EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 10.12.2021 SWD(2021) 417 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT



EVALUATION

of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air



Table of contents 1.Introduction 1.1. Overall context of passenger rights 1.2. Purpose and scope of the evaluation 2.Background to the intervention 2.1. Specific context of air PRM passenger rights 2.2. Description of the intervention and its objectives 2.3. Baseline and points of comparison 3.1. Description of the current scope of the Regulation 3.2. Other relevant legislation and guidance 3.3. Member States’ implementation and monitoring 3.4. Role of the European Commission in the implementation of the Regulation 3.5. Major recent developments 4.Method 4.1. Short description of methodology 4.2. Limitations and robustness of findings 5.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions 5.1. Effectiveness 5.2. Efficiency

5.3. Relevance 5.4. Coherence 5.5. EU added value 6.Conclusions 6.1. Effectiveness 6.2. Efficiency 6.3. Relevance 6.4. Coherence 6.5. EU Added value Annex 1: Procedural information 1. Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references 2. organisation and timing 3. Exceptions to the better regulation guidelines 4. Evidence, sources and quality Annex 2: Synopsis report of Stakeholder consultation Annex 3: Methods and analytical models Annex 4: Tables and figures Annex 5: Ten core passenger rights

Glossary Term or acronym Meaning or definition ADR Alternative dispute resolution body CPC Consumer Protection Cooperation EASA European Aviation Safety Agency EC European Commission ECA European Court of Auditors ECAC European Civil Aviation Conference EEA European Economic Area, includes EU countries and also Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway EFTA European Free Trade Association EU European Union (as of 1 May 2021 with 27 Member States) EU+4 The EU27 plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom FTE Full Time Equivalent (employees) IATA International Air Transport Association ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation NEB National Enforcement Body OAG Official Airline Guide PRM Persons with disabilities or persons with reduced mobility PTD Package Travel Directive UNCRPD United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability 1.Introduction 1.1.Overall context of passenger rights Collective transport services are vital to stimulate economic growth, to enable social and territorial cohesion and to preserve the environment; their quality affects directly their attractiveness and the satisfaction of passengers in the EU. Traditionally passenger rights were mandated through the terms and conditions of the contract between passengers and carriers. This approach proved insufficient as very often it turned out to be costly, cumbersome and frustrating for passengers to defend their rights vis-à-vis carriers. It is the reason why the objective to introduce passenger protection rules in all modes of transport was set by the Commission twenty years ago. Today the EU framework for passenger rights provides a consistent level of protection for citizens using collective transport services (either air, rail, waterborne or bus and coach transport). They promote quality and protect passengers during all phases of the journey (before, during and after the service). The framework consists of five Regulations covering air, rail, bus & coach as well as waterborne passenger rights. These Regulations were designed to minimise travel disruptions, improve passenger information and ensure an immediate and proportionate assistance when required, including for persons with disabilities and reduced mobility (PRM). The EU passenger rights Regulations were adopted between 2004 and 2011 and they are the following: -Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, keeping in mind that denied boarding and carrier’s liability in the event of accident in aviation were already addressed in the 1990s. This Regulation was complemented by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 concerning the rights of persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by airwhose ex-post evaluation is presented in this report; -Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 rail passengers’ rights and obligations., which will be repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) No 2021/782 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations as of 7 June 2023; -Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway ; and -Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 concerning the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport. After the adoption of passenger rights Regulations for all four transport modes, the Commission published in 2011 its communication entitled "European vision for passengers: Communication on passenger rights in all transport modes” where three key principles for passenger rights were identified: the non-discrimination of passengers; the availability of accurate, timely and accessible information to all passengers; and an immediate and proportionate assistance when required. This was underpinned by ten core passenger rights (see Annex 5). The framework also intended to contribute to a level playing field for transport operators within and across modes, through creating a European standard for passenger protection. As a result, EU passenger rights apply to a growing market of around 450 million citizens performing several billions of journeys every year for private or business purpose. In this context, the passenger protection has become a cornerstone of EU transport policy, building on international conventions and the general consumer protection framework of the Union. In its recent Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy, the Commission observed that “EU passenger rights should be better implemented, clearer for both carriers and passengers, offer adequate assistance, reimbursement, possibly compensation when disruptions arise, and appropriate sanctions if the rules are not properly applied” and expressed its intention to take actions to achieve this aim. In line with the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy, the level of protection introduced by Regulation (EU) No 1107/2006 on the rights of persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air (hereafter “the Regulation”) 13 years ago is now evaluated in the context of the simplification and consolidation of the EU framework on passenger rights. This evaluation is also in line with the recommendations presented by the Court of Auditors in its special report on passenger rights in November 2018. 1.2.Purpose and scope of the evaluation The purpose of this ex-post evaluation is to assess whether the Regulation has delivered the intended rights to PRM and to assess whether there are any gaps in the Regulation. The evaluation aims to provide evidence to support any future decisions related to the development of the legislative framework in this policy area, including a possible revision of the current Regulation. The Regulation was evaluated for the first time in 2011, just three years after it became fully applicable. At the time the Commission concluded that the overall implementation of the Regulation was satisfactory, and there was no evidence that would have indicated a need for the legislative review of the Regulation. However, it emerged that the interpretation and application of certain provisions of the Regulation varied between Member States. Therefore the Commission adopted in 2012 Interpretative Guidelines to ensure the uniform interpretation of the Regulation. In accordance with the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines, it is appropriate now to assess how well the Regulation has performed, whether it has reached its intended purpose and whether it continues to be justified in light of new developments in the last ten years. The evaluation of this Regulation has been carried out in parallel with the evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 on waterborne passenger rights and Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 on bus and coach passenger rights.

The evaluation of this Regulation was also announced in the European Union’s Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021-2030. The geographic scope of the evaluation covers all 27 EU Member States as well as the United Kingdom, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland (collectively referred to as “EU+4”). The evaluation covers the period from 26 July 2008, when the Regulation became fully applicable, until February 2020. It builds inter alia on an external support study (hereafter “the support study”) carried out by an external contractor (hereafter addressed as “the contractor”) which covers the period between 2008 and 2019. The scope of the support study does not include the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, when stakeholders have made specific comments or where effects are already clear and unambiguous, these points are presented in the support study and also in this evaluation. The evaluation solely focusses on Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 and does not evaluate the air passenger rights covered by Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. However, it is not entirely possible to separate these two Regulations, so there will be references to both Regulations throughout the evaluation. This evaluation assesses the actual performance of the Regulation in terms of its: -Effectiveness where the progress towards achieving the objectives of the intervention is analysed. This analysis will seek to identify factors driving or hindering progress and how these are linked to the intervention; -Efficiency where costs and benefits of the Regulations are analysed with the purpose of making it clear whether the costs of the intervention have been proportionate; -Relevance: looking at the objectives of the EU intervention being evaluated and see how well they (still) match the (current) needs and problems; -Coherence where it will be analysed how well the Regulation works i) internally and ii) with other EU interventions and international obligations; -EU added value: considering arguments about the value resulting from EU interventions that is additional to the value that would have resulted from interventions initiated at regional or national levels by both public authorities and the private sector. 2.Background to the intervention 2.1.Specific context of air PRM passenger rights There are approximately 87 million people in the European Union that live with disabilities. They should have opportunities equal to other citizens, including when using air transport. Not all of them will require assistance when travelling, but it is important that they do not experience limitations or discrimination because of their disability. It was important to introduce a set of well-defined rules to ensure that PRM don’t experience discrimination when travelling by air as the transportation of PRM often involves more costs than transporting other citizens: they might need special attention and it can take extra resources to assist them. In an industry that strives to reduce costs as much as possible and relies on strict schedules and swift processes, airlines would otherwise be inclined to refuse transporting many of them. Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 was the first EU regulation that established the definition of PRM which is currently used in the EU passenger rights legislation. In addition, Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 granted certain rights to PRM: in the context of denied boarding, cancellation and delays the carrier is obliged to pay particular attention to the needs of PRM (Article 9) and give them priority in such situations (Article 11). As Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 did not address most issues that PRM face when travelling by air, in 2006 this Regulation was adopted to provide a comprehensive protection to PRM passengers. Subsequently, in case of passenger rights for other modes of transport (rail, waterborne and bus and coach) the Commission decided to propose one single regulation per mode, including the rights of PRM within the modal regulation.

The Regulation which started to fully apply in 2008 sets the legal framework for the rights of PRM to travel by air in the European Economic Area. For the purposes of the Regulation, a ‘person with disability’ and a ‘person with reduced mobility’ is defined as “any person whose mobility when using transport is reduced due to any physical disability (sensory or locomotor, permanent or temporary), intellectual disability or impairment, or any other cause of disability, or age, and whose situation needs appropriate attention and the adaptation to his or her particular needs of the service made available to all passengers”. This is a very broad definition covering persons who need a wheelchair but also persons who have difficulties walking long distances, persons who are hard of hearing or visually impaired as well as persons with hidden disability (including cognitive disabilities such as anxiety, Asperger syndrome or a mental health conditions). The market for PRM travelling by air There are no statistics available on the number of PRM travelling by air. However, based on data shared by some of the busiest airports in Europe it is estimated that in 2018 around 9.8 million passengers requested PRM assistance in Europe. Both the absolute number of PRM travelling by air and their percentage within all air passengers have increased significantly over the last two decades. According to the above mentioned data shared by some of the busiest airports in Europe it is estimated that in 2003 0,4% of all air passengers (around 2,6 million out of the total 590 million passengers) requested assistance on journeys to and from EU27+4. Between 2008 and 2018, the number of passengers requesting PRM assistance increased by +111% (from around 4,6 million passengers, 0,6% of the total 805 million passengers in 2008 to around 9,8 million passengers, 0,9% of the total 1120 million passengers in 2018) whilst in the same period passenger journeys increased by +39% only. Participants at the stakeholder consultation (airlines, airports, PRM representative organisations) mentioned the following factors that could explain this increase: •An aging population; •An increasing proportion of population with severe long-standing disabilities; •Increased confidence of PRM to travel by air. 2.2.Description of the intervention and its objectives Since the creation of a European Single Market for aviation in the 1990’s, air transport has revolutionised the way we travel and has brought Europeans closer together as more and more people can travel and travelling times became much shorter. This process has happened in a relatively short timeframe and what started with national legacy carriers is now a highly global and competitive market for airlines. In 2002 the Commission made a stakeholder consultation related to airlines' contracts with passengers which identified a number of possible improvements to passengers’ rights and invited stakeholders to comment on which issues required action by the European Union. The results of the consultation showed that the protection of people with reduced mobility was one of the first priorities. The Commissions legislative proposal for PRM travelling by plane was preceded by a broad public consultation, where the overwhelming majority of stakeholders who responded supported the adoption of a broad set of rights protecting PRM when travelling by air. The stakeholder consultation in 2002 showed a broad support among respondents from each stakeholder groups for the objectives in the intervention. The only major debate concerned whether airports or airlines should be responsible for providing assistance to PRM at airports. Before the Regulation was adopted only airlines provided assistance for PRM by themselves or via their ground handlers. At the time when the Commission presented its legislative proposal, it was aware that assisting PRM could have a negative effect on airlines’ profits, particularly when PRM travel on less expensive tickets. If only airlines would be responsible for transporting PRM, their PRM assistance costs would be roughly proportional to the number of PRM they transport. In such cases the competitive pressure to reduce costs could lead to incentives for airlines to reduce the number of PRM that they carry, either by lowering the scope or quality of assistance or deny transporting them abusing safety rules. If they gained a reputation for doing so, PRM would soon start to avoid them. As a consequence, the Commission decided to put the responsibility of assisting PRM at airports on airports managing bodies and in its proposal established a centralised system for the provision of PRM assistance at each airport, obliging airport managing bodies to be responsible for such assistance and at the same time allowing them to levy a transparent, cost related charge on all airlines using an airport in proportion to the number of passengers that they transported to and from that airport. Such an approach greatly reduced the incentives for airlines to minimise the number of PRM carried as airlines pay charges proportional to the total number of passengers that they carried to or from an airport, so the costs of airlines related to PRM assistance at that airport is independent of the number of people with reduced mobility that each airline transported. The other measure to impede discrimination was to establish strict rules about when airlines are allowed to derogate from the obligation to transport PRM. Airlines can only deny the reservation of PRM or refuse transporting them on the basis of justified aviation safety requirements established by national, EU or international law or the decision of the competent authorities or in case the size of the aircraft or its doors make the embarkation or carriage of that person physically impossible. In addition, to deter abuse airlines are obliged both to make publicly available the safety rules that they apply to the transport of PRM and to inform in writing passengers who are refused to be transported of the reasons for that refusal if the passengers concerned request that. The general objective of the Regulation was to provide PRM with opportunities for air travel comparable to other citizens. This general objective was supported by two specific objectives, namely to ensure extended and seamless assistance at all European airports and to avoid giving airlines incentives to reduce the number of PRM transported. The Commission’s legislative proposal was adopted by the EU co-legislators with some modifications. The following provisions of the Regulation were not part of the Commission’s legislative proposal: the obligatory PRM awareness and assistance training for airline and airport staff (Article 11), the obligation of carriers and airports to handle complaints (Article 15), the obligation of airlines to make their safety rules publicly available (Article 4(3)), the obligation of airport managing bodies to have to separate the accounts of their activities related to PRM assistance (Article 8(5)) and to publish an audited annual review of the use of the charges they collected for PRM assistance (Article 8(6)). The only negative change for PRM passengers compared to the Commission’s original proposal was that the pre-notification deadline for PRM was raised from 24 hours in the proposal to 48 hours in the Regulation (Article 7(1)).

Based on the Commission’s legislative proposal and the result of the legislative procedure the following PRM needs and operational objectives can be identified retrospectively: Problem identified at the time of the proposal PRM need identified at the time of the proposal Operational objective in the Regulation Article in Regulation PRM were denied boarding for reasons other than safety Limit instances of denied boarding Prohibit airlines from refusing PRM carriage on the grounds of disability or reduced mobility, with the exceptions of justified safety reasons established by law Article 3 and Article 4 There was no established, consistent process for booking assistance Ensure a more structured and consistent approach to booking assistance services Require airlines, travel agents and tour operators to make certain arrangements on prior notification of the need for assistance Article 6 Only limited rights had been granted to PRM under Regulation 261/2004 Establish a broader set of rights for PRM (and the corresponding responsibilities for key operators) Grant PRM the right to a specified package of assistance at airports on departure, on arrival and in transit and require them to notify the need for this assistance Article 7 Make the managing bodies of airports responsible for providing this assistance free of charge to PRM and allow them to levy charges on airlines to finance he costs of such assistance, separate the accounts of their activities related to their PRM assistance and publish an audited annual review of the use of the charges they collected for PRM assistance Train airport staff to provide appropriate PRM assistance Article 8 Article 11 Require the managing body of an airport to lay down quality standards for assistance services, after consultation with airport users (airlines) and PRM representatives Article 9 Require airlines to provide specified assistance on board aircraft, free of charge to PRM Train airport staff to provide appropriate PRM assistance Article 10 Article 11 Forbid the limitation or waiver of obligations created by the regulation Article 13 There was no system for imposing sanctions following an infringement of rights Create a framework for complaints-handling, and enforcement Require Member States to designate bodies responsible for enforcement of the Regulation and for dealing with complaints Article 14 and 15 Require Member States to lay down sanctions for infringements Article 16 Source: Commission analysis based on Table 3.18 of the support study 2.3.Baseline and points of comparison In assessing how the intervention affected PRM rights, the situation before the adoption of the Regulation has to be recalled. There were no binding obligations at international level to protect PRM rights when travelling by air before the adoption of the Regulation. Both the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) published and updated non-binding recommendations and guidelines, however these documents did not grant enforceable rights for PRM nor do obligations for operators (see in more detail in 3.2 and 5.4). The US had already a comprehensive legislation on PRM rights at the time of the drafting of the Regulation, but that did not generate the necessary impetus for an international intervention on the rights of PRM when travelling by air. In 2005 nine member states (i.e. Austria, Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Netherland, Sweden and the United Kingdom) already had national legislation protecting the rights of PRM when travelling by air, however their scope and content varied significantly. While the associated protection covered most of the largest Member States playing a key role in the EU aviation market, it did not extend to the majority of Member States. In addition, the level of protection granted by national legislation in different Member States varied, giving rise to confusion about which rules applied. Had this situation continued, the protection provided to PRM would have varied considerably across Member States, potentially reducing their confidence when travelling and hence the overall level of PRM travel. They would also have faced additional barriers such as much time spent in investigating different protection schemes and possibilities. In those Member States where PRM were not granted rights when using air transport, they had to rely on airlines’ policies, terms and conditions on transporting PRM. Airlines often offered assistance to PRM even before the implementation of the Regulation. The services were in most cases provided solely by the airlines or their ground handlers and airport managing bodies were rarely involved in the provision of the service. Some airlines offered better services than others depending on their interest in PRM as their possible customers. The travelling experience of PRM therefore varied considerably, with the offer ranging from no service at all to assistance broadly comparable with that currently available. In many cases, airlines charged an extra fee for PRM assistance services. This situation in many cases limited PRM travel options and confidence in air transport. 3.Implementation/State of play 3.1.Description of the current scope of the Regulation The Regulation applies to PRM, using or intending to use commercial passenger air services on departure from, on transit through, or on arrival at an airport, when the airport is situated in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies. The Regulation is applicable to Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway in accordance with the EEA Agreement and to Switzerland in accordance with the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (1999). The Regulation does not allow Member States to grant any exemptions from the application of the Regulation. 3.2.Other relevant legislation and guidance The Regulation does not perform its tasks in isolation, but in interaction with other EU legislation, national legislation and non-binding international standards and guidance documents. The following is a brief description of the different legal instruments related to the transportation of PRM in the EU. In point 5.4 on Coherence this interplay will be analysed in detail. European Union legislation and guidelines

Central for passenger rights in air is Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 that grants rights to PRM as to any other air travellers’ rights in case of denied boarding, cancellation and long delay of flights. As mentioned earlier, Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 stipulates specific rights to PRM: it imposes a general obligation on airlines to prioritise their needs and it specifies that in the case of denied boarding, cancellations or long delays, PRM shall receive care as soon as possible. Furthermore the luggage and mobility equipment of PRM is handled by ground-handlers who therefore have a significant impact on the PRMs’ travel. The activity of ground-handlers is regulated by Directive 96/67/EC on access to the ground-handling market at Community airports. The provisions of Directive 96/67/EC shall also apply to the activities covered by the Regulation where this does not conflict with the Regulation. On the basis of Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) adopted ‘acceptable means of compliance’ (AMC) related to the carriage of ‘special categories of passengers’ (SCPs), including for PRM.

These AMCs are non-binding standards to illustrate how to comply with EU safety rules: one does not have to follow them, but if one follows them, safety rules are complied with. Certain rules regarding liability for loss or damage of mobility equipment can be found in Regulation No (EC) 2027/1997 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air which transposes the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air commonly (known as the ‘Montreal Convention’) into EU law. Finally, it should be mentioned that the Commission published non-binding interpretative guidelines on the Regulation to enhance the harmonised application of the Regulation. International binding and non-binding legal instruments There are two international organisations governing civil aviation which both adopted non-binding standards and guidance related to the facilitation of transporting PRM. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a United Nation agency, adopted the Convention on International Civil Aviation (also known as the ‘Chicago Convention’). Chapter 8 of Annex 9 of this Convention makes some recommendations to state parties about the facilitation of transporting PRM passengers. The European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) is an intergovernmental organisation which seeks to harmonise civil aviation policies and practices amongst its 44 Member States and, at the same time, to promote understanding on policy matters between its Member States and other parts of the world. ECAC also adopted a document, known as ECAC’s Doc 30, containing non-binding guidance material for national authorities and operators on the facilitation of transporting PRM passengers. It is also important to mention here that the legislation in the US (known as 14 CFR Part 382) has a different approach to the division of responsibility for PRM assistance, which have an impact on carriers operating between the EU and the US. In the broader context, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) should be mentioned to which all the 31 countries examined in this report are parties. The UNCRPD requires state parties to the Convention to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to transport and therefore sets a very strong foundation of PRM passenger rights. Carriers’ and airports’ implementation and application Providing assistance to PRM at airports has an average cost which ranges from EUR 0.06 per passenger at the cheapest airport (Palanga, LT) to EUR 1.53 at the most expensive (Catania, IT). The overall cost envelope is difficult to estimate as PRM assistance numbers are not available for all European airports. However, eight airport operators (namely Paris-CDG, Frankfurt, Riga, Copenhagen, Rome-Fiumicino, Shannon, Zurich and Heathrow) indicated the costs for PRM assistance, which amounts to around EUR180 million annually for all eight airports. Such costs can be passed to airlines in the form of PRM charges. 3.3.Member States’ implementation and monitoring The Regulation requires Member States to designate national enforcement bodies (NEBs), which are responsible for enforcing the Regulation and to lay down penalties in their national law in order to sanction operators that breach the Regulation. All Member States designated their NEBs and adopted national legislation which allows to sanction operators that breach the Regulation. 3.3.1 The National Enforcement Bodies (NEBs) and their activities The Regulation follows the same approach as Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and later the other passenger rights Regulations, an approach that allows for high flexibility in respect of enforcement, recognising the different national regulatory frameworks in place in different Member States. More specifically, while the substantive rights of PRM travelling by air are specified in the text of the Regulation, the articles on enforcement (i.e. Articles 14 to 16) allow a great discretion to the Member States to designate one or more existing transport, consumer protection or equality authority as NEB or create a new one to carry out complaint handling, monitoring and enforcement activities. The Member States have implemented the Regulation differently and hence NEBs have different tasks and powers and follow different procedures in the different Member States. The NEBs are in most cases civil aviation authorities, transport authorities dealing with different modes of transport or ministries responsible for transport. In a few cases Member States have designated consumer protection authorities as NEBs. Finally, in two Member States authorities responsible to promote the equality of persons with disabilities were designated as NEBs. Most Member States designated one NEB for the enforcement of the Regulation. Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Romania, Sweden designated two NEBs and Finland designated three. The distribution of tasks between the NEBs vary Member State by Member States but often one NEB (typically the transport authority) is responsible for the systemic enforcement and oversight and the other NEB (typically the consumer protection authority or authorities responsible to promote the equality of persons with disabilities) handles individual complaints.

Member State Regulation 261/2004 Regulation 1107/2006 Belgium SPF Mobilité & Transport Bulgaria Ministry of Transport, Information Technologies and Communications Czechia Czech Civil Aviation Authority Denmark Danish Transport, Construction and Housing Authority* Germany Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA) Estonia Consumer Protection and Technical Regulatory Authority (CPTRA)* Ireland Commission for Aviation Regulation (CAR) Greece Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority Spain Agencia Estatal de Seguridad Aérea (AESA)* France Direction générale de l'aviation civile (DGAC) Croatia Croatian Civil Aviation Agency Italy L’Ente Nazionale per l’Aviazione Civile (ENAC) Cyprus Department of Civil Aviation Latvia Consumer Rights Protection Centre (CRPC)* Civil Aviation Agency of Latvia Lithuania Lithuanian Transport Safety Administration (LTSA) Luxembourg Ministère de l'Économie Direction de l'Aviation Civile Hungary Ministry for Innovation and Technology (ITM) & Consumer Protection Bodies Equal Treatment Authority Malta Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority Civil Aviation Authority Netherlands Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT) Austria APF - Agentur für Passagier- und Fahrgastrechte* Poland Commission on Passengers' Rights & Civil Aviation Office (CAO) Portugal Autoridade Nacional da Aviação Civil (ANAC) Romania National Authority for Consumer Protection (ANPC)* Ministry of Labor, Family and Social Protection National Authority for People with Disabilities Slovenia Civil Aviation Agency Slovakia Slovak trade Inspectorate * Finland Consumer Disputes Board* Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority Traficom Sweden Swedish Transport Authority Swedish Consumer Agency Iceland Icelandic Transport Authority (ICETRA) Norway Civil Aviation Authority Switzerland Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority *NEBs which also are alternative dispute resolution bodies (ADR) (or in the case of Spain are in the process to become an ADR)

Source: Study on the current level of protection of air passenger rights in the EU The fact that such diverse bodies are in charge to enforce the Regulation in the Member States can make it difficult for PRM and other stakeholders (e.g. organisations representing PRM, transport operators) to locate the NEB, submit complaints or other enquiries. The competence of NEBs also differs significantly. All can handle individual complaints except the German NEB which focuses on the systemic enforcement of the Regulation only (however, in case of Germany passengers can submit a complaint to an efficient transport specific ADR if the airline agreed to participate in the conciliation procedure before this body which most airlines operating in Germany do). Many NEBs did not disclose data on how much staff they dedicate to implement the Regulation. NEBs which did disclose data seem to have very limited staff resources, most often they indicated that 1 full time equivalent (FTE) or even less deals with the enforcement of the Regulation. The maximum amount of penalties also differ significantly between Member States, and in some cases it is doubtful whether even a maximum fine could dissuade operators from breaching the Regulation. 3.3.2 Monitoring activities In addition of dealing with complaints, and (if necessary) imposing sanctions, Article 14(1) of the Regulation also stipulates that NEBs shall “take the measures necessary to ensure that the rights of PRM are respected.” However, besides this general obligation, the Regulation offers flexibility for NEBs to choose the actions they deem appropriate to monitor operators’ compliance with the Regulation. Although these tasks are not specified in the text of the Regulation, monitoring and enforcement of the Regulation presupposes carrying out at least some specific activities. It seems from the contributions received from NEBs and the analysis of the contractor that there are significant differences between the level of monitoring activities of the different NEBs: some of them seem to be very proactive and engage in different monitoring activities on a regular basis, some are less proactive (they only engage in specific monitoring activities or they engage in monitoring activities less frequently) while other NEBs indicated no proactive monitoring activities at all and they seem to focus only on handling complaints. Some NEBs did not share information on this issue. Those NEBs which indicated during the stakeholder consultation that they carried out monitoring activities mentioned that they carried out one or more of the following tasks: -monitoring of the homepages of airlines (e.g. to ensure that airlines’ general terms and conditions are not contrary to the Regulation) and airports (e.g. to check whether their quality standards are published); -audits of airports and some of them also audit airlines; -targeted inspections of airlines or airports; -regular contact with airports and airlines (in the form of meetings or by written correspondence) to inform them about their obligations and ensure that they comply with them; -cooperation with organisations of persons with disabilities to gather information about the application of the Regulation (to complement the information they receive from the few formal complains PRM submit to them). 3.3.3 Complaint handling If a PRM passenger considers that an airport managing body or airline infringed their rights granted by the Regulation, they are entitled to submit a complaint to that airport managing body or airline. In case the PRM passenger concerned is not satisfied with the airport managing body’s or airline’s response to the complaint, they are entitled to submit complaints to a NEB or to another body designated by a Member State. The total amount of complaints submitted to the NEBs relating to the Regulation is very low: about 150 complaints for the whole EU in 2019 (Around 15 complaints per million passenger). Different NEBs deal with varying numbers of complaints. 18 of the 26 NEBs providing complaint data received on average less than five complaints per year throughout the period for which they provided data. The eight NEBs with the highest number of complaints in 2019 received between 11 and 26 complaints. At the same time, four NEBs did not receive any complaints in 2019, and the remaining NEBs received an average of one to five complaints per year in 2019 or in the previous years for which they provided data.

It shall also be noted that reporting on the volume of complaints by different NEBs differs significantly, whilst some report exclusively complaints which fall under the scope of the Regulation others report any complaint that they received for any reason. As there is no reporting obligation for NEBs under the Regulation, the Commission depends on the data the NEBs voluntarily share with the Commission. Nevertheless, the overall volume of complaints appears to be growing slowly with a grow of more than 85 % from around 80 in 2008 to around 150 in 2018 (EU 27+3), which might be due to an increase in the number of PRM travelling, more breaches of the Regulation, better awareness of the right to complain, or more willingness to do so. There can be many factors to this varying number of complaints and due to limited data available, it remains difficult to specify the determining factor - in particular as regards the motivation for a passenger’s decision to/not to complain. A further analysis on the factors for this and the impacts will be addressed in Chapter 5. In addition to submitting a complaint to a NEB, PRM passengers should also be able to seek for redress using alternative dispute resolution (ADR) bodies. Based on information provided by NEBs and ADR bodies themselves, not all Member States are equally equipped in that respect: a number of them do not have specific ADR bodies for the transport sector, which may lead to a lack of transport sector specific expertise which may make their work difficult. Therefore, in such countries disputes related to passenger rights are handled by a generic ADR body. In addition, in some Member States where ADRs are entitled to adjudicate on passenger rights claims, the participation of carriers in the procedure is voluntary. The Commission has supported the launch of Travel-Net, an association of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) bodies for transport and travel disputes, to facilitate networking and exchange between them. National ADRs also indicated that they only received very few complaints related to the Regulation. The only exception is the UK ADR body, which received more than 160 complaints both in 2018 and in 2019 This is likely related to the fact that UK legislation, in line with the provisions of UK disability rights legislation applying in other sectors, grants passengers who suffer emotional distress due to an infringement of the Regulation the right to seek financial compensation from the airline or airport concerned. The below figure shows the complaints reported by NEBs. The main reasons for PRM to complain are, by order of importance: “Lack of or low quality assistance by airline or airport” (20%), “loss or damage of the mobility equipment” (17%), “denied boarding of the mobility equipment by the airline” (12%), “slow or delayed assistance by the airport” (10%) and “denial to transport assistance dogs” (10%) amounting to a total of two third of complaints according to data received from NEBs as shown in Figure 2 below. The highest number of complaints (20%) concern the lack of or insufficient assistance. This may be caused by both the airline and the airport and it may be due to long waiting times or lack of communication of needs between carriers, airport, booking agency and passenger. Denied boarding is the reason only for 7% of the complaints. However since denied boarding of mobility equipment comprises 12% of complaints and denial to transport assistance dogs comprises another 10%, and the latter two cases will often entail a situation when the passenger will not be able or willing to travel without the mobility equipment or assistance dog, the data shows that denied boarding remains an issue for PRM. It is also important to note that the loss or damage of mobility equipment concerns 17% of the complaints. This was one of the reasons why the Commission proposed in the context of the review of air passenger rights that the liability of air carriers with regard to mobility equipment should be increased up to the actual value of the equipment. Source: Support Study, Figure 3.3 It is important to note that although between 2012 and 2019 several businesses (‘claim agencies’) have emerged to help air passengers to manage their complaints against airlines, these businesses seem to deal exclusively with complaints arising from the breaches of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (in particular those giving a right to compensation) and not from breaches of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006. 3.3.4 Sanctions imposed by NEBs The maximum amount of penalties that NEBs may impose on operators differ significantly between Member States, and in cases these maximum amounts are very low (in case of Lithuania it is only EUR 800, but the maximum amount is also below EUR 5000 in Bulgaria, Estonia, Malta and Latvia) it is doubtful whether even a maximum fine could dissuade operators from breaching the Regulation. Most of the NEBs are authorized to impose sanctions themselves, however in some cases the NEBs can only initiate to impose sanctions and another authority will decide whether sanctions are imposed or not. There is also a great difference in the number of sanctions that the NEBs have actually imposed since the introduction of the Regulation ranging from 67 sanctions to 0 sanctions.

The Belgian, Luxembourg, Maltese and Polish NEBs did not indicate whether they imposed sanctions or not. NEBs from 17 Member States (Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Croatia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Austria, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Sweden), and also from the United Kingdom, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland did not impose any sanction on the basis of infringement of the Regulation. Accordingly, between 2008 and 2019 only NEBs of 6 out of the 31 countries examined imposed sanctions: the Spanish NEB imposed 67 sanctions, the German NEB imposed four sanctions, the French, Italian, Dutch and Portuguese NEBs imposed one sanction each. The French NEB has used the maximum amount possible when it imposed penalties. The table below shows the differences in enforcement of the Regulation by different Member States and the number and amount of sanctions imposed.



MS Able to handle individual complaints? Enforcement powers Max fine amount Number of sanctions imposed to date and magnitude of penalties levied BE Yes Supervisory and inspection powers, and the power to report infringements for consideration of prosecution No information No information BG Yes Supervisory and inspection powers, and the power to issue fines EUR 5,000 No sanctions imposed CZ Yes The NEB can initiate sanctions proceedings 1,000,000 czk (approximately EUR 37,000) No sanctions imposed DK Yes The NEB has the power to act as an intermediary between parties as dispute resolution, and can initiate procedures to issue fines Unlimited No sanctions imposed DE No The NEB has monitoring and enforcement powers, and can initiate administrative offence procedures EUR 30,000 4 sanctions, EUR 1000-EUR 2,000 per sanction EE Yes The NEB can issue a precept (a form of order to comply) and can issue sanctions if this is breached. EUR 3,500 No sanctions imposed IE Yes The NEB has the power to initiate prosecutions, which can lead to fines being imposed, and can carry out monitoring and inspections at airports No information No sanctions imposed EL Yes The NEB can issue sanctions through airport-based teams EUR 250,000 No sanctions imposed ES Yes . The NEB can issue financial sanctions. EUR 70,000 67 sanctions, with sanctions of on average and EUR 500,000 in total FR Yes The NEB can make reports to the Minister of Transport who can decide whether to issue a sanction EUR 7,500 per instance of non-compliance 1 sanction for refusing to transport a PRM (3 infringements in total). Sanction of EUR 22,500 HR Yes The NEB can impose sanctions on carriers EUR 6,700 No sanctions imposed IT Yes The NEB can carry out inspections, and impose sanctions EUR 120,000 1 sanction imposed with a sanction of EUR 10,000 CY Yes The NEB can carry out investigations, impose sanctions and suspend or withdraw operating licenses EUR 8,000 or 10% of the company’s annual turnover No sanctions imposed LV Yes No information provided EUR 1800 No sanctions imposed LT Yes The NEB has complaints handling and sanctioning powers EUR 800 No sanctions imposed LU No information provided No information provided No information provided No information provided HU Yes Investigation, arbitration and sanctioning powers. EUR 20,000 No sanctions imposed MT Yes The NEB can issue sanctions EUR 2,329.37 No information provided NL Yes The NEB can investigate cases and issue sanctions EUR 74,000 1 sanction imposed with an amount of EUR 9,000 AT Yes The NEB can investigate claims and file a complaint with the district authority who can impose a sanction EUR 22,000 No sanctions imposed PL Yes The NEB can investigate compliance, although responsibility for enforcement is split and only one body can issue fines No information No information provided PT Yes The NEB can issue fines, but not award compensation EUR 400,000 1 sanction of EUR 6,000, with 3 sanctions proceedings ongoing. RO Yes No information provided No information provided No sanctions imposed SI Yes The NEB has the power to investigate, and commence minor offence proceedings EUR 60,000 No sanctions imposed SK Yes The NEB has the power to investigate and make non-binding civil decisions. It may also impose fines. EUR 66,000 for a first offence, rising to EUR 166,000 for repeated non-compliance No sanctions imposed FI Yes The NEB can investigate cases and issue fines. Unlimited No sanctions imposed SE Yes The NEB can issue injunctions and impose fines Unlimited No sanctions imposed UK Yes The NEB can carry out inspections, review licenses and impose fines Unlimited No sanctions imposed IS Yes The NEB can review cases with the aim of resolving them, and can impose fines although it is their policy not to No information No sanctions imposed NO No The NEB can carry out system level monitoring and enforcement, and impose fines No information No sanctions imposed CH Yes The NEB can carry out system level enforcement, investigate cases, and impose fines. CHF 20,000 (approximately EUR18,641) No sanctions imposed Source: Commission analysis based on the Support Study, Table 3.13. 3.3.5 Infringement cases / preliminary rulings All Member States designated on time one or more NEBs to enforce the Regulation or handle complaints and NEBs are authorised to impose legal sanctions for the breach of the Regulation. No cases of NEBs having a consistent administrative practice contrary to the Regulation were detected either. There was also no indication of any significant volume of national court litigation based on the Regulation. There has furthermore been no national court or tribunal applying to the Court of Justice of the EU for a preliminary ruling related to provisions of the Regulation. 3.4.Role of the European Commission in the implementation of the Regulation The European Commission played a supporting role in the implementation of the Regulation in several aspects: The Commission has a web page dedicated to inform citizens about their passenger rights; The Commission conducted several information campaigns to raise the awareness of citizens about their passenger rights (including on this Regulation): The Commission started carrying out information campaigns aimed at raising awareness among citizens in 2009. The first campaign (2010-2012) was organised for air and rail passenger rights, while a second one launched in 2013 concerned all modes. Online communication campaigns (online advertising) have proven the most cost-effective means during the last years (campaigns in 2016-2017, 2019, 2020 and 2021), which was reflected in a steep increase of visits of the relevant Your Europe passenger rights webpages; The Commission also conducts regularly Eurobarometer surveys on passenger rights. The results of the latest survey from 2019 showed that only 32% of respondents of EU citizens are aware of the existence of EU passenger rights (however, we do not have data about how many of the PRM who actually travel by air are aware of their passenger rights) The Commission facilitated the uniform application of the Regulation by publishing its interpretative guidelines in 2012; The Commission organised regular meetings with NEBs and stakeholder representatives, with a view to promote cooperation and the sharing of experiences (relating to both difficulties encountered and good practices). In addition, the Commission maintains a regular exchange with the NEBs between these meetings to reach common understanding on the interpretation of specific provisions of the Regulation and to help solving specific cases.

In the context of COVID-19 pandemic, the Commission published Interpretative Guidelines on the progressive restoration of transport services and connectivity – COVID-19 emphasizing the obligation of operators to continue giving assistance for PRM and calling them to provide with their staff assisting PRM with appropriate personal protective equipment. Updated information for passengers was also frequently posted at the Commission’s Coronavirus Response website . In the summer of 2020 the Commission also launched infringement procedures for the breach of other passenger rights Regulations in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g. for not applying the relevant rules on reimbursement of tickets following cancellation of services), however, the Commission did not receive any complaints about the breach of this Regulation in the context of the Covid pandemic. 3.5.Major recent developments There are some factors that were not taken into consideration or that had yet to occur when drafting the Regulation that are important to take into consideration when evaluating the Regulation. The size and complexity of airports and the operational procedures of the aviation industry make it more difficult for passengers to reach their flights Since 2008 when the Regulation became applicable several airports have been significantly extended or new large airports were built where the walking distance between the entrance of the terminal and the departure gate has increased. Very often commercial aspects prevail during airport construction or refurbishment over aspects like accessibility or easiness to navigate at the airport. Some passengers find it impossible to walk long distances, therefore they ask for assistance. Other passengers who also have difficulties to walk longer distances would nevertheless prefer to reach their flights independently and not to ask for assistance if they would be allowed more time to do so. However, in many airports they are not allowed to check in enough time before their flights, and the departure gate is only announced a short time before departure (to entice passengers to spend their time shopping or at other commercial facilities) making it impossible for them to reach their departure gate on time and forcing them to request PRM assistance. Increase in demand of PRM assistance by passengers who do not have a genuine disability During the targeted stakeholder consultation, several airport managing bodies and airlines mentioned the increase in the number of passengers requesting assistance for reasons other than disability or reduced mobility, as an unintended effect of the Regulation. Several airports and airlines participating at the stakeholder consultation claim that there is a growing number of requests for assistance from certain passengers who would otherwise struggle to find their way in big and complex airports, or passengers who would like to skip queues or to have someone else to carry their luggage. Such misuses have a negative impact on the costs of operators and also on the quality of service that persons with genuine disability receive (in the sense that genuine PRM may need to wait more to receive assistance). Technological developments The development of technological solutions such as ambulifts and chairlifts that help to embark and disembark an aircraft have led to significant improvements in the safe, dignified and efficient conveyance of PRM. Such technologies remove the need for the manual handling of PRM where they are not able to lift themselves into or out of a seat or climb stairs. As a consequence, where these solutions are available, certain airports and NEBs prohibited the manual handling of PRM. Several innovations using digital technology have improved the efficiency with which services are delivered. PRM assistance tracking devices now used in several airports allow PRM assistance providers to know where staff and assistance equipment are in real time, and improve operational planning and monitoring the performance of their personnel. Other digital innovations such as online applications have facilitated access to information for PRM: some inform them about their rights, others allow them to have access to real time information or to specify and personalise the assistance they need. The size, weight and power of electric wheelchairs used by PRM has developed substantially. Electric wheelchairs are increasingly powered using lithium ion batteries. This has created safety problems and as a result it lead to increasing denial of their transport. The COVID crisis poses challenges to the sustainability of financing PRM assistance The COVID-19 pandemic has virtually wiped-out most passenger traffic (including PRM) at European airports since spring 2020. This has created a problem for airports as the financial scheme is set up so that airport charges in one year pay for the costs incurred in the previous year. Hence airports and airlines were supposed to bear the costs of assisting PRM in 2019 (which was historically high) in 2020. It has not been deemed suitable to increase the respective PRM charge in 2020, because it would be so high that it may have a significant effect on tickets prices, and hence discourage potential passengers from travelling by air. However, at the same time, many airports and airlines have financial difficulties and they are unable to bear the costs of PRM assistance themselves. In addition, PRM costs remain high during the COVID-19 pandemic, even though airports have been very pro-active at trying to lower PRM assistance costs in the face of lowered PRM demand. The reason for this is that there are significant fixed costs that are independent from the number of PRM requesting assistance (e.g. they cannot reduce the number of staff in the same proportion of the decrease of demand, they need to maintain the equipment, etc.). In several Member States, airlines and airports are negotiating with the competent authorities about potential solutions for this problem, possibly by spreading the assistance costs to a longer time period. 4.Method 4.1.Short description of methodology The evaluation of the Regulation started in 2019 with the publication of a roadmap and was overseen by an Inter-service Steering Group (details in Annex 1). It builds to a large extent on the support study carried out by an external contractor for the Commission between February 2020 and July 2021.

A wide range of data sources have been used to collect evidence to answer the evaluation questions. Stakeholders’ views were gathered through public consultations and targeted consultation activities, including a workshop. All stakeholder groups were reached, and the risk of receiving incomplete or biased information was mitigated by triangulating different sources of information, including multiple stakeholders, juxtaposing divergent viewpoints, and by providing the relevant factual information where possible. The findings are supplemented by additional information gathered by the Commission during its monitoring of the implementation of the Regulation across Member States, from issues raised by NEBs at the Commission’s regular expert group meetings or at ECAC meetings , and from individual complaints received from citizens.The methodology for this evaluation includes the following elements: •Public consultation for a five weeks period on the evaluation roadmap; •A 15-week long public consultation; •Support study: oDesktop research collecting publicly available information (e.g. specific studies which are relevant to the evaluation, reports, national legislation, guidance documents of the industry, documents published by NEBs); oTargeted stakeholder consultations on the five evaluation questions with a broad range of stakeholders at different points of the evaluation phase; oThree case studies: dealing with 1) safety conditions applied by airlines related to the transport of PRM, 2) the quality standards of airports relating to PRM and 3) PRM charges applied by airports; oCountry fiches developed for all EU+4 countries showing information received from NEBs the implementation methods, enforcement methods of each Member State; oWorkshop with a representative sample of selected stakeholders; oA cost-benefit analysis. 4.2.Limitations and robustness of findings As previously explained, the Commission did not undertake a detailed Impact Assessment before its legislative proposal in 2005, hence information about the period before the legislative proposal had to be gathered from other sources for this evaluation. It was possible to retroactively reconstruct the situation before the intervention, although it should still be noted that the information available about that period is limited. On the other hand, a number of inputs from a broad range of stakeholders were received from the period after the adoption of the Regulation, including from NEBs and major European airports and airline groups, as well as passenger and PRM organizations. In addition, robust data from Eurostat and recognised industry sources such as data from the air travel intelligence company Official Airlines Guide (OAG) ensured a solid quantification basis. OAG schedule data and Eurostat passenger, aircraft movement and economic data is available for the whole evaluation period, whilst fare data is available for the period 2011-2018. Hence, it is possible to make comparisons between years and analyse the development of movements. Furthermore, the costs of PRM services can be analysed on the basis of availability of airport PRM charge data for a wide selection of airports, accounting for 82% of all passengers travelling in Europe, and of data on the associated costs incurred by a majority of stakeholders. On the contrary, there is little accurate data on the overall size of the market affected by the Regulation and the number and profile of passengers benefitting from it. This is an important limitation of the analysis. The stakeholder consultation was carried out in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic and some stakeholders could not participate in the support study. Others were unable to send responses as detailed as they would have wished due to a lack of resources during the health crisis, although they were given additional time to participate in the consultation process. Despite the difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the limitations mentioned above, the quality of data gathered by the stakeholder consultation is relatively good as several high quality responses were received from representatives of all major stakeholder groups. 5.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions 5.1.Effectiveness Evaluation questions 5.1.1. To what extent have the objectives of the Regulation been achieved, especially the general objective of ensuring that PRM have comparable options to travel by air as other citizens and the specific objectives to prohibit discrimination based on disability and provide PRM with an extended and seamless assistance during their journey?

The Regulation has been very effective in meeting its general objective and its two specific objectives. Compared to the situation in 2008, when the Regulation became fully applicable, today PRM have significantly more freedom to travel by air at no extra cost to them, and barriers that may have prevented them from travelling in the past have been substantially overcome. As a result, their options to travel by air are broadly comparable to those of other citizens. They receive in general better assistance than before the adoption of the Regulation, and there are fewer instances when they might suffer discrimination. The Regulation has led to improvements of the situation of PRM who intend to travel across the EU in five main aspects. Greater awareness to the special needs of PRM when using air transport Most stakeholders participating in the targeted stakeholder consultation (including PRM representatives) agreed that, mainly due to the obligatory disability equality training which the Regulation introduced, the awareness of airport and airline staff about the needs of PRM has significantly increased and a European culture of PRM assistance was created. However, this was a gradual process. Although the Regulation was adopted having in mind all passengers with disabilities and reduced mobility, in the early years the implementation of the Regulation heavily focused on the needs of passengers with restricted mobility and the needs of citizens who live with other disabilities (e.g. blind, deaf persons, persons with intellectual or developmental disabilities) were often neglected. Assistance to PRM was often seen as the provision of a wheelchair with an attendant. The stakeholder consultation revealed that in recent years several airports started to introduce good practices focusing on the needs of persons with hidden disabilities: some UK airports introduced the ‘sunflower lanyard’ as a discreet sign with which a passenger can indicate the need for special support (for example more time at the security), Italian and Baltic airports developed programs to explain to autistic passengers what to expect during their journey at the airport. Some stakeholders (including PRM representatives and certain airports) nevertheless still consider that more attention should be paid to the needs of persons whose mobility is not restricted, but their disability (which is often less visible to the airport and airline staff) makes them travelling by air challenging. In addition, although the Regulation does require a disability-related training for certain personnel working for the airport managing bodies and for airlines, it does not require such training from everyone working at the airport in direct contact with PRM (notably security and immigration officers and staff handling the mobility equipment of PRM). The Regulation does also not require travel agents and tour operators to complete such training. As the work of the latter is essential to provide a seamless and pleasant travel experience for PRM, it can be considered as a legal gap that they are not obliged to complete such training. Improved assistance provided to PRMs As mentioned already in point 2.3. above, before the Regulation became applicable airlines provided assistance to their PRM customers and the scope of services depended on the applicable national legislation (but only nine Member States had national legislation protecting PRM travelling by air) and on the commercial policy of the respective airline. Consequently, if the national legislation did not grant rights to PRM when travelling by air, it depended solely on the airline’s interest in PRM as a market segment whether they provided assistance to PRM or not, and whether they charged (sometimes significant) extra fee for such service or they offered PRM assistance free of charge. Stakeholders (including PRM representative organisations, airports, airlines and NEBs) participating at the consultation agreed that the Regulation has brought significant improvement: assistance is provided at all airports throughout Europe to all passengers who request it. It consists of a pre-determined package of services, it is free and available if pre-notified at least 48 hours before departure although most operational stakeholders will still ensure that it is provided even when the passenger in need of such assistance does not pre-notify in due time and only asks for it at the last minute. In conclusion, most PRM receive the necessary support when travelling by air. The Regulation imposes the obligation on airports with an annual traffic of more than 150 000 commercial passenger movements to adopt in cooperation with airport users (airlines) and PRM representatives their quality standards for the provision of PRM assistance at airports and to publish them, which should be then monitored and enforced by NEBs. The support study found that quality standards have been widely adopted across European airports, however their impact on the quality of assistance is very limited because very few NEBs monitor their application. In addition, most of these quality standards put too much emphasis on the ECAC Doc 30 key performance indicators related to the punctuality of providing assistance, which resulted in many airports focusing on the timeliness of conveying PRM through the airport to meet performance targets rather than providing care and empathy. However, the stakeholder consultation also showed a different approach by some airports: e.g., the Italian NEB requires all Italian airports to publish annual ‘Service Charters’ that measure the ‘softer’ service elements (e.g. ‘perceptions of the adequacy of personnel training’ and ‘perceptions of the professionalism of personnel dedicated to the provision of the assistance service’) against published targets. The UK NEB publishes annual quality of service reports covering assistance delivered at UK airports which also uses ‘soft’ metrics (e.g. a passenger survey where customers can also measure staff attitude and where the airport regularly consults with PRM representatives and implements their recommendations). Finally, some airports in other Member States (e.g. Copenhagen Airport, Aéroports de Paris, all Spanish airports) survey PRM after assistance has been delivered to them, which can also give a more comprehensive feedback to airport managers and customers. A reduction in the number of denied boarding events The Regulation prohibits airlines to refuse reservation or carriage of PRM except where necessary to comply with applicable safety regulations or where the size of the aircraft or its doors make the embarkation or carriage of the PRM impossible. When an airline uses one of these derogations, it has to inform the PRM immediately about the reasons for refusal, and it has to communicate these reasons in writing to the PRM within five working days if the PRM so requests. This strict non-discrimination rule has guaranteed for most PRM the right to travel by air. They book their travel like any other passengers and then contact the airline or airport to pre-notify their specific assistance needs. Pre-notification might be cumbersome for PRM, it nonetheless ensures that they are not denied transportation. In addition, if a PRM fails to pre-notify his or her special needs, it does not mean that he or she will be penalised for that: airports and airlines shall nevertheless make all reasonable efforts to provide the necessary assistance. It is difficult to draw definitive conclusions on the progress made towards non-discrimination of PRM travelling by air. Data on discrimination, notably on denied boarding is not readily collected in Europe, making qualitative analysis in this area very challenging. The fact that the number of PRM traveling by air between 2008 and 2019 increased year on year, both in absolute numbers and as a proportion of the total number of passengers while the number of complaints submitted to NEBs related to denied boarding remained relatively constant and low since 2008 seems to indicate that the number of incidents related to denied boarding has been significantly reduced since the Regulation became applicable. Nevertheless, 29% of all complaints relates to denied boarding or refusal to transport mobility equipment or assistance dogs which may be considered as an indirect form of denied boarding, because most mobility equipment and assistance dogs are indispensable for their users who will not be willing to travel without them.

Some PRM representatives are sceptical whether refusal to transport PRM always occurs on the basis of genuine safety concerns, notably they considered it questionable whether certain restrictive policies applied by airlines vis-á-vis PRM are justified on the grounds of safety: their examples include airlines which only transport two wheelchairs or one recognised assistance dog per flight while other airlines using the same type of aircrafts on the same route do not have similar limitations or airlines that require PRM to travel with an accompanying person when the PRM person does not need their help to comply with the statutory safety requirements, but to help eating or using the toilet. The support study also shows that safety rules of airlines vary significantly, and they are often difficult to find and interpret (in particular those related to the transport of batteries of mobility equipment, electric wheelchairs and oxygen) leaving PRM exposed to the risk of denied boarding. In general, PRM are unlikely to be able to research applicable safety legislations and airline rules comprehensively, or to assert their rights with confidence at the gate given this level of information asymmetry. This discourages certain PRM from using air transport and demonstrates the importance of effective NEBs monitoring and enforcement. Greater consistency of treatment across airlines, airports and Member States Before the Regulation became applicable airline policies to transport PRM varied from airline to airline, and the scope of assistance provided to PRM varied from one airport to another as well. The Regulation has imposed a consistent single framework throughout the EU+4 and there is a detailed list of specific assistance services that must be available to PRM free of charge. As a result, the same general obligation applies throughout the EU+4 to transport PRM. The Regulation also provides strict rules when derogation from this obligation is possible for reasons of aviation safety. As mentioned in the previous point, there is one area where such consistency is lacking: there are significant differences between the safety rules of airlines which limit the transport of PRM. Clear division of tasks between airports and airlines The Regulation achieved in general a clear division of tasks between airlines and airports: The Regulation lists in Annex I the assistance to be given by airport managing bodies and in Annex II those to be provided by airlines on-board of the aircraft. However, some uncertainties remain about the allocation of a few specific tasks. 5.1.2. Are passengers easily granted the rights to which they are entitled? In order to exercise their rights, PRM have to be aware of them. In general, airlines, airports and also certain NEBs inform PRM of their rights under the Regulation through their websites, posters and leaflets at airports and via assistance telephone lines. However, it shall also be noted that the obligation of operators to provide information is not as extensive as that available under Regulation 261/2004 (in particular Article 14 of Regulation 261/2004 contains a specific obligation to inform passengers of their rights in case of denied boarding, long delay and cancellations). Given the data available, it cannot be concluded whether passengers are easily granted the rights to which they are entitled or not. PRM submit very few complaints and most NEBs do not undertake pro-active monitoring. If they do, they report very little infringements. Stakeholders expressed diverging views about the reasons for such a low level of complaints: PRM representatives argued that the complaints to NEBs, ADRs and operators only represents “the tip of the iceberg” while operators claimed that they provide a high quality service, so in most cases PRM do not have reasons to complain. The following reasons could contribute to the low number of complaints: •PRM representatives indicated that many PRM are unaware of their rights. •PRM may be less willing to complain than other passengers. The Swiss NEB noted that “PRM accept to a great extent that travelling for them is more burdensome. They seldom complain, probably also due to the fact that to make a complaint is often stressful for them”. •PRM representatives indicated that the lack of accessibility of complaint forms may also mean that PRM face greater barriers than other passengers when seeking to make a complaint. •Many passengers may consider that submitting a complaint to a NEB might not be beneficial for them as in many countries NEBs do not have the power to issue a binding decision in their case. •In case an operator breaches the Regulation, NEBs cannot grant compensation to the PRM concerned, with the exception of the damage or loss of mobility equipment; consequently PRM have little financial incentive to complain. •In some Member States, PRM may also be confused by the existence of several NEBs dealing with passenger rights in air transport. In particular, the non-binding nature of NEB decisions to passenger complaints tends to dilute the intended benefit of the Regulation because in case a PRM wishes to exercise their rights, there might be a need to bring the claim to the national courts which can be both expensive and time consuming.

5.1.3. To what extent has the Regulation ensured the same level of passenger rights protection across the EU? While in theory the same substantive rights apply across the EU, the enforcement of these rights differs across the EU. According to the Regulation, NEBs shall take measures necessary to ensure that the rights of PRM are respected, including compliance with the quality standards referred to in Art. 9 and the satisfactory implementation of assistance at airports as referred to in Art. 8 (Art. 14), among others by imposing if necessary effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions (Art. 16) and handle individual complaints (Art. 15). The Regulation allows flexibility to the Member States to design the enforcement mechanism in their national legislation. As a result, the legal powers and practical capabilities of NEBs towards the enforcement of the Regulation vary significantly from one Member State to another. Monitoring activities The overall approach of NEBs toward monitoring the implementation of the Regulation also varies significantly: some NEBs are very proactive, while some others appear only react to complaints which they receive. As the number of complaints, and the number and level of sanctions are very low everywhere in the EU, it is questionable whether the latter approach is sufficient to effectively enforce the Regulation. Many NEBs did not indicate the number of FTE working on ensuring the enforcement of the Regulation. Many NEBs which did disclose this data seem to have very limited staff resources, only one FTE or even less, which appears to be particularly low given that the NEBs are expected by the Regulation to carry out a wide range of enforcement and monitoring activities: monitoring the homepages of airlines and airports (to ensure that airlines do not apply discriminatory safety requirements, and allow PRM to pre-notify their assistance need, that airports adopted quality standards for assistance in cooperation with airport users and PRM representatives and these standards are respected), inspecting airports (e.g. whether airports designated meeting points in accordance with the Regulation), supervising the setting of PRM charges, informing PRM about their passenger rights and in case of serious or repetitive breaches of the Regulation sanctioning the operator responsible for such breaches. There can be several factors contributing to the low number of sanctions, e.g. the satisfactory implementation of the Regulation and the effective complaint handling by airports and airlines. However, it may also be a sign of lack of pro-active monitoring of the Regulation’s application by NEBs, difficulties of providing evidence for infringement or a lack of knowledge of PRM about their right to complaint. It is also important to mention that in some Member States even the maximum amount for a fine that can be imposed seems too low to be dissuasive for operators. In addition, the number of sanctions and the amount of the fines are only one indicator of the activity of a NEB. Several NEBs (e.g. Denmark, Italy or United Kingdom) ensure the compliance with the Regulation using regular audits, inspections and dialogue with operators, so sanctions aren’t necessarily needed to enforce the Regulation. The above mentioned variations in the legal powers, monitoring capabilities and approaches of NEBs mean that the extent to which PRM can exercise their rights varies significantly between Member States. Airports and airlines are negatively affected by the lack of a level playing field as a result of the different regulatory enforcement that they face in the different Member States (e.g. airlines operating flights from or to Member States with more demanding NEBs might have much higher regulatory costs from the compliance with the Regulation than other airlines). 5.1.4. Did the Regulation lead to legal clarity? Are there legal gaps hindering the realisation of the Regulation’s objectives? Provisions lacking legal clarity Stakeholders indicated that most provisions of the Regulation are easy to understand and implement, however there are some provisions which lack legal clarity and raise questions of legal interpretation. NEBs, airlines and airports found in particular problematic the following notions: -The definition of PRM (Article 2(a)) does not clarify whether the scope of the Regulation extends to obese or pregnant passengers and parents travelling with young children. -The Regulation does not provide a definition of a “recognised assistance dog”, consequently carriers are left without guidance to determine when a particular dog should be considered as a recognised service animal which can create disputes between airlines and passengers intending to travel with their assistance dogs. -The Regulation does not specify what is a mobility equipment and what is a medical equipment that airlines have to carry free of charge.

Legal gaps While the Regulation allocates most PRM assistance tasks clearly between airports and airlines, the precise allocation of handling PRMs’ hand luggage and mobility equipment is missing. Article 7 of the Regulation does not provide sufficient clarity on whether the PRM or the airport staff assisting the PRM is responsible for hand luggage. This is an important concern for airports, as it appears that some passengers book assistance so that they can get help with their hand luggage. Stakeholders also indicated that the annexes of the Regulation are silent about whether ground-handlers (working for the airline) or PRM assistants (working for the airport) are responsible for carrying wheelchairs to the aircraft hold when left at the aircraft door by the passenger. 5.1.5. What have been the positive and negative effects of the Regulation? Were there any unintended or unexpected effects? Could the changes observed since the adoption of the Regulation be credited to the Regulation? Several airlines and airports participating in the stakeholder consultation indicated that an unintended negative effect of the Regulation was the increase of PRM assistance requests from passengers who do not have a genuine disability or reduced mobility. As a result, genuine PRM may end up receiving lower quality or slower assistance than they could receive if such misuses would not take place. The gravity of the problem is difficult to assess as there is no quantitative data available. 5.1.6. Which factors have contributed to/hindered the achievement of the Regulation’s objectives? A number of factors have contributed to the successful achievement of the Regulation’s objectives: •Even before the Regulation became applicable, airlines and ground-handlers on behalf of airlines already provided PRM assistance in Europe. While the Regulation changed the allocation of roles and responsibilities between airlines and airports (in the past assistance of PRM was the sole responsibility of airlines) it built on an existing framework of service provision, and the Regulation did not introduce a completely new approach with which the industry was unfamiliar. •It was acknowledged by all stakeholders that airports and airlines realised the need for the inclusion of PRM and embraced the challenge of providing them the necessary assistance. •Following the approach adopted for Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, the Regulation obliged Member States to establish an institutional framework for monitoring and enforcement of PRM rights. Most of the 31 countries designated the same body as NEB to enforce both Regulations, while in some Member States (i.e. Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta and Romania) separate bodies have been designated as NEBs responsible for Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and the Regulation. However, regardless of the arrangements applied in a given Member State, the fact that in each Member State specific authorities were designated to monitor and enforce the Regulation has contributed to some degree to its effectiveness. •Although the Regulation is silent about many technical issues, experts from NEBs have, with the continuous update of the ECAC Doc 30 guidance, been developing a common harmonised guidance on the processes for delivering and assessing service quality. The Commission’s interpretative guidelines on the Regulation have also contributed to the harmonised application of the Regulation by clarifying issues that were interpreted differently by NEBs, airports and airlines during the first years of the Regulation’s application. •The expansion of digitalisation and greater accessibility of online services has also contributed to better PRM services: for instance real-time information on websites/apps may help hearing impaired passengers and specific apps were developed to help the orientation for persons with visual impairments at airports. At the same time, there were also factors that hindered the full achievement of the aims of the Regulation: •Neither the Regulation nor any other EU legislation imposes an obligation to make airport infrastructure or aircrafts physically more accessible for PRM. Infrastructural constraints and the lack of investment in airport and aircraft accessibility for PRM have limited the effectiveness of the Regulation: if aircrafts are not physically accessible, airlines can refuse transporting PRM and accessibility issues at an airport might discourage PRM to travel from or to that airport. •Poor communication between PRM and airlines or between PRM and travel agents, tour operators negatively affects the organisation of assistance. If the special needs of PRM are not recorded properly by airlines, travel agents or tour operators or they are not forwarded to airports on time it will be more difficult and sometimes even impossible to tailor the assistance to the individual needs of PRM. •In addition, very few NEBs monitored pro-actively compliance with the Regulation and imposed sanctions for non-compliance, so airlines and airports had limited financial incentives to comply with the Regulation.





5.2.Efficiency Evaluation questions 5.2.1.What types of benefits have been achieved for the different stakeholder groups? During the stakeholder consultation, stakeholders explained the types of benefits that they have achieved from the Regulation, however they were not able to quantify those benefits. PRM PRM benefit from free assistance the cost of which is distributed between all air passengers paying a specific extra charge included in their ticket fare. Before the Regulation became applicable, some airlines imposed significant charges to PRM for the provision of those services. As mentioned in the subchapter on effectiveness, the adoption of the Regulation also contributed to the improvement of service quality standards across Europe which also benefitted PRM travellers. Airports, airlines, NEBs and some PRM representative organisations consider that PRM feel more empowered and they have more confidence to travel by air, at least within the EU. As a result, their demand for air transport has significantly increased, creating benefits to other stakeholders such as airlines, airports, travel agents or tour operators. When PRM consider that their rights granted by the Regulation were not respected by the airlines or airports, they are entitled to submit a complaint. In case they are unable to settle the complaint amicably, they have the right to submit a formal complaint to a NEB. PRM also benefit from time saving in planning their journeys as there is now one set of rights applied across Europe and, in principle, free assistance when travelling by air is available for them. However, the need to pre-notify airlines to ensure that the requested assistance is provided continues to complicate journey planning. In addition, the time needed for resolving complaints depends on the different approaches, processes, and languages used by different NEBs (e.g. it might take more time to seek redress if the NEB to which a complaint is submitted cannot take a decision which is binding on the parties or if the complainant does not speak the language used by such NEB). Other passengers Passengers in general benefit from greater sense of fairness and societal equity by ensuring that PRM have opportunities to use air transport comparable to other citizens. In addition, when as a result of an illness or an accident their mobility is temporarily reduced, they can also benefit from PRM assistance. NEBs NEBs indicated that they do not have any direct benefit from the Regulation, however the harmonised rules at EU level allow them to develop a better understanding of airlines and airports processes. Most NEBs who replied to this question in the consultation indicated that their respective Member States benefitted indirectly from the benefits enjoyed by PRM, including through improved service quality as well as greater propensity to travel, confidence when travelling and societal equity. Airports Airports noted that they derive some benefits from process efficiencies as a result of the standardisation of PRM services across Europe, and from the increased demand of PRM. A track record of providing good quality assistance to PRM can result in some positive reputational benefits for airports; conversely, where PRM experience poor quality service, there is a risk of negative reputational effects. Airlines Similarly, airlines can derive benefits from the standardisation of PRM services and from the increased demand from PRM. If the quality of PRM assistance they provide is good, they can also benefit from reputational benefits. Other stakeholders The stakeholder consultation questionnaire was sent to other stakeholders (e.g. travel agents, tour operators and ground-handlers) as well, however they did not reply to this question.

5.2.2. What have been the costs associated with the Regulation? How significant have they been and what are they influenced by? How are they distributed among the stakeholders? The Regulation places the economic burden of providing PRM assistance services on airlines and airports, who pass it on to all passengers through a special charge in the price of airline tickets. PRM The assistance is free of charge for the PRM passenger who benefits from it. However, it does not mean that PRM will not have any costs. They accrue costs from the obligation to pre-notify their assistance needs (e.g. calling charges, loss of time), and often have additional costs related to issues not addressed properly by the Regulation. For instance, in cases where an airline declines to transport them due to safety reasons, they might need to bear the costs of an alternative flight and possibly the costs of extra accommodation. They can have further costs if their mobility equipment is lost or damaged and the costs of reparation or replacement are higher than the compensation limit stipulated in the Montreal Convention (provided that the airline does not wave voluntarily this compensation limit). In addition, as many NEBs cannot take legally binding decisions, PRM may also have additional costs if they will need to take legal action to remedy the injuries they suffered as a result of the breach of the Regulation by an airline or airport. According to the stakeholder consultation the benefits achieved by PRM overweight the costs that they accrue as a result of the Regulation. Other passengers As mentioned above, every passenger has to pay a special charge in the ticket price for the assistance of PRM. The average cost of this charge was EUR 0.55 per passenger in 2019, a value low enough not to impact air ticket prices significantly. Airports Providing assistance to PRM at airports has an average cost which ranges from EUR 0.06 per passenger at the cheapest airport (Palanga, Lithuania) to EUR 1.53 at the most expensive (Catania, Italy). The overall cost envelope is difficult to estimate as PRM assistance numbers are not available for all European airports. However, eight airport operators (namely Paris-CDG, Frankfurt, Riga, Copenhagen, Rome-Fiumicino, Shannon, Zurich and Heathrow) indicated the costs for PRM assistance, which amounts to around EUR 180 million annually for all eight airports. Such costs can be passed to airlines in the form of PRM charges. Airlines Airlines did not provide detailed information about their costs and benefits related to the Regulation, but the support study estimated the costs incurred. Airlines incur two types of cost arising from provision of assistance to PRM: •Direct costs when PRM travel on their services, including costs linked to booking assistance and transmitting information, having suitable equipment on board and having suitably trained personnel on the ground and on-board. An airline with a higher share of PRM among total passengers will incur more direct costs than an airline with a lower share; and •Indirect costs as a result of the direct costs incurred by airports being passed through to airline passengers via the PRM fee, which is added to the ticket price. This is independent from the number of PRM passengers an airline transports each year. It shall be shared among all airlines using the airport in question in proportion to the total number of all passengers that each carries to and from that airport. The airport managing body is entitled to set the PRM charges, but it has to cooperate with the airport users (airlines) using the airport when setting it. The PRM charge must be reasonable, cost-related and transparent. The cost-benefit analysis of the support study estimates that between the period of 2008 and 2018 the Regulation resulted in a net cost of EUR 3 251 million for airlines. Airline representatives argued at the stakeholder consultation that many airports set their PRM charges in a non-transparent manner, the charges are not always cost-related and the PRM assistance service quality is often not commensurate to the level of the charge. Although NEBs or other specific bodies designated for this specific purpose shall monitor the imposition of PRM charges by airport managing bodies, according to the PRM charges case study of the support study, many NEBs seem not have the necessary expertise to do so or they are unwilling to do so. On the other hand, some NEBs indicated to actively participate in setting PRM charges: the Portuguese NEB itself sets the PRM charge while the Greek and Italian NEBs have to be consulted and they can refuse or approve the PRM charges set by airports. NEBs

NEBs have regulatory costs in the form of enforcement costs as a result of the Regulation. These costs are relatively low in most Member States, ranging between the costs of 0.25 and 3 FTEs. Variation across Member States can be explained by differences in the number of PRM carried from/to the Member State concerned, NEB powers and areas of competence, the volume of complaints received and the extent of pro-active monitoring, and the number and size of airports supervised. However, as mentioned earlier, many NEBs deploy little resources (1 FTE or less) towards the enforcement of the Regulation which seems to be insufficient to carry out the tasks necessary for the monitoring and enforcement of the Regulation (regular inspection of airlines and airports, monitoring their homepages, supervising the setting of PRM charges, etc.) in addition to handling individual complaints. Factors that influence the costs of assisting PRM The average cost of assisting one individual PRM is estimated at EUR 75 in 2019 which is not trivial, sometimes comparable with, or higher than, an average airline ticket. The costs of PRM assistance are influenced by the pre-notification rate of PRM passengers and whether a pre-notification correctly reflects the PRM’s assistance needs and whether it is transmitted properly by travel agents or airlines to the airports (see in more detail below in point 5.2.3). If airlines and airports are correctly pre-notified about a PRM’s special need in due time assistance costs much less for them compared to a situation when they are informed about it only at the last minute. The costs of PRM assistance are also influenced by possible misuse of free assistance by passengers who are not PRM. 5.2.3. Can the costs incurred by stakeholders be considered proportionate to the benefits established? PRM In the absence of the Regulation PRM would have incurred higher costs in obtaining assistance (to the extent that they travelled at all) and they would have experienced lower quality of service (as a result of less regulatory oversight). The Regulation also confers societal benefits in the form of greater equity arising from the substantially reduced economic burden of travelling for PRM. Other passengers It was not possible to gather information whether the costs are proportionate for other passengers to the benefits they acquire (e.g. that they could actively contribute to social justice and they can also benefit from free assistance if they became temporarily disabled or of reduced mobility as a result of an illness or accident), but as mentioned earlier, the costs of average PRM charges per flight ticket are relatively low, and allowing PRM to travel by air comparable to other citizens brings significant social benefits. Airports Airports that responded to the consultation indicated that the costs are proportionate to the benefit they gain from the Regulation in the form of increased demand for air transport, reputational benefits for the airport (if they comply with the Regulation), and the operational efficiencies derived from the standardisation of PRM assistance services across Europe.



Airlines Airlines did not provide detailed information about their costs and benefits related to the Regulation, therefore it is not possible to answer the question how proportionate were the costs of the Regulation for them, taking into account the distribution of associated benefits. However, some airlines claimed during the stakeholder consultation that PRM charges are not cost related and reasonable in many European airports. NEBs The NEBs replying to the question related to the proportionality of costs confirmed that the indirect benefits gained by their respective states exceeded the regulatory costs they had enforcing the Regulation. However, as it was indicated already, it must be taken into consideration that so far several NEBs seem to dedicate insufficient resources to the enforcement of the Regulation. 5.2.4. Is there any potential for reduction of the costs for any of the stakeholder groups? There are several possible ways to save costs related to PRM assistance.

First, NEBs and airports participating in the stakeholder consultation indicated that there is a strong link between pre-notification rates and the cost of the PRM assistance service. This is due to the fact that there is a strong expectation that airports will ensure that non pre-notified passengers reach their flight in time (on departure), or are assisted promptly (on arrival). However, if part of the passengers who receive PRM assistance do not pre-notify themselves in due time, airports and airlines cannot optimally plan the provision of assistance services. They alw