The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has defined a four-tiered hierarchy at the threat level. Although not all national aviation authorities (NAA) follow these specific definitions, they provide operators with valuable guidance to determine the severity of a recalcitrant passenger incident and to develop their policies to an appropriate level of response. The level of characteristics of the ICAO threat is as follows: complete agreement. This agreement constitutes the whole agreement between the parties with respect to the purpose of this agreement. Any changes to this Agreement or such exhibition, schedule or annex must be made in a written agreement executed by both parties. Failure to comply with a provision does not affect a party`s right to demand the benefit at a later date, nor does the waiver of a breach or default of the agreement constitute a waiver of a subsequent violation, default or waiver of the provision itself. The terms “including” or “including” mean “includes unrestricted” or “including and without restriction.” If a provision is found to be unenforceable, it is amended to reflect the intent of the parties and the other provisions of this agreement remain fully in force and effective. The recalcitrants of a tiny minority of passengers have a disproportionate impact on recalcitrant incidents, threaten safety, disrupt other passengers and crew, and cause delays and diversions. However, due to the shortcomings of existing legislation, these offences often go unpunished. Watch out for disturbing passengers, because now your anger in the air could be punished with a prison sentence in a foreign prison. Starting January 1, 2020, the Montreal 2014 Protocol (MP14) will come into force, giving nations more powers to treat passengers without recalcitrants in accordance with their own laws.
The company`s policy in dealing with recalcitrant passengers should be robust and fully supported by management. Consistent management of disruptive behaviour is likely to serve as a deterrent to recalcitrant passenger events. The corporate police may contain provisions: although the Tokyo Convention contains provisions for the prosecution and unloading of recalcitrant passengers, it presents a jurisdictional vacuum that does not automatically allow most states to prosecute a disruptive passenger who has been removed from a foreign registered aircraft. The PIC can bring down a recalcitrant passenger in any state, without coordination with local law enforcement agencies. In this case, it is unlikely that the person will be prosecuted in that state unless the state itself has passed legislation allowing him to charge the offence after JC. If the ICP wishes the recalcitrant passenger to be prosecuted, he must land in a state that is a party to the Tokyo Convention and formally deliver the passenger to the local judicial authorities. For the prosecution to be successful, it is necessary to show that the passenger has committed a serious offence under the law of the state in which the aircraft is registered. IATA also cooperates with airports, duty-free distributors and other groups to ensure the responsible sale and marketing of alcohol, in order to avoid incidents of recalcitrant passengers due to intoxication. In addition, IATA participates in awareness campaigns to promote responsible alcohol consumption before travelling by air, such as Fly Safely, Drink Responsib in Norway and One Too Many in the Uk, IATA is also working with partners to highlight the types of behaviour prohibited on board flights and supports the #notonmyflight campaign launched by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).
IATA is asking governments to ratify the Montreal 2014 Protocol (MP14) to ensure that they have the legal tools to prosecute the small minority of passengers who become recalcitrant.