Actually it sounds like today's hijackers were indeed that dumb, they just managed to be circling over an airport by the time they ran out of fuel. (Or perhaps that wasn't a surprise to them and they knew they'd be safe over Geneva?)
I still can't imagine anyone obeying hijackers anymore. If someone got up on a plane and said he had a bomb, I'd be running toward him to knock him down and incapacitate (ideally, by killing) before he'd even stopped with his announcement. I'm pretty sure on most US airlines I'd be blocked by a bunch of other passengers doing the same thing.
9/11 really screwed things for hijackers.
(EDIT: appears it was the co-pilot, and the reinforced door installed after 9/11 actually allowed him to keep the real pilot out! So at least it wasn't an EgyptAir 990 situation either...)
That's certainly the common thought (that it would be impossible), but does it hold up in practice?
Let's say a repeat of 9/11 happened, then judging by expected outcomes it would definitely be better to all rush the hijackers, even if half the plane died in subduing them it would be better than everyone dying (and more on the ground) if you let them do what they want.
Today's example on the other hand, the best case scenario is what ended up happening (the hijacker/s don't have the goal of killing people, so there's a reasonable chance that everyone can survive), therefore is it worth taking the risk to stop them? In this situation, even one person dying while preventing them from taking control of the plane can actually be a worse outcome than leaving them to their negotiations.
In terms of mathematical outcomes it's hard to say which course of action would be better: firstly because you couldn't give accurate probabilities, and secondly because the expected outcome might not match the best bet. For example, if preventing hijackers gives a 95% chance that at least one person dies, and leaving them to it gives a 1% chance that 50 people die, then played out over 1000s of times you're actually better not doing anything, but over a single time is it worth taking that risk?
And then past that, even if these numbers were easy to analyse, how will people on board react when a.) emotions are running high and b.) rather than typing at my desk at work, I'm confronted with the situation that I'm the one risking my life to stop them. Even if I knew the odds meant they really needed to be stopped, I'm not sure I'd have the balls to run at men with weapons.
It's entirely possible it's not the right course of action, but it's reflex. Now that it's known terrorists view aircraft as weapons, even taking control of the aircraft is a deadly threat.
The weapons usually used to control an aircraft are the threat of bombs. A fake bomb is just as effective as a real bomb, and vastly easier to bring onboard, so it seems rational to presume any bomb threat is fake. To a first approximation, hijacker in a plane aisle is a problem of running at him and tackling, which is about the easiest possible thing to do.
Nit, just for the record, the article is in German, not French. But of course the error is perfectly understandable if the posters above are from non-European-language speaking countries.
I happened to be at the airport when it happened (still am). We got to hear that the airport closed due to "Operational problems". Plenty vague, but the internets prevails.
@cnnbrk reported this an hour after it happened [1]. I turned CNN on the television and they were showing an Anthony Bourdain show. Google News showed only 5 results.
Meanwhile, Twitter was streaming with links to flight maps and other updates.
I realize news media might have to do more due diligence before reporting but from the face of it they seemed completely unaware.
(Hijackers were too dumb to understand fuel loading policies; aircraft ended up ditching into the Indian Ocean. Amazingly, 50 pax survived.)