Flight Club: Unruly passenger behaviour on the rise – Legal remedies and risk mitigation for airlines

IATA recently published a new Fact Sheet which revealed a steady increase in the rate of reported unruly passenger incidents, from one incident for every 835 flights in 2021 to one for every 480 flights in 2023. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this trend shows no signs of slowing.

Such behavioural incidents could include disputes breaking out between passengers over seats, space, unwelcomed contact or disturbance etc, or disruptive behaviour on the part of one passenger but affecting or jeopardizing the flight. In the IATA report, non-compliance with crew instructions was most frequently cited, followed by verbally abusive behaviour.

Hong Kong is no exception. For instance, just in the short span of the first two weeks of August 2025, two incidents onboard flights from Hong Kong have been reported: a flight from Hong Kong to Seoul, Korea, had resulted in four passengers being issued written warnings by the airline and follow-up investigation by the Korean law enforcement authorities. It was said that the clash between those passengers arose from arguments as to whether the child of two of those passengers had hit the other passenger. Then four days later, on a flight from Hong Kong to Osaka, Japan, a passenger refused to fasten his seatbelt before take-off, and departure of the flight was delayed as a result. That incident ended with the passenger being escorted off the aircraft by Hong Kong Police.

A myriad of factors could be cited in explanation of such a trend: widened accessibility to air travel, broadened usage of smart phones and increased popularity of online social media platforms, quality of air travel experience and passengers’ heightened expectations, excessive consumption of alcohol. From a psychological perspective, the stress associated with air travel could also be blamed.

IATA long ago formulated core principles for dealing with the issue of unruly passenger behaviour, published a high level strategy for reducing this problem, and also developed extensive guidance and training to assist member airlines. Cabin crew members are trained to manage and de-escalate such scenarios. Cabin crew aside, the public should also be aware or reminded of the legal implications that could arise from any unruly or disruptive actions onboard. Campaigns such as the “One Too Many” initiative in the UK, the US FAA’s “Don’t make me turn this plane around” signage and EASA’s #notonmyflight have proved effective ways to communicate the message in a light hearted way.

At the international level, the Tokyo Convention 1963 gives the state where the aircraft is registered jurisdiction over offences and certain other acts committed onboard the aircraft. However, jurisdictional gaps exist. For instance, local police at the flight’s overseas destination may not have jurisdiction to deal with incidents that occur onboard foreign-registered aircraft. A jurisdictional gap under the Convention may also occur where the aircraft is dry-leased from a lessor and is registered in a state different from the state where the airline is based. The Montreal Protocol 2014 came into force in January 2020 to address the gap by extending jurisdiction to the State of intended landing, as well as a third-party State in the event the flight is re-routed. We reported on the Protocol back in 2019 (Tackling unruly passengers: Change on the horizon | HFW), just as it was about to gain the 22 ratifications necessary for it to come into force. However take-up since then has been slow, and it still has only 36 signatories to date. IATA continues to urge States to sign the Protocol.

In Hong Kong, under the Aviation Security Ordinance, a passenger can face criminal prosecution if he or she: (i) wilfully obstructs a member of the crew in the performance of his/her duties; (ii) without reasonable excuse fails to comply with the instruction given by or on behalf of the Captain for the purpose of protecting safety or maintaining good order and discipline on board; (iii) behaves in a disorderly manner and jeopardizes the good order or discipline on board; (iv) wilfully tampers with any equipment or system installed in the aircraft; (v) embarks in an intoxicated state or becomes intoxicated on board to an extent jeopardizing the safety, good order or discipline on board; or (vi) smokes or operates an electronic device in the aircraft against prohibition or the crew’s instruction. These offences are punishable by fines and imprisonment.

Criminal sanctions aside, further implications include that the offending passenger could end up in the relevant airline’s “banned” or “no fly” list and will be refused carriage on subsequent or future flights by the relevant airline (and potentially other airlines as well). It is common to find a term in the conditions of carriage of Hong Kong based airlines providing that while the ban is in force, the airline will refuse carriage and will not make any refund or compensation even if the offending passenger manages to get an air ticket issued.

The offending passenger could also be exposed to civil claims by the airline, and any other person, for recovery of losses caused by the incident.

It is hoped that none of these measures have to be deployed to procure proper behaviour on board aircraft and to make air travel a more safe and pleasant experience for all. After all, safety is the ultimate priority.