By HER staff reporter
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has urged governments to adopt a fairer approach to sharing the costs of passengers refused entry on arrival, saying airlines frequently face bills and penalties for decisions beyond their reasonable control.
A newly released IATA report, based on a survey of 49 airlines and 22 border authorities, found widespread concerns over unclear responsibilities, limited explanations for entry refusals and inconsistent national rules.
Forty of the 49 airlines surveyed reported cases in which immigration authorities did not disclose why a passenger had been refused entry, leaving carriers responsible for arranging removal without knowing the reason for the decision.
“Despite document checks by airlines, some travelers are refused entry at their destination. This can result in airlines bearing significant costs, including fines,” said Nick Careen, IATA’s Senior Vice President for Operations, Safety and Security.
“Research shows that airlines often receive a bill or fine without any specification of the reason for inadmissibility. To help prevent recurrence, more transparency is essential.”
Airlines check passengers’ travel documents before departure, but IATA said not every refusal of entry can be prevented through those checks.
Passengers may be turned away because of information unavailable to carriers, sophisticated fraud, changing migration patterns, or government immigration and security decisions.
According to IATA, rules agreed through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) assign airlines responsibility for custody and care costs when passengers are refused entry because of improper documentation. Governments are responsible for those costs when entry is denied for other reasons.
However, airlines reported paying at least some costs that should have been borne by governments in more than 90 per cent of cases, the association said.
Most airlines surveyed estimated that documentation and processing errors accounted for about 20–30 per cent of inadmissible passenger cases.
IATA argued that financial responsibility should reflect whether a carrier failed to take necessary precautions or whether the refusal resulted from circumstances outside its control.
“In some cases, where airlines have done all that can be reasonably expected to ensure appropriate documentation, a fairer approach to sharing costs is needed,” Careen said.
Average costs per inadmissible passenger ranged from approximately US$4,000 in North Asia to US$14,000 in Europe, according to the report.
In one example, a survey participant reported being charged nearly €60,000 for a passenger’s care while the individual remained in government custody awaiting cooperation from the relevant embassy. The charges accumulated at €300 a day over six months.
“This extreme case illustrates the need for a fairer solution,” Careen said. “We’ll take responsibility when it is our error. But airlines should not face such large and open-ended costs when a situation is totally out of their control.”
All airlines surveyed said they had experienced operational delays related to inadmissible passengers.
Such cases can require rebooking, adjustments to aircraft and crew arrangements, escorts and lengthy coordination between airlines and authorities.
The report also found substantial differences in responsibilities, services, removal deadlines and penalties between countries—and sometimes between airports within the same country.
IATA is calling for greater transparency, urging governments to explain entry refusals to airlines within applicable legal limits so carriers can identify problems and help prevent similar cases.
The association also wants penalties and cost-sharing arrangements to reflect the reason for refusal, the precautions taken by the airline and the circumstances each party could reasonably control.
To strengthen prevention, IATA recommended wider use of interactive Advance Passenger Information, digital verification, Immigration Liaison Officer support and real-time communication channels to resolve questions before departure.
It also called for timely notification and closer cooperation between governments and airlines when passengers need to be removed.
“Governments and airlines want the same outcome: secure borders and smooth travel,” Careen said.
“The best approach is to establish whether a passenger is admissible as early as possible, before travel, while ensuring that when things do go wrong, responsibilities and costs reflect what each party can reasonably control.”
