I suspect this will be a hot take, though I don’t think it should be…
The plane took off a bit behind schedule, at 6:08PM, due to a maintenance issue, and started its journey northeast. The plane flew for nearly two hours, and made it as far as south of Newfoundland, when it turned around and returned to Newark.
What was the issue? Well, one of the passengers had a bluetooth device with the name “bomb.” According to passengers who shared their experience on social media:
However, it just strikes me as such a massive waste of time and resources to divert a plane over something like this. This wasted over nine hours of hundreds of peoples’ time, not to mention it cost tens of thousands of dollars in terms of extra fuel burn, crewing costs, and more. It’s just a massive waste.
This brings me to my issue with these kinds of responses. I realize that terror threats have to be taken seriously, but does this really make sense? So is the belief that someone onboard who actually has a bomb would name their bluetooth or Wi-Fi network “bomb?” Because that makes sense how, exactly? It would be like someone who is trafficking drugs on a commercial plane having a suitcase that has “I’m a drug trafficker” written all over it.
I’m not trying to be flippant here, but in the tens of trillions of air seat miles that have been flown in history, on how many flights has a bluetooth or Wi-Fi network named “bomb” actually correlated to someone with terroristic intentions, rather than an immature teenager (or something along those lines)? Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that number is zero.
Look, by all means investigate this when the plane lands at its destination, and hold the person responsible accountable. But diverting a flight while over the ocean just seems so incredibly wasteful.
To be clear, I’m not trying to single out United here, since the airline is just following the industry standard for any sort of response the second the word “bomb” shows up. I just think it’s time for the industry at large to reconsider its approach to these situations.
I like to say that the airline industry overall has an unwavering commitment to putting safety above all else, but let me give an example of security theater (this) vs. an area where I think a lot of airlines do compromise on safety.
For example, I feel strongly that the two-person cockpit rule should exist across airlines globally, whereby there always have to be two people in the cockpit at a time. For what it’s worth, this is the policy in the United States, but not in most other countries.
How many planes have actually been taken down by suicidal pilots when they were alone in the cockpit? Well, the number is significant, and it’s among the leading cause of commercial plane crashes (admittedly commercial aviation is very safe). Yet the industry completely overlooks that, and doesn’t do anything major to address pilot mental health, and steps that can be taken to counteract that.
Meanwhile the second someone makes a completely unrealistic “bomb threat,” they take it very seriously. It just strikes me as being backwards.
Bottom line
Call me a crazy conspiracy theorist, but I tend to think there’s zero overlap between people who have a Wi-Fi or bluetooth network named “bomb,” and those who actually intend to blow up a plane.
A great solo travel tip spotted this week on One Mile at a Time.
