IATA Seeks Fairer Sharing of Costs Between Airlines, Governments Over Inadmissible Passengers

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has called on governments to adopt a fairer approach to sharing responsibilities and financial costs associated with passengers refused entry into destination countries, warning that airlines are increasingly bearing expenses for immigration decisions beyond their control.

The global airline industry body said airlines should not be held solely responsible for the financial and operational consequences of inadmissible passenger cases, particularly where carriers have fulfilled their obligations to verify passengers’ travel documents before departure.

In a statement issued on Friday, October 30, 2026, in Macao, IATA argued that although airlines play an important role in preventing passengers from travelling with improper documentation, not all cases of refusal at destination airports result from errors or negligence by carriers.

It identified complex document fraud, inadequate access to relevant immigration information, changing migration trends and government immigration or security decisions as some of the factors that could result in passengers being denied entry despite airlines having undertaken the necessary checks.

The association’s position is contained in a newly released report examining the challenges associated with inadmissible passengers, including the financial burden on airlines, the lack of transparency by immigration authorities and inconsistencies in the application of international standards across countries.

According to IATA, existing rules established by governments through the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) provide that airlines are responsible for the custody and care of passengers refused entry because of improper documentation, while governments are expected to bear such costs when refusals arise from other reasons.

However, the association said its findings revealed a significant gap between these provisions and their implementation, with airlines frequently paying expenses that should ordinarily be covered by governments.

IATA’s Senior Vice-President, Operations, Safety and Security, Nick Careen, said airlines were often left with substantial bills and penalties without being informed of the specific reasons passengers had been declared inadmissible.

He argued that the absence of adequate information makes it difficult for airlines to identify weaknesses in their document-verification processes and prevent similar occurrences.

“Despite document checks by airlines, some travellers are refused entry at their destination. This can result in airlines bearing significant costs, including fines.

“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. And 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.

The report, which was based on a survey of 49 airlines and 22 border authorities, highlighted the extent of the financial and operational difficulties associated with inadmissible passengers.

On the reasons for refusal of entry, most participating airlines indicated that documentation and processing errors accounted for between 20 and 30 per cent of inadmissible passenger cases.

However, the report identified a major information gap between airlines and immigration authorities, revealing that 40 of the 49 airlines surveyed had encountered cases in which immigration officials failed to disclose why passengers were refused entry.

IATA said the situation left airlines responsible for managing the removal of affected passengers without knowing the specific circumstances behind the immigration decisions.

The association also raised concerns about the financial implications of the existing arrangements, particularly the inconsistent application of ICAO provisions by different countries.

Although international rules distinguish between cases resulting from airline documentation failures and those arising from other circumstances, airlines reported paying at least some costs that should have been borne by governments in more than 90 per cent of cases.

The financial exposure, according to the report, varies significantly across regions, with the average cost per inadmissible passenger ranging from approximately $4,000 in North Asia to $14,000 in Europe.

In one particularly expensive case documented by a survey participant, an airline was charged nearly €60,000 for the care of an inadmissible passenger who remained in government custody for six months while awaiting cooperation from the relevant embassy.

The charge amounted to €300 per day throughout the period. Careen described the incident as an illustration of the financial risks airlines face when immigration-related situations remain unresolved for extended periods.

“This extreme case illustrates the need for a fairer solution. 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,” he said.

Beyond the financial burden, IATA said inadmissible passenger cases also create considerable operational challenges for airlines, affecting flight schedules, aircraft utilisation and crew arrangements.

All airlines participating in the survey reported experiencing operational delays linked to inadmissible passengers.

Such incidents, it explained, could require flight delays, passenger rebooking, additional coordination with immigration authorities, the deployment of escorts and adjustments to aircraft and crew schedules.

The association further noted that national regulations governing the responsibilities of airlines and governments differ considerably, including the services provided to inadmissible passengers, the timelines for their removal and the penalties imposed on carriers.

It said the inconsistencies sometimes extended to different airports within the same country, creating additional uncertainty for international airlines operating across multiple jurisdictions.

To address the challenges, IATA urged governments to review existing arrangements and establish clearer rules that reflect the extent of responsibility exercised by each party.

Specifically, it called for a distinction between cases in which airlines failed to undertake the necessary document checks and those in which passengers were refused entry for reasons beyond the reasonable control of carriers.

It also advocated proportionate penalties and cost-sharing arrangements, insisting that financial sanctions should be linked to the level of due diligence exercised by airlines, their ability to control the circumstances and the actual reasons for the passenger’s inadmissibility.

On transparency, IATA urged immigration authorities to provide airlines with clear explanations for entry refusals, within applicable legal limits, to enable carriers to understand the circumstances and strengthen their preventive measures.

The association also called for greater adoption of technology-driven immigration procedures, particularly interactive Advance Passenger Information (iAPI), digital document verification systems, Immigration Liaison Officer support and real-time communication channels.

According to IATA, these measures would enable airlines and immigration authorities to identify potential admission problems before passengers board flights, thereby reducing the number of cases that eventually result in refusal of entry.

It further stressed the need for improved coordination between governments and airlines when passengers must be returned to their countries of origin, particularly through timely notifications and effective cooperation among relevant authorities.

Careen said governments and airlines shared the same objectives of maintaining secure national borders while ensuring efficient international air travel.

He maintained that the most effective way to address inadmissible passenger cases was to establish passengers’ eligibility to enter their destinations as early as possible, preferably before departure.

“Governments and airlines want the same outcome: secure borders and smooth travel. 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.

“Better information, digital tools and consistent application of global standards can help achieve both,” he said.

The IATA position brings renewed attention to the relationship between airlines and immigration authorities, particularly the financial and operational implications of enforcing border-control requirements within the international aviation industry.

It also underscores the importance of consistent implementation of ICAO standards, improved access to immigration information and stronger cooperation between governments and airlines in managing passengers who are denied entry at their destinations.