> Awful joke. There have to be at least some consequences for the kid, like getting banned for flying United for 10 years.
Take a step back. You yourself describe it as a joke. Are you really saying that the quality of the joke ("awful") should result in the origin of the joke (a kid, even!) should be banned from a major air carrier for 10 years? Does this really seem like a proportional response?
And this doesn't even begin to consider another possibility: the device was named what it was named in a completely different setting, and the owner just forgot about it. That makes it not even a joke, just forgetfulness.
Was any of this a good idea? No, probably not, but people need to calm down.
> Was any of this a good idea? No, probably not, but people need to calm down.
I can understand the safety concern - and I think the decision to turn around was ultimately the right call. Especially given that they had called for people turning off BT for some time.
The fact that the device was not turned off suggests to me that the owner did not know they were the cause of this.
If they had done this by intent and were set on going through with it even after the turnaround was initiated, they would have also had the sense to drop the device into some other seat or leave it in the lavatory...
If it turns out they did this with full intent, there should be some _appropriate_ consequence
It sounds like a fantastic DDoS opportunity, you could shut down an entire nation's aviation just by putting a few tiny bluetooth transmitters in places that air passengers might accidentally pick them up. The attack relies entirely on the overreaction to non-threats by ignorant buffoons in positions of authority.
Personally, I think the airline and its policies should be publicly ridiculed. If we don't punish the airline for doing this, and make unequivocably clear that it did the wrong thing, that its "what ifs" are meaningless and bluetooth/wifi channel names are not a security threat, then this nonsense will just continue.
In general and long-term I agree with what you are saying.
I assume this was a new/unknown situation. (On the other hand, the article links to other similar stories, so maybe I am cutting them too much slack).
If "electronic device names" are of concern, there should be an established protocol to deal with them. Especially if this keeps happening.
IDK, this was pure technical incompetence by rubes that can barely operate a smartphone. The delay relies entirely on these supposed "adults in the room" overreacting.
I think this is just the way the decision tree works in safety-sensitive areas where many human lives are at stake. The catch-all in the decision tree, if there is no exact solution, is always the "get to safety at all costs" option.
There will be some window of trying to resolve an issue (here: telling everyone to shut down devices) and when that does not resolve the issue, the catch-all kicks in. That's just the pattern and in an environment like an airplane, where margin for error is slim to non-existant, there is no deviation from that pattern.
> If it turns out they did this with full intent, there should be some _appropriate_ consequence
Sure, if evidence is uncovered of the guy say telling his friends "haha, I'm gonna make them turn the plane around", I can get behind the baying for consequences.
We're nowhere near that. There's plenty of non-nefarious ways this could all have come about, and people need to put down their pitchforks.
You're probably right, they would have probably named it somewhat more entertaining, like "Allahu ackbar". "Bomb" is quite boring. Sounds like an enegy drink brand. Which would be be a unfortunate idea to serve on a plane. Anyway, airlines are quite mundane and like to make a security theatre out of one's luggage, which is mosty underwear, not even something more remotely entertainling off board, like nitricellulose. Not to mention bottled water, uh dangerous liquids, clearely nuclear grade.
My wife would have probably freaked out if she saw a wifi network named "bomb" on the plane. So as an airline security officer I'd totally ban this kind of behaviour.
Take a step back. You yourself describe it as a joke. Are you really saying that the quality of the joke ("awful") should result in the origin of the joke (a kid, even!) should be banned from a major air carrier for 10 years? Does this really seem like a proportional response?
And this doesn't even begin to consider another possibility: the device was named what it was named in a completely different setting, and the owner just forgot about it. That makes it not even a joke, just forgetfulness.
Was any of this a good idea? No, probably not, but people need to calm down.