I agree in this case it seems more likely it will turn out not to be Ebola.
As a thought experiment though, if someone did have ebola on a flight and, for example, had diarrhoea, presumably the risk would be significant? Swiftly quarantining everyone would potentially be v effective at containment, whilst allowing people to disperse from an airport (potentially internationally) could spread the disease fairly widely.
At the moment the crisis is pretty much in 3 countries, and for them it is already devastating. However, it seems to me that with such a deadly disease other countries would be wise to exercise extreme caution with anyone potentially exposed. It is much harder to catch than flu/colds, but the consequences of infection are much much more likely to be fatal and once people get anywhere near infected bodily fluids the number of viruses needed to cause infection is very low. Better to severely inconvenience relatively small numbers of people for one month than risk even a localised outbreak. However, I'm not saying that applies to this plane at this point -just that if a scenario like this did turn out to be ebola I really hope the potential contacts would not be allowed to disperse far and wide.
I wonder what powers authorities have to detain people in quarantine? Hmmm.