I guess they assumed there were two scenarios:

1. It was unintentional; someone had a bluetooth device called BOMB for some reason that made sense before boarding the plane. They would turn it off.

2. It was intentional; someone wanted to send a warning and chose this channel - they would leave the device on.

▲

stefan_ 5 hours ago | parent [-]

3. The level of tech illiteracy combined with airplane security theater is an affront to all thinking people.

▲

kube-system 2 hours ago | parent [-]

4. A normal level of risk aversion in one of the most risk averse industries

If airlines ignored every threat that was “probably not” a real threat, they’d ignore all of them. It’s better to inconvenience a few thousand passengers than it is to kill a few hundred.

	▲	Haven880 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		How many threats did actually turn out to be real to date? I couldn't find this being published. But how many threats did happen without any indication (only after the perpetrators tell). I can easily recalled maybe 3-4 incidents. So the issue here is do knowing threats really help?
	▲	basilikum 22 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		There was literally no threat.
	▲	Skunkleton an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		In the simplest possible terms: this is total bullshit security theatre. At no point has there ever been a bomb or even a bomb threat carried out via usb device names. There is absolutely no reason to even look at the names of Bluetooth devices on a flight.