More than 20 flights across Europe experienced disruption due to bomb threats during the week ending November 5, 2026. On Thursday alone, over a dozen flights were affected, with four diversions in the Czech Republic and two in Italy, according to airport and law enforcement sources.
Details of the Bomb Threats and Origins
Czech and Italian authorities confirmed the bomb threats were delivered primarily via anonymous emails. Václav Havel Airport in Prague received threat emails regarding bombs on four flights. Similarly, Italy’s Rome Fiumicino Airport was targeted by an anti-feminist extremist group known as “The Male State,” which sent emails falsely claiming explosives had been placed on
two flights departing from Helsinki and Dublin. Italian officials verified the authenticity of these emails as reported by SkyTG24.
“The Male State” is a misogynistic group formed in Russia in 2016, banned and labelled extremist by Russian courts in 2021. The group has a history of promoting extremist views and is linked to ongoing tensions in the region.
Flight Diversions and Passenger Impact
The bomb threats forced multiple flight diversions. An Aer Lingus flight originally scheduled to fly to Rome was rerouted to France. Additionally, two flights from Spain and Denmark were diverted to Sofia, Bulgaria. Passengers and crew on at least 14 planes faced
delays and rerouting on Thursday alone.
Authorities in some countries scrambled fighter jets in response to the perceived threat, adding an extra layer of disruption to European air travel. The threats caused operational challenges but no explosives were found in any of the incidents.
Official Responses and Security Measures
Airport officials stressed that all European airports maintain bomb threat management plans and conduct regular training to address such situations. Keith Jeffries, former Federal Security Director at Los Angeles International Airport, noted, “No aviation authority will ever ignore a bomb threat,” emphasizing preparedness for rapid response.
A Czech Police spokesperson confirmed receipt of the anonymous emails
at Václav Havel Airport and multiple other airports across Europe. In Italy, a Rome Fiumicino Airport spokesperson authenticated the threat email sent by “The Male State.” The UK’s Transport Minister, Heidi Alexander, described the threats as “malicious hoax” and stated, “established processes for dealing with hoax and malicious threats” were activated.
Background and Possible Motives
No official state or group has been definitively identified as responsible for the bomb threats. The European Union stated it was premature to determine any coordination between incidents. Security analysts suggest the threats could be part of a broader hybrid campaign targeting European infrastructure.
Eric Schouten, head of aviation
security firm Dyami, asserted the incidents align with disruption patterns linked to Russian state actors. He said, “From railways to the food infrastructure that you see happening with the fridges being hacked and all kinds of other operations, it does fit the narrative of Russian state actors who want to disturb Europe.” Many affected countries have openly supported Ukraine in its conflict with Russia.
Eliran Almog, CEO of aviation cybersecurity company Cyviation, pointed out the timing coincides with cyberattacks on supermarket refrigeration systems across Europe, suggesting coordinated disruptive activity: “These aviation threats are also occurring in the same period as
cyberattacks on supermarket refrigeration systems across Europe.”
Threat Verification and Minimizing Impact
All bomb threats have been confirmed false following searches that found no explosives. Authorities continue investigations, while flight operations carry on under stringent security protocols to reduce disruption to passengers and crew.
The coordinated email threats primarily aimed to disrupt air travel and test airport and airline response mechanisms across multiple countries. Despite the scale of the threats this week, swift action and established procedures have contained the operational impact.
