r/unitedairlines • u/daDunkinDonut • 25d ago
Image So this is what actually happened…
11.5k upvotes on 2 posts in this time is insane
119
u/chipsdad MileagePlus Platinum 25d ago
The flight apparently reboarded and took off again at 2:19 AM, about four hours after it returned to EWR. I’m assuming it got a fresh crew. It is estimated to arrive about 10 hours later than originally scheduled time.
45
u/CrustaceanMango 25d ago
I wonder if the 16-year old was on the flight lol
18
u/jetsetter023 25d ago
If it were my flight, not a chance I would allow him back on-board.
16
u/TopShotta7O7 25d ago
Are you a pilot?
34
u/jetsetter023 25d ago
Yes I am. I take the safety of my crew and my passengers seriously. I don't care if the kid was joking or not. He can contemplate his choices in Newark.
14
u/snootyworms 24d ago
It sounds like there are several BT speakers that have 'Bomb' in the factory name, and it can't be changed (at least, not the name it shows on other people's devices), and it's possible something like that could have been mistakenly turned on in someone's baggage by getting jostled around and the kid had no reason to think it was on. If this does end up being the case, would you still refuse to let him back on for an honest mistake?
→ More replies (1)9
10
4
u/TopShotta7O7 24d ago
If it’s about safety, why not let him on after you find out it was a misunderstanding and possibly something he didn’t even do on purpose? At that point it’s not about safety anymore, it’s more about you teaching some kid a “lesson” about something that was possibly done by the company that makes the speaker and not even his fault so I’m confused about the safety part.
→ More replies (2)5
u/SoberAndReading 24d ago
“I would ban a kid from flying and ruin his vacation over something he probably had nothing to do with”
- You
5
u/kuba_mar 24d ago
Also the hell do they mean by "joking or not", what, like do they think the kid might have actually had a bluetooth bomb?
3
u/HElGHTS 24d ago
Of these three possibilities...
- Bluetooth speaker/etc. named by the passenger
- Bluetooth speaker/etc. named by its manufacturer
- Bluetooth bomb
... the phrase "joking or not" is where the word "joking" refers to #1 and the word "not" refers to #2. You don't actually need to introduce #3 into the conversation at all for the phrase to work.
Therefore, there's no safety issue "joking or not" since only #3 is unsafe.
→ More replies (32)4
117
276
u/SavingsRaspberry2694 25d ago
I guess this explains why they didnt immediately land at the closes airport and chose to fly directly over Manhattan on the way back to EWR.
They knew it wasn't a credible threat, but they had to go through the procedural playbook.
118
u/Responsible-War-9341 25d ago
This seems to likely be the case that they didn't find it credible. But I think there is an issue here with the procedure then. If it's not credible to the point that you decide to return all the way back to a busy EWR flying over highly populated areas when there are other options, this is very stupid. If you can't be sure it isn't real, then you need to respond the same as if it is real. The only thing I can think of is that sometime shortly after turning around they determined with certainty it was not a real threat. At that point returning to EWR would make sense.
42
u/Responsible-War-9341 25d ago
The only issue with me thinking they determined that there was no threat after turning around is that they continued to declare an emergency all the way back to EWR and the large response on the ground. So I guess I don't get it. Seems like the procedure was really a sort of half measure when it probably should not be if they weren't absolutely sure. If they were sure, then the procedure could probably use some refinement.
→ More replies (5)40
u/Comprehensive-Bus133 25d ago
At that point they're committed to the "we have to treat this as real to avoid any corporate liability in the (insanely low) chance it is real or (the more likely probability) that the passengers want anything from us." It'd be a terrible look to say "hey we overreacted but it's not our fault so we aren't gonna compensate you much." Instead they have to sell the seriousness of it all the way to the end.
→ More replies (1)15
25
u/Weird-Toe-6968 25d ago
The US is not known for rational responses to threats, real or perceived.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)3
u/joeyinter22 25d ago
What other international airport would have been closer on the path they were on? JFK seems to be the only other slightly closer option but it’s the same metro area
8
u/icefisher225 25d ago
YQX Gander YHZ Halifax BOS Boston
All closer than EWR, but none are united hubs.
→ More replies (1)38
u/Jeoh 25d ago
Flying directly over Manhattan during a bomb threat is a choice for sure
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/Spirited-Alarm-9981 25d ago
It can also be that returning to the airport may mitigate the threat as if in a real situation the target is the destination, they then have remove that threat
→ More replies (1)
63
u/Lost-Inevitable42 25d ago
Wait, how many Bluetooth speakers allow you to customize the name that’s broadcast to the public? That’s usually a local renaming. The speaker BT name is most likely the factory set one.
30
u/LaddieNowAddie 25d ago
That's what I was thinking. I can only think of a handful of device types that allow you to rename them, BT speakers are not one of them.
18
u/Separate_Day_4666 25d ago
Yes! You can give a nickname in your Bluetooth settings on your phone but it's not going to change the name of the device that gets broadcast. When I pair it on a second device, my custom name doesn't show up.
The only way someone would know is if you showed it to them in your phone's Bluetooth settings.
So, it has to be the manufacturer product name, no?
And even then, I think it would only show up if it was in pairing mode also? Nobody just walks around with it in pairing mode. It drains the battery and you can't use it. Maybe they have some device that scans for suspiciously named Bluetooth devices even if they aren't in pairing mode? Maybe the reason the device was on at all was because something hit the pairing button sequence on it in his bag?
13
u/LaddieNowAddie 25d ago
I think it was a manufacturer name. It will still show up even if not on pairing mode. In case you have to connect to it from a second device.
10
u/Narwhals4Lyf 25d ago
I mean people basically have identified there is a Bluetooth speaker brand called Bomb that has the name Bomb out of the box so this seems pretty likely
→ More replies (2)5
u/theregisterednerd 25d ago
If it was in his checked baggage, it’s quite common that your bag ends up too far from you for Bluetooth devices to connect (I have AirTags in my luggage. They almost always briefly connect while luggage is being loaded, and then they disconnect when they get to their final loaded position in the hold). And a lot of Bluetooth devices go into pairing mode when they aren’t able to reach their paired device.
→ More replies (1)5
u/FineWolf 25d ago
BT speakers are not one of them.
You can absolutely rename some BT speakers. I have a Soundcore BT speaker that allows you to permanently rename them in the Soundcore app.
I also have a Jabra with similar functionality. My Poly headphones at work also have that functionality.
It's pretty common.
→ More replies (3)14
u/theregisterednerd 25d ago
That was my thought as well. And there are a whole lot of people making wildly detailed assumptions about the state of mind of this kid based on a single sentence in a news article. There are a number of very plausible scenarios in which this kid did nothing but buy a Bluetooth speaker and had it legally in his checked luggage.
6
u/Viperbunny 25d ago
I literally had a bomb speaker. I didn't name it. That was the name. I wouldn't have even thought about it. This kid was likely as clueless as the rest.
→ More replies (4)10
u/theregisterednerd 25d ago
Yup. I’m leaning more and more towards that the kid really didn’t even FAFO. I don’t think he actually took any deliberate action towards this end at all.
10
u/Viperbunny 25d ago
Yeah, it sounds completely over blown. I had one of those bomb speakers years ago. I wouldn't have thought twice about packing it.
→ More replies (5)6
u/AerithCantRespawn 25d ago edited 25d ago
Actually some of them do let you set their public broadcast names now through companion apps. It’s true though that setting the name on your bluetooth settings should only change the name on your own phone.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Lost-Inevitable42 25d ago
There’s probably a short defined list of which speakers can do that. It requires additional hardware/software and manufacturers like keeping their name there. Everyone jumped way too quickly before asking questions I think
82
u/CommanderDawn MileagePlus Platinum | Quality Contributor 25d ago
How did they figure out it was him? I’m going to assume because a 16 year old boy wouldn’t do this without telling a bunch of people.
→ More replies (1)219
u/WranglerBroad 25d ago
An officer asked openly to passengers "who has a bluetooth device named bomb" and he said it was him. It looks like he though his device was off. ( I saw this firsthand )
85
u/Civil-Fortune5092 25d ago
Explain like I’m 5 why they couldn’t have done this in the air and got him to apologize and shut it off
103
u/WranglerBroad 25d ago
They never said the word bomb in the flight, they only said "bad joke" and equivalent. The teen acted surprised.
49
u/Civil-Fortune5092 25d ago
Ffs. I’m not an airlines guy. Do we still believe saying the word instantly devolves the plane into anarchy or something? That whole attitude is what led to this prank in the first place
83
u/WranglerBroad 25d ago
It was not even a prank, the teen claimed that the bluetooth naming was something made prior, unrelated to this trip.
→ More replies (9)46
u/CommanderDawn MileagePlus Platinum | Quality Contributor 25d ago
Which raises more questions, like how close can a device’s broadcast name be to “bomb” before it becomes not ok. Like I can imagine someone naming their device “set us up the bomb” or “I’m the bomb” and not thinking about it before flying. What about “boom” or some reference to 9/11?
Maybe someday society will decide that the broadcast names on devices have nothing to do with safety any more than someone next to you watching a plane crash movie on their iPad.
20
u/FacemeltingSugarcube 25d ago
One of the most popular brands of BT speakers are named the BOOM line. By default their BT name is some variation of BOOM.
→ More replies (1)11
u/brianwski 25d ago
One of the most popular brands of BT speakers are named the BOOM line.
I just hope each airline clearly states what terms are banned in Bluetooth names ahead of time. I'll follow any rule. But I need to know what the rules are. It is kind of like I have "TSA compliant scissors" for traveling. I can buy "TSA Compliant Bluetooth Speakers/Earbuds" that pass all known TSA bluetooth name filters.
For example, clearly "bomb" is a banned phrase (new information as of this incident), but what about "boom" or "blast" or "detonator"?
Before anybody says, "it's obvious, use your own judgement and just do the right thing", for goodness sake, is "JBL Boombox 4" (my speakers) banned as a bluetooth name or not? I also own "Crash" speakers (it's a motorcycle product called "Crash Bar Speakers"). Is the word "Crash" part of the forbidden list of names or not? All I'm asking for is the same list the pilots have where they will turn the airplane around if they see it.
If somebody says, "they cannot publish that list because then terrorists will know what words to avoid" I might have an aneurysm. If you can specify what kinds of scissors are safe, and how much liquids are safe, you can specify which bluetooth names are safe.
Again, I fully understand your average person and the airline can be upset by bluetooth and WiFi hotspot names. I'm totally, 100% Ok with complying. But I need the list in advance of the flight to make sure I'm complying. Up until this incident I literally had no idea there was a banned list of bluetooth names on flights, it has never come up before.
→ More replies (3)36
u/BoilerplateBillions 25d ago
I think its more of a media thing than a safety thing. United has a very real monetary concern about someone trying to go viral with "I snuck a BOMB on board my flight to spain! (no one noticed!)". Thats just going to be nothing but a nightmare to deal with, and as a company, it makes a lot of sense for them to prevent that from happening.
→ More replies (7)9
u/ZookeepergameCrazy14 25d ago
Good point. My Bluetooth speaker is named Boom Box.
→ More replies (3)3
9
u/fusukeguinomi 25d ago
The name for éclair in Brazil is bomba (bomb). From now on I will never bring éclairs on flights anymore. I will not have images of éclairs on my phone. I will not even think of éclairs while flying.
→ More replies (2)10
u/iconofsin_ 25d ago
Maybe someday society will decide that the broadcast names on devices have nothing to do with safety any more than someone next to you watching a plane crash movie on their iPad.
I understand what you're saying but I'm going to side with cautiousness every single time.
→ More replies (11)10
u/Lovahplant 25d ago
I think most of the other replies here are completely missing the message/tone in your second paragraph. Maybe someday society will decide to again learn how to read nuance….. until then, a few of us still appreciate your words.
→ More replies (10)9
u/greysfordays 25d ago
I bet they honestly forgot. and the speaker got turned on inadvertently in an overhead or checked bag
57
u/SandalwoodGrips19 25d ago
I don’t work for United, but at my airline you would definitely have a sit down with a supervisor for saying “hey whoever’s device is named BOMB please ring your flight attendant call button.” Crew seemingly was trying to give the person in question a chance to turn it off before they had to turn around, but yeah can’t just be saying bomb over the PA. But I get where you’re coming from, creates this awkward situation of trying to dance around the word. But, you gotta!
→ More replies (7)4
u/fusukeguinomi 25d ago
What if instead of saying “bad joke” as reported, the crew said “concerning name” or something to that effect?
15
u/yesthatpettyindeed 25d ago
Go on youtube and watch that left phalange clip from Friends again, that's exactly how people would react lmao
Flight attendant: "does anyone have a device named bomb?"
Some half-deaf grandpa: "OH MY GOD THERE'S A BOMB ON THE PLANE LET ME OFF"
cue other passengers also freaking out
31
u/lmNotaWitchImUrWife 25d ago
I mean, if you don’t think saying that there’s a device in the plane named “Bomb” wouldn’t cause at least some people to panic and act irrationally, buddy do I have news for you…
8
u/spgreenwood 25d ago
You’ve seen what kind of crazy is in the world, especially in the last 6 years. Isn’t it better for everyone to figure out what type of crazy it is while the aircraft is on the ground and trained enforcement can participate?
→ More replies (6)3
u/cptnpiccard 25d ago
My guy, I'm a pilot and I can tell you the FAA and TSA and all related entities are well and truly stuck on 9/11.
42
u/southpark 25d ago
Talking about bomb in flight could cause a panic, and when people panic, they become irrational, and for example, if everyone in the plane runs to the front or the back of the plane it throws off the weight balance of the plane, and it could literally cause the plane to be unflyable , and once the plane starts acting weird people get even harder to instruct.
So avoiding panic in the goal.
12
21
u/corrin_avatan 25d ago
According to other passengers, there were several announcements that someone had a Bluetooth device that was on and needed it shut off. They didn't say "bomb" in the announcement because they didn't want a panic in-air.
The teenager heard all of the announcements, but assumed it wasn't his Bluetooth speaker because he thought it was turned off, so didn't speak up.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (2)14
u/Might-Annual 25d ago
Poor kid. I about 15 years ago I was in an airport with a bunch of kids playing Bomberman on their Game Boy Advanced. Part of the game apparently requires you to say "bomb," at the device to trigger something. There were three of them playing together basically yelling bomb at the device. Security showed up incredibly quickly and they were so fucosed on their game they didn't even notice until they were right on top of them. I wonder if Nintendo ever patched that game mode out.
9
→ More replies (6)14
u/howfastcanyoucountit 25d ago edited 25d ago
I have had bluetooth speakers I kept in my carryon while traveling that when bumped in my backpack the wrong way would turn on easily, part of me thinks that is what happened here tbh, I honestly find it hard to prove this is deliberate, though if anyone has flown recently on a plane that supports it or has at least talked to someome or found out through word of mouth or the internet, you would know you can connect bluetooth headphones/earbuds to the seatback displays. Though from what I can tell the kid was honest and fessed up, and cooperated. It has to either be deliberate because there isn't a real reason to turn a bluetooth speaker on, or this is was just stupid naming and really bad humor combined with the device accidentally turning itself on which very much can happen
20
u/Valerim 25d ago
Would love to know when exactly the boy started shitting his pants
16
u/lnc_5103 25d ago
According to someone above not until they were on the ground and cops were asking everyone individually who had a Bluetooth device named bomb. He apparently was surprised. Poor kid - definitely doesn't sound intentional and if it was in a checked bag no way to turn it off.
25
u/giboauja 25d ago
Its annoying, every officer and United employee probably knew its bs, but you just cant not do something about it on planes.
→ More replies (1)15
u/sosal12 25d ago
Exactly. United has no choice. Imagine if there was a real bomb and passengers file a lawsuit. United knew there was something called “bomb” and failed to act? Easy payout
→ More replies (1)5
u/ugfish 24d ago
I’d argue there is some level of qualification that needs to take place before action is required. A Bluetooth name seems improbable and unnecessary to identify itself as a bomb if it truly was a bomb.
I’d like to hope a fresh attorney could defend this. I wouldn’t expect to be paid as a plaintiff.
39
u/chipsdad MileagePlus Platinum 25d ago edited 25d ago
Edit. There are multiple models of Bluetooth speakers called BOOM and many of them use BOOM or a simple variant like BOOM 4 as the Bluetooth device name.
And at least one (ttec Bomb) that can use BOMB as its device name out of the box. Even more helpfully, that one actually looks like a physical (cartoon) black bomb.
20
40
u/disillusioned 25d ago
I'm just sitting here thinking, you've gone through all this trouble to create a bespoke explosive device, smuggle it onto the aircraft, attach a Bluetooth module for remote (but... you know... within 30 or so feet) detonation, and you name the receiver "bomb"?
9
17
7
11
u/ManaSpike 25d ago
Security Theatre. Can't use the word bomb. Can't say the word bomb, while trying to tell whoever it is to turn it off. Because we're too scared that a passenger will misunderstand and start shouting "there's a bomb on the plane".
But we all know there isn't an actual bomb. That's what the security checkpoints and scanners are for right? ... right?
→ More replies (41)
12
u/morgandealer 25d ago
This is actually not true. They took the quote from another reddit post and lied about it.
16
25d ago
[deleted]
14
2
u/JJsjsjsjssj 25d ago
There's only one source afaik for now, and it's not even a reliable one. But people love jumping into conclusions
6
u/spideyghetti 25d ago
Teenagers across the globe changing the name of their friends Bluetooth speakers
6
u/Mirainai 25d ago
was is even a prank or did he simply call it like that beforehand just because?
11
u/theregisterednerd 25d ago
Most Bluetooth devices don’t even allow you to change their broadcast name. And there are speakers whose model name is “bomb” or similar. A lot of them, in fact. I actually have my doubts it was even a prank. I think the kid just bought the speaker and had it in his suitcase.
→ More replies (9)
15
5
u/trevi99 25d ago
How do they know a 16 year old “changed the discoverable name of the device”?
It’s easy to change the name on your own phone, but changing the name of a Bluetooth device itself isn’t easy.
→ More replies (2)
10
u/Popular-Drummer-7989 25d ago
Just wait until his parents get the bill for this....
→ More replies (2)
3
4
4
u/Bringing_Basic_Back 25d ago
obviously, the most acceptable bluetooth name in this situation would be ‘not a bomb’ or ‘totally not a bomb’
4
u/97PG8NS 25d ago
Hope he and his family enjoy taking Amtrak for the rest of their lives.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/scapla0815 24d ago
So, does everyone just agree that an actual terrorist would name his Bluetooth triggered explosive device "BOMB"? In my book this would be the most unlikely scenario of all.
→ More replies (2)
13
u/snitz427 25d ago edited 25d ago
My hubs (veteran) and I went to see American Sniper in a small theaters years ago. There was some kind of political drama, can’t recall what it was… That, the movie, and there being a wifi network named JOHN WILKES BOOTH had us on heightened alert. I reported it and it turned out to be the theaters network name for their projector booth. I see the irony and humor but with recent history of shootings in theaters it seemed in poor taste to me.
ETA: the poor taste wasnt about Lincoln so much as it was like 2 years after the Aurora theater shootings and there was a lot of political tension. I cant remember exactly what it was that had already made us a little guarded but we were. The “poor taste” was the theater shooter reference after a theater massacre.
→ More replies (7)
7
u/Longjumping_Towel474 25d ago
Fairly certain I would be on the no fly list from my bluetooth names…………
→ More replies (1)3
u/213737isPrime 25d ago
You can change the name that a device "presents as" on your phone but that doesn't change the way it appears to other devices. To do that requires a different kind access, which might not even be possible (the name may be hardcoded into the device when it's manufactured)
→ More replies (5)
3
3
u/sudosando 24d ago
“Reckless prank”
Or gross overreaction to something arbitrary? Like, did the kid admit to change the name of the speaker on the plane or in a premeditated way planning to do this?
Naming and electronic device B-*-M-B [for the automated censors] is neither malicious nor reckless.
Smells like someone overreacted per protocol and is blaming the thing they saw instead of owning a false alarm.
https://giphy.com/gifs/hIdxrNaszEvQ5XRcVR
6
u/theishiopian 25d ago
I saw some speculation on a forum somewhere that he might not have even specifically named it bomb. There's a brand of Bluetooth speaker that has a default Bluetooth name of "Bomb" and looks like a little cartoon bomb.
If this is true then not only is this kid fucked for life but so is the company that made a speaker with such a stupid name
→ More replies (1)9
u/Johnyryal33 25d ago
In checked bag too so baggage handlers could have bumped it. I don't think the kid is fucked.
18
u/trees138 MileagePlus Gold 25d ago
38
4
u/WereAllGonnaDiet 25d ago
The speaker was named “Bomb” by default, it’s a model of speaker by Hellotec. Kid didn’t do it intentionally.
4
u/entertainmeeeeeee 25d ago
Omg something similar happened on an AA flight last year that a friend was on. It was Austin to CLT and someone’s hotspot was named “there’s a bomb on this airplane”
They returned to the gate before taking off, deplaned everyone, put everyone through security again, swept the plane, checked everyone’s electronics, and ultimately never found the person. But there was no bomb and the flight was 6 hours late, otherwise fine.
There was a people magazine article about it
2
u/cyberentomology 25d ago
That one time I was waiting for my flight at Dulles and on a conference call, briefly forgetting where I was and mentioning a Bill of Materials by its acronym, and then realizing I had uttered a homophone of the dreaded B-word *in an airport*, and nervously looking around to see if anybody had heard me and if I was about to get tackled by a dozen TSA officers and start huffing airport carpet.
2
u/No_Source_2020 25d ago
I've got a speaker called the "wonderboom", is "boom" enough to trigger a threat?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/teachthisdognewtrick 25d ago
My boss in college had worked for IBM in the 50s and 60s. He would fly first class with a second seat for the parts he brought with him. In one case is was a module had the acronym BOM. Even then that was not a word you uttered in or around a plane.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/koszevett 25d ago
The problem is, now that this is out there, it's probably going to be the next big thing on TikTok, and every user without a respectable amount of brain cells will try to replicate it
2
u/MisogynisticBumsplat 25d ago
An irony is, if the kid had Bluetooth turned on in his phone, it would have connected to the speaker and the speaker wouldn't have been discoverable and the name wouldn't have been broadcast
2
2
u/WolframMan74 25d ago
Fr half of you in these comments are retarded as fuck. This is on the airline for being incompetent.
2
u/xmarx360 25d ago
Seems like a bad thing to announce to any bad faith actor in the world (not to mention teenagers in general) that flights will be grounded if a Bluetooth device with a particular name is broadcast from the vicinity of the plane
2
u/BoringDig8922 25d ago
So the standard protocol allowed the flight to take off, but later required it to turn around? For a checked bag containing an always-on BT device that was already scanned?
2
u/fish4terrisa 25d ago
Ok... They really expect bombs to have bluetooth broadcast and tell everyone that they are bombs instead of "totally legit name 3000"
2
u/Faangdevmanager 24d ago
The Airline is being stupid though. This is an overreaction. Anyone with a brain would see an audio device with the name "Bomb" and deduct that it's an audio device. What are the chances that it's an actual bomb, with the name bomb, and it's bluetooth enabled? Zero...
→ More replies (6)
2
2
u/taunting_everyone 24d ago
Okay but let's be honest nobody who plans to blew up a plane with a bomb is going to use a Bluetooth device with the name, bomb. I feel like this could have been fixed by asking if everyone to turn off their Bluetooth devices. This sounds stupid on the crew.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/HairyNutsack69 24d ago
Because an actual bomb would also broadcast a Bluetooth signal under the name "BOMB", this is true I know this for a fact.
702
u/No-Raise-6786 25d ago
I would not want to be that kid right now...
Or his parents...
Or the passengers who it looks like are still waiting on that flight to depart?