THE Trump administration is considering extending its ban on laptops and tablets to include flights from Europe, according to CBS news. Security officials originally banned electronic devices larger than a phone on routes from ten Middle Eastern airports in March, citing intelligence that suggested terrorists might be planning to smuggle a bomb on board flights in such gadgets. CBS says that a decision on whether to include flights from Europe, including Britain, will be made in the next few weeks. “Sources say Department of Homeland Security officials are weighing the advantages of expanding the ban against disruptions it could cause,” it reports.

This blog has argued that, where possible, security services should be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to keeping flyers safe. But there is no doubt that the original Middle Eastern ban was a relatively easy option for officials because no American carriers serve the airports that are included. It may even have been an expedient one. Since the ban came into force, Emirates, one of the affected airlines, has announced that it is cutting its flights to America by 20%. Its customers seem to be switching to connecting flights in Europe, presumably to the benefit of American carriers.

However if that is indeed the case, it only serves to highlight an obvious oversight in the original plan. As the electronics ban does not apply to such connecting flyers, any terrorist looking to explode a laptop-bomb would simply switch routes. A ban in Europe would close this avenue.

If the Trump administration is being honest about its motives, then it must also be consistent. Unlike routes from the Middle East, transatlantic ones are hugely important for the three big American carriers, American Airlines, United and Delta. CBS says that the Trump administration has been having weekly meetings with the operators; presumably they are lobbying against any restrictions. However, if these airlines are included in any future European ban, that would make it more difficult to argue that the measures are pure protectionism. If, for the sake of argument, Delta and United passengers are exempt from the restrictions, but those on British Airways and Lufthansa are not, it will be clearer what the administration’s true motives are.

All is speculation at this point. It is also unclear whether any restrictions would be two-way, or if, like the current ban, it would only apply to flights into America. Britain imposed similar limitations on electronic devices soon after the American one was introduced, though it covers fewer countries. That suggests it is privy to the same intelligence as its cousin across the pond. For that reason, the British government's reaction to any extension of restrictions to flights from its shores will be telling. (As one would expect, no one is yet commenting officially.)

Any airline that might be covered by a ban will be feeling twitchy. Business travellers would find the inability to work on fights particularly tiresome. As transatlantic business-class fares are among airlines’ most lucrative, any drop off in this market would hit them hard. Some Middle Eastern airlines have tried to find ways around the ban by, for example, loaning their own laptops to business-class passengers for the duration of the flght. But success has been limited: while documents can be loaded onto USB sticks and the like, that is of limited use to those who rely on using their own software or whose privacy requirements forbid the use of non-company computers. If the hours in the transatlantic air become unproductive, then the worry for carriers will be that executives may simply decide to make fewer trips.