[lotu]

This decision almost certainly came about because of people thinking what action was least likely to get them fired. Any rational person would realize the odds of an actual bomb are so close to zero you would need to start worrying about the sun spontaneously exploding if you were worried there was a bomb. The problem is that if you ignored it your boss could say you ignored a bomb threat and fire you.

Also if they really thought there the plan was going to explode any moment they would have ditched in the ocean or at least diverted to the nearest airport. They didn’t because there was no danger except to their jobs.

[caconym_]

If they were really worried, they probably would have diverted, yes. But ditching in the north Atlantic is something no pilot is going to do unless they are 100% sure there is a bomb that's going to go off, because people are probably going to die either way.

[goodcanadian]

They are still never going to ditch as long as the plane can fly

[bigfatkitten]

> This decision almost certainly came about because of people thinking what action was least likely to get them fired.

For aircrew, not following company SOPs is the express route to getting fired.

[srean]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48352666

[brigandish]

That is covered in the article:

> Though some have questioned why anyone intending to blow up a plane would broadcast the word bomb, many terrorist acts have relied on the threat of a bomb as leverage during attempted hijackings or hostage situations.

[joxdosba]

That does not actually address the parents point in any way.

[NoPicklez]

It kind of does, that an attacker can rely on something a small as a Bluetooth name to cause disruption based on employees following policy out of fear of being fired.