Fights, runway incursions, or shouting "bomb": Disruptions at airports in Chile have increased by 120% in one year.

Scenes that were once exceptional are now commonplace. Passengers detained for false bomb threats, individuals breaking into restricted areas to prevent a plane from taking off, assaults on crew members, and damage to airport terminals are all part of a pattern that the Chilean aviation industry is observing with growing concern. The figures show that disruptive behavior in airports and on flights is increasing both globally and in Chile, raising concerns about operational safety, economic costs, and regulatory capacity. According to data from the International Air Transport Association (IATA), in 2024, there was an incident involving disruptive passengers every 392 flights worldwide, compared to one incident every 404 flights in 2023. This increase, although seemingly small, represents a sustained upward trend in an industry where any disruption can have cascading effects. In Latin America, this phenomenon has accelerated even further. According to figures from LATAM Airlines Group, the number of incidents in its regional operations increased from 740 cases in 2023 to 827 in 2024. In 2025, the number jumped to 1,141 incidents, an accumulated increase of more than 50% in just two years. JONNATHAN OYARZUN/ATON CHILE However, Chile is the country where this growth is most pronounced. While LATAM recorded 127 disruptive incidents on domestic flights and at airports in 2024, the number rose to 280 cases in 2025, an increase of 120%. This is all within the context of more than 82,000 flights operated within the country. The trend does not appear to be slowing down. In the first quarter of 2026 alone, more than 70 cases have already been recorded in Chile, maintaining a record pace that is concerning to the industry. A disruptive passenger can cause delays of several hours, cancellations, loss of connections, both domestic and international, and mass rescheduling. Each false alarm or serious incident also requires the activation of emergency protocols involving the Directorate General of Civil Aeronautics (DGAC), the Criminal Investigation Police (PDI), the Carabineros (police force), and, in more complex situations, specialized units such as the GOPE (Special Operations Group). Neftalí Carabantes, director of the Security Studies Center at the Universidad Central and former Deputy Secretary of the Carabineros, argues that this type of incident cannot continue to be seen as mere "jokes" or minor offenses. "A single bomb threat can affect thousands of passengers in a few hours, causing panic, mass stress, and saturating communications. It also forces the deployment of critical resources and can leave other airport areas vulnerable while the emergency is being handled," he warns. The expert emphasizes that, regardless of the author's intent, the focus should be on the potential operational and safety damage that these actions cause. "Entering a runway or causing violent disturbances at an airport should not be evaluated solely based on the author's intent, but also on the impact it has on critical infrastructure," he says. The cases that occurred in Chile in recent years have helped to bring the issue to public attention. One of the most talked-about incidents occurred on April 23, when a councilman from Hualpén was arrested after triggering a false bomb threat at an airport. The incident forced the activation of security protocols and disrupted operations at the terminal. Last year, a video went viral of a Haitian citizen damaging an airplane. He was fined and banned from flying. This reflects a broader social phenomenon linked to the limits of individual behavior and the weakening of the perception of authority. "I have the impression that there is a notion of how far one can go as an individual without considering how much disruption it causes to others," he says. In his opinion, many of these behaviors are carried out without a real awareness of the impact they have, and in Chile, there is still not a sufficiently serious perception of these types of threats, especially compared to countries that have experienced terrorist attacks or air safety crises. In the United States, for example, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) operates under a policy of "zero tolerance" towards disruptive passengers. Fines can exceed US$43,000 per violation, and in serious cases, can lead to federal proceedings with penalties of up to 20 years in prison. Brazil has also recently taken steps in this direction. In March 2026, the National Civil Aviation Agency (ANAC) established new categories of violations that include fines of up to US$3,500 and bans on boarding for between six and twelve months.