U.S. Government's Handling of Laptop Ban Was Unacceptable for the Business Travel Community

Justified or not, the handling of the U.S. government's surprise ban on laptops and other large electronic devices onboard certain flights from the Middle East and Africa was a slap in the face to the business travel community.

A few days in, the fog is lifting on the genesis of the ban. Reports now indicate that it was based on recent chatter from militants who plan to hide explosive devices in computers, and those devices require manual detonation. That, at least, is better reasoning than what the Department of Homeland Security offered on March 21 in the form of an FAQ that created more questions than it answered. And the severe hardship the ban imposes on business travelers makes it hard to swallow.

Most glaringly, why limit it to certain airports when global terrorist cells could easily depart from another airport in Europe or Asia? The DHS cited the bombing of a 2016 flight operated by Somali carrier Daallo Airlines that departed from Mogadishu, where airport security is virtually nonexistent. Some employees of that airport have been implicated in the attack. As Emirates president Tim Clark pointed out, that's vastly different from the security in Dubai—one of the airports affected by the U.S. electronics ban—where security is at least on par with European and American airports.

This inconsistency has given rise to theories that the U.S. policy is based more on protectionism than security. The three major U.S. carriers have been waging a battle against Qatar Airways, Emirates and Etihad. The U.S. airlines say the Gulf carriers unfairly benefit from state subsidies, a violation of the Gulf states' Open Skies Agreements with the U.S. All three Gulf carriers vehemently deny the charge. When he met with airline executives last month, President Donald Trump alluded to those concerns but did not say anything in regard to a planned course of action.

The U.K. has announced a similar ban, and Canada reportedly is considering the same, which legitimizes the security reasoning being behind the U.S.'s ban. Of course, the U.K.'s ban includes neither the United Arab Emirates nor Qatar but does include countries that will affect British Airways flights. The U.S. ban includes the headquarters airports of all three Gulf carriers and no airports served by any U.S. carrier, which has raised a few eyebrows, given the protectionist bent of the Trump administration.

Regardless of the intent, the U.S. ban could have grave effects on the Gulf carriers should it persist. In a research note, JPMorgan analyst Jamie Baker said long-haul business travelers going to the U.S. from Africa, India or Southeast Asia who might have connected in the Middle East will go through Europe instead. "For example, a business traveler … when confronting the choice between a connection in Doha or Frankfurt could reasonably be expected to choose Frankfurt, given the ability to sidestep the e-ban," according to Baker. "In theory, much as how LaGuardia commands a yield premium over JFK given [its] proximity to Manhattan, hubs that don't impede the productivity of long-haul business travelers could logically be expected to extract yield premiums at the expense of the Middle East."

Given the potential trade implications of reopening Open Skies discussions with Qatar and the UAE, it's certainly not a stretch to wonder whether this is another way to strike, much like a landlord who can't evict a rent-controlled tenant opts to be lax in basic maintenance, hoping the tenant will simply move out.

The U.S. government has given no indication how long this ban could last, saying only that it "will remain in place until the threat changes." That's cold comfort, considering the liquid ban has persevered for more than a decade and U.S. checkpoints still require passengers to remove their shoes more than 15 years after Richard Reid's failed bombing attempt.

If economic protectionism is not a driver, others in the corporate travel industry fear, this ban could become the norm across the aviation industry, which would have severe implications on business travel. Not only would business travelers lose hours of productivity on the plane, many would be unable to travel with laptops and tablets at all, given the risk to expensive equipment and data should a checked bag be tampered with, lost or stolen. Some companies already have policies expressly prohibiting employees from checking laptops. "How long is it going to be before this ban is extended to flights from Paris and Brussels into the U.K. and U.S.?" Association of Corporate Travel Executives Greeley Koch asked. "No one is going to willingly check their computers or tablets, which often house the most detailed and proprietary corporate information, in the cargo hold of an airliner."

In the best-case scenario, this threat will be short-lived, and the ban will lift or the government and airports will come up with a workaround involving a closer inspection of electronic devices brought onboard.

That still does not excuse the poor communication employed in its rollout. Royal Jordanian, for example, announced its ban on social media before the U.S. government had made any sort of official announcement; the carrier later retracted the announcement. Some in the U.S. Transportation Security Administration had not been briefed about it as the news emerged on March 20, and some Federal Air Marshals reportedly learned about the ban from CNN reports distributed by management. Such sloppiness is disturbing, considering the ban's potential impact on the global business travel industry, which the Global Business Travel Association estimates spent $1.3 trillion worldwide last year.

"Travelers want the best security," Koch said. "But without further explanation, these new restrictions will do nothing but breed further skepticism in government's perception of business travel."