The Independent Flight Attendant Organization (UFO) is escalating its campaign to halt the practice of deportations carried out on commercial airline flights, advocating for a significant shift in responsibility and potentially sparking a broader debate about the outsourcing of state functions. In a strongly worded position paper released Friday, the union insists that repatriations should be handled exclusively by state personnel using dedicated transport, arguing against the current reliance on civilian airlines.
The UFO’s stance stems from growing concerns over the escalating psychological and ethical burdens placed on flight crews involved in these deportations. Union leader Joachim Vázquez Bürger stated unequivocally that flight attendants “are not enforcement officials” emphasizing that the responsibility for deportations squarely rests with the state. He argues that outsourcing this duty to civilian airlines is an abdication of governmental accountability and a risky delegation of power.
Government figures indicate a marked increase in deportations via air, with over 10,000 individuals repatriated in the first half of 2025 alone, the vast majority facilitated using commercial aircraft. This reliance on civilian airlines, UFO contends, creates a precarious situation where commercial interests are potentially compromised by the performance of inherently state-led security functions.
Beyond the immediate impact on flight crews, the union’s call raises questions about the broader legal and ethical implications of contracting out governmental authority. Critics will likely spotlight the potential for reduced oversight and diminished protection for the rights of those being deported when civilian airlines are involved.
Adding further pressure, UFO is demanding increased transparency in the process. Airlines participating in deportations should be legally mandated to publicly report on their involvement, a move intended to elevate scrutiny and potentially deter participation. The union’s initiative is poised to inject a contentious new dimension into debates surrounding immigration policy, human rights and the limits of governmental outsourcing.