The Trump administration has made its first major aviation policy decision, banning large electronic devices from cabins on aircraft departing 10 airports in the Middle East and North Africa. The UK quickly followed with a similar but more limited ban that covered fewer airports. While the professed intent of the electronics ban is to improve passenger security, it was poorly thought through and clumsily rolled out. It could have a major negative impact commercially on the affected airlines and, most importantly, it could actually jeopardize passenger safety. 
Let’s start with the questionable logic that banning laptops from some aircraft cabins makes flying more secure. Even if the U.S. Homeland Security Department’s so-called security enhancements prevent a terrorist from bringing explosives hidden in a laptop onboard a nonstop flight to the U.S. from one of the 10 listed airports, this does absolutely nothing to prevent an attack. That terrorist could simply take a connecting service from, say, Dubai or Cairo via Frankfurt or Milan to the U.S. and, assuming the explosives somehow evade security, then blow up the second flight over the Atlantic. In this case, it could even be an aircraft operated by a U.S. airline, as many American airlines serve all of the European gateways, which are not covered by the ban. The alleged risk is simply moved from a nonstop to a connecting flight. It is not contained.
Dubai International Airport
Credit: Dubai Airports

If U.S. security officials are truly concerned about an imminent threat from the airports in question, they should tighten checks at those airports for all flights. Which gets us to the next point, airport security. In issuing the electronics ban, U.S. authorities imply that security is insufficient at the 10 named airports. The list includes Dubai, Kuwait, Doha and Abu Dhabi, where U.S. customs operates a pre-clearance facility. And anyone who has ever traveled through Dubai’s airport has witnessed how much investment went into state-of-the-art security equipment and staffing to ensure that international standards are maintained. What was the rationale fo
Then there is the distinction between security and safety. Every single one of these nonstop flights to the U.S. will now fly with hundreds of electronic devices powered by lithium-ion batteries in the cargo hold, tightly packed in suitcases or bags. The airline industry is scared of these batteries and rightly so: There have been numerous incidents involving lithium-ion battery thermal runaways and fires. The cargo hold, which no one can access during flight, provides ideal conditions for those fires to get out of control. By contrast, passengers and flight attendants can swiftly react to an ignition in the cabin. So even if the restrictions on electronics were issued in good faith, they could have the unintended consequence of making passengers and crew less safe. 
The e-ban, if it continues, will also have huge commercial implications. As many have noted, business travelers cannot afford not to work on a flight of 12 hr. or more. Many of them will therefore no longer fly Qatar Airways, Emirates Airline and Etihad Airways to the U.S. Flights via other points may be more inconvenient and more expensive, but at least travelers will not miss an entire day’s work in transit. 
Even though the “big three” Gulf carriers have been quiet about the electronic device ban, they are being hit very hard by it. The U.S. is not their biggest traffic area—Europe and Asia are more important—but it will be painful for them.  
European network carriers are likely be the main beneficiaries of the directive; U.S. airlines stand to gain far less. The entire commercial aviation industry will suffer in the long-term, however.  Because what is next? If the two-month-old Trump administration is making such obviously flawed moves in the vital areas of safety and security, why should anyone believe its other aviation policies will be carefully considered?