Call for evidence outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 14 December 2021

Ministerial Foreword

Since the Government launched the Call for Evidence on introducing alcohol licensing airside at international airports in England and Wales, we have seen the aviation industry and airports heavily impacted by the global pandemic of Covid-19.

The pandemic has meant a significant delay to publishing this response, however these unique circumstances have not changed the decision that was reached previously in light of the responses received: that the Act should not be extended to all airports at this time.

As restrictions are lifted, and we begin to see an increase in journeys, I am pleased to see that travel once again can mean visiting loved ones or mark the start of an exciting holiday abroad. Airports are places for us to eat, drink and shop as we wait to board our flights. Most airline passengers drink and behave responsibly when travelling but the excessive drinking of a small minority can sometimes spoil our experience of flying and even jeopardise our safety.

This kind of behaviour is entirely unacceptable, and the Government is committed to ensuring that the travelling environment for airline passengers remains safe and enjoyable. No one should travel with a fear of experiencing alcohol fuelled violence or disruption at any stage of their journey.

The majority of international airports in England and Wales are currently exempt from the licensing laws. These arrangements have been in place since the 1950s, when changes were made to ensure that airports continued to be internationally competitive and create a more enjoyable travelling experience for a growing number of international passengers. The Call for Evidence helped inform our thinking on whether to amend these arrangements.

The Call for Evidence provided an opportunity for relevant parties who are familiar with the unique airside environment to have a say on the advantages and disadvantages of the recommendation made by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Licensing Act 2003 and I am grateful to everyone who took the time to respond. These responses have informed our understanding of the scale of the problem of drunk and disorderly passengers and the contributing factors, as well as the extent to which statutory powers and industry led initiatives are effective to manage the problem. A key finding around the need to improve data collection remains valid as we begin to see passenger numbers increase again as air travel becomes frequent once more.

The Call for Evidence has not provided new evidence which makes a compelling case for extending all of the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 to airside premises. The premises which serve alcohol airside operate in a highly secure environment which function in a very different way to high streets and night-time economies across England and Wales.

There would be limited benefit in requiring those premises to obtain a premises licence. Many safeguards that can be introduced by a local licensing regime like enhanced security, searches or CCTV are already in place within an airport. In any event, the provisions of the Act that prohibit the sale of alcohol to anyone under the age of 18 and purchasing alcohol on behalf of somebody who is under the age of 18, apply to the sale of alcohol whether they are made from licensed premises or not. The transient and short-term nature of the clientele mean that considerations around noise, or impact on residential areas for example are greatly reduced in this environment.

In addition, there are already penalties in place to address drunkenness in passengers. It is an offence under the Air Navigation Order to be drunk on an aircraft and airlines have the authority to prevent passengers they believe are intoxicated from boarding aircraft.

For these reasons, the government does not intend to extend all of the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 airside.

The wider aviation industry has a critical role to play in ensuring a safe and disruption-free environment for their staff and passengers. The industry, including airlines, airports, airside alcohol retailers and outlets and police, must work together and remain at the forefront of all ongoing efforts to tackle this issue.

I look forward to seeing the impact of this work and urge the industry to make bolder progress in this area.

The Rt Hon Kit Malthouse MP

Minister for Crime and Policing

Executive Summary

The House of Lords Select Committee that carried out a post-legislative scrutiny of the Licensing Act 2003 published its report published in April 2017, the Committee recommended that in light of an increased number of alcohol-related incidents at airports in recent years, the Government should revoke the exemption from the Act that applies to most international airports in England and Wales.

In response, the Government published the Airside Alcohol Licensing at International Airports in England and Wales: Call for Evidence on 1 November 2018. Its aim was to understand the scale of the problem of drunk and disruptive passengers, the extent to which airports and airlines use the existing statutory powers and other measures to address the problem, the impact of the proposed application of the Act on all affected parties and to assess the practicalities of administering a licensing regime airside. The Home Office received a total of 97 responses.

The evidence and comments received across different sectors have been invaluable in the consideration of the proposals outlined in this document. The Call for Evidence did not generate enough new evidence to show that lifting the exemption on airside premises from the Act would be a proportionate way to address the issue of drunk and disruptive passenger behaviour. For this reason, we are not extending the Act airside, but we do think that other action is needed.

Data collection and sharing on alcohol-related disruptive incidents needs to be significantly improved through increased cooperation between relevant parties. The Government will work with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), airports, airlines, and the police to record the severity of disruptive incidents and whether they are alcohol-related by using standardised definitions. Reducing levels of disruptive behaviour is a shared responsibility and we are pleased to see that positive action is already being taken in this area by the aviation, retail and hospitality industry.

Background

In May 2016, the House of Lords appointed a Select Committee to carry out post-legislative scrutiny of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the Act”), which governs the sale and supply of alcohol in England and Wales. In its report published in April 2017, the Committee recommended that in light of an increased number of alcohol-related incidents at airports in recent years, the Government should revoke the exemption from the Act that applies to most international airports in England and Wales. Two international airports in England and Wales, Cornwall Airport Newquay and Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield, have not been designated under section 173 of the Act and so premises selling alcohol airside at these airports are licensed.^{[footnote 1]}

In its response to the Committee, the Government committed to issue a Call for Evidence to better understand the scale of the problem of drunk and disruptive passengers, the extent to which airports and airlines use the existing statutory powers and other measures to address the problem, the impact of the proposed application of the Act on all affected parties and to assess the practicalities of administering a licensing regime airside in England and Wales. Sales of alcohol at international airports in Northern Ireland and Scotland are outside the scope of this Call for Evidence as they are separately regulated under the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 and the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005.

The ‘Airside Alcohol Licensing at International Airports in England and Wales: Call for Evidence’ was published on 1 November 2018 and ran for three months. It invited comments from members of the public, airlines, airports, businesses, police and other interested parties about the extent to which the problem of drunk of disruptive passengers affects them, whether a legislative intervention is necessary and what implications a decision to maintain or remove the exemption under the Act would have. This report summarises the responses to the Call for Evidence against the five main sections of the original paper, as below. A full list of respondents is included at Annex A.

• Section 1: Scale of the problem of drunk and disruptive airline passengers
• Section 2: Effectiveness and limitations of the current statutory and voluntary instruments in managing the problem of drunk and disruptive airline passengers
• Section 3: The impact the Act could have on addressing the problem of drunk and disruptive passengers if applied airside at international airports in England and Wales
• Section 4: Economic implications of applying the Act airside at international airports in England and Wales
• Section 5: Administration of the Act airside: feasibility and practicalities

Summary of responses

The Home Office received a total of 97 responses to the Call for Evidence. Of these:

• 12 responses were from airline respondents including 7 from airlines, 1 from an airline group and 4 from airline associations.
• 10 responses were from airport respondents, including 7 airports, 2 airport groups and 1 airport associations.
• 17 responses were from the alcohol and wider service industry, including 6 industry associations, 6 operators of food and beverage outlets, 3 duty and tax free shop operators, 1 lounge operator and 1 retail distributor.
• 6 responses were from the police.
• 5 responses were from local authorities.
• 37 responses were from the general public.
• 10 responses were from other respondents including sector regulators, licensing stakeholders and research organisations.

Respondents on Extending the Licensing Act 2003

• 28% (27) expressed or implied support for extending the Act airside.
• 55% (53) were against or implied that they were against extending the Act airside.
• 18% (17) did not take a direct stance on the extension of the Act airside. Out of these, 5 advocated for further measures to combat drunk and disruptive behaviour, such as a blanket ban on the sale or supply of alcohol airside.

Several airline, airport and industry respondents are also members of trade bodies that responded separately to the Call for Evidence. Some responses are therefore duplicated.

Arguments for Extending the Licensing Act 2003 airside

Common themes in submissions by respondents in favour of extending the Act included that this would:

• Ensure that airside premises are subject to the same legal checks as those landside, including the four licensing objectives and the mandatory conditions that ban irresponsible promotions, require age verification where a customer appears under 18 and require the provision of small measures;
• Ensure a greater consistency of operation across airports and on the high street;
• Introduce a regime of monitoring, inspection and enforcement to raise standards of the responsible sale of alcohol;
• Help regulate the refusal of sales to those who are already drunk and tackle the airport ‘drinking culture’;
• Place greater controls on when and at which premises alcohol is sold and to whom;
• Require staff training to minimum standards; and
• Send a clear message that drunk and disorderly behaviour will not be accepted.

Arguments against Extending the Licensing Act 2003 airside

Common themes in submissions by respondents against extending the Act included that this would:

• Be disproportionate in terms of cost, complexity and the administrative burden given the low percentage of recorded incidents of drunk and disruptive behaviour at airports and on aircraft and that the airside environment is already safe and secure;
• Add operational costs to airside premises including lounge facilities and a negative economic impact on revenue;
• Be unnecessary as airside businesses already take adequate measures to prevent drunk and disruptive behaviour, such as the use of sealed bags and through voluntary codes;
• Lead to a poorer customer experience, with the responsible many unable to purchase alcohol because of concerns about the irresponsible few;
• Allow local licensing authorities to impose different licensing conditions, causing confusion for passengers;
• Give airlines a commercial advantage, while increasing the risk of disruption in-flight;
• Be ineffective as individuals determined to drink irresponsibly might simply consume alcohol before they arrive at the airport or consume duty-free purchases; and
• Have no impact on the numbers of disruptive incidents, as shown by the experience of licensing regimes at Scottish and Northern Irish airports. Similar points were made about the prevalence of disorder on UK high streets, where premises are subject to licensing.

Section One: the scale of the problem of drunk and disruptive passengers in England and Wales

Incidents reported by respondents as ‘disruptive’ are not necessarily indicative of being alcohol-related unless specified. A list of respondents is provided at Annex A.

Question 1: To what extent, if any, have drunk and disruptive airline passengers become more of a problem in recent years?

Summary of responses

The CAA provided data on the number of ‘disruptive incidents’, which has been fairly constant over the past three years.

Reports by airlines indicated an increase in ‘disruptive incidents’ in recent years, but not all data provided specifically captured alcohol-related incidents.

A limited amount of data on alcohol-related disruptive incidents was provided by airports, airport groups and airport associations. It is not clear whether these incidents have been increasing at airports in recent years.

There was a lack of consistent data provided by the alcohol and wider service industry over an extended time, and it is unclear whether there has been an increase specifically in ‘alcohol-related’ incidents.

Number of incidents

Several submissions pointed to data published by the CAA, which is responsible for the regulation of aviation safety in the UK. The CAA report data on the annual number of disruptive passenger incidents^{[footnote 2]} onboard aircraft based on Mandatory Occurrences Reports (MOR)^{[footnote 3]} received from airlines and examine the narrative of these reports to break down incidents where alcohol was considered to be a factor^{[footnote 4]}. Data provided by the CAA on the percentage of ‘disruptive incidents’ that were ‘alcohol-related’ showed an increase from 19% to 32% from 2013 to 2018. Their data on the number of ‘disruptive incidents’ has been fairly constant over the past 3 years. In 2016, 2017 and 2018, they reported 415, 417 and 370 such incidents respectively.

While most airlines recorded ‘disruptive incidents’, only three provided data on whether these were ‘alcohol-related’. Only one airline association reported ‘disruptive incidents’ but did not record whether they were ‘alcohol-related’. One airline association cited a 66% increase in disruptive incidents recorded by six of its members from 2015 to 2018, around 50% of which were assumed to be alcohol related.

Only four airports reported data on ‘disruptive incidents’ that were ‘alcohol-related’. One airport association said that action taken by industry is resulting in the numbers of incidents beginning to stabilise.

Most alcohol and wider service industry respondents did not specifically record whether incidents were ‘alcohol-related’, but stated or implied that the problem of drunk and disruptive behaviour was not increasing. One industry respondent stated that disruptive incidents represent 0.00015% of all passengers, and that ‘disruptive incidents’ are likely to fall this year if the trend in the current CAA statistics continues.

Four of the six police forces that responded reported whether ‘disruptive incidents’ at the airports they operated in were ‘alcohol-related’.

Several other respondents cited an increase in drunk and disruptive behaviour. One trade body reported an increase in the frequency of disruptive incidents at airports and onboard flights and an increase in the number of unreported sexual assaults on staff, particularly cabin crew.

Overall, the data suggested a rise in disruptive incidents, although the way data is collected and whether or how incidents are identified as involving alcohol is inconsistent.

Severity of disruptive incidents

Some respondents highlighted the number of incidents involving aggression to premises staff or airline crew. The International Airline Trade Association (IATA) record incidents according to the Cabin Operations Safety Best Practice Guide. In 2017, 89% of low severity incidents recorded by the IATA involved intoxication. One airline noted increases in both “low-risk” and “medium-risk” events between 2016 and 2018 although did not specify how many of these were alcohol-related.

One police force reported a rise in all types of ‘disruptive incidents’ at their local airport between 2017 and 2018, with 37% of ‘disruptive incidents’ involving ‘rowdy and inconsiderate’ passengers (a proxy for ‘alcohol-related’ incidents). One airport’s data suggested an increase in ‘‘medium-risk’’ incidents and a reduction in ‘‘low-risk’’ incidents from 2017 to 2018, with most alcohol-related incidents being ‘‘medium-risk’’ and on outbound flights.

One police force recorded 28,138 ‘disruptive incidents onboard an aircraft’, of which 130 were flagged as being ‘related to alcohol’ between November 2017 and October 2018.

Incidents by time and day

There was not a consistent picture of incidents by time and day based on the responses received, although Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays were highlighted in some responses. One industry respondent anecdotally noted that they ‘see more boisterous crowds’ on Thursday and Fridays. One airline reported that Friday and Saturday evening flights had the greatest number of ‘alcohol-related incidents’, though did not provide specific data.

One airport reported that the vast majority of ‘alcohol-related’ police incidents occur before 10am. Another airport reported that of all ‘alcohol-related’ disruptive incidents on outbound and inbound flights, 84% and 79% respectively were after 10am. Another airport reported that 67% of ‘alcohol-related’ incidents occurred after 11am. One airline anecdotally reported that most issues occurred on flights from 12 to 6pm. One airport reported that most ‘alcohol-related’ police incidents were in the mid to late-evening, noting 6pm to 7am and 9 to 10pm as problematic times.

The most problematic months for ‘alcohol-related’ incidents identified by one respondent were May, June, September, October and the ‘Christmas Period’.

Demographics

The data provided on demographics was patchy and largely anecdotal. One airline reported that most of their ‘low-risk’ incidents were committed by 18 to 30 year olds, and ‘medium-risk’ incidents by people aged 30 and above.

One police force reported that at their local airport which they operate in, 75% of ‘alcohol-related’ incidents involved males between the ages of 31 and 40. They reported that 95% of people offloaded from aircraft at the airport were men but did not specify if these incidents were alcohol-related. Another airport said that most incidents involved men and reported an increase in incidents around the time of Champions League games.

Inbound and outbound flights

Several respondents provided data relating to whether incidents took place on outbound or inbound flights. Generally, most recorded incidents that took place on outbound flights.

One police force’s data, reported annually from 2013 to 2016, showed that most alcohol-related incidents were on outbound flights and took place airside. The biggest one-year increase in ‘alcohol-related incidents’ was 76% from 2015 to 2016.

For a one-year period, one police respondent reported that of the 37 ‘alcohol-related’ offences recorded, 27 were on outbound flights, with the most common offences being ‘Drunk in Aircraft’ and ‘Common Assault’. One police force reported the number of incidents for the seven most problematic airports in their area but did not specify if these were alcohol-related or which year this data covered and found that most incidents were on outbound flights.

Conclusion

Data collection on disruptive incidents – including how and if such incidents are identified as involving alcohol – is inconsistent and needs to improve. A more standardised data collection model would help identify trends and themes in the types of incidents, including demographics and times at which incidents are occurring. This would allow for targeted and effective measures to be put in place to reduce such incidents.

The Government will work with the CAA, airports, airlines, and the police to ensure the recording of ‘disruptive incidents’ by severity and whether they are ‘alcohol-related’ using standardised definitions. Considerations should include recording standardised information such as the time and date of incidents, the relevant airline, flight routes, gender and age groups of the passengers involved to allow for an informed analysis of incidents.

Question 2: Are all airports, airlines and routes in England and Wales similarly affected by the problem of drunk and disruptive passengers? If not, which airports and airlines are affected more than others and why?

Summary of responses

Several respondents reported anecdotally that disruptions appear to occur more often on short-haul routes to ‘party destinations’ around the summer.

There is no clear evidence of specific airports being worse affected. There is some evidence of the problem of ‘alcohol-related disruptive incidents’ being on outbound flights.

Airlines and airline associations

Data provided in response to this question was inconsistent and lacked a standardised approach, although it was possible to draw some general conclusions.

One airline reported seeing more disruptive behaviour by ‘younger customers travelling in coach’, although no specific data was provided. One airline association stated that incidents most frequently occurred on flights to certain leisure destinations and from specific airports in England and Wales, disproportionately affecting carriers serving those markets.

One airline reported that such behaviour was not limited to one or two airports. They suggested that this is a UK problem as, anecdotally, most European airlines not based in the UK are not seeing an increase in reported ‘disruptive’ passenger incidents. Conversely, an airline association said that it is not solely a UK problem, as they have seen increases in reported ‘disruptive incidents’ in other European airports.

International airports, airport groups and airport associations

Several airports and industry groups pointed to media reporting of disruptive passengers which placed emphasis on passengers travelling with affordable airlines to ‘party destinations’.

Alcohol and wider service industry

One lounge operator provided evidence of problematic airports, with 89 recorded ‘alcohol-related disruptive incidents’ from 2015 to 2018.

Police

One police force stated that regional airports experience more drunk and disruptive incidents than larger airports due to their offer of short-haul package holidays. They commented that cheaper flights make it more affordable for customers who are offloaded to re-book another flight from the same airport the following day or from another airport on the same day.

Another force stated that in locations closer to London, airport operators charge higher fees, preventing some budget airlines from operating there. They reported that long-haul international flights are more expensive and used more often by older passengers and business class passengers, rather than group travellers, and that this can change the types of offences being dealt with.

Other

One workers trade union’s survey of up to 4,000 cabin crew members in 2017 reported that the highest level of alcohol disruption amongst economy passengers was on short haul, low fare and chartered flights.

One airport’s community engagement board reported that over half of their disruptive incidents are on inbound flights, which licensing would not affect. They did not provide evidence to support this claim.

Conclusion

The Government would welcome action by relevant parties, such as one respondent’s proposal around specific campaigns or action plans that could be developed to target a minority of customers behaving in disruptive ways.  

Question 3: Is there a common definition used by airports and airlines to define drunk and disruptive passenger incidents? If so, how do airports and airlines ensure these incidents are classified, recorded and/or reported in a consistent manner?

Summary of responses

Most respondents were not aware of a common definition consistently used by airports and airlines or did not believe that one existed.

All airlines report ‘disruptive incidents’, however there was no consistent definition and no consistent use of flagging these as being ‘alcohol-related’.

There was some level of consistency in reporting ‘alcohol-related’ incidents across police forces operating within airports.

A variety of respondents said that a standard definition and reporting requirements would be helpful to support a consistent approach to recording and reporting such incidents and building a stronger evidence base.

Airline and airline associations

Not all airlines record whether ‘disruptive incidents’ are ‘alcohol-related’ and most believed that there is no uniform definition used by airports and airlines to classify and record such incidents. One airline association said that airlines normally record such events as per their individual Standard Operating Procedures, with an MOR filed for more serious instances. IATA promotes a standard definition and classification for the reporting of incidents, which the CAA and several airline respondents referred to in their submissions. However, IATA noted that classification is often operator specific as airlines need to comply with the requirements of their national authority. They also referred to the standard definition from the Cabin Operations Safety Best Practices Guide^{[footnote 5]}.

International airports, airport groups and airport associations

No clear evidence was provided to show that airports, airport groups and airport associations are recording ‘alcohol-related disruptive incidents’ consistently. One airport association noted that the CAA’s MOR covers several serious incidents, but that it is not always clear where alcohol is involved. They added that data gathered by airlines is not done so uniformly and that the details are not shared with them.

Alcohol and wider service industry

Industry responses showed no consistency in flagging ‘alcohol-related disruptive incidents’. One retail association noted that there was no agreed data set shared by the CAA, local authorities and airlines. One lounge operator stated that there was no common approach to defining drunk or disruptive behaviour.

Police

All six police forces who responded to this question reported ‘disruptive incidents’ at the airports in which they operate, of which four reported whether these were ‘alcohol-related’. Two forces stated that the term ‘disruptive’ was used in a broader sense than just alcohol-related incidents.

Conclusion

This is another area that would benefit from more consistent data collection.

Question 4: To what extent, if any, do premises that sell/supply alcohol airside contribute to the problem of drunk and disruptive passengers?

Summary of responses

Most respondents stated or implied that the supply of alcohol airside contributes to the problem of drunk and disruptive passengers.

Respondents that disagreed acknowledged the critical role of airside outlets, noting that staff operating airside are appropriately trained in the responsible service of alcohol, monitoring passenger consumption behaviour and dealing with disruptive passengers.

Other respondents noted that any irresponsible alcohol sales have the potential to cause drunk and disruptive behaviour and that the consequences can be harmful to the safety of other passengers, as well as airport and airline staff.

Key themes raised by respondents that felt the provision of alcohol airside does contribute to the problem of drunk and disruptive passengers

Several respondents felt that airside retailers take advantage of the exemption from the Act by irresponsibly promoting and selling alcohol, resulting in a socially acceptable culture of drinking excessively at airports and on flights.

It was reported that airside food and retail outlets that traditionally do not sell alcohol on the high street, such as coffee shops, are maximising their revenue and appeal by participating in its sale airside. An example given included a fast food outlet’s offer to “upgrade a drink to a beer for £1.99” with a meal.

Several respondents referred to practices such as price promotions on cocktails, two-pint steins and pitchers and ‘two-for-one’ offers. The prominent advertising of special promotions for alcohol in several areas around airport terminals was widely reported, including as customers queue to pay for duty-free purchases. It was also reported that duty-free retailers line airside departure lounges and place alcohol at discounted prices in prime commercial positions and in clear view of passengers.

Many respondents claimed that duty-free alcohol sales such as large bottles of spirits offered at discounted prices and 50ml miniatures that contain high concentrations of alcohol, can be consumed airside or on aircraft and in large quantities, without the knowledge of staff. The nature of duty-free alcohol packaging was also noted as making products easy to conceal onto aircraft or be broken down into smaller sealed qualities.

It was reported that modern airports often feature large open plan food courts that make monitoring consumption of duty-free products within terminals difficult. While some airports have undertaken initiatives to mitigate this problem, two respondents felt that measures have not been uniform and are often implemented on a trial basis, without having demonstrated significant effectiveness as there is no legal obligation to do so.

Several respondents said that many premium airline and non-airline airport lounges provide alcohol for free, or at a relatively low fee, and often in unlimited quantities. One respondent said that alcohol is part of the attraction of lounges and is sometimes very visibly advertised, for example, as a “self-pour bar”.

One airline association referred to its 2017 poll on the public perception of disruptive passengers, which found that just under half of the adults surveyed believed that airport retailers actively encourage the irresponsible consumption of alcohol. It also summarised its views on data from member airlines which suggested that alcohol supplied from airside outlets and sold in duty free account for the most disruptive passenger incidents.

One airline reported that almost half of disruptive incidents on its aircraft in 2018 involved passengers drinking, or suspected of drinking, alcohol that they had purchased in the airport and brought onboard. Alcohol-related incidents on their flights could therefore indicate that customers are drinking excessively before boarding an aircraft.

Key themes raised by respondents that felt the provision of alcohol airside does not contribute to the problem of drunk and disruptive passengers

The airside retail sector was referred to as one of the safest environments by one airport and three industry trade groups, as it differs to the high street due to significant security checks, a permanent police presence and limited dwell time. Many respondents reported that airside alcohol premises are often operated by large retailers that mirror the same procedures for their airside premises as they do landside, including around sales to drunks and training of staff that reflects requirements under the Act.

The introduction of sealed bags for all duty-free alcohol purchases was welcomed by many respondents. One highlighted that sealed bags are already widely used in other jurisdictions and should be mandated. Another noted that passengers will now be made aware that they will be committing an offence by breaking the seal to consume alcohol bought in an airport.

Respondents noted that whilst many airlines provide premium customers with access to airside lounges that include alcohol, these facilities serve a limited number of daily flights, therefore incidents of drunk and disruptive behaviour are low. The majority of airport and service industry respondents noted that lounge staff are trained in the responsible service of alcohol and routinely monitor passenger consumption behaviour. Two airports claimed that they do not offer alcohol on a self-service basis in their business lounges.

One airline association reported that alcohol is no longer served on a complimentary basis by many airlines, particularly on short haul intra-European flights. For those airlines that serve alcohol as part of their overall cabin service, they said alcoholic drinks represent a significant cost of sale, which given the tight financial margins on which airlines operate, acts as a further incentive to limit service.

Under the Act, selling alcohol to someone who is drunk is an offence on relevant premises. One police force reported that evidence from one airport suggested a positive move towards reducing alcohol sales to under-18s following its premises signing up to the Code of Practice and through their adoption of a ‘Challenge 25’ policy.

One airport community engagement board reported that there is no evidence of volume or price incentivisation campaigning at any of its retail outlets, as pricing is not particularly competitive within the non-airport environment. Two industry respondents said that there is no incentive to over-sell alcohol to guests as food sales are typically more profitable.

Some airports and industry respondents document when a customer is refused alcohol in refusal logs which are shared with the airport and police. Each premise will have its own process by which to notify other airport units not to serve a customer and the form of communication between airport units is not uniform across all airports.

Many airport and industry respondents believed airside premises to have robust policies and procedures in place where disruptive behaviours are identified. These included: bans on miniatures in some airports, the use of two-pint glasses, the inclusion of responsible sales of alcohol clauses in byelaws and concession agreements with food and drink retail outlets and lounges, offers of promotional alcohol tasting by airside retailers only being permitted within certain hours, the removal of self-service options within lounges and the introduction of initiatives such as the ‘One Too Many’ campaign and signing up to the Code of Practice.

Conclusion

Further measures should be taken to ensure that a small minority of passengers do not drink excessively within airports and cause disruption on their flights.

However, we do not believe that lifting the exemption on airside premises from the Act would be the most effective way to tackle this issue. Whilst we expect retailers to promote and sell alcohol responsibly, the introduction of the Act does not prohibit the promotion of alcohol and would therefore, for example, not explicitly prevent two-for-one offers. We believe that voluntary adoption of good practice and high retail standards will be more effective in the long run and are pleased to see measures already being put in place by airlines, the wider alcohol and service industry and airport operators.

The Government will continue to support industry-led initiatives such as sealed bags for alcoholic duty-free purchases, the roll out of accreditation schemes and communication campaigns to raise awareness of the law, the use of tenancy agreements to restrict the number of outlets selling alcohol and removing the sale of miniature spirits and liquors from checkout queues. The potential impact of disruptive incidents on aircraft are significant and we would expect that all interested parties will work together to minimise such incidents and put safety first.

Under the Air Navigation Order, it is an offense to be drunk on an aircraft and airlines have the authority to prevent passengers they believe are intoxicated from boarding an airplane, though anecdotal evidence suggested that this power is not always exercised.

Question 5: What other factors, if any, contribute to the problem of drunk and disruptive passengers?

Summary of responses

Respondents to this question referred to preloading (before boarding an aircraft, landside and airside), flight delays and cancellations, in-flight alcohol promotions and sales, airline marketing and the affordability of alcohol as contributory factors to the problem of drunk and disruptive passenger behaviour.

Affordability of alcohol

Four respondents said that affordability is a key driver of alcohol consumption and associated harms. Two respondents cited an evidence review^{[footnote 6]} by Public Health England which found that a 10% increase in the price of alcohol would lead to a 5% decrease in demand. Both noted this was relevant in the airport context as the affordability gap between alcohol sold in duty free and alcohol sold in airside outlets and on flights can encourage passengers to buy alcohol in duty-free for consumption inflight or pre-boarding.

Lack of guidance around alcohol consumption

One airline noted that whilst airside outlets claim that their staff are trained and instructed to inform passengers about responsible drinking, there is a lack of guidance to inform passengers where they can or cannot consume alcohol purchased in terminals. One airport group noted that alcohol consumption and behaviour is a cultural issue and needs to be tackled through greater awareness of the rules, regulations and consequences of committing an offence. One police respondent confirmed that at one of the airports it operates at, perpetrators often did not realise that being drunk on an aircraft is an offence.

Flight delays or cancellations

One industry respondent, airline association and police respondent claimed that flight delays and cancellations can result in passengers having longer periods of dwell time airside. One airport noted that it is considering only selling alcohol to passengers up to their scheduled departure time to avoid prolonged periods of drinking if they are delayed. An airline association claimed that staff have sometimes requested certain bars to be shut or for alcohol sales near certain gates to be limited if there are long delays.

Consumption of duty-free purchases prior to boarding or during flights

One airline association reported instances of duty-free alcohol purchases (generally spirits) being opened and consumed by passengers prior to boarding a flight, or during a flight. A trade union reported claimed that its cabin crew have encountered empty two litre liquor bottles being hidden under seats.

Another respondent felt that duty-free alcohol purchases should be removed from passengers altogether prior to boarding a flight and returned upon arrival at their destination. A police force said that cabin crew must interact with passengers who are drinking too much to warn them of the potential consequences, before their behaviour becomes too disruptive and not after.

Airline marketing, in-flight sales and promotional offers

Two respondents felt that marketing material by low-cost carriers often have an explicit focus on excessive alcohol consumption and can be targeted to consumers travelling in large groups, such as stag or hen parties, or university students.

Two airlines claimed they did not believe alcohol sold onboard flights to be a significant cause of alcohol-related disruptive behaviour, given that there is an average of one or two drinks services per flight and that duty-free sales take place towards the end of flights. Several airlines confirmed that flight crew are permitted to refuse to serve passengers alcohol, suspend the sale of alcohol altogether as part of a journey or operate a completely dry service if they feel this is necessary for safety reasons. Any duty-free alcohol sold onboard flights can also be withheld from passengers until the end of the journey or until passengers disembark. Airlines and airline associations were confident that cabin crew are trained to monitor, manage and moderate the consumption of alcohol and the quantity of alcohol that they distribute.

Two airlines said that their staff receive commission for alcohol sales, but that this constitutes part of their overall commission for duty-free sales. One airline noted that of the total duty-free sales in the UK, only 8% of their sales were from alcohol, and that there is no specific commission received for alcohol sales.

Other respondents reported that there are incentives for airline staff to sell alcohol to passengers onboard flights. One duty-free operator and a trade union claimed that some flight crew can be employed via an agency and may fear that they will no longer keep that posting if they do not maximise sales of alcohol under financial and managerial pressure. They also said that it is often low-cost carriers that sell and market cheaper alcohol inflight. Examples were given of low-cost airlines advertising spirit sales in double measurements, offering discounted and multi-buy promotions on miniature bottles of wine or spirits, offers of two-pint measures and tasters, and the sale of mixers.

Pre-loading

A variety of respondents reported that pre-loading can be a contributory factor to disruptive incidents, but that evidence would be difficult to quantify, particularly if passengers had been drinking before going airside. One airport and a police respondent claimed some passengers arrive at airports partially intoxicated or bring their own alcohol and consume this landside, before going airside, where they then proceed to consume alcohol sold as on-sales or purchased as duty-free off-sales. They noted that prolonged dwell times, including where some passengers choose to stay in terminals overnight prior to travelling, can exacerbate the problem.

One airlines group felt that introducing time restrictions on alcohol sales, which was called for by some other respondents, would in fact make passengers more likely to purchase alcohol from Duty Free and consume it in an unsafe environment before boarding a flight, which could exacerbate the number of drunk and disruptive passengers. Two respondents reiterated that introducing time restrictions on alcohol sales would not tackle the culture of drinking to ‘celebrate the start of a trip’ as those determined to drink heavily would plan ahead and select either flights times when airside outlets are open, destinations based on flight times to allow for drinking, or drink before arriving at an airport.

One respondent noted that given the security measures that restrict liquids above 100ml being taken airside, most alcohol consumed by passengers is purchased airside.

Conclusion

As stated in the previous question conclusion, there is inconclusive evidence that applying the Act airside would effectively address these issues. For example, the Act allows for 24-hour licenses, so would not guarantee that there would be times when no alcohol could be purchased airside. We encourage airport operators and retailers to review existing, and where necessary adopt sensible and uniform, measures – for example, by only serving alcohol up to departure times rather than continuing to serve alcohol if a flight is delayed.

Question 6: To what extent, if any, do drunk and disruptive passengers pose a safety risk?

Summary of responses

Most respondents discussed safety risks on aircrafts, but it was also noted that drunk and disruptive passengers can pose a safety threat to airside staff and other customers.

There was an overall consensus was that while rates of disruptive passenger incidents (whether linked to alcohol or not) are low when considering total passenger numbers, they have the potential to pose a significant safety risk to flight crew and other passengers and endanger the safe operation of a flight, even where flight crew are fully trained to respond to such incidents.

One respondent referred to data published in a report^{[footnote 7]} by the Institute of Alcohol Studies and the European Alcohol Policy Alliance which found that three out of five British adults who travel by air (60%) have encountered drunk passengers while on a flight. It also found that just over half (51%) of Britons believed there to be a serious problem with excessive alcohol consumption in air travel.

A majority of the respondents to this question noted that incidents resulting in a nuisance to other passengers can have important safety implications by distracting crew from their core safety duties, especially during flight-critical stages like landing and take-off. Many airlines reported that drunken passengers, even if not disruptive, represent a safety risk to themselves and other passengers as they may not be able to follow safety instructions, thereby impeding the safe evacuation of an aircraft in an emergency. Several respondents said that there can be serious safety risks when passengers damage or tamper with essential safety equipment on aircraft. One airport cited an example of a drunken passenger that attempted to open the cabin door when an aircraft was inflight.

In addition, it was reported that while passenger incidents which are physical in nature are less common, where they do occur, they have the potential to be very dangerous to the flight crew and other passengers. Case studies provided included where a captain judged there to be a serious threat to flight and diverted an aircraft or returned passengers to its departure airport. Where crew members are assaulted during take-off, the injuries sustained will prevent them from performing their primary duties.

Conclusion

Passengers and airport and airline staff have the right to travel safely and without experiencing disruptive behaviour from passengers who are drinking excessively. Our work to improve data collection will help inform the understanding of ‘high-risk’ groups, destinations, types of flights and times of travel. This in turn will allow airport operators, airlines and retailers to work together to effectively manage those situations. Flight crew working on ‘high-risk’ flights may also benefit from additional support to identify intoxicated passengers at the gate and prevent them from boarding.

Question 7: What is the perception and experience of passengers and cabin crew, regarding the problem of drunk and disruptive behaviour at airports and/or inflight?

Summary of responses

As would be expected, the experience of air passengers varied.

Several airlines said that even less severe incidents, such as verbal abuse, can be very upsetting for passengers and have a profound effect, especially on those that are nervous flyers, elderly, disabled, or travelling with children.

Perceptions and experience of passengers

One police respondent reported that passengers will often choose different routes each time to avoid large groups they have encountered on previous flights to the same destination.

A poll carried out on behalf of IATA of travellers in five destinations showed that 26% of those surveyed in the UK had witnessed unruly or inappropriate behaviour on a flight in the last six months of 2018. Drunken behaviour was seen in 47% of these incidents, with physical altercation being the next most frequently witnessed behaviour.

Pupils 2 Parliament reported that 19 out of 32 children who had flown in the past two years had personally witnessed drunk or disorderly behaviour on a flight. Pupils reported that these incidents had made them feel worried, sick, upset and/or unsafe.

Several members of the public felt that flight crew can be unresponsive to disruptive incidents and only intervene as a last resort, citing first-hand accounts where crew had continued to sell alcohol to passengers even where they were visibly intoxicated to avoid escalating the behaviour or starting conflict. Disruptive behaviour witnessed onboard flights ranged from passengers shouting, swearing, using intimidating behaviour towards flight crew, walking or falling down in between aisles when the seatbelt sign was turned on, and refusing to follow crew instructions.

Perception and experience of cabin crew

One airline said that during a rise in incidents onboard its aircraft in 2017, some of its crew refused to fly unless police or private security were present at boarding gates. In most cases, the airline paid for security, but still felt that passengers were free to become intoxicated at the airport due to the lack of controls around airside alcohol consumption.

One airline association cited that some crew felt anxious about come into work because they viewed dealing with drunk and disruptive behaviour as a frequent and routine part of their role, dreading certain flights or choosing to leave the profession altogether as a result.

One police respondent said that they found cabin crew experiences to be hugely varied, the training of flight staff to be inconsistent, and that airlines tend to have different policies in place when deciding whether to manage a disruptive incident themselves or involve the police. They also added that on several occasions where the police were asked to attend incidents reported by airlines, cabin crew and pilots refused to provide them with witness statements to enable them to progress allegations. They noted that this could be because of the reporting criteria for the MOR that airlines usually use.

Conclusion

It is unacceptable that passengers and crew should feel intimidated, threatened or unsafe during a flight due to drunk and disruptive behaviour. Although the incidents reflect a small proportion of the total number of people flying each year, the impact of such incidents can be very serious.

The responses we have received indicate that it may be possible to identify particular flight routes where the risk of a disruptive incident is more likely than others. We would encourage airport operators, airlines and retailers to work collaboratively to develop ways to identify and manage these situations effectively by maximising the initiatives in place and considering other possibilities, including more transparency in data sharing.

Question 8: What are the financial, economic, administrative and other impacts of alcohol-related incidents at airports and on aircraft?

Summary of responses

Respondents cited direct pecuniary impacts as a result of diverted aircraft and associated operational and administrative effects, indirect financial impacts such as compensation, safety management and criminal justice costs.

They also cited non-pecuniary impacts, such as emotional distress.

Average estimated costs of diversions provided by respondents varied depending on different attributes such as the length of flights, the size of aircraft and the diverted destinations. Airlines and airline associations noted that costs incurred due to delays and diversions at overseas airports are made up of fuel, navigation and ground handling charges, overtime, refreshments for passengers, transport for crew where asked to remain, hotel accommodation and knock-on effects to further flights.

Two respondents also pointed out that airlines are required to pay out to passengers for delays of more than three hours owing to legal obligations under the Regulation (EC) 261/2004 (Air Passenger Rights), up to £60,000 per flight.

Two police respondents claimed that significant costs can be incurred for safety management operations such as deploying supplementary police presence at departure gates. One force said some airports rely heavily on airport policing teams to provide support and a visible presence at busy times. This may be regarded as a ‘door staff’ function that would be carried out by Security Industry Authority accredited door staff on the high street. This was described as an expensive way to provide police supervision in airports and that it may also detract from the airport police’s wider role such as counterterrorism deterrence.

Some respondents said that where prosecutions are brought by airlines, they may have to absorb legal costs incurred and so may not always be able to seek restitution or recovery. One airline association referred to administrative costs for implementing refusals, in-courts costs and criminal justice costs such as police time. Another reported that there can also be costs associated with the reputational damage to an airline as a result of undesirable social media coverage associated with disruptive incidents. Several airlines noted resourcing costs incurred to cover time off for the welfare of staff exposed to an incident inflight, and the cost of replacing crew that do not return.

Several respondents noted that there can also be physical and psychological impacts on cabin crew or other passengers exposed to incidents. Where flights are delayed or diverted, customers’ holiday plans or business trips can be disrupted.

Conclusion

We would encourage all relevant parties to work collaboratively to prevent and manage incidents effectively, leading to reduction in number of incidents and associated costs. 

Section Two: the effectiveness and limitations of the current arrangements to tackle the problem of drunk and disruptive airline passengers in England and Wales

Question 9: How effective is the use of relevant powers in the Air Navigation Order 2016 as well as any other appropriate statutory powers in tackling the problem of drunk and disruptive passengers at international airports in England and Wales?

Summary of responses

90% of respondents that commented on the effectiveness of the Air Navigation Order 2016 (ANO) felt that its provisions relating to drunkenness in aircraft, acting in a disruptive manner, and the power to refuse boarding, together with the associated penalties, are sufficient.

However, ten respondents suggested that the ANO is not effectively enforced.

Some suggested that insufficient use is made of powers to refuse boarding.

Several referred to existing airport byelaws that make it an offence to be intoxicated by alcohol or drugs on airport land.

Several respondents highlighted levels of prosecutions that they considered too low to be an effective deterrent. One called for the guidance on prosecuting these offences to be reviewed and for clear guidance to be provided to the industry on the sanctions and penalties that should apply.

Other respondents highlighted low public awareness of the provisions of the ANO and suggested that publicising them better would have a deterrent effect. Some respondents suggested that insufficient use is made of powers to refuse boarding due to commercial and operational reasons, including flight delays caused by the need to remove a disruptive passenger’s hold luggage.

Some proposals were made to amend the ANO. Several respondents favoured the introduction of a regime of penalty notices for ANO offences, similar to those that operate in Australia, Finland, New Zealand and Singapore.

Others called for in-flight consumption of alcohol that was not purchased onboard to be made illegal. While some airlines already operate policies that ban such consumption, some respondents felt that giving these the force of law would give crew greater authority to tackle the problem. One respondent claimed that introducing such an offence in America had led to year on year reductions in disruptive incidents.

Another respondent argued that the offence of being drunk on an aircraft should be broadened to being unfit on an aircraft due to drink or drugs. Two suggested that a loophole in the ANO is that it is not an offence to smoke tobacco on a non-UK registered aircraft. Several highlighted the jurisdictional issues that arise when disruptive incidents occur on outbound flights to foreign destinations and on foreign registered aircraft. One respondent suggested that UK police were unlikely to follow up incidents on outbound flights or to seek extradition of offenders. In this context, two respondents called for UK ratification of the Montreal Protocol 2014, which extends jurisdiction to the states in which the operator is located and the state of destination of the flight (which includes a state to which a flight is diverted).

In terms of other statutory powers used to reduce disruptive incidents, several respondents referred to airport byelaws that make it an offence to be intoxicated by alcohol or drugs on airport land. Offenders can be required to leave the airport. One respondent highlighted a draft byelaw that will replicate Licensing Act offences of selling or permitting the sale of alcohol to a person who is drunk or obtaining alcohol for a person who is drunk. Another respondent called for greater standardisation of byelaws across airports.

Conclusion

We welcome initiatives by all interested parties to improve awareness of the ANO and measures to improve implementation of existing laws.  

Question 10: What are other statutory or legally binding instruments (e.g. lease agreements) and/or voluntary arrangements (e.g. the Code of Practice on Drunk and Disruptive Passengers) that currently govern the sale and supply of alcohol airside and on a plane?

Taken with ^{[footnote 8]}

Question 11: How effective is the use of existing statutory and any other instruments, including industry partnerships, in promoting responsible alcohol sales and tackling the problem of drunk and disruptive passengers at international airports in England and Wales?

Summary of responses

Several respondents described airport byelaws as an effective tool in managing disruptive behaviour.

Several noted that airports have an ability to regulate through conditions in leases or other contractual arrangements, the type and conduct of business activities operated at airport locations.

A range of voluntary measures was perceived as having a positive effect by airlines, airports and businesses taking part in them.

The Code of Practice on Drunk and Disorderly Passengers seeks to involve airlines, airports and the businesses that operate them in taking a zero-tolerance approach to disruptive behaviour and promoting of responsible sale and consumption of alcohol.

Statutory measures

Two respondents referred to the 1963 Tokyo Convention, which introduced powers to deal with disruptive passengers on landing in the UK, irrespective of the state in which the aircraft was registered^{[footnote 9]}.

Several respondents viewed airport byelaws as an effective tool in managing disruptive behaviour, for example by enabling airports to prosecute a passenger who fails to comply with a request to leave. Three respondents stated that airports are in the process of revising their byelaws to enhance the controls for drunk and disorderly behaviour. One stated that proposals would include new powers for airport staff or airport police forces, for example making it an offence to consume alcohol in a certain location. One respondent was critical of the absence of byelaws relating to the sale and promotion of alcohol at several airports and felt that where byelaws did exist they tended to focus upon the passenger and not the supplier of alcohol.

The provisions of the Act that prohibit the sale of alcohol to anyone under the age of 18 and purchasing alcohol on behalf of somebody who is under the age of 18 apply to the sale of alcohol whether they are made from licensed premises or not. One respondent suggested that these provisions would, therefore, apply to the sale and supply of alcohol airside and on aircraft, providing that they are governed by laws applicable to England and Wales. A police respondent reported that a recent airside alcohol test-purchasing initiative found that concessionaires visited did not ask for age verification in 100% of attempted sales. This prompted a collaboration agreement between police, local authority and airport management, as well as a training plan for every licensed concessionaire at the airport.

Contractual arrangements

Several respondents noted that airports can regulate the type and conduct of business activities operated at airport locations through conditions in leases or other contractual arrangements. Two respondents noted that such arrangements had not contained provisions relating to customer behaviour standards and responsible retailing of alcohol in the past but that this is changing, with provisions along these lines being added.

Voluntary Measures

A range of voluntary measures were perceived as having a positive effect by airlines, airports and businesses taking part in them. However, some respondents were sceptical about the effectiveness of measures that are unsupported by regulatory regimes or legal sanctions. It was noted that buy-in to these initiatives must be evident at all stages of the passenger journey and there needs to be a more consistent focus to maximise impact.

Codes of Practice

In 2016 Airlines UK published a Code of Practice on Drunk and Disorderly Passengers, produced in conjunction with the AOA, the Airport Police Commanders Group and trade associations. It seeks to involve airlines, airports and the businesses that operate them in taking a zero-tolerance approach to disruptive behaviour and promoting of responsible sale and consumption of alcohol. The Code makes signatories responsible for reporting incidents of disruptive behaviour to the police and to support any resulting police action. It was noted that there is extensive provision within the Code to commit signatories to train their staff to practice the responsible sale of alcohol, including limiting or stopping the sale or supply of alcohol to prevent and manage disruptive behaviour.

Many airports, retailers and trade organisations were supportive of the aims and content of the Code. Several credited it with encouraging constructive dialogue about the issue of disruptive passengers across the industry and could encourage a change in airport drinking culture and act as an effective deterrent. However, one respondent noted that the BBC’s Panorama, which considered the Code as part of its Plane Drunk documentary, highlighted instances of non-adherence to the Code. The programme reported Unite’s survey which found that one in four cabin crew had not heard of the Code and, of those who had, fewer than one in four thought it was working.

Several respondents suggested further work to make the Code more robust and encourage greater consistency in its implementation. We understand that discussions are taking place amongst members about whether the Code requires reviewing and updating. The Government would welcome a fostered collaboration between members to explore the need for this.

Two respondents highlighted the Duty-Free World Council (DFWC) Self-Regulatory Code of Conduct for the Sale of Alcohol Products in Duty Free and Travel Retail. This global Code of Conduct was developed to provide a standard for the promotion of responsible retailing of alcohol products in the duty-free and travel retail channel. It seeks to address all the aspects of duty-free and travel retail alcohol sales from commercial communications to labelling, staff training as well as sampling. The Code has been implemented by many airside retailers in the UK.

Collaborative working

There were references to regular meetings or forums instituted at Birmingham, Bristol, Glasgow, Manchester and London Stansted airports. These brought together airlines, retailers and the police to share information, discuss problems and design solutions. While these were described as a positive development, some respondents were critical of poor attendance by some companies at these meetings and of a reluctance to share detailed data relating to incidents of disruptive behaviour. One respondent expressed dissatisfaction that their airport lacked the levers to ensure the best possible attendance.

Sale of alcohol

Responses from two airlines mentioned restricting or stopping the sale of alcohol on certain routes or at certain times. Some airlines confiscate duty-free alcohol purchases before boarding and store it separately to prevent onboard consumption, returning them to passengers on landing.

One respondent referred to a partnership between the airport and its main food and beverage supplier, which put in place responsible pricing and did not permit the sale of two-pint beer portions, shots and other non-standard measures. Two other respondents mentioned similar bans on the serving of shots in restaurants and bars and prohibiting the use of two-pint glasses. One airport reported banning the sale of miniatures entirely, while another said they have banned multi-buy offers on them. It was proposed that a similar approach should be adopted by airlines, as some promote discounts on multiple alcohol sales and offer financial incentives to staff to sell products onboard.

Raising public awareness

Many airport, airline and industry respondents^{[footnote 10]} have taken part in the One Too Many campaign. The campaign intends to highlight that the aviation industry take a zero-tolerance approach to drunk and disorderly behaviour. The campaign makes use of social media, posters in airport bars, and messages on digital screens. One Too Many was said to have been invaluable in promoting awareness to passengers before getting to the airport and to the concessions where alcohol is served. The campaign had received more than eight million social media impressions. However, one respondent commented that it could only have a limited effect on disruptive incidents while excessive consumption was still promoted.

Respondents highlighted several other measures to raise passenger awareness of the law and operator policies on drunken disruption. These included:

• Sending texts and emails to passengers due to fly on routes where sustained disruptive behaviour had occurred;
• Signage at departure gates;
• Warning yellow cards that set out the offences relating to drunken disruption and list the possible consequences of such behaviour. Relevant authorities and staff would be informed when these were handed out to ensure a joined-up approach to managing potential disruption; and
• Advertising at duty-free stores, on bags and on receipts on responsible drinking, digital advertising across the airport on responsible drinking information.

Training

Several training programmes intended to reduce the number of incidents of drunken disruption were mentioned by respondents. These included:

• Aircraft crew training on the de-escalation of incidents and customer service refusal;
• Food and beverage management training (with police support), including on handling difficult customers;
• Training for the airlines’ gate staff to deny more passengers who have drunk too much in the airport; and
• Specialist training across airport front-line teams to ensure all colleagues can spot concerning passengers before they manifest themselves as serious safety risks.

Watch schemes

Several respondents referred to the introduction of watch schemes at airports, which aim to make the issue of anti-social behaviour amongst passengers the responsibility of the entire airport community so that it can be addressed at the earliest opportunity. Airport staff are encouraged to report the details of any potential incident of disruptive behaviour to a single point of contact. Information, including passenger description and travel details, is shared with staff across the airport via a rapid text alert, WhatsApp group or radio system. The passenger involved will be refused service across all retail and catering outlets and gate staff will be notified in advance. While some schemes have experienced challenges, in principle this could be a very effective approach.

Data capture and sharing

One airport group is trialling a new system of data capture to record any potential or actual incidents of disruptive behaviour in its airports, together with supporting information on root causes and outcomes. In addition, the system will make information on individuals who have the potential to cause a disruptive incident available to retail outlets, bars, restaurants, ground handlers and airlines. This will allow food and beverage outlets and airlines to make informed decisions on whether they wish to serve or carry a passenger who may be disruptive and act accordingly. Another respondent was developing a similar system.

Alignment with requirements of Act

Several respondents stated that airport bars, restaurants, retailers and independent lounges already align well with the licensing objectives by implementing measures to meet the mandatory licensing conditions. This included employing designated premises supervisors, operating to the same procedures and undertaking the same training as their counterparts on the high street.

Local partnership schemes

One local partnership scheme, Best Bar None (BBN), has launched a pilot scheme with an airport group, with the aim to further improve standards of airside alcohol retailing. In the pilot, around 50 venues across its airports will be evaluated by BBN qualified assessors with a view to gaining accreditation. A set of standard criteria has been produced specifically for airports. Ongoing participation in the scheme is then expected to be a condition of trading in those airports.

Flight support ambassador

A dedicated Flight Support Ambassador was trialled at one airport over the summer and winter peak periods to provide a visible, non-confrontational presence and speak to any passengers who might be considered a potential risk. The ambassador reminds passengers of their responsibilities and the rules around alcohol consumption, where necessary, before reporting any concerns to colleagues across the airport and police as appropriate. The success of this initiative is being assessed with a view to rolling it out across other airports.

Police operations

Operation Succinct at one airport group focuses on early intervention and engaging with the public and staff, informing them of what officers are doing, the consequences of certain actions and how the police can assist. The operation aims to identify individuals and groups behaving in an anti-social manner, or appearing likely to, and take positive action.

This involves:

• A visible policing presence at check-in, security, crew rooms, bars, gates, and bridge for identified flights;
• A zero-tolerance approach to persons committing offences onboard an aircraft or within the terminal building;
• Officers being flexible in terms of shift variations to accommodate risk flights;
• Training inputs to cabin managers and ground staff;
• Keeping records of anti-social behaviour incidents and yellow cards issued; and
• A robust investigation policy.

This activity has reportedly supported the reduction of incidents at one of the group’s airports.

Conclusion

We welcome the range of measures in place to tackle excessive alcohol consumption at airports and the examples of collaboration where sales of alcohol have been regulated and/or restricted. We encourage wider use of such measures.

 

Question 12: To what extent is training provided to, and competence assessed of, airport and airline staff on the responsible sale of alcohol, managing drunk and disruptive passengers, and exercising their statutory or other powers?

Summary of responses

All industry respondents who commented on training said that their staff are trained to a high standard regarding the responsible sale of alcohol or commented on the importance of training.

All but one of the airline respondents to this question emphasised the comprehensive nature of their staff training on drunk and disruptive passengers.

Airport respondents detailed the training available to their staff.

Three industry respondents reported that training of airside staff is to the same standard as landside or on the high street. Industry respondents variously referenced operating the ‘Challenge 25’ policy, managers and supervisors in outlets where alcohol is served undertaking the British Institute of Innkeeping Awarding Body level 2 award for personal licence holders, passing the National Certificate for Personal Licence Holders Course training and obtaining a personal licence as integral to their management training programme. Training films available from National Pubwatch to support staff and qualifications from the British Institute of Innkeeping Awarding Body, as well as guidance available from the Retail of Alcohol Standards Group and the Portman Group were referenced.

One airline association referenced their guidance on the responsible sale of alcohol for both cabin crew and ground staff, and comprehensive training by its members to airline lounge staff on drunk and disruptive behaviour. Another respondent described mandatory training for cabin crew which includes training on passenger handling, conflict management and restraint. Two airlines commented on available refresher training.

One airport association commented that many airports have introduced and consistently review specific training for dealing with disruptive passenger behaviour, including conflict management training in response to alcohol. Specific training and practice mentioned by airport respondents included:

• Training for concession staff who serve alcohol;
• Training for ground, food and beverage operators, security, and duty-free staff;
• Unit managers holding personal licences.

One police respondent reported an increase in private training consultancy companies, noting the significant cost of these. Another police respondent emphasised that gate staff should be trained to refuse boarding to passengers with confidence and that the police’s role in such situations is purely supportive. Another respondent commented that retail staff training is rudimentary.

Conclusion

Training is a critical aspect of equipping relevant parties to prevent, identify and manage any disruptive incidents associated with alcohol. We welcome the range of training already available and encourage all parties to develop and review their training provision regularly.

Question 13: To what extent have consistent airport and airline operators’ communications been provided to the public to assist in the prevention of drunk and disruptive behaviour prior to and during passengers’ journey?

Summary of responses

Airline respondents gave details of their communications to the public before and during flights, including emails, signage, cabin announcements and participation in the One Too Many Campaign.

All airline respondents and most industry respondents also detailed their participation in or support for the Campaign. The ‘Yellow Card’ scheme was also referenced.

Most police respondents and two others were concerned about the effectiveness of these communications.

Airline respondents to this question commented on pre-flight communications, including reminding passengers to drink responsibly and warning of the consequences of disruptive behaviour via text, email and signage at check-in and gates. One airline association said that where staff numbers allow, senior cabin crew can be deployed to oversee boarding for ‘high-risk’ flights and airport police can be a deterring presence. Communications onboard included cabin announcements, warning cards and messaging. Some airline respondents suggested that the Government should implement a public awareness campaign about the consequences of disruptive behaviour and that airlines should remain free to adapt their communications as they see fit.

Many airline, airport and industry respondents detailed their participation in the One Too Many Campaign. One respondent noted that there was an overall total of 5,676,241 impressions on Facebook and Instagram from the summer 2018 campaign. Several said that more could be done to make the campaign more effective and that a review of the campaign would be welcome.

Other initiatives mentioned included Stansted Airport’s ‘Don’t Ground Yourself’ posters and Jet2’s ‘Onboard Together’ campaign. One airport association referenced the ‘Yellow Card’ scheme facilitated by local police forces in many airports, and suggestions that ‘Know Your Limits’ messaging should be displayed at points of sale in bars and duty free. Two respondents suggested that such campaigns could be undermined by mixed messages to passengers through exposure to free samples and self-serve alcohol.

Conclusion

We welcome action to maximise the effectiveness of campaigns and other measures outlined in this section and would expect all relevant parties to work together to ensure consistency between messaging on drunken and disruptive behaviour and retail practice in relation to alcohol.

Question 14: What other non-legislative measures, including technological and data-sharing solutions, have already been introduced effectively by airports and/or airlines outside the UK to tackle the problem of drunk and disruptive passengers? Could these measures be replicated in England and Wales by the UK aviation industry? If not, why not?

Three respondents commented that sealed bags are commonly used in airports, such as in South Africa and Germany, for purchases of alcohol and other liquids from duty-free.

In terms of data-sharing solutions, several airline respondents and one airport felt they were unable to share disruptive passenger information with other airlines and airports due to data protection requirements. One airline and one airport respondent said that clear guidance on data protection and General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) would be welcome.

Conclusion

We would expect all relevant parties to keep measures adopted outside of the UK under review.  

Question 15: What, if anything, prevents airlines, airports, airside businesses and other relevant entities to jointly introduce further and stricter measures to tackle the problem of drunk and disruptive passengers at international airports in England and Wales?

Summary of responses

Most respondents to this question made suggestions about how to improve collaboration to tackle the issue of drunk and disruptive passengers, including through data collection and sharing and greater enforcement of existing powers.

Some airline respondents commented on the need for effective enforcement and improved training. Suggestions included on the spot penalties by police and training of airport and airline ground staff to enable them to recognise and refuse sales to disruptive passengers.

Two airline respondents reported that airports’ commercial interests are a barrier to jointly introducing further and stricter measures. One said that airports are reluctant to stop the sale of miniatures.

Airport respondents highlighted areas where they would like to see greater collaboration including: development of routine methods of data collection and a standardised database for recording data on disruptive passengers, including Government guidance on data sharing and data protection, development of staff training and customer awareness campaigns, ensuring that onboard sales incentive schemes are in line with wider industry initiatives to tackle the issue of drunk and disruptive passengers, and greater uniformity of airport byelaws nationally.

Other respondents proposed extending best practice schemes like ‘Challenge 25’ and developing a method to ban disruptive passengers from multiple airlines, banning miniatures, limiting the number of drinks each person can buy, minimum standards of training and tamper-proof bags, monitoring how many drinks a passenger has consumed on their boarding card, or electronically, and breathalysing passengers before boarding.

Conclusion

We encourage ongoing dialogue between relevant parties to develop some of these proposed measures further.

Question 16: How effective is the cooperation between industry and airport police in tackling the problem of drunk and disorderly passengers at airports and/or on planes?

Summary of responses

All industry and airport respondents to this question were of the view that cooperation between airport police and industry is effective in tackling the problem of drunk and disorderly passengers. Just over half of police respondents and most airline respondents felt the same.

Industry respondents highlighted the role of the police as a deterring presence at ‘high-risk’ flights. One respondent referenced participation in police-sponsored test purchasing to reinforce the prohibition on serving alcohol to underage or intoxicated individuals.

One police respondent referenced that data relating to alcohol sales refusals is shared by all retail premises with the police. However, another felt that police influence on decision making within airports regarding drinks promotions is limited and claimed that airports prioritise profit-making. Another police respondent felt unsupported by the airport in their drive to place awareness-raising materials about responsible drinking in retail areas.

Most airline respondents highlighted close collaboration with industry and airport police at multi-agency working groups and in the event of passenger incidents. However, one airline association referenced incidents when specialised police had to deal with disruptive passengers due to a lack of regular police officers. Two airline respondents wrote that most incidents occur after take-off and that police capability to help is therefore limited.

All airport respondents reported that cooperation between industry and police is effective. They gave examples of cooperation such as police patrols, police distributing leaflets at the check-in of ‘high-risk’ flights, writing their disruptive passenger policy in conjunction with police and police providing regular training to airport staff on how to respond to disruptive behaviour.

Conclusion

Collaboration with the police is a vital way to combat drunken and disruptive behaviour and we strongly encourage partnership working, particularly through multi-agency working groups.

Section Three: the impact the Act could have on addressing the problem of drunk and disruptive passengers if applied airside at international airports in England and Wales

Question 17: What would be the strengths and limitations of the Act, if applied airside at international airports in England and Wales, in addressing the problem of drunk and disruptive airline passengers?

Summary of responses

Frequently cited arguments by respondents who believed that applying the Act airside would have strengths, and/or cited the limitations of extending the Act, are captured in the ‘summary of responses’ section in this document.

Many respondents commented on the potential for a licensing regime to restrict the hours in which alcohol could be sold by airside premises. Two respondents favoured reducing the availability of alcohol, such as through a ban on selling alcohol in the early mornings. One respondent suggested that restricted hours might be tailored to particularly busy periods or when there were departures to particular destinations.

Other respondents said that there was insufficient evidence to justify such restrictions. They argued that the evidence suggests that most incidents occur later in the day, and that it would be unfair to passengers catching early flights or arriving from different time zones.

Several respondents expressed concern about the potential impact of a licensing regime on airline business lounges that serve complimentary drinks. One suggested that this would lead to diminished customer service and increased costs. Some claimed that drinking in those lounges is managed responsibly and that their patrons are unlikely to engage in drunken disruptive behaviour.

Conclusion

The evidence is inconclusive on whether introducing the Act would have a significant impact on the issue of drunk and disruptive passengers. Several approaches are already in place and the various proposals made to manage airside alcohol consumption can be adopted by airports, airlines and retailers without legislation.

Question 18: Please provide any examples of where licensing laws have been applied at international airports in or outside the UK, and please provide any evidence of their impact if available?

Summary of responses

The Act applies airside at two international airports in England and Wales – Robin Hood Doncaster Sheffield Airport and Cornwall Airport Newquay.

Airport retailers in Northern Ireland are not exempt from having to apply for a license to sell alcohol. However, there is no restriction on their opening hours.

Germany and the Republic of Ireland apply a licensing regime to airside premises.

Views on the prevalence of licensing regimes at airports around the world differed. One respondent stated that licensing is applied to most international airports around the world, through the application of national, landside laws or their own tailored licensing regime. However, another observed that it is not uncommon to exempt international airport locations from local liquor licensing requirements. This was said to be consistent with international airport areas as sterile zones and a special administrative environment under the Chicago Convention system. The accuracy of claims made have not been verified.

Section Four: economic implications of applying the Act airside at international airports in England and Wales

Question 19: What would be the economic advantages and disadvantages of applying the Act airside for international airports and its users in England and Wales?

Summary of responses

Most respondents commented on the economic disadvantages of applying the Act airside. Airport and industry respondents were concerned about additional administrative and operational costs and a potential loss of revenue.

Several airline respondents supported the application of the Act airside. Two suggested that it would reduce the costs associated with drunk and disruptive passenger incidents.

Airport and industry respondents said that there could be additional administrative and operational costs of compliance with the Act, especially for food and beverage outlets. These costs would be borne by businesses or passed on to customers. The application of the Act would inhibit respondents’ ability to adapt and develop space according to commercial need, as such changes would require applications to the local licensing authority, adding cost and delay. Concerns included that restricted licensing hours could negatively impact revenue and that this could lead to reduced employment and capability to develop the customer offer. It was reported that a potential reduction in airport revenue could negatively impact future investment in airport and passenger facilities and affect the whole region.

Several airport and industry respondents, along with two airlines, commented that application of the Act would put airports in England and Wales at a competitive disadvantage compared to European airports in their ability to sell alcohol.

Several airline respondents commented on the negative economic impacts of applying the Act on Commercially Important Passenger Lounges, including increased administrative and operational costs, additional staff training and resource, and a reduction in the quality of the service offer.

Two airline respondents suggested that the Act would reduce the costs associated with drunk and disruptive passenger incidents. One said that airlines are in effect cross-subsidising the sales of airports and airside retailers by having to pay for the cost of incidents that arise from the excessive consumption of alcohol airside. They felt that passenger safety, as opposed to financial implications, should be the foremost consideration in this issue. A member of the public echoed this view.

Conclusion

The proposal to introduce the Act airside arose from a desire to do more to tackle alcohol-related disruptive incidents and to protect all passengers and staff involved in the journey from the airport to the airplane to their destination. While economic implications are a serious consideration they should not overshadow the need to prioritise public safety.

Question 20: What financial impact would application of the Act airside have on local government and police resource?

Summary of responses

Most police respondents, and several others, said that application of the Act would not have a significant financial impact on local government and police resource.

However, there was concern among various respondents, local authorities in particular, that application of the Act would result in significant additional costs for local authorities.

One airline said that since local authorities already enforce the Act in landside premises, application of the Act airside would not represent a significant additional burden. Three of four police respondents commented that there would be little financial impact on their resources, citing minor costs such as travel and commenting that airside premises are ‘low-risk’. One police respondent wrote that since police are trained in licensing legislation, there would be no additional training costs and any refresher training could be achieved through low-cost in-house online resources. They said that application of the Act could yield savings for local government and police through reduced incidents of drunk and disruptive behaviour. However, police suggested that this was hard to quantify.

Concern among respondents that believed the application of the Act would result in additional costs included: processing applications, enquiries, hearings, reviews and appeals, and costs associated with compliance and enforcement.

Several respondents emphasised that licensing authorities would need to be able to recoup the costs of enforcing the Act, commenting that the secure nature of airside would be likely to result in higher costs such as obtaining airport security clearance. One police respondent suggested that, were the Act applied, it could be mandated that airport operators provide such clearance free of charge.

Question 21: What impact, if any, will application of the current licensing fees and charges to airside at international airports in England and Wales have on airside business that sell and/or supply alcohol, including the availability of alcohol at airports?

Summary of responses

Various responses from local authorities and police said that applying the Act would not have a significant impact on airside business.

However, most of the responses focused on the negative financial impacts of applying current licensing fees and charges. Airport and industry respondents and three airline respondents were concerned about a potential negative impact on profitability, future investments and potential job losses.

Two airlines suggested that the application of the Act would not have a significant impact on airside business, with one commenting on airports’ profit margins. Three responses from local authorities and police also suggested that current fees and charges would have a limited impact considering airport revenue.

However, most of the responses focused on negative financial impacts of applying current licensing fees and charges. Three airlines responses were concerned about the impact of fees on Commercially Important Passenger Lounges, arguing that attracting premium passengers is critical to the viability of routes and that such lounges are already costly to maintain.

There was consensus among industry respondents that the application of fees would have a negative impact on profitability and potentially disincentivise future investment. They raised the costs of premises licence applications, variations, annual fees, and changes to the Designate Premises Supervisor (DPS).

Question 22: What financial impact would upholding the current exemption have on your organisation, airports and/or its users (e.g. airlines, passengers)?

Summary of responses

Most respondents to this question suggested that if the exemption were upheld, the impact of drunk and disruptive passenger incidents on their businesses would continue.

The rest of the responses, the majority of which were from industry, commented that upholding the current exemption would have a limited financial impact.

Most airlines said the financial impact of drunk and disruptive passenger incidents on their business would increase if the exemption were upheld. Examples included additional ground handling costs, expensive passenger claims and the cost of diverting planes from their initial destinations.

Other respondents said that upholding the exemption would have a limited financial impact. Some argued that costs associated with the Act – including fees and risk to income of restricted hours – would be avoided if the exemption were upheld.

Two respondents cited the potential cost of additional voluntary initiatives if these were made obligatory. Conversely, one industry respondent stated that there would be no cost of upholding the exemption other than the continuing cost of voluntary measures.

Section Five: administering the Act airside

Question 24: Would it be feasible and practical to apply and administer the Act in its current form airside at international airports in England and Wales?

Summary of responses

Views differed on the practicality and feasibility of introducing a licensing regime.

Many respondents suggested that alterations would need to be made to the licensing regime to make it fit for purpose in the airside environment.

Concerns about inconsistency led several respondents to suggest that the administration of licensing at airports should be put in the hands of the CAA.

Many respondents suggested that access to airside premises would be problematic for licensing officials. Others noted that local authorities already have access to airside to enforce statutory controls on gambling, food safety and goods at border inspection posts.

While several respondents suggested that administering the Act airside would be neither practical nor feasible, others highlighted what they saw as its unproblematic operation at Doncaster Sheffield and Cornwall Newquay airports as proof of the contrary.

Many suggested that the licensing regime would need alterations for the airside environment, citing concerns about the suitability of licensing authorities to administer airside licensing. Others suggested that local authorities have not always been sympathetic to the development of airports. All of this led to concerns about inconsistent decisions on licensing.

Many respondents also expressed uncertainty about the ability of local authorities and the police to resource the demands of licensing large numbers of additional licensed premises. Several respondents said that local authorities would need to be able to recover their costs through licensing fees and raised concerns about access to airside premises for licensing offers. Several others noted that local authorities already have access to airside to enforce statutory controls on gambling, food safety and goods at border inspection posts.

Question 25: Are there any other issues in relation to drunk and disorderly airline passengers and the Select Committee’s recommendation with regard to international airports in England and Wales that you wish to provide further evidence on?

This section focuses on material that falls beyond the bounds of earlier questions, including where the respondent did not specify whether their proposed measures should be implemented through airport policies, licensing or other legislative means.

Summary of responses

Several respondents advocated the packaging of duty-free alcohol in sealed, tamper-proof or tamper-evident bags.

Several members of the public called for limits on the amount of alcohol each passenger could purchase. Three called for the introduction of breathalyser tests at departure gates as part of more stringent measures to enforce powers to deny boarding to drunk passengers.

One respondent called for sealed bags for duty-free alcohol purchases to be made mandatory. There were suggestions that passengers should not be allowed to carry alcohol onboard an aircraft and that duty-free purchases should be handed to passengers at a flight’s destination. Several members of public called for limits on the amount of alcohol each passenger could purchase, which could be recorded on boarding passes or using tokens. These ranged from a single drink airside and on aircraft to four drinks airside and two respondents suggested that alcohol purchases should only be allowed together with a meal.

Several respondents called for a complete ban on alcohol at airports and/or on aircraft. One suggested that alcohol should be sold only by the glass or in small bottles, while another suggested that duty-free sales of miniatures and half bottles should be banned. One respondent called for a ban on free tastings at duty-free shops unless these were “restricted properly”, and a ban on the trolley service and self-service of alcohol. Several respondents were in favour of signs and other reminders about responsible drinking at the airport. One raised the need to educate the public about the impact of alcohol and put rules in place to demonstrate that this is taken seriously. One respondent called for a £1 levy on the price of all flights to fund breathalyser tests and extra swab tests for drugs.

Conclusion

Responses to this Call for Evidence have highlighted many ways in which further action can be taken to reduce alcohol-related disruptive incidents outside of introducing a legislative regime. We encourage all relevant parties to consider what more they can do to reduce the number of such incidents.

Government Response

The Call for Evidence generated a high level of interest and the Government would like to thank all those who took part. The evidence and comments received across different sectors have been invaluable in the consideration of the proposals outlined in this document. The Call for Evidence did not generate enough new evidence to show that lifting the exemption on airside premises from the Act would be a proportionate way to address the issue of drunk and disruptive passenger behaviour. For this reason, we are not extending the Act airside, but we do think that other action is needed. The pandemic, which led to a significant reduction in flights, did not change this position.

Across the board, we found that data on the extent of the problem was inconsistently recorded and it was not always clear whether disruptive incidents involved alcohol. Data collection and sharing on alcohol-related disruptive incidents needs to be significantly improved through increased cooperation between relevant parties. The Government will work with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), airports, airlines, and the police on the recording of disruptive incidents. Considerations could include recording standardised information such as the time and date of incidents and the airline, flight routes, sex and age group of passenger(s) involved to help inform analysis of when these incidents are most likely to occur, as well as severity and whether the incident was alcohol related.

Reducing levels of disruptive behaviour is a shared responsibility and we are pleased to see that positive action is already being taken in this area by the aviation, retail and hospitality industry. Proactive steps include the UK Aviation Industry’s Code of Practice on Disruptive Passengers, which commits signatories to work collaboratively to reduce the number of incidents of disruptive behaviour. Further efforts include the introduction of sealed bags for duty-free alcohol purchases and campaigns such as ‘One Too Many’.

While the Act does not regulate the sale and supply of alcohol on aircraft, passengers already face a maximum fine of an unlimited amount in England and Wales with Northern Ireland and Scotland having limits of up to £5,000 and £10,000 respectively. Additionally, drunkenness on an aircraft has a penalty of up to two years imprisonment and up to five years for endangering the safety of an aircraft under the Air Navigation Order 2016. Effective use of the existing sanctions, together with raising the public awareness of the consequences of drunk and disruptive behaviour would further help in managing and reducing incidents.

Annex A – List of respondents

Airlines and airline associations

Airlines for America

Airlines UK

American Airlines

Board of Airline Representatives in the UK (BAR UK)

easyJet

Emirates

European Regions Airline Association

International Airlines Group

International Air Transport Association

Jet2.com

Ryanair

Thomas Cook Group

Airports, airport groups and airport associations

AGS Airports

Airport Operators Association

Birmingham Airport

Bristol Airport

Gatwick Airport

Heathrow Airport

Liverpool Airport

London City Airport

Manchester Airport Group

Newcastle International Airport

Alcohol and wider service industry

Association of British Travel Agents

British Beer and Pub Association

European Travel Retail Confederation

Fullers

HMS Host UK

JD Wetherspoon

Lagardère Travel Retail

Mitchells & Butlers

Pernod Ricard Global Travel Retail

Scotch Whisky Association

SSP UK

Aspire Airport Lounges

TRG Concessions

UK Hospitality

UK Travel Retail Forum

World Duty Free Group

World of Patria International

General public

37 responses from members of the public including Pupils2Parliament

Local Authorities

Crawley Borough Council

Doncaster Council

London Borough of Hillingdon

Manchester City Council Licensing Authority

Newcastle City Council Licensing Authority

Police

Bristol Airport Police

Essex Police

Greater Manchester Police Airport Section

Metropolitan Police Aviation Police Command

London Luton Airport Policing Unit

UK Airport Police Commanders Northern Group

Other respondents

Civil Aviation Authority

Balance

Gatwick Airport Consultative Committee

Heathrow Community Engagement Board Passenger Services Group

Institute of Alcohol Studies

Institute of Licensing

Local Government Association

Poppleston Allen

The Portman Group

Unite the Union

1. Doncaster Council’s response stated that “no reason for Doncaster [Sheffield Airport] not having been made exempt has ever been established”. Cornwall Council suggested that the reason why Cornwall Airport Newquay is not designated is that, when originally licensed by Restormel Borough Council, it would not have been eligible for the international airport exemption. ↩

2. Their definition of what constitutes a reportable incident is that it must include one or more of the following factors: physical abuse of any crew member; continuous significant passenger disruption including those requiring and enroute diversion; the request of an expeditious approach or emergency call; use of restraint kit; theft of, tampering or deliberate damage to safety equipment; deliberate damage to any equipment which renders it unsafe and/or unusable; and/or disruption which prevents the crew from carrying out safety related duties. ↩

3. MOR captures safety-related events occurring specifically to departing and arriving UK registered aircraft only since 2010. ↩

4. If a report does not reference alcohol, this does not necessarily mean that the disruptive passenger event was not due to the result of alcohol. For example, the reported may not have included the cause of the disruptive passenger event. ↩

5. ‘The term unruly and disruptive refers to passengers who fail to respect the rules of conduct on board aircraft or to follow the instructions of crew members, thereby disturbing good order and discipline on board and compromising safety.’ ↩

6. Public Health England (2016): The Public Health Burden of Alcohol and the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Alcohol Control Policies: An evidence review ↩

7. Fit to fly? Summary report of the policy debate on alcohol and air travel ↩

8. Responses to questions 10 and 11 are being summarised together because many answers to each of these questions included material relevant to the other. ↩

9. The Convention applies criminal law to in-flight activity, and outlaws any act or omission taking place on board a British-controlled aircraft while in-flight or over the UK, which, if taking place in, or in a part of, the UK, would constitute an offence under the law. However, regulatory oversight of the service of alcohol on flights is reserved to the state in which its registered. Hence, a restriction on the number of alcoholic drinks that could be served to each passenger that was advocated by some respondents, could only be applied on UK registered aircraft. ↩

10. Liverpool John Lennon Airport, AGS, Gatwick Airport, Newcastle Airport, Heathrow Airport, Bristol Airport, Manchester Airports Group, the International Air Transport Association, HMS Host, TRG Concessions, UK Travel Retail Forum, the Airport Operators Association, World Duty Free Group, SSP UK, Jet2.com, Thomas Cook Group, Birmingham Airport and JD Wetherspoon. ↩