OMM Newsroom
Bomb threats targeting passenger flights in Europe have disrupted air travel, with some aircraft diverted to other airports, airport operations suspended and military aircraft deployed to escort planes. Inspections found no explosives.
At least seven flights were targeted on Tuesday alone, Reuters reported. No one has claimed responsibility, and authorities have not publicly identified any suspects.
The incidents raise questions about aviation security: how should governments respond to threats that may be false but cannot safely be ignored?
Flights inspected in six countries
Two Ryanair aircraft were inspected at Rome’s Fiumicino Airport on Tuesday. The first flight, from Lisbon, landed at 09:40 Central European Time, while the second, from Dublin, landed at 10:30. The Italian Air Force escorted the second aircraft.
Airport operator ADR said both planes, their luggage, passengers and crew members were checked, after which the alerts were called off. ADR also confirmed that the airport itself was not targeted and that other flights were not affected. Both threats were reported by email, the Associated Press said.
Security protocols were activated at Spain’s Murcia Airport after a bomb threat targeting a Ryanair flight from Manchester on Nov. 3. Francisco Lucas, a representative of the regional government, said all 121 people on board — 114 passengers and seven crew members — were taken off the plane for checks, and the aircraft was searched.
Bulgaria’s Transport Ministry reported threats against two flights. One was a Ryanair aircraft carrying 185 passengers from Dublin to Sofia; the other was a Wizz Air flight from Milan Bergamo with 176 people on board. Both planes landed safely, and inspections found no explosives.
A day earlier, a Wizz Air aircraft flying from London to Sofia was diverted to Budapest under escort from a Hungarian Gripen fighter jet, Hungary’s defense minister said.
In Poland, a LOT flight from London made an unscheduled landing at Warsaw Modlin Airport. Airport operations were suspended until midday while security teams inspected the plane, and passengers waited in the arrivals hall during the checks.
An SAS aircraft from Copenhagen also landed at Warsaw Chopin Airport for an inspection. SAS confirmed the plane landed safely, while Polish authorities said the threat was unfounded. The airport continued operating.
Before these incidents, on Oct. 18, an Austrian Airlines flight from Tel Aviv to Vienna received a bomb threat while flying over Romania and was diverted to Sofia. Bulgaria’s Transport Ministry said a Bulgarian MiG-29 fighter jet escorted the aircraft.
The Airbus A320 landed about 30 minutes later. Its 51 passengers and six crew members were evacuated. No threat was found during the inspection, and the aircraft later continued its flight to Vienna.
A threat alert triggers a large-scale response
The impact of this wave of threats stems not from what security teams have found, but from the scale of the response each alert triggers. Sending a threatening email costs almost nothing, but recent incidents have prompted military escorts in three countries, airport closures, temporary runway shutdowns and checks on hundreds of passengers.
Under aviation security procedures, every credible threat must be treated as potentially real until inspections are complete. The ability to trigger a broad and costly response with minimal effort can therefore make bomb threats an attractive tactic for those seeking to cause chaos rather than casualties.
Eric Schouten, head of aviation security company Dyami, told Reuters that the pattern “fits the narrative of Russian state actors seeking to cause disruption in Europe.” However, he did not present evidence linking Moscow to the incidents.
European officials have previously accused Russia and Iran of carrying out “hybrid attacks” and sabotage operations across the continent. Both countries have denied the allegations.
Research indicates that such activity has increased in recent years. A study by Seth G. Jones of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), published in March 2025, recorded 34 attacks and plots in Europe linked to Russia in 2024, compared with 12 such incidents in 2023.
Transport infrastructure, including aircraft, accounted for 27 percent of the targets. The report said the operations typically caused few casualties, suggesting an effort to keep costs low while making it harder to determine responsibility.
The International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, based in the Netherlands, said in February 2026 that Russia had been linked to at least 151 hostile operations in Europe since February 2022. Its report included only cases in which responsibility could be confidently established, including drone sightings near airports and GPS jamming.
Neither study examined the recent bomb threats. No agency has linked the current incidents to a foreign government.
False bomb threats recorded in India in 2024 illustrate the risks of drawing conclusions before investigations are complete. According to figures compiled by Indian media, 999 false threats had been recorded by mid-November that year.
Investigators traced some emails to a Russian IP address and a connection to Budapest, but a 17-year-old accused of using a fake social media account was also among the suspects. Most of those responsible were not identified.
India’s experience has shown that large-scale false threat campaigns can involve individuals, copycats and potentially organized groups, making it harder to identify those responsible. Investigations can take months, and some cases may never be solved.
Investigations into the latest threats in several European countries are ongoing. In Poland, police are investigating the alert concerning the SAS flight.
For airlines and governments, the challenge is that every alert requires security measures, even if the threat later proves false. At the same time, every diversion, evacuation and airport closure demonstrates how easily air travel can be disrupted.
Until investigators identify those responsible, Europe’s aviation sector will have to seek a difficult balance between protecting passengers and preventing anonymous threats from repeatedly grounding flights.
