The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has called for a review of the mechanisms for distributing responsibility and costs between airlines and governments in cases where passengers are denied entry upon arrival.
The association believes that the financial obligations of air carriers should depend on the reasons for the refusal and the degree of influence carriers could have had on the situation. This position was set out in an IATA press release issued in Macau on October 30, 2026.
Airlines are taking steps to prevent such incidents by checking passenger documents before departure. Nevertheless, IATA notes that carriers cannot always foresee all possible reasons for entry refusal. Factors beyond their control include incomplete information, complex fraud schemes, changing migration trends, and decisions made by state bodies regarding immigration and security.
According to rules agreed upon by states through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), airlines are responsible for accommodating and servicing passengers who are denied entry due to incorrect documentation. If the refusal occurs for other reasons, the costs must be covered by state authorities. However, IATA points to a lack of transparency in immigration decisions and limited information available to airlines before departure.
Nick Karin, IATA's Senior Vice President for Operations, Safety, and Data Protection, stated that passengers can be denied entry even after the airline has checked their documents. In such situations, carriers face additional expenses, including fines. He added that airlines often receive bills or notifications of fines without an explanation of the refusal.
More transparent information exchange would help prevent such cases and ensure a fairer distribution of costs. The IATA report is based on a survey of 49 airlines and 22 border services. Most surveyed airlines reported that documentation and processing errors account for about 20–30% of passenger entry refusals.
Furthermore, 40 out of 49 airlines reported instances where immigration services did not disclose the grounds for refusal. This forced carriers to organize the return of passengers without knowing the reasons for the decision. More than 90% of surveyed airlines stated that they paid at least part of the costs that, according to ICAO rules, should be covered by governments.
A passenger's denial of entry can lead to flight delays, the need to rebook tickets, disruption of aircraft and crew schedules, the need for escort, and prolonged coordination with authorities. According to the study, the average cost of one denied passenger was approximately $4,000 in North Asia and $14,000 in Europe.
Responsibility mechanisms, the scope of services provided, return procedures, and the level of fines vary significantly between countries and even between airports within the same country. All airlines participating in the survey reported operational delays related to passenger refusals.
The report also provides an example where an airline received a bill for nearly 60,000 euros for the accommodation of a passenger who was denied entry. The passenger was held by the government for six months awaiting assistance from the embassy, with accommodation costing 300 euros per day. Karin called this case exceptional, emphasizing that while airlines are willing to take responsibility for their mistakes, they should not face unlimited large expenses when circumstances are beyond their control.
IATA urges governments to clearly separate situations where the airline failed to meet its document verification obligations from those over which the carrier had no control. The association also insists that fines and cost-sharing schemes must take into account the airline's due diligence, the degree of its control over the situation, and the specific reasons for refusal. Furthermore, carriers must be provided with information regarding the reasons for refusal within legal limits.
To reduce the number of such cases, IATA recommends wider implementation of interactive pre-passenger information systems (iAPI), digital document verification tools, cooperation mechanisms with immigration service liaisons, and channels for quick dispute resolution. The association argues that these tools will help identify problems before departure and resolve contentious issues more quickly.
Another suggestion concerns the return of passengers denied entry. IATA believes that governments and airlines should develop timely notification procedures and improve coordination. Karin noted that both parties are interested in ensuring border security while facilitating seamless travel. This requires determining as early as possible whether a passenger has the right to enter the destination country, and in case of refusal, allocating responsibility and costs according to each party's actual ability to control the situation.
