the United States and Britain have banned such devices from being carried on aircraft from multiple countries and airlines, requiring that they be instead placed in checked baggage.

The ban poses issues for photographers and videographers, who typically avoid checking delicate equipment. Officials did not elaborate on the specifics of the threat, but sources indicated that terrorist groups are working on creating such devices. Cell phones and medical devices are excluded from the ban, however, which airlines have a few days to put into effect. Here's a complete of affected airports:

United States

  • Queen Alia International Airport (AMM) in Jordan
  • Cairo International Airport (CAI) in Egypt
  • Ataturk International Airport (IST) in Turkey
  • King Abdulaziz International Airport (JED), King Khalid International Airport (RUH) in Saudi Arabia
  • Kuwait International Airport  (KWI) in Kuwait
  • Mohammed V International Airport  (CMN) in Morocco
  • Hamad International Airport (DOH) in Qatar
  • Dubai International Airport  (DXB) and Abu Dhabi International Airport (AUH) in the United Arab Emirates

Britain

The British ban also applies to some cell phones and will apply to all airports in the countries below:

  • Turkey
  • Lebanon
  • Jordan
  • Egypt
  • Tunisia
  • Saudi Arabia

If you're traveling from any of these airports in the future, be sure to take this into consideration when packing your gear. As of now, the U.S. ban remains in effect until at least October 14 of this year, with no word on the timeframe for the British ban. 

    [via Washington Post]

    Log in or register to post comments

    57 Comments

    Anonymous's picture

    To my understanding the US-american airlines are exempted from those requirements when flying to USA. I wonder why a 'terrorist' would not try to use an US-american airlinee or at least try to route the trip through an airport, which is not affected by the ban.
    Thinking of the fact that TSA locks can be opened by (virtually) everybody beside the US-border guards (due to leaked keys), I would not trust any valuables to my luggage, nor think that anybody can't "plant" something to my luggage...

    Paranoid, as I am, I think that this regulation is just meant to make it easier to gather "intelligence" of (innocent until proven otherwise) people. Welcome to 1984... :-(

    Simon Patterson's picture

    The reasons they provided (at least according to this article) don't pass the smell test, do they? Any terrorist hiding a bomb in their camera or laptop would be easily able to avoid the effect of this restriction.

    "US-american airline"

    US-American?? Why aren't you saying an American airline??

    "Paranoid, as I am, I think that this regulation is just meant to make it easier to gather "intelligence" of (innocent until proven otherwise) people. Welcome to 1984... :-("

    There are some inconsistencies in the directive but I think that probably has to do with a lot of details that are not being released to the public.

    In 1984 people also weren't flying airliners into skyscrapers. It was a much nicer time, and with no people staring into their phones all the time.

    Roman Kazmierczak's picture

    Peter, he meant the book :D

    Of course. I'm simply contrasting the year in the title of the book to way things are today.

    Roman Kazmierczak's picture

    ya ya ya :D You should read the book. Not the easiest one to read but it is interesting. It was written in 1949 and the year 1984 was "some time in the future". Something like 2015 in Back to the Future.

    Why do you assume I didn't know he was talking about the book and that I haven't read it??

    Beware of cynicism Roman. ⚠️

    Simon Patterson's picture

    1984 is a fascinating book - I would also highly recommend it.

    Anonymous's picture

    I've been pondering for some time if it makes sense to answer to you. But thought, I will do it anyway.

    1) To me, "America" (or "American") is more than just something from the USA: Last time I checked America consisted of many different countries incl. Canada, Mexico, Brasil, Argentina and many, many more.

    2) In the book "1984" has not been described which events led to establish such a regime. Which reasons would justify the establishment of a regime were different thoughts are forbidden and controlled through-out? Ever thought about it?

    3) Don't get me wrong: every single victim of violence (that is more than "only" terroristic actions!) is one too much. But obviously our views on how to prevent, that there will be be more victims, differs.

    1- Last time I checked, America was also a country and American was a nationality. The only people I have ever run into that used the bizarre US-American term were anti-American people from other countries, and funnily enough in almost every case from Europe.

    The last time I checked, the people from Canada, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina do not call themselves Americans. They call themselves Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians and Argentinians. Rinse and repeat for the rest of both continents.

    The usage of the singular words America and American have almost without exception always been used exclusively to describe the country and the people of that country. Now that may bother you for some odd reason but that is historical fact and that is still the case today, and as it should be. You should accept and respect that.

    2- I have no idea what you are trying to ask me. Please correct and clarify your grammar.

    3- What exactly are you trying to say? I haven't shared any views with you on how to prevent anything.

    Anonymous's picture

    Why do do describe me as coming from a continent such as "Europe" but don't accept it for people from the American continent(s)?

    Btw, if it is "anti-American" to appreciate values for which USA was famous (freedom of speech, equality, innocent until proven otherwise, freedom of religion, etc.), I should be proud to be "anti-American".

    Read more carefully. I never said you were from Europe. You probably are, considering your name (Germany, Austria ?), but I never said you were.

    Where have I denied anyone from North America and South America not coming from there?? I was talking about the usage of the singular words of America and American, each of which have a long established usage that obviously you don't like.

    All those things you mentioned still exist in America, except you got one thing wrong. It's equal opportunity, not equality, as it should be. Saying you support those common sense things also doesn't mean you're not anti-American. American culture encompasses much more than the things you mentioned.

    Anonymous's picture

    It is true that you never wrote that I would be European. You just implied that I would be an "anti-American" coming from Europe.

    As, I am always eager to learn something new:
    - Why is it a bad idea to try to use a nation's official name to avoid ambiguity between a nation and a continent? How does it make somebody "anti-American"? Btw., did you use American in the sense of the continent or the 'nation'?
    - How can you have "equal opportunity" if people are not equal (= equality)?
    - I am sure that those values, which I mentioned, still exist. But what is the impression to the outside given by the government of the USA?

    Besides "Freedom of press": which parts of your(?) culture, which are seemingly tried to be exported to other nations, did I miss? Based on what do you imply that I might be "anti-American"?

    Anyhow, this going too far from the original article, so I won't comment anymore.

    I didn't imply anything.

    In this case, you are not "eager to learn something new." I'm sure you know very well the usage of the words America and American. Your ridiculous use of the term US-American is as common as a successful German standup comic who also thinks Angela Merkel is an attractive woman. Your goal is simply to annoy and insult Americans because you are - here it comes - anti-American.

    The equality oft-mentioned from your part of the world is based on the economic principles of socialism. Equality in America is about equal opportunities. In the end there is no such thing as equality in America for each person will have varying levels of success, as it should be. Does that bother you? I'm betting it does.

    If you are sure the values you mentioned still exist in America then why did you mention them in the past tense?

    Your words: "..values for which USA was famous.."

    *******

    "But what is the impression to the outside given by the government of the USA?"

    It's not a matter of what America is actually giving; it is what you choose to see and believe and what you choose to not tolerate. Your impression of America is based on anti-Americanism and ignorance, and feigned interest in, and respect for, America's right to democratic self-determination.

    America's domestic affairs are also none of your business.

    "Besides "Freedom of press": which parts of your(?) culture, which are seemingly tried to be exported to other nations, did I miss?"

    I have no idea what you mean by that bizarre out of left field question. No one is forcing you or your country to adopt American culture, if that is what you mean.

    "Based on what do you imply that I might be "anti-American"?"

    In every single case where I have heard someone use, and continue to argue for, the ridiculous term US-American, that person's anti-Americanism was obvious or very soon to follow. You are no different. That you also feel it is your place to try and judge America's domestic affairs is an example of your anti-Americanism. That you show no interest in and respect for America's right to democratic self- determination is another example of your anti-Americanism.

    "Anyhow, this going too far from the original article, so I won't comment anymore."

    That's a very good idea.

    Anonymous's picture

    Even if I thought that I wouldn't reply anymore:
    From what I've read ( and found references), the declaration of independence of the USA refers to all people being equal (= equality): "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

    Were you trying to explain to me that the authors of the US declaration of independence were socialists (or or at least had socialist ideas)?

    If so, it would be surely something new to me. (Which you helped me to learn, and I am grateful to learn that)

    Why didn't quote the entire sentence??

    It goes:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    No, they were not socialists, though I suspect you are trying to convince me that they were.

    Anonymous's picture

    "No, they were not socialists, though I suspect you are trying to convince me that they were."

    Actually, I don't try that. I am just wondering that you imply that I would be socialist (whatever you mean by that) while my understanding of equality is pretty much in line with the text of the declaration of independence for the USA.

    What do you know about me, that you (IMO, with some confidence) try to tell me that I wouldn't be eager to learn or that what my political opinions (e.g. "anti-American") would be?

    Personally, I do not know you at all: I know only your comments here. For me that is not enough to jumping to conclusions about you based on those...

    "my understanding of equality is pretty much in line with the text of the declaration of independence for the USA"

    And yet you selectively quoted the text of that document, leaving out the most important part of the sentence. The part of the sentence that obviously answers your question on whether the writers were socialists.

    "What do you know about me, that you...try to tell me that I wouldn't be eager to learn or that what my political opinions (e.g. "anti-American") would be?"

    Based on your own words, I know enough to have made such conclusions. At least be truthful of your intentions so at least you can earn some respect for your honesty.

    I'm done replying to you in this article. I have no interest in playing your game.

    Anonymous's picture

    "I'm done replying to you in this article. I have no interest in playing your game."

    It is good that you do not want to misinterpret me anymore...

    The only reason US airlines are "exempted" is that it does not apply to them. No US airline flies to those airports and it is only direct flights from those airports to the US that are included in this electronics ban.
    If a traveler connects through, say, a European airport, they would go through another security check at the gate before boarding for the US. In my experience, the European checks have been more consistent than some that I have had at certain airports on this list when flying to the US.

    but Delta flies from Kuwait to the US, and American Airlines from Dubai to the US. i just checked. i'm sure there are other US airlines also doing so.

    Just in time for my trip to Dubai in May ;-(

    Fritz John Asuro's picture

    There shouldn't be a problem when going to Dubai, and even you check in your luggage, you'll be surprised how DXB handles your luggage like a baby. It's your way back that you have to think about.

    Hi Fritz. The problem isn't going into Dubai. It's coming back from Dubai into a US airport. I usually travel light with just carry-on. Now between my wife and I we will need to check at least one carry-on bag with all our electronics gear (except cell phones) inside.

    Consider the extra time to recover your bag is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

    Simon Patterson's picture

    And then hope like hell your gear isn't lost, damaged or delayed!

    Fritz John Asuro's picture

    Uhm... That's what I just said. Please read it again.

    UPS/DHL your kit back to the States. Batteries will be an issue however. This ban is "security" for the sake of optics.

    Simon Patterson's picture

    I guess the solution is to fly from these places to an intermediate location in Europe or Canada first, then hop across to UK or USA. That way, the flight into UK/USA is not actually from any of these middle eastern countries.

    Checking in camera gear is not a realistic option!

    Chris Adval's picture

    soo.... I don't need to worry about this when flying domestically? I'm an amateur traveler but plan to fly more often later this year.