Irish airline Aer Lingus diverted its Dublin to Rome flight on Thursday morning following a hoax bomb threat.
"We've had bomb threats in flights and towards airports, but usually maybe a single copycat, one or two max.
Assessing security threats and implementing aviation security measures primarily falls to national authorities, working in coordination with airport operators, airlines and law enforcement.
Within the European Union, the European Commission is involved in aviation security policy and coordination between member states.
"As these staff have all have been trained to cope with such unexpected developments, the immediate safety threat from individual hoax threats is low.
Irish airline Aer Lingus diverted its Dublin to Rome flight on Thursday morning following a hoax bomb threat. Gary Chalker | Moment Unreleased | Getty Images
A spate of bomb threats against passenger flights has forced diversions, emergency landings and military escorts across European airspace this week, stoking fear among passengers and heaping pressure on airlines. Authorities have described the more than two dozen threats as malicious hoaxes, and no actual attacks have been carried out. But the incidents have highlighted the huge impact that even false claims can have on a tightly scheduled aviation network. "This is really quite exceptional, I've never seen this before in my whole career," Wilfried Covent, head of security firm Covent Consulting with a specialization in aviation, told CNBC by phone. "We've had bomb threats in flights and towards airports, but usually maybe a single copycat, one or two max. What we see now is a systematic attack on airlines and airports."
An email sent to European broadcasters on Friday claimed to be from the leader of the group behind the plane hoaxes and also said bombs had been placed in their buildings, prompting evacuations. No bombs were found at the sites. "What happened this week is just a small part of what awaits Europe in the near future," the message said, according to Reuters. The news agency said it could not verify the sender's identity, where the emails originated or whether they were linked to the threats against flights. Covent said the "criminals" — who many security analysts say are likely to be state-backed actors working in coordination to disrupt public life for Europeans, but have not been identified — were well aware that the "weakest point of aviation is targeting it in-flight." "With a threat on an airport or a general threat to aircraft, you can assess the situation without fully disrupting operations. When the threat is called on a specific flight number that is in the air, even with a hoax, that triggers international regulations which ensure you don't ignore it — it means a quick landing, evacuation and searches by specialist forces," he told CNBC. "For the context of an assessment, you cannot say that 20 times before it has been a hoax so this time it is a hoax, the safety of passengers and crew is priority number one. The criminals know that."
Coordinated response
Responsibility for dealing with hoax attacks is split, international agencies told CNBC. Assessing security threats and implementing aviation security measures primarily falls to national authorities, working in coordination with airport operators, airlines and law enforcement. Air traffic control will also be involved in finding aircraft with an appropriate place to land, while the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, or EASA and U.K.'s Civil Aviation Authority more broadly set aviation safety rules and set how airlines prepare their crews to respond to security threats. Within the European Union, the European Commission is involved in aviation security policy and coordination between member states. The operational decisions also depend on where the threat arises. Joji Waites, director of flight safety, policy and regulation at the British Air Line Pilots Association, said airline assessors grade a threat as red, amber or green, but that an amber verdict would never be given if the plane is airborne. If assessors judge a threat credible, the crew is informed and the captain takes command of decisions for the aircraft, guided by company procedures. On the ground, that may mean an evacuation, while in the air the priority is to land as soon and as safely as possible.
As well as the fear and disruption to specific flights, each diversion can then affect the next flight scheduled to use that aircraft, the crew's working hours and passengers with connections. The network effect can be significant. Philip Baum, a visiting professor of aviation security at Coventry University, told AP that a single diversion could cost an airline as much as $250,000, including replacement crews, missed connections and disruption to the rest of the day's schedule. "Diversions necessitated by these bomb threats are a disturbance to a system designed for predictability and efficiency, and lead to increased workload for pilots, Air Traffic Controllers and airports," an EASA spokesperson said in emailed comments. "As these staff have all have been trained to cope with such unexpected developments, the immediate safety threat from individual hoax threats is low. However, the higher number of diversions places an additional strain on the system."
What can change?
