A thirteen-year-old passenger was prohibited from boarding a British Airways flight to Alicante following the utterance of a security-sensitive term.

一名 13 歲的乘客因說出涉及安全的敏感詞彙，而被禁止登上前往阿里坎特的英國航空航班。

The incident occurred at Gatwick Airport when Mason Entwistle, a minor diagnosed with Tourette syndrome, repeatedly vocalized the word 'bomb' at the departure gate. Despite the presence of a sunflower lanyard and formal diagnostic documentation, as well as a prior notification provided by the father to airline personnel regarding the child's condition, the airline deemed the vocalizations a security risk. This necessitated the intervention of a duty manager and the subsequent involvement of armed police, who escorted the minor and three family members from the terminal.

該事件發生於蓋特威克機場，當時一名被診斷患有妥瑞氏症的未成年人 Mason Entwistle 在出發登機門反覆說出「炸彈」一詞。儘管該名乘客配戴了向日葵識別飾帶並持有正式診斷證明，且其父親先前已向航空公司人員告知孩子的情況，航空公司仍認為這些發聲構成安全風險。這導致值日經理介入，隨後武裝警察到場，將該未成年人及其三名家屬陪同離開航廈。

Stakeholder positions diverge regarding the causality of the boarding refusal. The Entwistle family alleges discriminatory treatment, noting that the child's vocalizations were involuntary tics exacerbated by flight-related anxiety. Conversely, British Airways maintains that the decision was predicated exclusively on safety protocols and the perceived threat posed by the specific language used, rather than the passenger's disability. Furthermore, a dispute arose concerning the family's eligibility for alternative transport; the airline allegedly denied a transfer based on a claim that the father refused to vacate the boarding bridge, a contention the father denies.

相關方對於拒絕登機的因果關係看法分歧。Entwistle 家屬指控遭遇歧視，指出孩子的發聲是因飛行相關焦慮而加劇的不隨意抽搐。相反地，英國航空堅持該決定完全基於安全協議以及特定用語所構成的潛在威脅，而非針對乘客的身心障礙。此外，關於家屬是否有權使用替代交通工具也產生爭議；據稱航空公司以其父親拒絕離開登機橋為由拒絕轉機，但其父親否認此說法。

Financial implications for the family included an initial expenditure of £4,000 for a group of ten, followed by an additional £2,400 for replacement flights via Vueling and overnight hotel accommodations. It is reported that British Airways has since offered a refund for the original tickets.

該家庭面臨的財務影響包括最初 10 人的支出 4,000 英鎊，隨後又額外支付 2,400 英鎊購買 Vueling 的替代航班及支付過夜酒店住宿。據報導，英國航空隨後已提出退還原機票費用。

The family eventually reached their destination via an alternative carrier, while the airline maintains the necessity of its security measures.

該家庭最終透過另一家航空公司抵達目的地，而航空公司則堅持其安全措施的必要性。