Bomb Threats Disrupt European Flights for Third Time This Week

Preface

A wave of bomb threats has disrupted air travel across Europe, affecting at least 18 aircraft and prompting diversions, fighter-jet escorts, and extensive security inspections. The incidents mark the second large-scale episode reported this week, following earlier threats against European flights. UK officials have described the warnings as a malicious hoax, while emphasizing that every report must be treated seriously until checks are complete. No explosives were found during the searches described in the reports. The affected routes connected airports in multiple countries, and airlines and authorities took different precautionary steps depending on each flight’s circumstances. It remains unclear whether the threats are linked, coordinated, or the result of copycat activity. This article summarizes the reported incidents, the response from airlines and governments, and expert views on the risks posed by repeated false alarms.

Lazy bag

At least 18 aircraft were targeted by threats across Europe, including flights serving Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, France, Italy, Poland, and Romania. Some flights diverted or received military escorts, while others landed as planned and underwent inspections. Authorities and airlines reported finding no explosives or hazardous items in the searches described. UK Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander called the threats a “malicious hoax,” but officials stressed that established response procedures remain essential. Experts warn that repeated false alarms can strain security systems, risk complacency, or potentially serve as a diversion. Whether the incidents are connected has not been established.

Main Body

At least 18 aircraft across Europe were targeted by bomb threats, in what was described as the second incident of this scale during the week. The warnings affected flights bound for Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, France, Italy, Poland, and Romania. Responses included precautionary diversions, fighter-jet escorts, airport inspections, and security screenings of aircraft and baggage. Authorities reported that searches found no explosives or other hazardous items in the cases outlined.

One of the affected aircraft was Aer Lingus flight EI402 from Dublin to Rome. The airline said the flight diverted to Normandy as a security precaution and landed safely. It added that it was working to re-accommodate customers so they could reach their final destination as soon as possible. The report also described the aircraft as having been diverted to a military air base in France. The precautionary landing highlighted how an unverified threat can alter a flight’s route even before investigators establish whether it is credible.

Two Finnair flights that departed Helsinki landed at their destinations as normal, according to the airline. One arrived at Rome’s Fiumicino airport with an escort from Italian Air Force fighter jets, while the other landed in Vienna. The escort was a visible security measure, but the flight’s scheduled landing was not reported as disrupted. Italian authorities’ response demonstrated that security actions can differ between flights depending on the information available and the judgment of relevant agencies.

Wizz Air reported that two flights departing Milan were affected. One flight, bound for Warsaw, diverted to Vienna. The other landed safely at Henri Coandă Airport in Bucharest, where teams inspected the aircraft. In Poland, LOT flight from Warsaw to Brussels landed as planned, and the airline said that no suspicious items had been found. A separate LOT flight from Warsaw to Paris was stopped on the runway before take-off. The aircraft and its baggage were screened, with no hazardous items discovered.

Three Ryanair flights were reported by Bulgarian media to have landed in Bulgaria after being escorted by Bulgarian Air Force fighter jets. One arrived from Copenhagen and another from Madrid at Sofia, the capital. A third flight, travelling from London and bound for Sofia, landed in Plovdiv. Separately, a Ryanair flight from Porto in Portugal landed in Milan as planned. Italy’s Ansa news agency reported that bomb-disposal experts checked the aircraft after arrival.

Prague police said no explosives were found on four flights that landed in the Czech capital. EasyJet later confirmed that two of its flights, from Newcastle and Glasgow, were among those affected by what it called a “security related matter.” The airline said passengers on both flights disembarked normally. Czech police met the aircraft after arrival as a precautionary measure. The available accounts did not establish whether those flights were directly connected to other reports or whether they received the same threat information.

Aegean Airlines said it had been informed of a bomb threat concerning two flights: one from Thessaloniki in Greece to Milan, and another from Athens to Vienna. The company said both aircraft departed from their respective airports after required procedures were completed and the threats were confirmed to be unfounded. The airline’s statement illustrates a common pattern in such incidents: officials and operators complete prescribed safety checks before allowing flights to continue, even when initial warnings later prove false.

Spain’s airport authority said it received threats affecting three flights at Madrid airport. Inspections ruled out any threat. Iberia subsequently said two of its flights were affected: Milan–Madrid and Rome–Madrid. It was not clear whether the third aircraft was the Ryanair flight reported as travelling from Madrid to Sofia. The uncertainty over this flight’s identity shows why early accounts of a fast-moving security incident can differ, and why confirmed information may emerge gradually from airlines and airport authorities.

Italian authorities in Rome said the hoax threats against two inbound flights on Thursday had arrived by email. The warnings were signed in the name of a group or individual calling themselves “Fighters of the Male State.” The messages claimed to target a “feminist regime,” said the sender wanted to “make our mark on history,” and threatened to “turn the skies red” with explosions. Italian media first reported these details; Aeroporti di Roma, the company that manages both of Rome’s airports, later confirmed them to the BBC. The language and claimed motive in the messages were reported as part of the investigation, but do not by themselves establish who sent them or whether the threats were coordinated.

UK Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander described Thursday’s reports as “malicious hoax threats.” She said the government was taking them seriously and pointed to established processes for handling hoax and malicious threats. A UK government spokesperson later said threats reported “in the early hours” had been “resolved,” without providing further details. The government’s public statements conveyed both the assessment that the warnings were hoaxes and the need to follow security procedures rather than dismiss them prematurely.

The incidents came after earlier threats against European flights. Two days before the latest reports, eight flights, including two from the UK, were targeted by suspected bomb threats. Searches found no explosives on any of those aircraft. On Tuesday, seven planes were searched after threats were made. On Monday, a Wizz Air flight travelling from London Luton Airport to Sofia was escorted by a Hungarian fighter jet to Budapest after a mid-air bomb threat. These separate reports add context to the week’s pattern, but do not prove that the incidents share a source.

Philip Baum, professor of aviation security at the University of Coventry, said the aviation industry “faces multiple bomb threats every single day,” but that he had been “surprised” by the incidents this week. He explained that a flight is diverted “only when the threat is credible and the authorities believe there is a potential of explosive device on board.” This distinction is important: a diversion is a precaution based on an assessment of risk, not confirmation that an explosive device has been found.

Baum also warned that a high volume of false reports can create a dangerous environment. If enough hoax threats are made, he said, complacency could set in and a genuine warning could be ignored; alternatively, false reports could be intended to divert attention or resources. The challenge for aviation security is therefore to maintain consistent checks without assuming that every threat is either genuine or harmless before evidence is assessed.

Marco Chan, an aviation expert at Kingston University, told the BBC that the warnings were “most likely a hoax,” while adding that the system was right to treat them as real. He said some experts viewed them as “possibly part of a pattern of cheap, deniable disruption” to air travel. Chan also noted that hoaxes can be copied by others, but said “three days of incidents is too small a sample to separate coordination from contagion.” In other words, the reported timing alone does not establish whether the events were organized by one actor or influenced by imitation.

Taken together, the reports show the operational impact of threats that have not produced evidence of explosives. Flights were diverted, stopped before take-off, escorted by military aircraft, or inspected after landing. Passengers and airlines faced delays and changes to travel plans, while authorities had to assess each warning and complete appropriate checks. The lack of findings in searches is reassuring, but does not eliminate the need for careful response. Investigators would need reliable evidence to determine whether the emails and other threats were connected, who was responsible, and whether the incidents were intended as disruption, imitation, or something else.

Key Insights Table