Is it a complete nuisance to take a long flight without a laptop? Yes

Some of us would like to spend the12-14 hours it takes to fly from Dubai to the US and back finishing pending work rather than killing brain cells watching movies

Hassle, inconvenience and pointless are just a few of the more polite words that came to my mind when I heard that the US government is temporarily banning carry-on electronic items on direct flights from Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
For someone like me - who flies to the United States at least once or twice every year - the restrictions significantly change the travel experience, for the worse. I'm not someone who can sleep on an airplane. I'm too tall for 21st century air travel, even on a relatively comfortable Emirates or Etihad aircraft. The 12 or 14 hours it takes me to fly from Dubai to the US and back is time that I prefer to spend wisely, doing something productive rather than killing brain cells watching movie after movie.
Let's take a recent work trip to Washington DC - in November to cover Donald Trump's successful presidential bid - as an example. In preparation, I read a biography of Trump on my Kindle, used my laptop to read the latest developments in the presidential race and type up some material to be used in the stories I would write. Stowed in the overheard compartment, I had an expensive, professional camera.
With the restrictions in place, none of that would have been possible. The Kindle and laptop would be sitting in the cargo hold, completely useless to me, and the camera would be at the mercy of what I imagine are often burly, heavy-handed baggage handlers. If this, to me, is an inconvenience, I can imagine how jet-setting businessmen - who can rarely afford to take 14 hours off their work - are feeling.
Like most people, I could accept the new restrictions if I were convinced that Trump and his "America First" team were responding to some form of legitimate terrorist threat or security concern. We've all come to terms with the fact that box-cutters and sharp instruments (which were actually successfully used in a terrorist attack) have no place on-board an aircraft. After all, it's better to be bored stiff for 12 hours than it is to be blown to bits by a bomb-laden iPad somewhere over Europe or the Atlantic.
But, as someone who follows aviation closely both professionally and personally, it strikes me that the ban has nothing to do with safety.
If, as the US government alleges, there is a legitimate threat that terrorists could plant explosives in a laptop, common sense dictates that a terrorist cell could conduct a similar operation from any airport in the world.
Furthermore, the ban flies against previous government edicts that lithium batteries shouldn't be stored in the cargo hold. That followed the 2010 crash of a UPS freighter in Dubai traced to a battery fire in the hold. Is it wise, then, to load dozens, if not hundreds, of lithium batteries all together? The Trump administration has yet to answer that question.
In an earlier report, Khaleej Times spoke to some experts about this. And an aviation engineer Hamad Ismail told us, placing multiple lithium ion batteries in an airplane cargo could potentially create a very dangerous situation.
"The lithium batteries can heat up if something goes wrong. There's a heat exchanger near the cargo. Imagine that you're on a train that accelerates with burning coal. What will happen if you keep adding more coal? The burner will explode. It's similar to that," he said.
"However, there are fire extinguishers in the cargo that can be activated once it detects smoke. There are also seals there that close off areas to stop the fire from spreading. This all depends on what kind of aircraft it is."
The new US-imposed restrictions, however, make much more sense when set against the backdrop of Trump's "America First" protectionist economic policies, and to the long running "Open Skies" dispute that out-classed American carriers have had with their Gulf rivals, who have been rapidly biting into the Americans' share of the market.
What's being done about it? Well, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) has called on governments to urgently find alternatives to the recently announced restrictions by US and UK on the carry-on of large electronic items on certain flights departing the Middle East and North Africa.
Emirates Airline president Sir Tim Clark earlier issued a statement saying, "Our new complimentary service enables passengers, particularly those flying for business, to have the flexibility to use their devices until the last possible moment." He pointed out that passengers could use their smartphones - not included in the ban. He said about the Emirates flights into the US that already 90 percent of passengers use in-flight Wi-Fi to connect their smartphones. The other 10 percent is broken down to 6 percent on laptops and 4 percent on tablets.
The new US-imposed restrictions, however, make much more sense when set against the backdrop of Trump's "America First" protectionist economic policies, and to the long running "Open Skies" dispute that out-classed American carriers have had with their Gulf rivals, who have been rapidly biting into the Americans' share of the market.
To me, the timing is suspicious. Just earlier this month, an advocacy group for American carriers placed an ad in the New York Times, in which Jill Zuckman of the Partnership for Open and Fair Skies alleged - wrongly, in my opinion - that "billions of dollars in illegal Gulf carrier subsidies are brazen violations of our Open Skies agreements and a perfect example of the type of trade cheating that President Trump abhors."
With that in mind, it seems that the restrictions are little more than a way to hurt the competitors of American carriers, by attempting to encourage passengers to travel on different routes and travel hubs, which, as it happens, are serviced by American airlines. This makes the matter all the more irritating - I, and millions of other travelers, have become pawns in a multi-billion dollar dispute between airlines.
In the long run, however, I expect that the ban won't last. Aside from the questionable validity of the security threat, many people, myself included, would prefer to sit in an Emirates or Etihad plane on a non-stop flight, watching films or reading physical, paper books rather than go through the time-consuming hassle of connecting flights.
bernd@khaleejtimes.com
Bernd is a gizmo freak with a sweet tooth. He's fascinated by planes and shiny blingy things.