Tashkent, Uzbekistan (UzDaily.uz) — The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has called for a review of how responsibility and costs are shared between airlines and governments when passengers are refused entry upon arrival.
The association believes airlines’ financial obligations should reflect the reasons for the refusal and the extent to which carriers could have influenced the situation. The position was outlined in an IATA press release issued in Macau on 30 October 2026.
Airlines help prevent such cases by checking passengers’ travel documents before departure. However, IATA says carriers cannot always identify every possible reason for refusing entry. Factors beyond their control include incomplete information, sophisticated fraud schemes, changing migration patterns, and decisions by government authorities on immigration and security matters.
Under rules agreed by states through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), airlines are responsible for the accommodation and care of passengers refused entry because of improper documentation. If entry is denied for other reasons, the costs should be covered by government authorities. IATA, however, points to a lack of transparency in immigration decisions and insufficient information available to airlines before departure.
IATA Senior Vice President for Operations, Safety and Security Nick Careen said passengers could still be refused entry at their destination even after airlines had checked their documents. In such cases, carriers face additional costs, including fines. Airlines often receive invoices or penalty notices without an explanation of why passengers were denied entry, he said. More transparent information-sharing would help prevent similar cases and ensure a fairer distribution of costs, Careen added.
The IATA report is based on a survey of 49 airlines and 22 border authorities. Most of the airlines surveyed said documentation and processing errors accounted for approximately 20–30% of passenger denial-of-entry cases.
Meanwhile, 40 of the 49 airlines said they had encountered cases in which immigration authorities did not disclose the reasons for refusing entry. This left carriers having to arrange passengers’ return without knowing the grounds for the decision.
More than 90% of the airlines surveyed said they had paid at least part of the costs that, under ICAO rules, should be covered by governments. Passenger denial of entry can lead to flight delays, ticket rebooking, disruption to aircraft and crew schedules, the need for escorts, and lengthy coordination with authorities.
According to the study, the average cost per denied passenger was about US$4,000 in North Asia and US$14,000 in Europe. Liability arrangements, the scope of services provided, return procedures and the level of fines vary considerably between countries and, in some cases, even between airports within the same country.
All airlines that took part in the survey reported operational delays associated with denied passengers.
The report also cites a case in which an airline received an invoice for nearly €60,000 for the accommodation of a passenger who had been refused entry. The passenger remained in government custody for six months while awaiting assistance from an embassy. The cost of accommodation was €300 per day.
Careen described the case as exceptional, stressing that airlines were prepared to take responsibility for their own mistakes but should not face unlimited major expenses when circumstances were beyond their control.
IATA is calling on governments to clearly distinguish between cases in which an airline has failed to meet its document-checking obligations and situations over which the carrier had no control.
The association also wants fines and cost-sharing arrangements to take into account the airline’s due diligence, its degree of control over the situation and the specific reasons for refusing entry. Carriers should also be given information about the grounds for denial within the limits permitted by law.
To reduce the number of such cases, IATA recommends wider use of interactive Advance Passenger Information (iAPI) systems, digital document-checking tools, cooperation mechanisms involving immigration liaison officers, and channels for rapid escalation of cases. These tools, the association says, would help identify problems before departure and resolve disputed cases more quickly.
Another proposal concerns the return of passengers who have been refused entry. IATA believes governments and airlines need to establish timely notification procedures and improve coordination.
Careen said both sides had an interest in ensuring border security while facilitating seamless travel.
This requires determining as early as possible whether a passenger is eligible to enter the destination country and, if entry is refused, allocating responsibility and costs according to each party’s actual ability to control the situation.
