According to Warren Koffler, IATA was formed to fill the resulting void and provide international air carriers with a mechanism to fix prices.

[13] In 1947 at a time when many airlines were government-owned and loss-making, IATA operated as a cartel, charged by the governments with setting a constrained fare structure that avoided price competition.

[15][non-primary source needed] IATA Director-General William Hildred recounted that about 200 of the resolutions at the Rio de Janeiro conference were related to establishing a uniform structure for tariffs charged for international air transportation.

[28] In the case of the US, the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB, the now-defunct Federal agency that, at the time, regulated almost all US commercial air transport) also provided IATA with a waiver from US antitrust laws.

[31] The biggest non-IATA carriers, like Aeroflot, tended to nonetheless charge IATA fares, but a few, such as such as Loftleidir Icelandic, offered below-IATA prices.

[32] The real competition to the IATA cartel system were the charter carriers, which in 1972 accounted for up to 28% of international traffic, with prices set by supply and demand.

In the early 1970s, there were a half billion dollars in annual illegal transatlantic scheduled fare rebates uncovered in a US Department of Justice investigation that resulted in fines and consent decrees from 19 airlines Pan Am, Trans World Airlines and most European flag carriers (e.g. Air France, Lufthansa, British Airways, KLM, etc).

Laker Airways bankruptcy estate later asserted claims against IATA members under the American Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts.

[38][39] In 2006, the United States Department of Justice adopted an order withdrawing the antitrust immunity of IATA tariff conferences.

Fares would need to rise as much as 54% if a carrier were to break even, according to calculations done by the IATA, who posit that because of "forward-facing seats that prevent face-to-face contact, and ceiling-to-floor air flows that limit the circulation of respiratory droplets" the risk of transmission is reduced.

[42] This industry-driven policy garnered immediate push-back from some Canadians, including those who felt defrauded, while Minister of Transport Marc Garneau noted that the "on-board spacing requirement is a recommendation only and therefore not mandatory" while his Transport Canada department listed physical distancing as a prophylactic among the key positive points in a guide prepared for the Canadian aviation industry.

[46] Future improvements will be founded on data sharing with a database fed by a multitude of sources and housed by the Global Safety Information Center.

In June 2014, the IATA set up a special panel to study measures to track aircraft in flight in real time.

This initiative has introduced a number of crucial concepts to passenger travel, including the electronic ticket[49] and the bar coded boarding pass.