Avianca and multiple outlets report that Colombian airline Avianca terminated its transportation contract with influencer Yeferson Cossio and canceled his return segment after an in‑flight incident on a March 11 Bogotá–Madrid flight. Both sides agree that a device or artifact that emits a chemical odor was activated on board, causing discomfort and concern among passengers and crew and prompting the airline to classify Cossio’s behavior as disruptive and a potential risk to safety and order. Coverage notes that Avianca has announced legal actions or formal complaints related to the episode, while Cossio, through social media and a formal statement, denies acting maliciously, insists he did not intend a prank that endangered anyone, and hints he will provide his full version in a longer video.

Across outlets, reports situate the dispute within broader aviation security rules and passenger conduct obligations on international flights. They concur that airlines can enforce their own contracts of carriage, including terminating transport and pursuing civil or administrative measures when behavior is deemed to jeopardize safety, even if criminal charges are uncertain. Legal experts cited in the press agree that, under Colombian law, criminal liability would likely hinge on proving intent to generate panic or simulate a threat, which is not clearly established so far, making contractual sanctions and potential fines the most immediate consequences. All coverage underscores that Cossio is a high‑profile influencer whose prior controversies and large following amplify public and regulatory scrutiny of his conduct in regulated spaces like commercial aircraft.

Areas of disagreement

Characterization of the incident. Opposition outlets frame Avianca’s description of “disruptive behavior” and risk to safety with some skepticism, highlighting that the device was essentially a “chemical fart” artifact and stressing the lack of clear evidence of serious endangerment. Government-aligned coverage leans into the gravity of the episode, sometimes analogizing or juxtaposing it with fake bomb jokes and other aviation threats to emphasize that any such act on a plane is no laughing matter. Opposition narratives stress the difference between bad taste and actual security threats, while government-aligned reports portray the behavior as misconduct that understandably triggered a strong response from the airline.

Responsibility and blame. Opposition sources foreground Cossio’s denial of intentional wrongdoing, emphasizing his claim that the artifact was activated accidentally and that its effects were temporary and controlled, casting doubt on whether Avianca is overreacting or seeking a scapegoat. Government-aligned outlets, by contrast, underscore the notion that influencers carry heightened responsibility and suggest that, intentional or not, using or carrying such a device on a flight is irresponsible and sanctionable. While opposition coverage tends to balance Avianca’s accusations with Cossio’s defense and legal nuance, government-aligned narratives generally affirm the airline’s decision as justified discipline against misbehavior.

Legal and contractual framing. Opposition reporting dwells on the limits of criminal liability, quoting experts who argue that, without clear proof of intent to cause panic, Cossio may face at most contractual and civil consequences, subtly implying that the public outcry exceeds the legal reality. Government-aligned pieces stress sanctions, fines, and the termination of the contract as a cautionary tale, using the case to illustrate how aviation rules can be enforced harshly against those who disrupt flights, with less emphasis on thresholds for criminal charges. Thus, opposition coverage highlights due process and proportionality, whereas government-aligned coverage emphasizes deterrence and the exemplary nature of the penalty.

Portrayal of Cossio’s image. Opposition outlets mention Cossio’s previous sanctions for deceptive advertising but also give him ample space to “break the silence,” present his legal statement, and challenge the authenticity of videos, thereby suggesting a contested media narrative around his persona. Government-aligned coverage more readily casts him as a cautionary example of an influencer whose joke or mishandling “cost dearly,” focusing on the fine, canceled flight, and reputational damage as natural outcomes of irresponsible behavior. Opposition narratives lean toward depicting a controversial yet possibly over‑penalized figure, whereas government-aligned narratives stress moral accountability and the need to rein in excesses of online celebrity.

In summary, opposition coverage tends to question the proportionality of Avianca’s response and foreground Cossio’s defense and legal caveats, while government-aligned coverage tends to validate the airline’s sanctions and use the case to underscore strict norms and responsibilities around aviation safety and influencer conduct.