I suspect this will be a hot take, though I don’t think it should be…
In this post:
United flight diverts over “bomb” bluetooth speaker name
This incident happened yesterday (Saturday, May 30, 2026), and involves United Airlines flight UA236, scheduled to operate from Newark (EWR) to Palma de Mallorca (PMI). The 3,934-mile flight was operated by a Boeing 767-400ER with the registration code N67052, and was supposed to depart at 4:10PM and arrive at 6:15AM the next morning.
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:
- This was brought to the attention of the crew by a passenger
- An announcement was then made for passengers to turn off their bluetooth networks
- Most people complied, but not everyone, so the crew then announced if all networks weren’t turned off, the plane would return to Newark
- After that, two bluetooth signals, including one with the name “bomb,” remained on, so the decision was made to return to Newark
Sure enough, the plane ended up landing back at Newark nearly four hours after it first departed. The plane was taxied to a remote part of the airport, as a full terror threat response was put into place. Eventually it was determined that a teenager had a speaker with that bluetooth name, and he was removed from the flight.
The plane then ended up taking off from Newark again at 2:19AM, and landed well over nine hours behind schedule.
Am I the only one who finds this to be ridiculous?
I of course completely understand that people shouldn’t have a Wi-Fi or bluetooth network named “BOMB,” and that this is inappropriate. I’m not here to defend those people.
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.
Now, I don’t have any evidence for this, other than the tens of trillions of air seat miles that have been flown over the years. We’ve seen a lot of big deals made out of “bomb” names, and it doesn’t seem like it actually leads anywhere.
I recognize that in theory, the idea here is to take threats seriously, and err on the side of caution. But diverting a flight and delaying hundreds of people by nine hours with no credible threat just seems like an unnecessary headache. By all means investigate more when the plane lands, but this just strikes me as unreasonable.
I’m not claiming to be correct, but that’s my take. If anyone disagrees, by all means sound off!
What do you make of these “bomb” flight diversions?
Just call it what it is - totally stupid. Kid can name his bluetooth bomb all he wants. Adults need to exercise some reasonableness in these situations so continuing would have been fine and dealing with it at the destination would have worked too. Now if the teens name was Jack... ;-)
I don’t see the big deal.
I'm with Ben. And...
1) If the crew thought this was a real threat, they would have landed at Newfoundland. Or Nova Scotia. Or Boston (which they flew directly over). But they flew for 2 hours back to EWR. They could not have been that worried.
2) How do you change the name on a bluetooth speaker? Not even sure that is possible. There is reason to think that this might just be a speaker with that brand name.
It's plausible but if it is a brand name, I'd expect this to happen more often. Maybe other flight crews/airlines are more sensible? Or most pax don't pay attention to other devices or are also more sensible?
In standard time a broken clock is wrong all but twice a day giving it a 99.86 percent chance of being incorrect over 24 hours. While a clock in military time it would be at a 99.93 percent chance of being incorrect once a day. Those are fantastic odds if you’re playing a game of guessing. I’m leaving seconds out of this or the statistical advantage of guessing the correct time on the broken clock...
In standard time a broken clock is wrong all but twice a day giving it a 99.86 percent chance of being incorrect over 24 hours. While a clock in military time it would be at a 99.93 percent chance of being incorrect once a day. Those are fantastic odds if you’re playing a game of guessing. I’m leaving seconds out of this or the statistical advantage of guessing the correct time on the broken clock would be almost 99.99999999 to xyz power.
Point is…..while everything can be statistically categorized, even something that’s basically 100 percent isn’.
As a long time and now retired airline manager, this seems to be lacking in any common sense and has crossed over into the ridiculous. I get all the declarations about passenger safety and being cautious but this is melodrama on steroids. Unfortunately, today we see this all too often in many areas of daily life.
JD, the one thing that both you and many others have forgotten to take into account is this …. it is not only the airline’s Capt who makes to call to return to base. That decision will have been made by the airline management team responsible. Their decision will not only be made upon the information submitted by the Capt and crew, but the commercial and legal implications will have been determined before the turnaround instructions were issued.
Come to think of it.
With the 2 fairly recent topics here.
If someone on a plane sees a device name Blow job, do you think of bombs or Magnums wrappers?
Imagine conversation for calling the cops over a blow job.
Tower, we have an unknown blow job device on our plane, requesting law enforcement.
Easy fix. Crew uses one of their phones to connect to device 'bomb' Plays some music and listens for the sound in a bag or overhead locker. Flight continues and person is handed over to authorities.
Interesting fact. In Australia when you send a parcel overseas you have to sign a declaration saying that there are no explosives in package. I've often wondered what would happen if you said there was a bomb in the package. Maybe a higher rate of postage :-)
Why use a commonsense approach when you can shit the bed and head back to Newark in a panic?
So you want them to do something that could possibly trigger it?
This can be all traced back to shister lawyers looking for the easy buck. I think they will have found a gold mine here of litigants.
Ben, you come across a tad touchier on this issue than normal. You should sleep on it and update your point of view in a few days, if your position changes. I think you’re wrong on this one.
There are apparently many bluetooth speakers with bomb or boom in their default names. How to change the name of the device is not obvious (you usually have to install the manufacturer's app and search through settings), although changing the device label on your phone is typically easy.
Richard, please supply a list of such speakers so that others can avoid the same mistake.
Here is one: https://us.amazon.com/iJoy-Waterproof-Shockproof-Portable-Bluetooth/dp/B01KYUEXBM
BTW, a very famous socks brand is called Bombas. One of the most famous pastries from Brazil is called bomba (bomb in Portuguese). Yes, it is stupid to use the name but these are normal names in many languages and products.
If UA believed this were a credible threat they should have done an emergency landing rather than flying back to EWR for a couple of hours.
Absolutely agree with the article. The pilot acknowledged it being a "joke" mid-flight before making the decision to intentionally fly over an hour out of the way past multiple airports, over Manhattan, into a headwind instead of landing immediately at the nearest airport, clearly indicating that they knew there was no emergency.
All because of a mistake by a child with a FitBit that had a scary name that he forgot about in baggage.
I...
Absolutely agree with the article. The pilot acknowledged it being a "joke" mid-flight before making the decision to intentionally fly over an hour out of the way past multiple airports, over Manhattan, into a headwind instead of landing immediately at the nearest airport, clearly indicating that they knew there was no emergency.
All because of a mistake by a child with a FitBit that had a scary name that he forgot about in baggage.
I cannot help but wonder what would have happened if Bluetooth got turned on closer to the destination, or if the name was "NotABomb" or an Arabic word or "crash".
The pilot wasted loads of time and energy.
All I have to say is "Hi, Jack!"
Does anyone think an actual terrorist would name a device "Bomb"?
All y'all defending security theater need to chill the f out.
The OtherSteve, is so “Chill the f out” that he definitely does not understand the slightest thing about airline security. The poor demented soul.
Ridiculous course of action. It's quite likely that the kid turned off his phone and was not aware that the speaker in his luggage is on and "advertising" its presence. Or that he named it "bomb" years before this flight, maybe because of its shape, or because he likes it ("it's the bomb!").
MT, has taken a “Ridiculous course of action” by demonstrating to the readership that it does not understand the first thing about airline security matters.
Defending idiots like this is what's wrong with the world now. Should be banned from flying ever again. Stupid, using bomb for a bluetooth device.
It’s the (stupid) Chinese manufacturer who named the speaker BOMB. Not the kid. You can’t rename a speaker like you can a phone or laptop.
DEI pilots are OK though...
Walter Mitty Dunn, posts “That it makes no sense to divert aircraft over dumb passenger stunts”.
Is he pretending to be an aviation security consultant or expert now? How could one know if he knows anything about commercial aviation? He simply refuses to offer any reasonable explanation as to why anyone should take anything which he posts seriously?
Walter Mitty Dunn is a well deserved nickname for such a suspect character, yes?
I appreciate where you’re coming from, but what about the person who overhears a conversation where someone uses the same word in a conversation? Would your position be the same?
I am a retired airline Captain. Spent 10 years in the USAF as a pilot then went to fly commercial. I have over 23,500 hours and have flown internationally for my last 2o years. I have no problem with the decision the Captain made. If...
I appreciate where you’re coming from, but what about the person who overhears a conversation where someone uses the same word in a conversation? Would your position be the same?
I am a retired airline Captain. Spent 10 years in the USAF as a pilot then went to fly commercial. I have over 23,500 hours and have flown internationally for my last 2o years. I have no problem with the decision the Captain made. If the person had turned Bluetooth off, I would have continued. But leaving it on is just stupid on his part! I agree with the logic about a real threat wouldn’t be labeled like that. Can you guarantee that? That’s where the problem is! In my flying career, I’ve seen some pretty amazing (read stupid)things that people have done…..
Phil, thank you for your contribution to this thread, it is indeed refreshing to read the words of wisdom form someone other than an enthusiastic passenger. The viewpoint from the LH seat is so very different from that in coach. The responsibly for ones crew and passengers cannot be trivialised.
I confess to not having any commercial aviation experience, however, I am proud to have served my country in a full term distinguished military career....
Phil, thank you for your contribution to this thread, it is indeed refreshing to read the words of wisdom form someone other than an enthusiastic passenger. The viewpoint from the LH seat is so very different from that in coach. The responsibly for ones crew and passengers cannot be trivialised.
I confess to not having any commercial aviation experience, however, I am proud to have served my country in a full term distinguished military career. First in fixed and then rotary wing captaincies. Thereafter, as a civilian in an SAR roll. The compulsion to preserve and prolong life is etched into my soul.
Only those who have been given the responsibility of having to make the call of the subject airline captain, can fully comprehend the magnitude of making such decisions.
If someone has been able to smuggle a bomb on a plane and the plane turns around, how is flying for two hours back making it less probable that the bomb goes boom?
I suppose it wasn’t only because he named the device “bomb,” which most likely done to incite. It was also that the passenger was one of the two (and potentially the one with two devices) who refused to comply with the request to shut down all Bluetooth devices. These kind of people are troublemakers, and they present a risk. He should be permanently banned from flying.
It is just as likely that a real...
I suppose it wasn’t only because he named the device “bomb,” which most likely done to incite. It was also that the passenger was one of the two (and potentially the one with two devices) who refused to comply with the request to shut down all Bluetooth devices. These kind of people are troublemakers, and they present a risk. He should be permanently banned from flying.
It is just as likely that a real bomb would be named “bomb.” People would probably think like you….”Who would do that?”
Flight crews are under tremendous pressure to keep people safe. But they can’t win. If they had continued, there would be others complaining that they ignored the threat.
Dee Skeets gets it.
Especially about the difficulty flight crews experience when they have to deal with the likes of the subject situation. On the other hand the commentator who posts “That it makes no sense to divert aircraft over dumb passenger stunts”. Really demonstrates that they know absolutely nothing about airline security or the pressures under which flight crews operate.
I name the incompetent commentator as the person who logs in as Tim...
Dee Skeets gets it.
Especially about the difficulty flight crews experience when they have to deal with the likes of the subject situation. On the other hand the commentator who posts “That it makes no sense to divert aircraft over dumb passenger stunts”. Really demonstrates that they know absolutely nothing about airline security or the pressures under which flight crews operate.
I name the incompetent commentator as the person who logs in as Tim Dunn. I further name it as Walter Mitty Dunn for providing such evidence of its unfortunate lack of credibility.
The air crew gave multiple opportunities for Bluetooth users to shut their devices off. Most complied. "Bomb" did not. That is when the company decided to divert. The airline made the correct decision.
Are you aware of the status of all your Bluetooth devices in your carry-on? He’s just a kid, they don’t know where their feet are half the time.
Ronnie, most “Kids” could run rings around you when it comes to operating IT devices.
It’s not about the skills to operate it, kids don’t pay attention and forget shit like this all the time. Those saying “ he’s a disobedient little scrote” have no evidence.
“Scrote“ …. a common term used by various military entities …. :-)
The last time a terrorist announced they were going to set off a bomb, the RealIRA was a thing. Thinking that today’s bomb maker would actually name his device BOMB and broadcast the fact on a public network shows how bloody stupid Americans are. Utter clowns.
@Ben: you mention that the person should be held accountable. I agree. But is it actually illegal to name your wifi network “bomb”?
He’s not yelling “bomb” in a plane and presumably this network name wasn’t made specifically for the flight…
@ Cy -- I realize this is also a controversial take, but I don't care if someone names their Wi-Fi network "bomb," or "FBI," or whatever. My point about accountability was more in regards to not listening to crew member instructions.
Ben, again one is convinced that you do not get airline security.
Note to self; Don't name my dog Bomb as the powers that be these days are likely to take him to a remote spot and safely detonate him.
Kristi Noem is no longer a "power that be," so not as likely these days.
In today's heightened society, people ought to be sensitive to questionable behaviors like, "using bomb" as a moniker. I'll wager, that teen will change his moniker before flying again. All you lily-livered leftists who think the airline was wrong in diverting back, would blame the airline for not taking steps to stop a terrorist act, had one occurred.
@ Cal Ven -- I'm not sure what this has to do with "lily-livered leftists," but there's zero correlation (at least that I know of) between people who have bluetooth networks named "bomb," and people who intend to commit terrorism on commercial aircraft.
The zero correlation statement remains true until it isn't.
I agree that this is a massive waste of resources. If airlines are truly concerned about these names, they should simply develop a scanning app to identify suspicious Bluetooth signals before the cabin doors close. Given modern technology, such a tool could be built in minutes, allowing for immediate resolution before takeoff rather than resulting in a costly, disruptive, and unnecessary mid-flight diversion.
Yes the airlines should fore you to allow them to search your phone any time they want because obviously you aren’t able to change the name any time you want. Stupid is as stupid does.
Engle does not get airline security.
Reactions like this one (turning around, and re-screening everyone) are the consequences of the influences both HR and the company's attorneys have today. It's about protecting liability, not doing what makes sense.
Said another way, if the "Bomb" network was ignored, and nothing happened (most likely scenario 99.99999% of the time) and the flight continued on, then there's no real consequence. However, if the "Bomb" network was ignored, but it WAS a real threat and...
Reactions like this one (turning around, and re-screening everyone) are the consequences of the influences both HR and the company's attorneys have today. It's about protecting liability, not doing what makes sense.
Said another way, if the "Bomb" network was ignored, and nothing happened (most likely scenario 99.99999% of the time) and the flight continued on, then there's no real consequence. However, if the "Bomb" network was ignored, but it WAS a real threat and the aircraft was brought down by one a few hours later - can you imagine the size of the lawsuits?
Once the potential threat is reported to an airline's operational headquarters, they are going to take is seriously, unless they can be absolutely 100% assured a threat isn't credible. And 100% certainty is a tough standard to meet.
Yes, nothing says let’s invite trouble by refusing to conduct the safest possible operation by refusing to act on overt threats. We do that and we won’t even ever need to worry about hidden threats because any idiot can claim a bomb on board and everyone will ignore it so the real bombers have nothing to worry about. How stupid are you.
If something would have happened, then you'd be saying the opposite of with such a clear name, why wouldn't they have turned around and returned.
@ Seth H -- I mean, I have a hard time with the concept of "if something would have happened," because what terrorist who intends to blow up a plane would have a Wi-Fi network with a name that gives it away? It doesn't make sense on any level. It's why it has never happened in tens of trillions of flown air seat miles.
Ben, one is not convinced that you actually believe wholeheartedly in aviation security. The are absolutely no grey areas as far as aviation security is concerned, it is either Black or White, yes?
Being a suicde bomber doesn’t make any sense either and yet…
Airlines have policies. Passengers are required to comply with policies and laws.
Unpopular opinion: I agree with Ben. I've been involved in situations like this.... plane returns because someone saw another passenger in row in front of them using explosion emojis in text message as plane is entering the runway for takeoff and runs screaming to the flight attendant. Gets called as a potential bomb to ATC. At that point, might as well throw your hands up and let it take its course. News helicopters soon over...
Unpopular opinion: I agree with Ben. I've been involved in situations like this.... plane returns because someone saw another passenger in row in front of them using explosion emojis in text message as plane is entering the runway for takeoff and runs screaming to the flight attendant. Gets called as a potential bomb to ATC. At that point, might as well throw your hands up and let it take its course. News helicopters soon over head while bags are lined up on the ramp with dogs running over them...
After the fact, FBI agents, TSA directors, etc., all agreed this was just a massive waste of time and resources. The reply from the crew was that if someone was texting after the plane had pushed back (plane didn't have wifi) then they weren't following crew instructions so should have been removed anyway. The person in question (and the person the crew claimed they were traveling with - oops, two brown people sitting across aisle from one another... didn't even speak the same language) were cleared to travel but flight attendants refused to operate the flight. Canceled, rebooked for 12 hours later.
I use that as the example as one of the passengers inconvenienced sued the airline and I had to go to small claims court. Airline's defense was that it was non-controllable as it was security related induced by a passenger. Judge didn't agree - said people overreacting to something that in no way was an overt threat or made out to be a threat or stated as a threat was the airline's fault and awarded damages.
In my experience having been through multiple of these sort of things, sometimes it gets taken to the extreme as even though crew will say that they didn't think it serious, nobody made a threat, no real worry - but they just wanted someone punished because "They should know better." So we screw up a few hundred peoples day and the union gives the F/As an award.
A lot of waffle there NedsKid, but what are you actually saying? Crews are wrong to react in uncertain circumstances or passengers should ignore their concerns?
There is a very old saying that goes: “One is better to be safe than sorry”. Take airline security seriously or take another form of transportation if you don’t like it …. Yes?
Poor kid. I highly doubt the crew said “there is a Bluetooth device named ‘bomb’..” which means the kids speaker likely somehow got turned on in his carry on by accident, and they had no idea it was because of their speaker. Kids will be kids and name stuff whatever. But I’d doubt big time especially after they said they’d turn around that it was actually intended to be a prank on a flight.
There is an APP called BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy) scanner, anybody could have tracked and locate the device within 5 minutes.
You’re speaking with hindsight…which is, frankly, an extremely biased position that is hard to take seriously.
What we should be talking about is punishment for this “prank”. If that moron had turned off the device Bluetooth signal the plane would’ve continued without issue, as it would’ve been dealt with in the air as the stupid joke it is.
But two Bluetooth connections remained on? Of all the devices and networks broadcasting on a packed...
You’re speaking with hindsight…which is, frankly, an extremely biased position that is hard to take seriously.
What we should be talking about is punishment for this “prank”. If that moron had turned off the device Bluetooth signal the plane would’ve continued without issue, as it would’ve been dealt with in the air as the stupid joke it is.
But two Bluetooth connections remained on? Of all the devices and networks broadcasting on a packed international flight, everyone managed to follow the instructions except for two Bluetooth connections…one being “BOMB”.
That kid is a moron. I hope he gets more than just a slap on the wrist.
Yeah, he's speaking with hindsight and as someone who wasn't on that plane. Ben, if you had been on that plane, would you have been happy to just ignore it and continue to your destination? Or imagine the worst case scenario, where something actually does happen, and the NTSB report says "the crew noticed the suspiciously named Bluetooth device but elected to continue anyways..."
I agree the bigger lesson is that there should be...
Yeah, he's speaking with hindsight and as someone who wasn't on that plane. Ben, if you had been on that plane, would you have been happy to just ignore it and continue to your destination? Or imagine the worst case scenario, where something actually does happen, and the NTSB report says "the crew noticed the suspiciously named Bluetooth device but elected to continue anyways..."
I agree the bigger lesson is that there should be consequences for the person who did this, and hopefully those consequences deter a repeat event in the future.
@ Nate -- "Ben, if you had been on that plane, would you have been happy to just ignore it and continue to your destination?"
Absolutely, I would've been happy to continue.
@ Bill Gilmore -- To be clear, "hindsight" is what causes us to learn and evolve. Like, the way aviation has become so safe over the years is by looking at "hindsight" and evolving policies to reflect actual risks.
I don't have an issue with holding the person responsible my issue is just with inconveniencing hundreds of people over something that just statistically doesn't represent a risk.
Ben, sound decision making undoubtedly requires considering both probability and consequence together, rather than simply focusing on only one side of the equation.
Before we chastise the kid without knowing the facts, reddit discussions pointed out there are several cheap bluetooth speakers with bomb in the bluetooth name. They're factory set and can't be changed. The crew didn't explain the exact issue and just said to turn off transmitters. Reports are that he didn't realize it was transmitting and was surprised when it was pointed out.
even considering that UA lost two aircraft on 9/11, Ben is completely right that it makes no sense to divert aircraft over dumb passenger stunts.
and publicizing these types of events only increases the number of people that will do them.
It would be far cheaper to tell people that a poor choice of electronic names has been detected and it is not immediately turned off, the airline will ask that police meet the flight and inspect all electronic devices
Walter you post prolifically as if you have credibility, that being the case, why are you so unwilling to disclose your aviation background? Obfuscation has been your only defence against telling the truth Walter. Trust me, there are too many who comment about your incompetence, or lack of integrity when it comes to actually offering a straight answer to a straight question.
Come now Walter, spit it out and open up your heart to your dedicated fans ….
the powers that be know
“The powers that be” might well know, but who are they Walter? Your obfuscation only weakens your diminishing credibility don’t you know.
@ Tim Dunn -- We're waiting to learn which EWR-LAX frequencies UA operates with 737-900ERs, please!! These are the important details!
People with the stupidity to do this should be charged with the extra costs of a diversion. They should reflect on their life decisions based on the years of payments needed to recover the costs by fellow passengers.
I get your take, and 9999 out of 10000 you would be right.
But tell me the story you would write, if that 1 in 10,000 turned out to be a real bomb and the crew "ignored" it, as you are suggesting?
What headline and story would you write then? I guarantee you would lambast the airline for not taking it seriously and costing all those people their lives (yes I'm going worst case for a point).
You can't have it both ways.
@ James -- Here's my issue with this logic. Statistically, pilots have a non-zero chance of committing a terrorist act while they're in the cockpit. We've seen many airline pilots down planes they were in control of.
What should we make of that? Should we just flying altogether, because there's a non-zero chance something will go wrong? Or should we apply logic, and assume reasonable risks?
Exasperating but completely avoidable if that teenager had complied with crew member instructions, or if the parents had made him do so. That teenager is probably one of those modern American children who has never been told “no” in his life. Inclusion of the teenager and the parents on the no-fly list would be perfectly appropriate.
Hot take: your opinion on this subject is beyond irrelevant.
As is your comment.
@ JohnBoy -- Hot take: It's not that irrelevant if you took the time to respond. ;-)
There is a Bluetooth Speaker called Bomb, it is named that by the manufacturer and that is how it appears on the Bluetooth listing. Stop blaming the kid and calling this a prank!
20/20 Hindsight. I disagree with your article
Ben,
Relax Captain you do not get to make these decisions.
Go on vacation.
@ Ryan -- I don't think I suggested anywhere that I get to make these decisions? So we're on the same page there. That doesn't mean I can't share an opinion online, though.
The teenager should be put on the no fly list
Agree completely. Crazy thing is pissing off a bunch of people on an airplane by telling them that they are going to arrive many hours late after a long haul flight for something so silly could actually push a more reasonable person into acting fool and actually causing a real problem for the flight. People can only be pushed so far, especially for silly things, before people start to act out. Being diverted after flying...
Agree completely. Crazy thing is pissing off a bunch of people on an airplane by telling them that they are going to arrive many hours late after a long haul flight for something so silly could actually push a more reasonable person into acting fool and actually causing a real problem for the flight. People can only be pushed so far, especially for silly things, before people start to act out. Being diverted after flying for a couple hours, being held on the ground for a couple hours to ovestogate nonsense, and then waiting to be released and have a long haul flight turns an already unpleasant 9 hour journey into a 20 plus hour misery airplane ride. That kind of stuff actually causes people to "snap"!
I'm with Ben
+1, The US is security theater deluxe.
Safety First , Second , and Third . Safety always , every flight ..