NEW RULES FOR THE UNRULY

The message has been heard. Global aviation’s law-maker, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), has agreed, in principle, to close legal loopholes that allow disruptive passengers to walk free from punishment once they have disembarked.

by CHIEF CORRESPONDENT, TOM BALLANTYNE  

June 1st 2014

Print Friendly

Tougher rules will apply to passengers who behave badly onboard after several ICAO states supported ratification of the Montreal Protocol 2014, which aims to combat the rising incidence of air rage in the industry. Read More »

However, the Protocol has to be formally ratified before it can be officially adopted. “Twenty four states signed the Montreal Protocol,” said Tim Colehan, the International Air Transport Association’s (IATA) assistant director for external affairs, “but it is not a legally binding agreement.

“It effectively means “yes, we agree with the contents and it is our intention, at a future date, to ratify it. We need 22. We will get 22 but it will take some time.”

Tim Colehan, Assistant Director for External Affairs IATA: “the new protocol is very clear. This is nothing to stop airlines from recovering costs. We believe this will be a very serious deterrent.”

While it may two to three years to formally ratify the Protocol, the new muscle in the proposed amendments brings the industry several steps closer to bringing passengers who commit serious offences onboard to book.

At the diplomatic conference, convened by ICAO and attended by more than 100 delegates earlier this year, industry representatives told ICAO representatives that the 1963 Tokyo Convention was outdated when it came to its approach to stemming the rise of onboard bad behavior.

“The key point is that nobody is questioning the fact there is a problem with unruly passenger behaviour. ICAO understood. It went through this detailed process of changing a decades old international convention,” Colehan said.

The rise in the number of aircraft being leased by airlines was a major impetus in the push to amend the rules. The Tokyo Convention provides jurisdiction over disruptive behavior onboard to the State where an aircraft is registered. In modern day aviation complex aircraft leasing arrangements make this rule obsolete. ICAO is supporting IATA’s submissions that jurisdiction be extended to State in which the operator is located as well as the State in which the aircraft lands. In 1963, about three per cent of aircraft were leased. Today, it is closer to 50%.

“The extension of jurisdiction is critical,” said Colehan. “It will give police and prosecutors the legal powers they need to pursue unruly passengers. This will act as an important deterrent to the small minority of passengers that commit unruly behavior,” he said.

Other changes will be a clarification of onboard behavior that is considered an offence. They include physical assault or a threat to commit assault against a crew member as well as refusal to follow a lawful instruction given by or on behalf of the aircraft commander for safety purposes.

The new Protocol recognizes the right of airlines to seek compensation from unruly passengers.

“Clearly, there is nothing to stop airlines today from attempting to recover expenses either from civil proceedings or judicial restitution orders. But what we wanted and what we got from in the Protocol was a very clear statement that there is nothing to stop airlines from recovering costs,” said Colehan.

“We believe this will be a very serious deterrent,” he said. “If people are committing unruly acts onboard they have to know one of the potential sanctions is facing the cost of a diversion or other costs that could amount to US$200,000 on a long-haul flight.” 

Additional costs for an airline forced to divert in any emergency include fuel, accommodation for passengers and crew costs because the delays have taken them out of their permitted working hours.

When the International Air Transport Association (IATA) conducted a survey of 53 of its members last year and asked their views on unruly passenger incidents, the results confirmed a widely held industry view: air rage incidents are increasing dramatically and most of those involved get off scot free.

The survey, explained Colehan, was a “very good global representation”.

Major findings were:

• 43% of airlines had experienced 100 or more unruly passenger incidents in the previous 12 months.

• 53% considered unruly passenger events had increased on their flights in the last five years.

• 60% of carriers said a lack of jurisdiction at their foreign destinations resulted in police or prosecution authorities not pursuing passengers who disrupted flights.

“We don’t break the figures down by geography but what we can tell by looking at the statistics is that this is a global issue, a growing issue and it’s an issue that affects all cabins. It’s not just an economy class issue. It’s one our member airlines around the world and cabin and flight crew face daily,” said Colehan.

IATA’s statistics reveal that from 2007 to 2013 there were 28,400 reports of unruly passenger incidents, which broke down to one event every 1,600 flights.

“We are not saying these figures are absolutely definitive. They are reported to us as part of our STEADES safety data survey (Safety Trend Evaluation, Analysis & Data Exchange System), the world’s largest database of aviation incident reports. Its non-mandatory reporting so if anything we believe this will understate the numbers,” said Colehan.

The ICAO changes are long overdue. IATA doesn’t give explicit details of individual incidents, but some 300 air rage events are now being reported every week. The rise in air rage in China – in the air and on the ground – has been well documented.

Colehan said there are any number of reasons why these incidents occur, “Whether it’s passengers who refuse to switch off phones, or stress,” he said. “Perhaps stress is exacerbated by people who find flying stressful because it’s a confined environment.

“Intoxication, whether medication, drugs or alcohol, is a key trigger for unruly behavior. But lets be very clear on this. Arlines can’t be responsible for what passengers have consumed before they board or what they have brought on board to drink unbeknown to the crew.”

More airlines are training ground staff to correctly identify passengers that are showing signs of intoxication at check-in or at the gate, especially as many people don’t understand that effects of alcohol can greater when flying.

Colehan said: “From our perspective, the industry itself is taking a lot of actions to prevent, manage and mitigate unruly passenger behavior, but what we really need is a holistic approach. “Also, we want to build a greater coalition with airports, airport concessionaires and bar operators. Maybe this involves applying some of the techniques airlines employ for responsible service of alcohol. Prevention on the ground and prevention in the air could play a big part in helping us solve this issue.

“We absolutely want to get this dealt with because it is a safety issue. Safety is our number one priority. It is at the heart of everything we do. Remember the small minority of unruly passengers is making the travel experience for the majority considerably worse. That’s not a good thing.”