I see the point you're trying to make; the authorities apparently accept a risk in terms of expensive equipment produced by corporations with strong lobbying funds, but decline that risk in terms of bottled liquids.
One fact that is overlooked is that there is actually a limit on the lithium-equivalent permitted per passenger just like there is a liquid-volume limit.
Last time I checked, the total maximum carry-on lithium-equivalent was 25 grammes which was about four smartphone batteries or two-dozen AA cells. Now as to whether that's an acceptable risk is for someone else more knowlegeable to evaluate.
The problem is that with a water bottle, you can immediately see it's some kind of liquid on the x-ray and disallow it during inspection, whereas the Note 7 isn't immediately apparent when inspected from afar. While I don't agree with the liquid ban, it's much easier to ban a liquid than it is to ban a specific model of a phone.
Last time I was on an airplane the crew disallowed all Note 7s being turned on or being charged. I'm not sure if it was seriously enforced, but it was announced.
dingaling|9 years ago
One fact that is overlooked is that there is actually a limit on the lithium-equivalent permitted per passenger just like there is a liquid-volume limit.
Last time I checked, the total maximum carry-on lithium-equivalent was 25 grammes which was about four smartphone batteries or two-dozen AA cells. Now as to whether that's an acceptable risk is for someone else more knowlegeable to evaluate.
hueving|9 years ago
mschuster91|9 years ago
I really, really dislike flying. Not because of the flying itself, but because of being treated like a potential terrorist all the time.
yladiz|9 years ago
swiley|9 years ago
leni536|9 years ago
unknown|9 years ago
[deleted]
JauntyHatAngle|9 years ago
nazgob|9 years ago
jjeaff|9 years ago