After LS3110 Incident, Jet2 Calls for National Database to Ban Disruptive Passengers Across Airlines

British budget carrier Jet2 (LS) has formally called for a national database of disruptive passengers that would bar offenders from every UK airline, not merely the carrier on which the incident occurred — a proposal triggered by the diversion of Flight LS3110 from Antalya Airport (AYT) to London Gatwick Airport (LGW) to Sofia Airport (SOF) on 27 April 2026, after an allegedly intoxicated couple subjected crew and fellow passengers to sustained abuse, threats of violence, and racist language, GB News reported. The pair, who were travelling with young children, were removed by Bulgarian military police and have subsequently received lifetime bans from Jet2. The airline has confirmed it will pursue them through the courts to recover the full financial costs of the diversion.

The incident has re-ignited a long-running debate about the structural weakness at the centre of UK aviation’s approach to passenger misconduct: under the current regime, a carrier can impose a lifetime ban, but it cannot legally share that information with another airline, meaning a banned passenger faces nothing more than the inconvenience of booking a different ticket. Jet2 is now lobbying the government to close that gap.

The Incident on Flight LS3110 That Reignited the Debate on Lifetime Ban on Passengers

In a formal statement, that was quoted in AOL, Jet2 confirmed that the Flight LS3110 from Antalya to London Gatwick was diverted to Sofia “so that police could offload two disruptive passengers“, stating:

“As a family-friendly airline, we take a zero-tolerance approach to disruptive passenger behaviour, and we can confirm that we have banned these two passengers from flying with us for life. We will vigorously pursue them to recover any losses that we incurred as a result of their behaviour — and we will not hesitate to use the courts. We will fully support the police with any subsequent investigations. This has led to custodial sentences in the past, demonstrating the very serious consequences that this behaviour can result in.”

The male passenger allegedly threatened to fight crew and passengers, used racist and homophobic slurs, and became increasingly aggressive at cruising altitude. The behavior reportedly unfolded in front of the couple’s own children, with witnesses stating that the children were crying as the situation escalated.

Following the incident, the critical passage of Jet2’s statement related to the incident was pointing:

“In addition, we are lobbying for the creation of a national database so that, as well as being banned from flying with us, disruptive passengers will also be banned from flying with other UK airlines.”

That single sentence encapsulates an enforcement gap that has frustrated the UK aviation industry for over a decade.

Why Blacklisted Passengers Keep Flying

The fundamental difficulty, as Dartford MP Gareth Johnson articulated in Parliament, is this:

“The difficulty that we have currently is that someone can be violent on a particular operator’s aeroplane, but that airline cannot pass that information on to another airline, meaning that person can just go and fly with a different operator.”

A petition to Parliament has called on the government to pass legislation mandating a no-fly list that would ban unruly passengers from any airline operating to or from the UK for a minimum of five years, noting that while individual airlines have the power to ban passengers for a period of time, “there is nothing to stop them booking onto another airline and doing it all over again“. The petition remains active and has attracted public support, though the parliamentary process for translating such a proposal into statute has not yet been initiated.

UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Head of Consumer Policy Anna Bowles has acknowledged the issue:

“This type of behaviour is completely unacceptable and can pose a risk to aircraft safety. The aviation industry undertakes a range of measures to tackle this issue and passengers could face criminal charges with severe penalties, even prison.”

However, the CAA itself has stopped short of mandating a cross-carrier data-sharing framework, leaving the matter in a regulatory limbo that benefits repeat offenders.

Existing UK law is not without deterrent power. Passengers can face up to two years in prison for disrupting a flight, a fine of up to £5,000 for delaying a flight’s departure, and a penalty of up to £80,000 for causing a mid-air diversion.

The Alcohol Licensing Loophole Adds to the Problem

No analysis of disruptive passenger behaviour in UK aviation is complete without addressing the specific regulatory anomaly that Ryanair CEO O’Leary has placed at the centre of his advocacy. Sales of alcohol at designated international airports in England and Wales have been exempt from the Licensing Act since 1956, originally to ensure airports remained internationally competitive.

The practical consequence is that airside bars, restaurants, lounges, and even unmanned beer-tap kiosks beyond security do not require a premises licence, are not subject to its four licensing objectives, and are not bound by the statutory offence of serving alcohol to a person who is already drunk.

In April 2017, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Licensing Act 2003 recommended that the government revoke this exemption. The government launched a Call for Evidence in November 2018, drawing 97 responses from airlines, airports, police, and hospitality operators — yet the conclusion was that the evidence was insufficient to justify extending the Licensing Act airside. The exemption survived intact.

In evidence submitted to the House of Lords in 2016, Jet2 reported 536 disruptive incidents in a single summer season, with over half attributed to alcohol consumption. The CAA recorded a 36 percent increase in disruptive passenger incidents in the UK between 2014 and 2015 alone, and recent CAA data shows a further 10 percent rise in unruly incidents compared to prior years.

O’Leary has been characteristically direct in attributing responsibility: speaking to The Times, he said that he failed to understand “why anybody in airport bars is serving people at five or six o’clock in the morning”, adding:

“Who needs to be drinking beer at that time? There should be no alcohol served at airports outside [those] licensing hours.”

His proposed remedy included:

• harmonising airside licensing with high-street hours
• capping passengers at two alcoholic drinks per airport visit enforced via boarding pass.