Lufthansa has not banned AirTags | Hacker News Reader

Lufthansa has not banned AirTags

liveandletsfly.com

235 pointsbookofjoe247 comments

My reading is that AirTags are permitted by IATA regulations.

[0] indicates that a small Lithium-metal battery, as is installed in an AirTag, can be transported as cargo on a passenger aircraft.

[1] indicates that low-powered communications like Bluetooth are permitted from active devices transported as cargo (page 9, item 3).

Am I missing something?

[0]: https://www.iata.org/contentassets/05e6d8742b0047259bf3a700b...

[1]: https://www.iata.org/contentassets/05e6d8742b0047259bf3a700b...

For electronic devices containing lithium batteries, the ICAO regulations mandate that “if devices are carried in checked baggage:
— measures must be taken to prevent unintentional activation and to protect the devices from damage; and

— the devices must be completely switched off (not in sleep or hibernation mode);”

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33128614

GP is making the assertion that Airtags are cargo tracking devices powered by a button cell, which this document issued in 2021 (note the document referenced in that thread is from 2017) appears to exempt from those requirements (both from a battery point of view, and from the wireless signal one). IMO it's hard to argue that they're not, but then the question in my mind becomes "is checked baggage cargo?" for the purpose of these rules. No idea.

The GP is referencing IATA, while I was referencing ICAO (same as Lufthansa did). Not sure if they conflict, or how such a conflict would be resolved.

Passenger checked luggage isn't the same as cargo. Your first reference links to [0] for passenger guidance, which includes the following:

"If devices are carried in checked baggage:

• measures must be taken to protect the device from damage and to prevent unintentional activation;

• the device must be completely switched off (not in sleep or hibernation mode)"

Alternative reference (IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations (for passengers and crew)), effective Jan 2022 [1]:

"Lithium Batteries: Portable electronic devices (PED) containing lithium metal or lithium ion cells or batteries, including medical devices such as portable oxygen concentrators (POC) and consumer electronics such as cameras, mobile phones, laptops and tablets (see 2.3.5.8). For lithium metal batteries the lithium metal content must not exceed 2 g and for lithium ion batteries the Watt-hour rating must not exceed 100 Wh. Devices in checked baggage must be completely switched off and must be protected from damage. Each person is limited to a maximum of 15 PED."

[0]: https://www.iata.org/contentassets/6fea26dd84d24b26a7a1fd578...

[1]: https://www.iata.org/contentassets/6fea26dd84d24b26a7a1fd578...

Really simple question is whether car keys are banned under the same rules. They are powered by the same types of batteries.

Of course they are also banned, if they also use lithium batteries, though who flies with car keys? Especially in their checked in luggage?

Lots of people travel with car keys if they drive to the airport. But it would be pretty dumb to put them in checked luggage.

Yes, but my point is that if they agree car keys are banned then AirTags are banned.

If they say car keys are fine then they have no standing for banning AirTags.

And yes, I agree that checking one’s car keys is silly.

I think it’s a stupid decision by Lufthansa, but to be fair, these keys will only transmit when prompted by a radio signal from a specific car, whereas an AirTag will transmit when prompted by any iPhone. There are, surprisingly, more iPhones inside the typical airplane than cars.

I always fly with my car keys (almost always in my carry-on bag) even when I take the train to the airport. Simply because my car keys are on the same keychain as my house keys, and I never leave home for anything without those..

Oops, I am so used to taking a taxi (I don't drive) to the airport that I completely forgot many people actually drive there... Quite an idiot moment.

I never drive to the airport (parking is expensive and the train is cheap), but my car keys stay on my keychain and my keychain travels with me.

I have a combo lock at home. So I leave my keys at home unless I'm driving to the airport.

> who flies with car keys?

Literally everyone who parked at the airport?

Why do you think airports have parking lots? Tons of people drive to the airport before flying

Car keys usually remained powered off until a button is pressed.

Do they though? Lots of cars unlock when you get near to them with the key, which I imagine is technology effectively identical to an AirTag.

I believe they're in a constant low-power mode, I think (?) the car periodically transmits a beacon that "wakes up" the key (assuming it's nearby, of course) and initiates the challenge/response process.

That is patently false. Keyless car fobs are constantly transmitting and it is possible to shut them down for long term storage with a key combination that almost nobody ever uses or even knows about.

If you're going to use language like "patently false" it helps to be correct. Keyless car fobs are not constantly transmitting. If they were, the battery would die quite quick. The key combinations to disable them help to prevent relay attacks, not because they just constantly transmit.

They don't transmit continuously. The little CR2032 cell in my Tesla key would be dead in a day or two but in fact it lasts about at least six months, probably more like a year. I presume that they listen for a ping from the car and only then transmit. Unless you press a button of course. I've had the car almost five years and I think I have only replaced the battery four times.

An AirTag transmits constantly yet it manages to last 6 months too. They do not wait for phones to ping them, they just beacon all the time.

Not saying this is what Tesla do. For privacy reasons it would be way better to not transit until it sees the car. But battery life isn't proof of this.

All the time? Or at intervals? At what interval and what is the expected distance at which they can be detected?

All the time, as in several times per second. I have a bluetooth sniffer and these beacons are very very chatty. I didn't test the AirTags myself but it can't be lower than once every 5 seconds or so. But really I think they are like the other battery-operated BLE beacons with several times per second. BLE really is really low energy, they got that part totally licked.

The expected distance is pretty high. Officially up to 10m (like a keyless entry) but they can reach much higher distances. Because I often leave my AirTag in the house and it gets detected very often despite me not even having an iPhone :)

Ah, yeah I was thinking keyless entry not hands-free entry.

Not mine, or any others that have hands free unlocking. I presume that they are in a deep sleep but not unpowered and wake up when the car pings them.

Ah yes let me hit the power button to turn my key on rq, then I'll unlock the car

And some watches use these batteries too.

You check your watch in?

It's not about whether we should, it's whether they'd allow us to

Airlines do recommend keeping your car keys in your carry-on. Presumably this is so that you aren't stranded if your baggage gets lost rather than a ban on its battery.

This article is not correct. They are banned, here is the official tweet: https://twitter.com/lufthansa/status/1578879849577385984

The article is in response to that tweet, and references a response from Lufthansa.

In the face of two conflicting statements attributed to the same source, one possibility is to believe the primary source, but another is to believe the latest trustworthy source. If you consider The Points Guy to be trustworthy aviation journalism (which I do) then it's reasonable to believe Lufthansa's clarification in response to the tweet you linked.

Why would an AirTag, or any personal baggage tracker, pose a threat to an airline and make them want to ban it?

The benefits to consumers of using these devices are obvious. But it also seems that enabling customers to know where their lost luggage is would benefit the airlines as well.

Can anyone thing of a reason (legitimate or not) that airlines would be motivated to prevent this?

Yes, and the article touches on this. Accountability. Airlines lose bags all the time and will no longer be able to provide you with the endless list of excuses.

Among the 600 comments in the previous mention of this (non) story, there was quite a few mentions of possible reasons (legitimate and not): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33127459

Various airline regulatory bodies have rules that prohibit both devices that transmit wireless signals being carried in the cargo hold, as well as devices that have batteries being carried in the cargo hold. AirTags, while probably not the intended targets of such rules, technically fit both of these categories.

The airline is effectively just saying "we follow the rules we are supposed to follow". In practice, I doubt they care at all, and you're not going to see anyone trying to sniff out AirTags to prevent them from being in luggage... but you're also not going to see the official spokesperson of an airline make an announcement saying "yea go ahead and just ignore the rules, it's fine".

Even worse, the response would have been "we ignore these rules that govern our right to fly our planes all the time, don't worry!".

The bottom line is that a lot of literal rules related to electronic devices are arguably broken tens of thousands of times a day. At the same time, airlines also have a generally consistent approach to the things they actually decide to care about which they have almost certainly discussed with regulators.

Lufthansa had massive problems with lost luggage lately and people started adding airtags to their bags that led to arrests of some folks, so I guess they want to "protect their reputation".

>arrests

source(s)?

Ok so if your suitcase is indeed lost - don’t say u had airtag in there. Say you had 200k worth of camera equipment instead…

200k worth of camera equipment, but max refund is like 1600 eur.

So good luck :)

In the average case it changes the balance of power in favor of the customer when there is delayed or missing luggage.

OT, kinda. My eldest kid is in the final year of UK junior school so finally cut lose to walk to and from school as is culturally acceptable here.. I gave her a phone so she could let us (mum/dad) know she was on her way home from school, deciding to go home to a friends etc.. the school caught wind and apparently it was against school policy so she was disciplined (along with a number of her peers) - the extent of which was limited when I and her mother (and her peers parents) told them we had given them the option irregardless of the school policy.

The school response was to put an air tag on her!... I gave her a phone because they can't take change (money) to school which could be used for a payphone; but they don't exist any more, barely anyway.. fuck air tags, I don't care about property I care about people and air tags are as abusive bit of tech as it gets, how is a kid supposed to grow up knowing they are being tracked 24/7.. my example is nothing compared to what happens to people with abusive partners.. this kinda tech can not be normalised.

> irregardless

Sorry to nitpick, but you can just say regardless.

Thanks, really! I appreciate it.. makes for a far better rant when the spelling/grammar is on point.

As you’ve expressed interest… it seems to me that the nonsense word irregardless (which has become so prevalent as to have a understandable folk sense) arose as a portmanteau of irrespective and regardless. Both are useful words to know.

Perhaps the extent to which one cares about the nonsensical composition of the word irregardless speaks to the same latent disposition that drive preferences among type systems.

Whether “it works but is wrong” is nonsensical is debatable. My grandfather had a llama who duck typed his sexual partners. He was not, in a Darwinian sense, a successful animal but was beloved for his easy going disposition.

Anyway, word are fun.

If you really like nitpicks: you can also just say irregardless.

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/07/887649010/regardless-of-what-...

Meh, you can say whatever the hell you want.

If English actually had language police, I'd press charges against everyone who enters a conversation with "I mean, ..." or "So, ...". [0]

But that's only in my little fantasy world :) In the real world, there's no agreed-upon arbiter of "acceptable" English.

[0] And the "rule" about omitting final punctuation, in sentences that end with a quote, is stupid and I won't write that way. Now get off my lawn!!!

> If English actually had language police, I'd press charges against everyone who enters a conversation with "I mean, ..." or "So, ..."

What about starting a conversation with "Meh" ?

> What about starting a conversation with "Meh" ?

Oh dear.

> you can also just say irregardless.[1]

Please stop using that word.

[1] https://www.etymonline.com/word/irregardless

Notice that while “etymonline” may not like it, serious dictionaries like OED give its meaning without any value judgments.

Because scientists who study language seriously understand that trying to stem the tide of random language change is futile and pointless.

Lexicographers are neither linguists nor philologists, and any among the latter two worth their salt will tell you that "irregardless" is an erroneous and contradictory word, and further point out that whomever the neologist was that originally coined it made the mistake of double negative, such that "irregardless" must mean "with regard" as opposed to "regardless," and, as such, is superfluous.

If enough people use a word, it’s a word. Many words were formed as mistakes, “apron” and “tornado” for example.

Dictionaries follow how people are actually speaking, not the other way around.

> If enough people use a word, it’s a word.

Whether or not it is a word is not at issue. Any group of letters forms a word. "Hsyxff" is a word I just made up. The point is "irregardless" is an incorrect word, and no matter how many say wrong is right, it can never change the fact that wrong is still wrong.

> Many words were formed as mistakes, “apron” and “tornado” for example.

These words are not self-contradictory, nor were they formed "as mistakes."

> Dictionaries follow how people are actually speaking, not the other way around.

Dictionaries do not specify which words are spoken, they merely list words in alphabetical order along with their definitions. Dictionaries contain many words that are no longer spoken, such as overmorrow, lunting and groak, counter-examples that prove your assertion wrong.

In order for something to be recognized as a word, it needs to have meaning and be understood by more than 1 person. For brevity's sake, when I said "it's a word", I really meant "it's a word that's used and recognized by a large subset of people, large enough that lexicographers at dictionaries have taken notice".

"Irregardless" is not incorrect if enough people start using it that way. That's simply how languages work. You can have an opinion on specific words, but you cannot -assert- that using them is "incorrect". It's your opinion, not fact. Everyone also understands people when they use irregardless.

"These words are not self-contradictory, nor were they formed "as mistakes.""

Apron was originally "napron". It formed this spelling from people misunderstanding "a napron" as "an apron". Tornado should be tronado, because it comes from spanish tronada. Regardless (or irregardless? :)), the English language has many, many such words. My point is English already has so many words that are "mistakes", so arguing about "irregardless" doesn't make sense. No language used by humans is without illogical things.

"[Dictionaries] merely list words in alphabetical order along with their definitions"

Yes. They have criteria for when a -new- word becomes used enough that it enters the public lexicon, or an existing word gains a new usage. Like "literally" and "irregardless". You can't say it's wrong anymore when enough people are using it that way.

You are simply wrong, at least about linguists.

You are wrong on both accounts.

Please cite any mainstream linguist who agrees with your take.

   When a word is nonstandard it means it is “not conforming in pronunciation, grammatical construction, idiom, or word choice to the usage generally characteristic of educated native speakers of a language."[0]

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

You proved my point. That says it doesn’t correspond to the usage of a particular social group (educated people), which is a scientific statement. It doesn’t say it’s “wrong”, which is a value judgment.

Obviously, linguists don’t dispute the existence of more or less prestigious varieties of languages.

A dictionary lists all the words people use. It does not curate the words people should use. Therefore, a words presence in a dictionary is not proof of anything other than the word has been used before.

Whether people “should” use a particular word is your subjective aesthetic judgment.

The purpose of language is to communicate. Adding words which mean exactly the same thing as existing (shorter) words consumes cognitive resources without enhancing the language's ability to communicate. Therefore, objectively, people shouldn't use them.

You use hard words to say simple thing. This cost a lot of mind power. Why?

"Sometimes words, you no need use but need need for talk talk."

There are prescriptive and descriptive schools of linguistics, with one trying to gently nudge/direct/drive/correct the use of a language, while the other concentrates on documenting it as it happens in the wild.

> There are prescriptive and descriptive schools of linguistics

That’s not true. There are no “prescriptivists” whatsoever in the modern science of linguistics.

Interesting to hear! What happened to those guys?

What guys? Did they ever exist? Can you name a prominent “prescriptivist linguist”?

I’m pretty sure there was never a “prescriptivist school” of linguistics, or if there was it was never mainstream. There have been prescriptive grammarians of course but AFAIK they never called themselves “linguists”.

This is definitely my ignorance showing, so you'll have to bear with me, but what is the difference between grammarian and linguist?

I did find a linguistics course note which does seem to indicate that such a debate existed, even if in the past: https://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/ling001/prescription.html

I have no idea what your point is here. Which, I guess, proves mine.

So you’re categorically against the existence of synonyms?

There are very few true synonyms. Most have some cases where you'd want to use one or the other.

One might say such word choices are ungood.

Is it subjective in this case? There is a logic to how this word is constructed: regard-less means without regard. Irregardless violates that logic: ir-regard-less, not without regard?

It’s true that you can’t logically predict the meaning of “irregardless” from its smaller components.

However, that’s true of virtually all words. Ones where the etymology makes the meaning obvious are the exception.

Human languages aren’t math or programming languages; you can’t apply the same kind of logic to them.

Sorry, what? Phones are tracked too. Maybe your solution is a watch, but still kinda expensive.

Lost my 2yo a couple of times and each time thinking to resurrect an airtag that currently tracks junk drawer. Feel wrong and I don’t think it would work on someone who changes clothes 5 times a day.

The fact you lost your child is the basis of your argument against me, beggars belief.. a phone is not by default a device to track a kid an air tag is.. my kid is 10 and yours is 2... waaaay different situation.

Edit: I lost my kid plenty of times as well.. they love to run off don't they.

I think it was just perspective. I don't see where they directly disagree with you based on their anecdote

Airtags are explicitly not meant to track people. Apple goes out of their way to ensure them and their accessory partners do not advertise them being on a person regardless of age or relation to the airtag owner.

But that's the thing with technology, isn't it? New tech comes out, companies do the right thing, but the freedom of the technology itself enables bad actors to abuse or repurpose the technology. For example: With advancements in robotic technology, Boston Dynamics' policy to blacklist anyone who puts a gun on their dog does nothing when chinese companies are already selling it as a feature.

You have to note that AirTags are not new. Tile has been around for a while and, if you live in a city, there was a high likelihood someone also has a tile and would be a beacon for your tile's pings, and Tile makes no attempt at preventing human tracking. This isn't a tech being normalized, it already is normalized and has been for a decade. Just as you can be a proponent of advancements in robotics technology while being against their use in war, you can be against anyone recommending 24/7 tracking of humans.

> Airtags are explicitly not meant to track people. Apple goes out of their way to ensure them and their accessory partners do not advertise them being on a person regardless of age or relation to the airtag owner.

In this same spirit, gun ads don't have intruders being arbitrated in the ads. Why would Apple display people being tracked?

I have never seen an ad for a gun of any kind. Off topic I know. But I didn't realise that until now. Do Americans have ads for guns anywhere? I've never seen it

You'll see advertisements for guns and ammo on what we call 'billboards' on the road (it's an advertisement on a flat surface about 30ft long I'd estimate, and maybe 10ft high. usually along the highways). We also get these ads in the marketing flyers you get in the mail, or see them in magazine print ads.

Gun ownership here is a bit more of a formalized process, so in general if you're clear to purchase one we'll trust you with a firearm, with few exceptions. The background check has a finite window after which it fails open, then if there is a rejection after the fact, an agency will show up to collect the firearm.

I could buy a shotgun while shopping for grocery items in the same store [0]. Also, the place up the road that sells fishing bait and hats and things also sells pistols, rifles, bows, hunting supplies etc. If you ask to hold one they just hand it to you, unloaded with a trigger lock or zip tie through the action of course.

[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h193H4LP5os

Just online and possibly on interstate billboards, in my experience.

You're comparing the advertisement strategies of a TRACKING device with a weapon capable of killing a human... I do not think it is a good idea to make a false equivalency between the two.

Airtags will get you killed without needing a gun.

> Airtags are explicitly not meant to track people. Apple goes out of their way

The amount of Apple apologism in this site makes me think sometimes. They "went out of their way" by releasing a dumb Android app which everyone should have to install and know it exists as a band-aid after their technology has been shown to be used to harm and abuse people. They know airtags can be used for crime and don't care.

> They know airtags can be used for crime and don't care.

So can iPhones. Or Androids. Or ski masks, lock picks, tape. Should we stop selling useful items when they can be abused? Apple did way more to stop the abuse of AirTags than the competition and I don't see anyone complaining about Tile. Almost any tool can be abused or used to hurt someone. Stop trying to shift the blame from the perpetrator to the tool being used.

Also: funny how the US doesn't ban guns even though they were literally invented to kill people but now fight about AirTags.

> Should we stop selling useful items when they can be abused?

No. My points above are:

1: people go out of their way to excuse Apple of any wrongoding, part of it is because of the "cult", part of it because Apple is very good at PR and painting themselves always in a good light

2: Apple has, as usual, done the bare minimum to arginate the problem and hand-waved at it.-

And yet GPS trackers people can slap on cars have been a thing for over 2 decades. My point in the second paragraph is that regardless of how good or bad the safeguards the big company implements are, someone will be able to either abuse it or repurpose/reimplement the technology to perform malicious acts.

Likewise some people go out of their way to disparage Apple because they belong to the anti-“cult”. Comment histories can be damning…

Maybe adding something useful to the conversation by recommending a possible solution to the problem that Apple could implement to alleviate the problems would be more constructive?

Here let me start such a conversation: Apple could spearhead a standard to make their trackers communicate with surrounding devices and allow blocking to occur if someone doesn’t want to be tracked. But on the flip side the blocker is then recorded by a central authority to prevent bad actors from stealing and blocking tracking.

> Maybe adding something useful to the conversation by recommending a possible solution to the problem that Apple could implement to alleviate the problems would be more constructive?

My solution is: stop buying devices made to violate their users' privacy. Good job on investigating my thoughts digging up my very public comment section, though. I am impressed.

This kind of snide, egotistical drivel is not why I come to this site.

I highly suggest you reflect on how you relate to other people; it would likely do you some good in your personal and professional lives.

In all honesty, what you do suggest is irrelevant to me.

Then why offer your opinions?

> My solution is: stop buying devices made to violate their users' privacy.

This thought process doesn't flow with me. Do you really thing some product manager at one point said "these airtags will allow complete tracking of our minions and their children, and we'll showcase them tracking other things to trick them into buying the product"?

> it already is normalized and has been for a decade

In use isn't the same as normalised.

How will the school even know if she has a phone, as long as she keeps it turned off and hidden? She should just keep taking it anyway regardless of the bullshit policy and simply not use it at school.

Some schools in the US have metal detectors. Not sure about the UK.

Some do, to detect knives - but I don’t think it’s widespread and certainly not outside high schools.

Fuck air tags? That's your take away? Fuck the school for stalking your child.

not the OP, but i think the OP meant the school told OP to put airtags on the child rather than the school themselves doing it, the sentence leans towards your interpretation though.

why is the school monitoring how kids commute and using airtags? it's not airtags fault, it's your orwellian government. this is such a dumb take i can't even.

airtags alert people when they are on someone's person that they are not registered to, on iPhone and Android.

kids commute on the train in japan, germany and other places, this is absurd.

The government was not involved in the patents anecdote.

All schools are government schools because the government license them and will shut them down if they do not comply.

So the UK doesn't have private schools which can set whatever house rules they want unless they're challenged in court about them?

Yeah true story bro.

So take the air tag off, or put it in a faraday bag.

He meant the school suggested putting an air tag on the kid rather than giving them a phone. The school isn't tracking the kid.

Oh, well, that's different.

Umm...? Walk to school by themselves? How old was your eldest, again?

Final year of UK junior school is ten years old. By eleven, I was taking the train to another town for school. With a few other children, but no adults.

I think the acceptability of this stuff comes down to the area you live in.

I walked myself to school at age 5. By 10 as in the GP comment, I had a fairly long walk up a hill. By 15 I walked 4.4 miles to school some days, most days I caught a bus. In retrospect biking would have been better. What about you?

Yep, where I am this is completely acceptable also, although not as common as it should be... Often because of judgemental people like you scaring off parents. Children are more capable than they are given credit for in many (mostly US) circles. It also seems that global news has distorted adults' risk calculations... Statistically the biggest risk to my children right now is probably obesity... Which I offset by making sure they have some freedom to roam outside of the car.

> My eldest kid is in the final year of UK junior school so finally cut lose to walk to and from school as is culturally acceptable here

OT, even more, my youngest kid (aged 6) just started the first year of [primary] school, so is happily walking to and from school as is culturally acceptable here(!!)

It would be so easy to end up thinking that tracking all kids solves loads of problems, but I firmly believe it really, really doesn't. <expletive> to your child's school! They should be ashamed of themselves.

No change in policy is what they say.

But when interpreting existing rules very strictly they have always been forbidden (electronic device not powered off). In practice nobody has enforced it and obviously they don't plan to enforce it.

Delta has had RFID on all baggage tags for nearly a decade, meaning you can track your bag in the app to make sure it got on the plane and even when it has been delivered to baggage claim. It’s something that probably adds pennies to their costs and makes for a much better baggage situation. I love AirTags and agree that it will be impossible for Lufthansa to enforce this on any level, but it’s striking that more airlines haven’t just adopted this sort of solution themselves.

Is it really RFID on all bag tags, or just optically scanned bag tag barcodes where you happen to be able to track the last scan location?

I think it's the latter. I've never seen anything resembling an RFID chip, even a flexible one, on a Delta bag tag.

I have never encountered anything resembling RFID on my Delta bag tags.

How to solve this problem? Stop losing peoples bags, then we won’t feel the need to use AirTags.

I never even thought of using an AirTags until I read the article, it’s a good idea though.

I recently used one with mobile self storage. I could see where they parked the trailer, and I could see when it was on the road being returned to me, which turned out to be very convenient. Didn’t have to guess when it wasn’t going to arrive.

Lufthansa bans AirTags in checked luggage - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33127459 - Oct 2022 (576 comments)

I'm flying with another airline, but reading about this and stories of travellers luggage getting lost prompted me to purchase 4 tiles for my upcoming international flights. They're on their way to me now by express shipping.

So the author is correct in that banning Bluetooth trackers is just going to make them even more popular.

For some recent flights I did put an AirTag in my checked bag. Whilst I didn’t need it, it was reassuring to be able to see that the bag had made it to the destination whilst waiting at the carousel.

I did the same. My favorite part was getting a notification that I left my luggage behind somewhere East of Greenland.

Sounds like they’re just claiming that enabled AirTags were banned all along, not denying that they’re currently banned.

I was surprised the onemileatatime article got so many upvotes. This site is well-known for posting clickbait and generally not well-received in the frequent flyer community.

Intentionally or unintentionally the waters have been effectively muddied and few people can come to any sensible conclusion on this issue. The general public will walk away with the simple message that AirTags are a safety risk and thus are banned from all aircraft. Apple marketing should consider jumping on this.

The general public hasn’t seen this story in any form.

What am I missing? Comments all seem to be based on a false assumption. Nowhere in the article does it mention battery fires as the reason, or even the word battery/batteries.

The original article (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33127459) doesn't mention batteries either, but it would make sense only to effectively put them in airplane mode. Hundreds of tags transmitting is bad for the same reason that phone's have to be shut off during flights. It even says "This is specifically because of the transmission function".

Again, this isn't about battery fires - which is why they are't specifying quartz watches or pocket calculators too, but AirTags.

The original statement from Lufthansa mentioned that Airtags fall under the category of "Dangerous Goods". "Dangerous Goods" is a term used by the ICAO to refer to batteries or items with batteries (also refers to dangerous chemicals or radioactive material, but if you look at ICAO guidance about Dangerous Goods, the bulk of the guidance is about batteries).

> Hundreds of tags transmitting is bad for the same reason that phone's have to be shut off during flights.

Phones don't have to be shut off during flights. That hasn't been a thing for years.

Any given commercial flight has hundreds of phones, wireless headphones, tablets, smartwatches, etc all transmitting radio signals at significantly higher power than Airtags.

The article never mentions batteries but says specifically it's because of transmissions. If it was for the batteries that would be no reason to take special issue with trackers but ignore portable weighing scales for example.

"Phones don't have to be shut off during flights. That hasn't been a thing for years." During take off and landing they do. Whether of not that's rational or justified is irrelevant. The reason given EMC, not battery safety.

> During take off and landing they do

No, they don't.

You're all over this thread talking about rules that haven't been universal for literally over a decade. Phones haven't had to be turned off for takeoff and landing for over a decade in some places. Radio transmissions haven't had to be disabled (only mobile network transmissions) for years in the USA, Australia and Europe. The Plane Wifi gets turned on when the forward door closes, and doesn't get touched until after everyone deplanes. Bluetooth isn't even disabled by default in Airplane mode anymore. There are very few holdouts on this (Air Canada for example took a very long time to formally allow bluetooth use during flight).

Hell, there's a comment above that points out this document [1], which specifically allows low-powered wireless communication on cargo tracking devices.

[1] https://www.iata.org/contentassets/05e6d8742b0047259bf3a700b...

AirTags don't use Bluetooth! UWB uses a different, relatively untested range of frequencies. The article specifically mentions this is about transmitters. Batteries aren't mentioned as the issue. How many ways does this need to be repeated?

Also, rules for phones are beside the point but I flew on Lufthansa last week. They announced that everyone should switch off phones during the take off and landing. Since Lufthansa is the airline in question, this confirms that they still maintain caution about the issue.

Phones haven't had to be shutoff on flights in years.

Was this all based on a incorrect legalistic reading of some rules or did they actually say anything in the first place?

All based on a clickbait article, as outlined here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33128486

The banning of AirTags was one of the stories that was top 5 on HN and was so clearly B.S., and of course loaded with copyright symbols and ads. That was the inspiration for this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33128207 @dang

Seems like a huge security risk, but phones have similar capability.

Why would an AirTag in a checked bag be a security risk?

Why/how is it a security risk?

Yeah, right.

Except they have.

A Lufthansa spokesperson has clarified the new rules for the German news site watson: https://www.watson.de/leben/urlaub%20&%20freizeit/879935671-...

It rougly translate to: The device itself is not banned, but has to be shut off during flight. In practice this would mean that you would have to remove the battery from the airtag, since there is no powerswitch.

But I will admit that this seems odd and I think it won't be the last time we've heard about it.

And this is why Airtags shouldn't have speakers.

How are speakers related to the ban, which tsimionescu suggests (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33135627) is just related to the Li battery problem?

If you don't have speakers you can still have the airtags and they wouldn't be able to tell if they are on or off.

In their default state, they make annoying sounds every time the bag is moved, so they would be able to tell.

As far as I understand there is nothing new. Lithium batteries have always been allowed in checked luggage only if they are inside a completely powered off and reasonably protected device, to avoid the risk of fires. This risk doesn't really apply to such small batteries, but the rules are there regardless of the size of the battery.

Is the problem with batteries or lithium batteries?

AirTags have non lithium batteries

AirTags use CR2032 batteries which are, in fact, lithium batteries.

They are lithium primary cells though, not lithium ion cells, which are usually what is banned.

There is no distinction between the two in terms of regulations (all the ones I've seen are explicitly calling both lithium ion and lithium metal batteries).

Stop spreading misinformation:

>[T]he CR2032 battery is a Lithium-manganese dioxide battery (LiMn02). It is composed of a Mn02 cathode and a lithium anode. The device is specified for a 225 milliamp hours (mAh) and typically operates over a temperature range of –20 ºC to +70 ºC.

You will find some alkaline versions available from some vendors, but it's not the norm.

Now there may be a chance that Lufthansa didn't mean to include all types of lithium cells or batteries, but the vague wording doesn't seem to suggest that.

Lithium batteries of any kind have the same regulations in aviation. Here[0] is a link from the US FAA, but you'll find similar at ICAO or any other civil aviation authorities.

[0] https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/lithium-batteries-baggage

Lithium metal (e.g. coin cells) or Lithium-ion (e.g. smartphones).

Both - when installed in a device - can be transported in checked luggage though: https://www.iata.org/contentassets/05e6d8742b0047259bf3a700b...

IATA actually has a document specifically addressing tracking devices: https://www.iata.org/contentassets/05e6d8742b0047259bf3a700b...

My reading of that document indicates that an AirTag should be fine, as low-powered wireless communication is allowed (page 9, item 3).

Which is why this isn't about the battery fires. It's about the RF of hundreds of devices.

So why is it fine for literally every single passanger to have bluetooth headphones on during the duration of the flight, but somehow trackers are bad?

1) It's not. They ask people to switch off all transmitters during flights (and later to during takeoff and landing) because of RF emissions. 2) Because you can't turn trackers off, especially when they're in the hold.

Read the initial article that started all this, it even says that reason is because of transmissions.

Except they don’t because most have onboard wifi now. And most allow Bluetooth headphones, including Lufthansa:

Lufthansa: Bluetooth headphones are allowed during every part of the flight.

So clearly this is again an airline using a rule as a "proxy" for something else they want.

Like no chewing tobacco... Yeah it is gross but it is probably not a safety issue.

Flying is among the most dreadful activities I do. The whole thing is unsettling from the moment I pull up to the airport.

This is one of many absolutely ridiculous things the airline industry has enforced.

But.. I must fly places, so I just suffer like the rest.

Note that voip calls are prohibited even though you can get internet access. This is because of annoying other customers, not because of safety.

Wouldn’t it also be bandwidth consumption on a limited connection?

Perhaps on the upload but download bandwidth can seemingly deal with a plane full of people streaming Netflix these days, so that's not an issue.

Netflix on a plane? I have never seen that. Which onboard wifi allows that? Perhaps you are thinking of movies delivered via wifi, but the content is streamed from the plane itself.

I’ve been able to stream video on an Air Canada flight from Vancouver to London, afaik it’s the same GoGo satellite service that seemingly everyone else has.

Qantas has been able to do Netflix/Youtube/whatever on a plane with free wifi for several years. I'm not talking about onboard entertainment, which is a separate thing with a separate app (which is, on the domestic flights where free wifi is offered, largely obsolete at this point). It's not without momentary buffering issues, and I will tend to download things in advance for that reason, but 99% of the time it's pretty good.

Yeah they explicitly allowed movie streaming from basically any site but not voip.

There’s no way they had all the YouTube cached on the olane

1) The wifi system is EMC certified and tested with the flight instrumentation. Dozens of different consumer devices are not.

2) Lufthansa "allows it during the entire flight without restriction – even during take-off and landing unless the crew instruct otherwise"(https://bluetoothtechworld.com/can-i-use-bluetooth-headphone...). In other words, unless you're told to turn it off in the event of some problem, which is something you can't do when it's in the luggage hold of the aircraft.

Again, the articles specifies this is about EMC.

Is that certification actually important?

It seems to me like a denylist would be more useful than an Allowlist at this point.

Almost no consumer electronics are dangerous to a plane

Apparently, to them, yes.

Their wifi system might be, but a 100 phones and tablets, some from reputable manufacturers, some from "10TB tablet apple samsung iphone" sellers from aliexpress, and the system still works.

Imagine planes falling down because a single passenger had a malfunctioning phone on it... the lawsuits against boeing/airbus would be astronomical.

Not sure what about my comment you take to be an endorsement of opaque, seemingly unreasonable EMC rules. I don't make them, know if they work or particularly care for the purpose of this thread. The concerns stated, justified or otherwise, were about RF emissions and not battery fires.

I suspect the difference is more about the spectrum in use. Airtags can be found and interact via Ultra-Wideband (UWB), which essentially means low power broadcast across 3.1GHz up to 10GHz approx. This includes some spectrum used for GNSS.

One is probably fine but a hold full of them and people's iPhones emitting on UWB also?

By contrast Bluetooth, WiFi etc use the ISM radio bands, which can simply be avoided by any transmission the plane itself needs to do.

UWB, which is pretty new, would be a really good explaination of why they single out these trackers specifically. Without some solid test results to clear them, it's understandable why airlines might be nervous.

Would just add that it's more what the aircraft needs to reliably receive (not transmit) that is susceptible to local sources of spurious RF.

Yeah agree, receive is probably what I should have said :) I did try to see if there were any discussions of UWB before posting, but only found some PDFs from the FAA from 2015 or so in my casual search. I guess industry insiders might know more. It could well be that the low power was deemed not risky enough (you would have thought all airlines would have banned them if risky) and other posts suggest that in fact Lufthansa have not banned airtags at all... so who knows.

Oh yeah, I guarantee that's on all the emergency checklists. "Ask very nicely if all the passengers can turn off their bluetooth headsets".

Also, I'm pretty confident that Lufthansa's Airbus and Boeing planes are the same as everybody else's Airbus and Boeing planes. If there was an EMC issue that they were running into from Airtags, it would have been jumped on by the national aviation administrations so fast your head would spin. It would be major international news. It would not be an obscure rule with misleading and contradictory guidance coming from a single airline.

All airline I've been travel, disable WiFi during takeoff and landing.

It's not. They ask people to switch off all transmitters during flights (and later to during takeoff and landing) because of RF emissions.

I think that's a little outdated.

I flew a few times a few months ago, and the passengers were repeatedly encouraged to hook up to the plane's wifi as soon as we boarded. No announcements were made about turning devices off. Not even during take-off or landing. I'm one of those people who pays attention to the announcements and reads the safety cards every time, so I was surprised.

I think the airlines think it's safer to have excitable people turned into gadget zombies during the flight to make the time pass faster and keep them from getting rowdy. The same function that the in-flight movie, drink, and meal used to serve before those were all value engineered away.

> passengers were repeatedly encouraged to hook up to the plane's wifi as soon as we boarded

I think this is to make sure that you have it setup early so any tech support can be handled early and to make sure you can download the airline app to your phone if needed. The aircrew can enable/disable the wifi at will. Next time look to see if it is working at takeoff. I’m honestly not sure if it will be or not, but it used to be a switch in the cabin.

Next time look to see if it is working at takeoff.

Considering the number of people glued to their screens during takeoff, if it suddenly stopped working, I think the cabin-wide moaning and groaning would have been obvious.

> The aircrew can enable/disable the wifi at will.

Yes, but that does nothing when it comes to risk of radio emissions. Turning off the AP doesn't magically prevent client devices from doing whatever they want anyway. If there was a genuine risk of a client device interfering with the plane's equipment, turning off an AP wouldn't do anything about it, nor will asking the passengers to turn it off (some might not comply, forget or not even realize that their device has a Wi-Fi radio in it). You need either extreme control over every electronic device brought onboard (including X-ray scans, since implantable medical devices now have RF communication too), or enough shielding around the sensitive equipment to make RF no longer a risk - the latter has already been done for decades and RF is no longer (and I don't recall ever being actually) a threat to airplanes.

They don’t ask you to turn off all radios during takeoff/landing anymore. Just cellular.

And some large percentage doesn't bother and it's absolutely fine.

Obviously. But it's not the point. Point was the concern - by their thinking - is not the battery in the AirTag but the transmitter.

I give up.

LOL. This is about Lufthansa getting dragged in the media about their baggage handling screw ups and ongoing lying to customers about it while holding their luggage for months.

It is not - it is in fact a nothing burger. The original claim was based on a German article where someone called Lufthansa and asked if they can put AirTags in their checked-in luggage, and the Lufthansa representative answered with the existing regulation about Lithium (metal or ion) battery devices, which says they are accepted if they are completely powered off.

That's it - no one is enforcing this regulation in practice, especially not for AirTags or other small devices.

Here [0] is the FAA site about lithium battery powered devices in checked-in baggage. The ICAO has the same rule, but I haven't found a similarly concise statement.

> Devices containing lithium metal batteries or lithium ion batteries, including – but not limited to – smartphones, tablets, cameras and laptops, should be kept in carry-on baggage. If these devices are packed in checked baggage, they should be turned completely off, protected from accidental activation and packed so they are protected from damage. [emphasis mine]

[0] https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/lithium-batteries-baggage

The BLE advertisement packet is max 270 bytes.

AirTags send these out once per second when the owner is near, otherwise once every 2 seconds.

Assume 500 passengers on a 747, and everyone has an AirTag, and let's assume worstcase, the tags are in-range:

500 pax * 270 = 135kbyte, or 1MBit/second of radio traffic. The equivalent of 4 bluetooth headphones.

This isn't about RF. This is about luggage claims. In the EU, consumers are heavily protected against delays, canceled flights, and lost luggage.

AirTags don’t use lithium ion batteries.

You may want to tell Apple that, because they explicitly call out that they use lithium batteries over in https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT211670

Lithium =/= Lithium-ion

The EU Aviation Safety Agency explicitly treats them as equivalent for safety purposes: https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/Background%20Inf...

Air New Zealand doesn’t allow trackers either - I expect most airlines don’t, so I don’t know why Lufthansa is getting shit here. Air NZ says: “Baggage Trackers (battery powered): Only battery powered baggage trackers that can be turned off i.e. are not in sleep mode, will be accepted in checked baggage. Some devices have an automatic On/Off feature, but not all. Always check the specifications of the device you want to buy as it may not be accepted by us. For those devices that have an auto On/Off feature, the tracking App must not be used in flight.” — https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/travelling-with-lithium-batt...

FAA specifically allows non-rechargeable small Lithium cells if in equipment in checked baggage. However, the table on the second pages says that small battery/cell spares are not allowed in checked baggage. “Lithium metal batteries (a.k.a.: non-rechargeable lithium, primary lithium). These batteries are often used with cameras and other small personal electronics. Consumer-sized batteries (up to 2 grams of lithium per battery) may be carried. This includes all the typical non-rechargeable lithium batteries used in cameras (AA, AAA, 123, CR123A, CR1, CR2, CRV3, CR22, 2CR5, etc.) as well as the flat round lithium button cells.” — https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/packsafe/resources/media/Airline_...

None of this matters. If you search through the article (or the original article that claimed the ban), you will not find the word "lithium". I don't see how this rathole on lithium batteries has anything to do with the article.

Not OP but the point is that Li-ions are rechargeable and therefore more susceptible to shorting/thermal runaway than lithium batteries which are not wired to be rechargeable and therefor less at risk for shorting/thermal runaway.

People who investigated the claims of the article this one is replying to have found that the original source of this claim was a German article where someone called Lufthansa and asked this question. The answer they got from the Lufthansa representative was essentially citing an ICAO rule about devices with lithium batteries - which got twisted in this "Lufthansa doesn't allow AirTags" narrative.

You 2 are talking around each other. You're probably both right about 2 different technologies.

Lithium ions are rechargeable batteries; lithium primaries are non rechargeable, high performance batteries.

Apple air tags use lithium primaries, but I suspect airlines do not care and both kinds are banned (from loaded-in-device-in-baggage flight).

I didn't say lithium ion, I said lithium - they indeed use a different lithium-based chemistry.

Note that lithium itself is a very volatile metal (it starts burning in contact with water, for example).

So they banned your cell phone too? Last I recall you can take those on a plane powered off too.

It's about checked-in luggage, not what you take with you in the cabin.

Lithium batteries with you in the cabin have different rules than lithium batteries inside checked luggage.

Also cell phones don't need to be powered off while inside the cabin.

Air tags don't use lithium batteries. They use the big, flat, circular batteries that you have to replace.

Airtags use a CR2032 lithium battery: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211670

The FAA specifies both lithium ion and lithium metal batteries need to be in carry-on bags only, not checked: https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/packsafe/more_info/?hazmat=7

So they dont let you check watches?

That article came out 5 days before the tweet from Ethan Klapper (Senior Aviation Reporter at The Points Guy) [1] referenced in the source article. Lufthansa's latest statement is they are not banned [2].

[1]: https://twitter.com/ethanklapper/status/1578453321546801158 [2]: https://twitter.com/ethanklapper/status/1578571226934611968

And? That says nothing about whether or not the battery must be removed from the device, which is important due to how much of a hassle that would be.

It's possible they know that the ICAO regulations on electronics are really silly, but they're too lazy to challenge it directly. It's easier to just dodge the question and let customers do whatever they want. 99% of customers will not research this question and I expect all airlines to continue ignoring those regulations.

Yeah, obviously the situation here is that by the letter of the law, you can't have electronics/batteries in the cargo hold. But it's not like they're starting up an Airtags Gestapo to search every bag and throw people in jail. Don't ask don't tell, the more of a big deal people make about this policy the closer it gets to actually being a problem in practice.

Would it be okay to put it in a metal box forming a faraday cage? I could seriously see a demand for such a product if they follow through on this ban.

What would be the point of that? It wouldn't work any more.

What would be the point of putting an AirTag in your luggage if you prevent it from communicating with the outside world? Toss the Tag in your carry-on if you want it at your destination.

The box could open itself after landing.

A timer attached to a mechanical device in your luggage better damn well be detected by those X-ray machine.

Or grant the owner the ability to temporarily stop an AirTag from broadcasting its signal for a specified amount of time.

Do it right before your luggage is checked in up until the estimated time of arrival.

The problem is not (only?) the broadcasting. The problem is the lithium battery used in a non-switched-off device.

Has a CR2032 ever been the cause of an actual fire?

Maybe not (who knows), but the relevant aircraft transport regulations apply to all types of lithium-based batteries.

Not really. 2032's power most watches. There are far more watches than air tags. Why didn't they ban them?

They (Lufthansa) didn’t ban AirTags. When asked about whether AirTags are allowed in checked luggage, they cited the pertinent ICAO regulations. They might do the same when asked about powered-on watches with lithium batteries in checked luggage.

I don't get your comment. You say they banned them, then immediately explain that they're not banned, you just have to turn them off - just like every single electronic device in checked in luggage. Can you elaborate on this contradiction?

It's only an odd statement because their employees created this shit storm and the organization is trying save face with the employees and correct the statement.

Don't expect for the service side of LH to turn their back on rejecting baggage because it has an airtag.

Yeah, this article generated a lot of technical discussion about the chemical composition of batteries and the technicalities of RF and IATA regs, because this is a site for the technically minded—but the real story here is about corporate communication.

There are no new rules. Lufthansa is merely citing the ICAO regulations that have been in effect since 2017: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33128614

From Lufthansa Twitter account: "yes this is correct. AirTags are banned in Lufthansa flights." https://twitter.com/lufthansa/status/1578869457140580353

Well that didn't last long, I saw the tweet a few minutes ago but now it's been deleted. PR in action?

Chaos

An archived version of the tweet is available here: https://web.archive.org/web/20221009003642/https://twitter.c...

The tweet was deleted on twitter.

As an aside, are there ANY decent airlines left in EU? Just having booked tickets thought 3 separate airlines, I had to go throught multiple circles of hell: captcha (LOT), purposefully confusing flow, no luggage by default and next tier being x3-x5 the price (WizzAir, but others are similarly bad), hidden fees appearing during final steps (Norwegian), and everything RyanAir. I'm not even flying with checked luggage for the past 15 years because of the multiple counts of every single airline losing and damaging my luggage. KLM, Lufthansa, SAS - you name it. And many times you don't even get to chose an airline: there is just one option.

Air Europa out of Spain isn't that bad and fairly inexpensive. I flew on it 4 times this past year and the booking process works OK.

Lufthansa is one of the better ones. Typically I’ve found it better to book tickets via United though.

LH is pretty much the worst of the lot. Their employees will avoid helping you at all cost even when it makes their lives easier. If nothing wrong happens, they're ok. If any thing happens it's your fault. It's been like that for more than 10 years.

I always find those kinds of comments hilarious. Did you actually fly all of the airlines above, or you just hate LH because you normally fly Singapore Airlines? (perspective is important in those discussions).

As a rule of thumb the oldschool companies always suck less than the cheap companies who try to squeeze every penny out of you in every way. (Or have barely enough fuel so they need to call emergency landing once a month, or don't have enough personnel so they live-cancel late evening flights etc)

Now, I had my long list of issues with LH (it's the airline I fly the most because simply there's no other connection to places I want to go): missed connections, late bags on short connection, cancelled flights, late arrival etc. (By definition, airlines who do connections have higher risk of this than point-to-point cheap airlines.)

But every time I managed to get a workable solution to the issue, rebooking at no extra cost, money back quickly after a big delay etc. And no one ever looks whether my bags are not 1mm too big.

Meanwhile with a cheap airlines I had what you were explaining: once the website was not able to give me a boarding card. It was inactive or something. I arrive at the airport and show it to them live, they say sorry f.ck you, pay $$$ for printing boarding card at the airport. You should have called our hotline at $$$ per minute.

Have you flown with LH recently?

If something happens then they shut down service desk and don't help you at all.

Find your own solution and then they ignore you if you want hotel/travel costs paid back.

I'm still waiting ~4000 eur from them. But only one human reply that they forwarded claim to another department. 3 months and counting...

And I resend all my claims weekly and hope for the best.

Phone support is even worse. 2 hours on the phone and then they understand that indeed my flight was cancelled 3 months ago...

Yes, I flew with them on Thursday, and the Saturday before that. Their hard product in Europe is second only to Turkish Airlines and Virgin Atlantic, neither of which go many places without very inconvenient routing at best.

I typically fly LH economy, though have had a few upgrades (meaningless in Europe) over the years. Their business class is not as good as Singapore or Virgin, or modern United, but better than BA, and typically fine.

I don’t buy tickets through LH, only through United, who answer the phone (to me) with a knowledgeable human in under 1 minute as someone with top status.

lol .. which hard product? I've been on LH flights where the cleaniness is competing with Air india.

I'm sure. Your anecdata is as good as mine. Skytrax disagree with you though.

> Did you actually fly all of the airlines above, or you just hate LH because you normally fly Singapore Airlines? (perspective is important in those discussions).

Nice try. I've been flying a lot in the last 10+ years.

But yes. I have flown with LH enough. I've flown with them on their own tickets and UA award tickets. They will act like shit, and they will defend each other there at all costs. UA looks like an angel in comparison, even with the Dao punch out. Heck when, you offer to help them offload 2 pax and help with their equipment swap (as this LH leg is a connection and not the final).. they're respond with "WHO TOLD YOU THIS!".

What happens on an flat tire situation: Many times UA will try to help you out, even if it's a mixed ticket with US Airways.

What happens with LH: You will be repriced and expected to pay, don't expect for the agent to communicate accurately. Their behavior is that this is your fault and will be puzzled why you did this "intentionally". (That stance also goes to their own equipment downgrades, WX problems, staff issues on their side, not liking their own hostile/aggressive staff, or even if you want to fulfill all of the requirements of bringing your dog)

That is their stance, and their willful ignorance of the business. This is a "full service carrier" who acts worse than a LCC.

Airline stacking from what I've flown with:

Best EK, UA, TK, TP, KLM, US

Good: WN, BA, AM, CP, AA, LATAM, Alaska

Questionable but good: SAS, Agean/Olympia, AR, Insel

Garbage: DL, LH, EasyJet

was*

It is one of the worst ones now.

SAS is ok. Not great, but ok. TK is mostly pretty good. TAP is ok, but their OPs at Lisbon sucks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com