Australian Airlines Ban Use of Samsung Galaxy Note 7 Phones After Battery Fires (reuters.com)

Less than a week after FAA said it was thinking about banning the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 from flights, three Australian airlines announced that it would ban passengers from using or charging Note 7 smartphones during flights. The announcement comes a week after Samsung announced that it was banning the sales of its new flagship smartphone over nearly three-dozen phones exploded worldwide. Reuters reports: Qantas, its budget unit Jetstar and Virgin Australia said they had not been directed to ban the use of the phone by aviation authorities, but did so as a precaution following Samsung's recall of the phones in 10 markets. Although customers will still be able to bring the phones on flights, the ban extends to the phones being plugged in to flight entertainment systems where USB ports are available. The recall follows reports of the 988,900 won ($885) phone igniting while charging -- an embarrassing blow to Samsung, which prides itself on its manufacturing prowess and had been banking on the devices to add momentum to a recovery in its mobile business. Samsung, the world's biggest smartphone vendor, has sold 2.5 million of the premium devices so far. "Following Samsung Australia's recall of the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 personal electronic device we are requesting that passengers who own them do not switch on or charge them in flight," a Qantas spokesman said in an emailed statement.

Comments

Surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Air Freight in AU wont carry anything with Li-on batteries - what a pain that is.

We're a smallish but global company - getting an ex employee to ship back a laptop - first you have to find a carrier that will take things with Li-on batteries, Australians are typically lazy, so expecting someone to drive 40 minutes to Melbourne to drop it off for shipping took A LOT of encouragement and patience .

Re:Surprise

[HBI]

I liked Australia when I was there, but the whole country appeared to be stuck on slow. When the most energetic Australian you meet is a Navy Captain...

Then again, it seems to me that it probably results in a better quality of life than on say, Wall Street.

Re:Surprise

[thegarbz]

appeared to be stuck on slow

That's the way we like it. An awesome lifestyle which is often at odds with North Americans. But really you should try coming to Europe. You want a coffee? Expect that to be a 30+ minute adventure, and we like it that way too.

Re:Surprise

[thegarbz]

Australians are typically lazy, so expecting someone to drive 40 minutes to Melbourne to drop it off for shipping took A LOT of encouragement and patience

No. Australian's just have zero tolerance for bullshit like this. Expecting an employee to drive 40 minutes to drop off something for shipping is not a good use of time. That's why couriers were invented.

My personal favourite was when I needed motor protection RIGHT NOW from a vendor and couldn't wait an hour or two for a courier. We called the relay a taxi and got on with our work.

Re:Surprise

[HBI]

My European trips have both been layovers - Budapest and a US base in Germany. The Hungarians didn't want to let us off the plane for a smoke, and in Germany it was breakfast burritos from a truck on the tarmac. So while i've stood on the ground, I can't say I have experienced it. That said, there are more laid back places in the US too. Mostly (probably to your shock) in the red parts of the country, west of the Appalachians and not in California or Texas or any large city, where life continues along at a languid pace. Though you'll get coffee in about 5-10 minutes rather than 30.

Re:Surprise

[thegarbz]

This here. It's a culture shock to Australians which already is a culture shock to North Americans.

But that's it. Culture. Don't expect to get a coffee quickly because it's not a nourishing survival drink as much as a relaxation event and a chance to chill. Caught me off guard at first but now I really like it. Spending an hour having lunch which is a club sandwich and something caffeinated on the side just feels great.

Re:Surprise

[thegarbz]

If you're employee isn't more valuable than the courier to pickup a small parcel you have one too many employees, especially when we're talking about 40min (I assume x2) of their time.

Re: Surprise

[jemmyw]

I don't know what you guys are taking about. I've lived in CA, Copenhagen Denmark, England and New Zealand, and I've visited various European countries and about half the US states. I usually get coffee. There's no noticeable difference in the service speed between all these places. You get better coffee in urban areas mostly.

Re:Surprise

[Cimexus]

In many aspects of life, Australia is a mid-point between the US and Europe ... it's kinda a hybrid of them. Speed of life and attitude towards customer service is one of them, language is another (an accent closer to the UK than the US, but uses plenty of US words rather than the UK equivalents, e.g. truck vs lorry, eggplant vs. aubergine, etc.)

It also varies drastically by where you are in the country. Some states are known to have a slower pace of life than others (true in both Australia and the US).

Re:Surprise

[HBI]

Sydney, Brisbane, Townsville, Cairns, and Gladstone. All but the first in Queensland. I liked Gladstone the best. It was very rural and reminded me of Great Plains US, maybe Iowa or something like that, except the girls danced to AC/DC, which is unknown here. I didn't even think it really possible before I went there.

Re: Surprise

[thegarbz]

And yet all the visitors we get from the USA and all the places we visit ends up with complaints about slow service. Maybe you're not paying attention closely or you're immune to culture shock from moving a lot, but not only does this generally happen but there's good reasons for it too. A big part of it is the tipping culture in the USA. People are eager to please, not so in continental Europe (not sure about the UK myself). The other far more difficult thing is getting coffee to go. It's a pretty much given that a coffee shop in Australia or the USA will serve it to go, not so in western Europe where it's much more a sit-down affair.

I posted this after returning from a restaurant today at 10pm. We got there at 7. Drinks were ordered straight away but it was a good 20min before someone came and took our order, and the place wasn't busy at all. If that happens in some American cities there'd be people walking out.

Not sure about Copenhagen either but I'll let you know in 2 weeks :). Looking forward to visiting Denmark shortly.

Re: Surprise

[jemmyw]

The other far more difficult thing is getting coffee to go. It's a pretty much given that a coffee shop in Australia or the USA will serve it to go, not so in western Europe where it's much more a sit-down affair.

I can't relate to that from my experience. Denmark has so many walk in/walk out cafe's and coffee carts. You can sit in, but it seems more common to take away than not. Sweden/Norway/Germany/Hungary not as good as Denmark for coffee but certainly the same sort of cafe culture. I can imagine that it might be different in France, Spain and Italy, I've not visited those places in recent times. Also we may be talking about differing types of dining experience, I mainly get coffee and cafe's during the day with breakfast or lunch, not restaurants for an evening meal. Coffee at restaurants is usually awful, I often order one just to see if they can top the yuk scale.

Re:Surprise

[mjwx]

This here. It's a culture shock to Australians which already is a culture shock to North Americans.

But that's it. Culture. Don't expect to get a coffee quickly because it's not a nourishing survival drink as much as a relaxation event and a chance to chill. Caught me off guard at first but now I really like it. Spending an hour having lunch which is a club sandwich and something caffeinated on the side just feels great.

As a "skip" who's recently moved to the UK, this kind of thing is not restricted to Europe. In fact, compared to Asia or South America they're downright speedy. Things like Thai time and Dominicano time are real concepts.

Like the parent said, in Europe you make the trade off of speed for quality.

I think the US is really the oddity where they expect an instant meal or beverage. Even back in Oz, if you wanted a quality coffee you accepted that part of that was the barista was never in a hurry. Same with a quality meal, good preparation takes time.

Re: Surprise

[thegarbz]

You can get beers in pints pretty much everywhere. But I wholeheartedly agree with "shit and expensive". Though in the past 5 years there's been a massive market move towards craft beers which has changed "shit and expensive" into "good but OMGWTF expensive".

Over Christmas we were in Germany and we had no beer (I know, don't ask, I don't want to talk about it). In a last ditch effort we went to the petrol station which was the only thing open on Christmas eve. The Germans freaked out at the price and were questioning if we really needed beer tonight. In the mean time I bought a case and was amazed that it was still cheaper than buying beer in an Australian bottle-o

Re:Surprise

[Cimexus]

Yeah Queensland runs pretty slow ... its hot up there ya know :) This isn't a criticism, I love Qld.

Software mitigation

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like an argument to have "Airplane mode" also disable charging.

Re:Software mitigation

[thegarbz]

What is airplane mode? The last 4 flights I've travelled on have advised me that to purchase in flight entertainment I should use the onboard WiFi. The last intercontinental flight I was on even provided internet and cellular services.

Phone check

[Anonymous Coward]

What are they going to? Start checking every make and model of phone as part of the pre-flight death briefing to see if there are phones on the magic banned list? It makes me want to buy one or two just to have on my flights next week

Re:Phone check

[Cajun Hell]

What are they going to? Start checking every make and model of phone as part of the pre-flight death briefing to see if there are phones on the magic banned list?

No need. Wait until after an incident, and then you check what kind of phone was involved. "Your battery was banned, and you knew. You're liable. Hey everyone who is suing us, I found the guy that you're really looking for!"

Sure this will be strictly enforced

[redmid17]

You think the stewardesses are going to go person by person checking their phone? I don't know the percentage of Android to iPhone ownership in Australia, but that would add a lot of time and hassle. I doubt it would get enforced anywhere, despite it being a legitimate safety issue, if only for the person holding it.

Which is it?

[geeper]

over nearly three-dozen phones exploded worldwide.

Well, which is it, over or nearly?

Re:Which is it?

[shilly]

Was this some kind of joke?

The "over" means "as a result of" and is related to the previous statement.

Set yourself on fire starter set?

[Powercntrl]

Hoverboard, e-cigarette, Note 7, and you're got that "tribute from district 12" Halloween costume nailed.

And that is, how things should be

[mi]

had not been directed to ban the use of the phone by aviation authorities, but did so as a precaution

And that is, how things should be — competing businesses making their own decisions by weighting the damage from alienating customers against the risks to equipment and lives...

Re:And that is, how things should be

[dunkelfalke]

Yep, and this is why businesses rather pay for damages and lost lives than redesign faulty parts. Dumbass.

Re:And that is, how things should be

[mi]

Yep, and this is why businesses rather pay for damages and lost lives than redesign faulty parts.

Sometimes this may be appropriate, yes. It is all about costs — and a cost of a Westerner's life is under $10 million today. So, for example, raising the cost of 20 million cars by 50 cents each to save one life is stupid, but may make sense for two or more lives.

Before you denounce "putting a price on human life", that is the criteria government agencies use to issue their rulings... They just aren't as good about it on average, as the business-owners themselves would be.

Dumbass.

Yes, you certainly seem to be... Read more, write less — there is hope for everyone...

Re:And that is, how things should be

[Overzeetop]

And nobody has stopped them from doing so. Government puts caps on things which are not subject to efficient market pressures.

Interesting fact: your chances you dying from a lightning strike are similar to the chances of your Note 7 catching fire.

Re:And that is, how things should be

[mi]

Government puts caps on things which are not subject to efficient market pressures.

Notably, you do not offer any examples... Requirements, that are important and justifiable, but for which the customers do not care...

Re:And that is, how things should be

[dunkelfalke]

If raising the cost of 20 million cars by 50 cent to save a lie is stupid, then your life is worth only these 50 cents.

Seriously, idiots like you ramble about all lives having a price, but actually meaning that lives of everyone else but them have a price, but they themselves are exempt, whine the loudest if something actually happens to them. This is why I have called you a dumbass - it wasn't even an insult, just stating a fact.

Re:And that is, how things should be

[mi]

If raising the cost of 20 million cars by 50 cent to save a lie is stupid, then your life is worth only these 50 cents.

No, you idiot. My life is worth 50 cents multiplied by 20 million — that is $10 million. That is, roughly, what the Statistical Value of American life is today. I gave you plenty of links to educate yourself on the subject, which you failed to do.

Sadly, you are not merely an idiot today, you are also, quite evidently, incurable.

Enforcement

[DatbeDank]

Others have said it, they're seriously going to check each device before take off? I almost want to buy one, take a picture of it with me on an Australian air flight, and tweet it to the world. That should become a thing.

Re:Enforcement

[Cimexus]

No, they're going to rely on the fact that the majority of people will abide by the guideline, even though a few won't. It's risk reduction, nothing more. You already have people who don't turn their phone to flight mode in contravention of the rules, but they don't go around checking everyone's phone for that either.

on the conservative side

[supernova87a]

Qantas I have personally seen has often been on the cautious side of operations, sometimes to my frustration.

I have personally been on flights where, when de-boarding on the tarmac, they have yelled at us not to use cell phones because of the possibility of fueling + sparks. Yet no other airline I've encountered seems to be concerned about this remote possibility.

Re:on the conservative side

[Solandri]

Qantas has the unique distinction of not having suffered a fatality during the jet airliner era. So they take unusual steps to try to preserve that record.

Initially, it wasn't because they were safer - they just got lucky and their smaller number of flights reduced the chances of an accident even if their accident rate was the same. But now that it's become something they brag about, they take extraordinary (sometimes excessive) measures to protect that record. (Some say it gets them more customers because people afraid of airliner accidents go out of their way to book on Qantas. But that's probably canceled out by people who believe the gambler's fallacy and go out of their way to avoid Qantas because they figure the airline is "overdue" for a fatal accident.)

Re:on the conservative side

[Solandri]

Before the pedants jump all over this, I should clarify that I mean of any airline which has been operating since the introduction of jet airliners. There are a bunch of small airlines which have been operating 1-3 decades which also have "perfect" safety records.

Re:on the conservative side

[thegarbz]

So they take unusual steps to try to preserve that record.

Don't defend the inconsistent idiocy of airlines. There's no way a spark from within the cabin will ignite a refuelling operation outside. There's no evidence wireless signals cause airplane electronics to suffer, and many airplanes not only allow you to use your devices at all times but some even don't require flightmode anymore.

Did QANTAS cease all A380 operations after one of the engines failed spectacularly? Nope. They didn't even cease operation when Rolls Royce (I think) acknowledged the design fault in its engines. They are outsourcing and cutting back ground engineering and inspection activities like an IT company that just found out India exists.

But hey as long as we can't ignite a refuelling operation that is occurring in an area completely isolated from where I'm using my phone we can claim safety right?

Re:on the conservative side

[mjwx]

Qantas I have personally seen has often been on the cautious side of operations, sometimes to my frustration. I have personally been on flights where, when de-boarding on the tarmac, they have yelled at us not to use cell phones because of the possibility of fueling + sparks. Yet no other airline I've encountered seems to be concerned about this remote possibility.

Erm, they're not concerned about sparks, they're concerned about you becoming to engrossed in your phone and wandering off.

I've seen this happen a lot on sites that have a lot of danger. People who aren't used to working in such sites walk into boom gates, low hanging bars, chains, brick walls and the like all the time. Last time I was at my mechanics I watched someone walk into a raised car on a hoist because they were too busy buggerising around with their phone (and then he blamed the hoist for being in his way).

Airline and airport staff have a responsibility to ensure that no harm comes to you. Also, before you say that you are good enough to avoid this, you aren't. Doubly so if you've just dismissed the risk out of hand.

Also people on phones slow down the line. There are people behind your meandering arse who want to get out of the airport and you dont have the courtesy to stand aside and get out of everyone's way.

Re:on the conservative side

[Agripa]

I have personally been on flights where, when de-boarding on the tarmac, they have yelled at us not to use cell phones because of the possibility of fueling + sparks. Yet no other airline I've encountered seems to be concerned about this remote possibility.

And no shuffling of feet. And sweaters are right out.

How useful is that?

[damn_registrars]

Which people at the airport are supposed to know how to distinguish a Galaxy Note 7 from a Galaxy Note 6?

Re:How useful is that?

[ArtemaOne]

Ah, so it fits in with the security theater.

I imagine a samsung meeting a few months ago...

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

"Hey guys, what's the best way we can tank the company..."

"Get Kim Jong Un as our only spokesman?"

"put out a NAMBLA edition?"

"How about, right when Apple puts out a new phone, when everyone is agog even though it's just a phone, lets have our phones blow up!!"

"Brilliant! And it's even better if we get banned from flying because of safety reasons... those are great headlines!!"

Me and my wife have iPhones. 1) Im amazed that there is this much interest every damn iPhone release. It's a phone. 2) Id hate to be at Samsung right now.

Re:Non-removable battery = Samsung's fault

[beanpoppa]

Removable batteries would have done nothing to improve this situation (being banned on planes). Once a phone model has been recalled for potential battery fires, the entire model is tainted. The TSA or airlines would have no way of knowing by looking at the phone if the battery is affected or not. If they simply could send replacement batteries to affected users, or swap them right in the store because of a removable battery, there could still be potentially thousands of affected batteries out in the wild.

To the contrary, I could see where removable batteries would make the risk of a ban even worse. Suppose Samsung had made the battery user-swappable, and Samsung's batteries didn't have an issue. But a batch of cheap batteries for the model goes up for sale on Amazon/eBay, and suddenly reports of fires start to crop up. Even once the cause of the fires is identified as cheap, aftermarket batteries, airlines could ban the entire phone model because of the risk that users may have replaced the original battery with a cheap knock-off.

Surely, a easily swapped battery might have saved Samsung money in this case by allowing for an easy field replacement of a defective battery, but it wouldn't have saved the Note 7 line from being tainted.

Re:Non-removable battery = Samsung's fault

[tlhIngan]

Removable batteries would have done nothing to improve this situation (being banned on planes). Once a phone model has been recalled for potential battery fires, the entire model is tainted. The TSA or airlines would have no way of knowing by looking at the phone if the battery is affected or not. If they simply could send replacement batteries to affected users, or swap them right in the store because of a removable battery, there could still be potentially thousands of affected batteries out in the wild.

To the contrary, I could see where removable batteries would make the risk of a ban even worse. Suppose Samsung had made the battery user-swappable, and Samsung's batteries didn't have an issue. But a batch of cheap batteries for the model goes up for sale on Amazon/eBay, and suddenly reports of fires start to crop up. Even once the cause of the fires is identified as cheap, aftermarket batteries, airlines could ban the entire phone model because of the risk that users may have replaced the original battery with a cheap knock-off.

Surely, a easily swapped battery might have saved Samsung money in this case by allowing for an easy field replacement of a defective battery, but it wouldn't have saved the Note 7 line from being tainted.

You're assuming it's the battery at fault. As Boeing has demonstrated, you can buy good quality batteries (Yuasa is a VERY good brand) but crappy everything else can still cause them to go off.

And since the phones were all charging instead of randomly going off (like some iPhones and other phones - they were in the pockets and started to go off, or were in use), it's likely the charger circuit itself was not working properly. A removable battery wouldn't fix the problem because it's not in the battery, but the charger.

Though I am surprised the Note 7 went internal batteries given the Galaxy 7 and 7 Edge didn't. Odd

burning platform

[ecloud]

So it's literally a burning platform.

I think it will blow over. But I'm bummed because I wanted to buy one; guess I'd better wait until they have solved it in production rather than by recalling or by just hoping for the best. OTOH it's not "open" enough is it... Sony is trying to get their stuff supported in mainline Linux, so is a Sony phone my best chance of both having "flagship" specs AND running a real convergence-oriented Linux OS on it in the future? It's just a matter of time until Ubuntu and Plasma Mobile will be able to move on from that libybris on top of Android hackery... I hope. I want modern Wayland, modern Qt, the ability to plug into a monitor, and total freedom with software.

I'm getting by with my original Note for now; there's still nothing much wrong with it, other than being slow, not lasting as long as I'd like every day, and needing the occasional reboot. I had to replace the board with the micro-USB connector once; it got too loose and wasn't making good enough contact to charge reliably.

Now if they had just made the new Note with a replaceable battery like my old one, that would make it much easier for anyone who already bought it and doesn't want it igniting in his pocket.

Why aren't the batteries standardized by now anyway? EU should have tried to make that happen, right after the micro-usb charging standard. They could keep growing in capacity, but keep using a few standard sizes. I don't care if the phone ends up a mm or two thicker because of that.

Just an anti-groping nervous guy

[Provocateur]

He handed the pilot a note. It said "I am not a terrorist. But I have a Samsung Galaxy Note 7, and I have never been to Switzerland. That's all it said, and to this day the experts are wondering if that *even* qualifies as a "ransom demand".