REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the functioning and effects 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
Date: 2011-04-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air transport, anti-discriminatory measure, carriage of passengers, disabled person, facilities for people with disabilities

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 11.4.2011 
COM(2011) 166 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the functioning and effects 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 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the functioning and effects 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 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Regulation  (EC)  No 1107/20061concerning  the  rights  of  disabled  persons  and  persons  with 
reduced  mobility  when  travelling  by  air  (‘the  Regulation’)  was  adopted  by  the  European 
Parliament and the Council on 5 July 2006. This text is part of the policy carried out by the 
European Commission in all areas of everyday life to combat discrimination against persons 
with disabilities and, more generally, with either permanent or temporary mobility problems. 

It  is  generally  estimated  that  one  in  six  Europeans  suffers  from  a  disability.  In  addition,  an 
ageing  European  population  means  that  there  will  be  a  continuously  growing  number  of 
passengers who need special assistance because of a disability or reduced mobility. 

The objective of the Regulation is clear: to allow disabled persons and persons with reduced 
mobility (PRM) to have the same possibility to travel by air as other citizens. 

The Regulation  seeks  a  balance between the need to combat discrimination and the need to 
meet operational requirements by laying down a general principle of non-discrimination and 
by, on the one hand, imposing on operators a set of obligations relating to the information and 
assistance  provided  to  passengers  and,  on  the  other,  requiring  PRMs  to  provide  pre-
notification of the need for assistance and allowing for strictly defined derogations from the 
obligation to provide assistance. The existence of and respect for this balance are essential to 
the functioning of the regulatory instruments. 

In 2009, pursuant to Article 17 of the Regulation, the Commission launched two studies on 
the  implementation  of  Regulation  (EC)  1107/2006.  The  purpose  of  the  first  study  was  to 
evaluate  the  functioning  of  the  Regulation  in  general,  while  the  second  study  looked  more 
specifically  at  the  penalties  applied  in  Member  States  to  violations  of  the  obligations  under 
this Regulation. The final reports of these studies were submitted in June and September 2010 
and can be consulted on the website of DG Mobility and Transport2. 

This  report  does  not  aim  to  present  in  detail  the  content  of  these  studies,  which  are  readily 
available,  but  rather  to  summarise  them  and  draw  the  necessary  conclusions  in  order  to 
improve the functioning of the existing regulatory instruments. 

1 
2 

OJ L204, 26.7.2006, p.1. 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/transport/index_en.htm 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
2. 

MAIN CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDIES 

The studies on the implementation of the Regulation provide a comprehensive picture of the 
present situation in the European Union. 

The legal framework set out in the text and the principal assistance obligations have indeed 
been implemented in the Member States. Consequently, conditions have improved for PRMs 
and this is an undeniable success.  

However, the adoption of the new rules varies from Member State to Member State and from 
one airport and one air carrier to another. The main difficulty is the lack of harmonisation and 
sometimes consistency concerning the different interpretations. 

2.1. 

The successes  

The  general  view  is  that  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Regulation  has  brought  undeniable 
advantages to disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility. 

They can be summarised as follows: 

a)  A  single  framework.  The  Regulation  has  imposed  a  minimum  single  framework 
throughout the EU3. This single protection scheme is now operational in Europe. As a result, 
there is a detailed list of specific assistance services that must obligatorily be made available 
to the persons concerned free of charge. 

b) A clear division of tasks between airports and air carriers. Today everyone knows what 
their tasks are and how to implement and finance them.  

c)  The  establishment  of  a  network  of  National  Enforcement  Bodies  (NEB)  in  all  the 
Member  States  and  genuine  cooperation  with  the  Commission  but  also  with  other  bodies4 
through the exchange of information and good practices. 

We  now  have  a  European  culture  of  assistance  to  PRMs  in  air  travel.  Today  all  parties  are 
aware of this issue and are putting concrete measures in place. 

Nonetheless, despite these positive aspects, the Commission also found certain problem areas. 

2.2. 

The difficulties 

The  lessons  learned  and  the  different  studies  conducted  by  the  Commission  and  other 
organisations5  show  that  there  are  some  difficulties  in  applying  the  Regulation  and  that  this 
might weaken its impact. 

3 
4 
5 

In addition to non-EU countries implementing European legislation. 
Such as the European Civil Aviation Conference's Sub-Group on Persons with Reduced Mobility  
CAA  review  on  the  implementation  of  European  legislation  on  the  rights  of  disabled  and  reduced 
mobility passengers in the UK, March 2010; work of the ECAC's Sub-Group on Persons with Reduced 
Mobility;  replies  to  the  public  consultation  on  air  passengers'  rights  carried  out  by  the  European 
Commission in the first half of 2010. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
While statistics show that in the great majority of cases PRMs receive the assistance they are 
entitled  to  and  that  only  a  small  number  of  cases  poses  problems,  it  is  necessary  to 
continuously strive to apply the Regulation better. 

2.2.1.  Difficulties related to the obligations of airports 

The managing bodies of airports are in charge of much of the assistance to PRMs6. They are 
responsible for the progress of passengers through the airport infrastructure until their seat in 
the cabin and for handling luggage. 

a)  The  quality  of  the  service  provided  and  its  adaptation  to  PRMs'  individual  needs  is 
sometimes insufficient.  

The  quality  of  the  assistance  services  offered  tends  to  vary,  and  they  are  sometimes  poorly 
adapted  to  the  specific  needs  of  passengers,  in  particular  of  PRMs  with  totally  or  nearly 
totally reduced mobility, nor does the personnel always receive adequate training. 

b)  The  need  to  provide  better  information  to  passengers.  The  information  provided  to 
passengers is often considered insufficient or inaccessible. This element, essential to the good 
functioning of the Regulation, remains one of the weakest points of its implementation. 

c) Handling mobility equipment 

The  handling  of  mobility  equipment  is  another  source  of  concern.  The  equipment  is  often 
fragile, expensive and vitally important to the passenger. 

2.2.2.  Difficulties related to the obligations of air carriers 

a)  Restrictions  on  accepting  reservations  from  or  embarking  PRMs  on  the  grounds  of 
safety. 

The  studies  and  the  complaints  both  indicate  that  air  carriers  have  particular  difficulties  in 
applying the Regulation when it comes to refusing to accept reservations from or to embark 
PRMs owing to safety concerns. 

This includes situations where carriers require that PRMs be accompanied by a person who 
can assist them during the flight and make this second person pay the full price of the ticket. 

Article  4.1  of  the  Regulation  authorises  air  carriers  to  derogate  from  the  principle  of  non-
discrimination  and  either  to  refuse  to  accept  a  reservation  from  or  to  embark  a  PRM  or  to 
require  that  the  PRM  be  accompanied  by  another  person  in  order  to  meet  applicable  safety 
requirements  established  by  international,  Community  or  national  law  or  in  order  to  meet 
safety  requirements  established  by  the  authority  that  issued  the  air  carrier's  certificate.  This 
derogation is therefore subject to strict rules7. 

There  seems  to  be  some  confusion  over  the  definition  of  the  safety  criteria  authorising 
derogations  from  the  principle  of  non-discrimination.  The  need  to  be  able  to  follow  safety 

6 
7 

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 
Article 4.1 of the Regulation 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
instructions8 in the event of depressurisation, turbulence, sudden manoeuvres or an accident 
might  in  some  cases  justify  refusing  to  embark  a  PRM  or  limiting  the  number  of  PRMs  on 
board or requiring that they be accompanied by another person.  

At present there are but few safety rules harmonised at EU level concerning the transport of 
PRMs. In addition, the application of these rules remains primarily a matter for the national 
authorities. Each carrier proposes rules on the basis of its own risk assessment, and these rules 
are approved by the competent authority. 

It must be added here that some carriers tend to mix up requirements related to flight safety 
and  issues  related  solely  to  the  comfort  of  PRMs  (eating,  using  the  lavatories,  etc.).  If 
boarding is denied for safety reasons, this must indeed be done solely for flight safety reasons.  

Harmonising  safety  rules  is  a  complex  task  that  calls  for  the  cooperation  of  the  competent 
national authorities. Nonetheless, the Commission considers that it is already possible to set 
out simple principles for the derogations provided for in Articles 4.1(a) and 4.2, i.e.: 

–  Any derogation where safety reasons are invoked to justify refusing a reservation, denying 
boarding or requiring the presence of an accompanying person should be based on one or 
more legally binding flight safety standard(s)9 and not on simple recommendations or on 
the commercial policy of the air carriers. 

–  If  transport  is  denied,  the  detailed  reasons  for  this  and  a  mention  of  the  relevant  binding 

safety standard should be notified to the passenger. 

–  The  national  authorities  should  define  in  detail  and  publish  any  safety  requirements  that 
can serve as a basis for denying transport, as this would allow a better understanding and 
the gradual harmonisation of practices. 

Any reasons used to justify refusal of transport should be strictly and directly related to flight 
safety according to the following principles:  

–  incapability  of  understanding  the  safety  instructions  given  by  the  crew;  Incapability  of 
following  the  safety  precautions  without  help  (fastening  and  unfastening  the  safety  belt, 
taking  hold  of  and  adjusting  the  oxygen  mask  or  the  safety  vest);  incapability  of 
participating  independently  in  the  evacuation  of  the  plane,  even  to  a  limited  extent; 
incapability  of  providing  the  necessary  treatment  or  medical  care  for  oneself  during  the 
flight. 

–  The maximum number of PRMs allowed on a flight depends on the characteristics of the 
aircraft and should not exceed the number of able-bodied passengers10 capable of assisting 

8 

9 

10 

These  basically  concern  the  fastening  and  use  of  safety  belts,  oxygen  masks  and  life  jackets  and  the 
rapid evacuation of the plane via the routes indicated by the flying crew. 
The  mandatory  standards  applicable  in  the  EU  are  set  out  in  EU  OPS  (Operational  Standards) 
(Regulation  (EEC)  3922/1991  of  31.12.1991).  This  Regulation  describes  the  common  technical 
requirements  and  administrative  procedures  applicable  to  commercial  air  transport,  including  safety 
rules  for  the  transport  of  PRMs  (see,  for  example,  OPS  1.260,  p.  34,  or  Appendix  1  to  OPS  1.1045, 
point 8.2.2.). These can also be national rules: for example, in the UK, the Code of Practice, p. 38; in 
Germany, LBA Circulars, p. 36; in Belgium, Circulaire No CIR/OPS-04 of December 2006, published 
by the DGTA, Centre communication Nord 
According  to  the  ICAO  (Doc.  7192  Training  manual  Part  E-1),  able-bodied  passenger  refers  to 
passengers selected by crew members to assist in managing emergency situations if and as required, for 
example in opening doors or helping other passengers evacuate the plane. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
the  PRMs  in  an  emergency  evacuation11.  On  the  basis  of  this,  some  authorities  estimate 
that  this  maximum  number  corresponds  to  half  of  the  able-bodied  passengers  present  on 
the flight. 

b)  Issues  related  to  in-flight  assistance.  There  are  difficulties  in  implementing  the 
Regulation  also  as  regards  in-flight  assistance,  in  particular  assistance  in  moving  to  toilet 
facilities, which is the air carrier's responsibility. This obligation is clearly stated in Annex II 
to the Regulation, and air carriers must do their utmost to fulfil it, in compliance with safety 
standards, including by adapting equipment and training the crew. 

c) Problems related to mobility equipment. The definition of mobility equipment that must 
be  carried  free  of  charge  has  resulted  in  conflicting  interpretations.  Some  passengers  have 
been  denied  the  right  to  carry  certain  equipment  free  of  charge  for  the  reason  that  this 
equipment was not directly necessary for the trip for which assistance was requested. 

The  right  to  travel,  as  reflected  in  the  first  recital  of  the  Regulation  (principles  of  non-
discrimination  and  of  equal  treatment),  should  not  be  limited  to  the  physical  act  of  being 
transported from one place to another but should also include the destination, which, for this 
category  of  passengers,  means  having  at  their  disposal  the  mobility  equipment  and  medical 
material necessary for their activities also after the flight.  

d) Problems related to the information provided to PRMs. Finally, it is still often the case 
that PRMs do not receive sufficient information about their rights when making a reservation 
or if denied boarding. 

However, the letter and spirit of the Regulation implies that PRMs should be informed of their 
rights and any derogations prior to making a reservation so that they can decide on making a 
reservation and requesting assistance in full knowledge of all the considerations involved. 

2.2.3.  Difficulties  related  to  the  obligations  of  the  national  authorities  in  charge  of 

implementing the Regulation 

Difficulties  have  been  identified  concerning  the  uniform  interpretation  of  the  Regulation  as 
well as the handling of passenger complaints and the adoption and application of penalties. 

Since 2006 the Commission has organised meetings of the competent national authorities to 
discuss any differences in the interpretation of the Regulation. The minutes of these meetings 
are published on the website of DG Mobility and Transport. 

There are great disparities between Member States. Some of the national authorities seem to 
be very active, both in informing the public of its rights and supervising the implementation 
of the Regulation in the field and in examining complaints. Other authorities only react out of 
necessity.  

Another  problem  is  that  these  authorities  do  not  harmonise  their  actions  sufficiently. 
Therefore  carriers  have  sometimes  found  that  the  Regulation  is  interpreted  in  contradictory 
ways in the Member States. 

11 

Cf. JAA Temporary Guidance Leaflet TGL No 44 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
As for the penalties, they vary widely from one Member State to another. Some penalties have 
an administrative character while others are of a legal or penal nature. 

The time it takes to handle complaints ranges from a few weeks to six months. This situation 
undermines  the  efficacy  of  the  entire  system.  Likewise  the  degree  of  detail  and  the 
effectiveness  of  the  decisions  of  the  NEB  as  well  as  their  practical  consequences  for 
passengers differ greatly between the Member States. 

2.2.4.  Other difficulties identified 

2.2.4.1.  Disagreements  over  the  amount  of  and  the  method  of  calculating  and  imposing 

charges 

In certain Member States, air carriers and airports have not been able to agree on the amount 
of and the method of calculating the specific charge laid down in Article 8 of the Regulation.  

There  are  significant  differences  in  the  amount  of  this  charge  at  different  airports,  without 
there always being clear reasons for this. 

2.2.4.2.  Difficulty in interpreting certain important definitions 

Certain  definitions  in  the  Regulation  have  caused  interpretation  difficulties.  For  example,  it 
has been asked whether pregnant women, overweight people or young children are included 
in  the  definition  of  persons  with  reduced  mobility.  While  it  is  not  always  possible  to  give 
simple, precise and universal answers in such situations of uncertainty, the general principles 
of interpretation of the Regulation must be applied. In other words, the Regulation does not 
just cover handicapped persons but also protects persons with reduced mobility owing to their 
age or any other cause of handicap12.  

Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  express  exceptions,  situations  involving  children  whose  age 
might  limit  their  autonomy  during  air  travel  should  not  be  excluded  from  the  scope  of 
application  of  the  Regulation.  Consequently,  an  adult  travelling  alone  with  several  young 
children could with good reason request assistance suited to the actual circumstances of the 
journey. 

Likewise,  a  situation  where  the  overweight  of  a  passenger  significantly  reduces  his  or  her 
mobility should not be excluded a priori from the scope of the Regulation. 

These  examples  show  that  it  is  necessary  to  assess  situations  case-by-case  while  bearing  in 
mind the Regulation's general objective to combat discrimination. Operators should not fear 
that the scope of the definitions is too broad, because they are protected against abuse by the 
principle  of  proportionality  of  the  assistance  to  the  intended  objective,  meaning  that  the 
passenger must be capable of taking the flight for which he or she has a reservation13. 

12 
13 

Article 2(a) of the Regulation 
Article 7 of the Regulation 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
2.2.4.3.  Transporting and supplying medical oxygen 

The transport and supply of medical oxygen is handled in very different ways depending on 
the  air  carrier,  and  this  causes  uncertainty  and  much  dissatisfaction  among  the  passengers 
concerned. 

As currently worded, the Regulation does not provide a solution to the problem, but the use of 
medical oxygen on board is nonetheless an issue that must be resolved rapidly, as the present 
situation  is  unsatisfactory.  Passengers  who  have  a  vital  need  for  oxygen  are  either  denied 
access to air transport or left in a situation of uncertainty concerning the conditions and costs 
of their transport. 

The transport and use of medical oxygen must be harmonised in the European Union, having 
regard to passengers' rights, air safety rules and the requirements applied to air carriers. 

Medical  oxygen  is  considered  medical  equipment  and  is  therefore  carried  free  of  charge  in 
accordance with the Regulation14, but it is also subject to the legislation on dangerous goods 
and for this reason some airlines refuse to carry it on board and instead impose the use of their 
own oxygen. They consider this a service, which they provide free of charge or subject to a 
charge that can sometimes be high.  

On  many  occasions,  the  Commission  has  had  the  chance  to  express  its  views  in  replies  to 
parliamentary  questions  and  to  petitions  on  the  subject  and  to  deplore  the  differences  of 
treatment15. 

2.2.4.4.  General information provided to PRMs 

The Commission is presently mobilising important resources to inform the public of its rights 
on  its  website  and  by  appearing  regularly  on  the  media.  On  29  June  2010  the  Commission 
launched  an  extensive  two-year  information  campaign  (‘Your  Passenger  Rights  at  Hand’) 
throughout Europe16. 

The  objective  of  this  campaign,  through  the  distribution  of  information  leaflets,  display  of 
posters  in  areas  frequented  by  travellers,  a  website  dedicated  to  passenger  rights17,  press 
interviews and appearances on audiovisual media, is to make citizens aware of their rights and 
encourage them to exercise them. 

These  efforts  must  be  supported  by  all  the  parties  concerned,  in  particular  the  national 
authorities  of  each  Member  State.  The  Commission  will  encourage  local  information 
activities at the grass-roots level. 

2.2.4.5.  Making pre-notification more effective 

The present system of  pre-notification is inadequate and inefficient. The technical and legal 
means of improving the situation will be examined. 

14 
15 

16 
17 

Annex II, Paragraph 2 
See for example: the reply of 25 March 2010 to petition No 1438/2009 filed by David Buckle and the 
Commission's reply on 25 March 2010. Answers to written questions E-3760/09, E-5076/09, E-5586/09 
and E-2962/10 
Cf. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/index_en.htm 
Cf.: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/passenger-rights 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
In  order  to  improve  the  rate  of  pre-notification,  which is  today  about  40%,  it  is  essential  to 
systematically inform passengers about the assistance they can receive and the importance of 
giving advance notification of their assistance needs. 

This information should be given as early and as clearly as possible, already when the person 
is  preparing  and  reserving  the  trip.  Actors  in  the  sector  should  be  trained  so  that  they  can 
inform  passengers  of  their  rights  and  obligations  under  the  Regulation.  A  reminder  could 
always be included in the tickets, purchase orders and/or invoices. 

In the light of this summary of the functioning of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006, its strengths 
and weaknesses, proposals for improving its implementation are presented below.  

3. 

CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS FOR THE FUTURE 

Overall the implementation of the Regulation is satisfactory and will continue to improve in 
the future, despite certain significant differences between air carriers and Member States and 
despite the fact that the public is not yet sufficiently well acquainted with the text. 

While  the  necessity  of  providing  assistance  to  PRMs  is  today  recognised  throughout  the 
European Union, we are not yet at a stage where the Regulation would be applied efficiently 
and uniformly so as to form a true common area in this field. 

Work still remains to be done. The axes of improvement proposed, which must be developed 
with  the  active  collaboration  of  all  the  interested  parties  (international  organisations,  in 
particular  the  European  Civil  Aviation  Conference,  national authorities,  PRM  organisations, 
airports, air carriers, subcontractors, etc.), should contribute to reaching this objective. 

As the initial assessment shows that the implementation of the Regulation is positive overall, 
a legislative review it is not necessary at this stage. The legal framework in place is recent and 
appears  sufficiently  flexible  to  accommodate  any  necessary  improvements  without  the  need 
for a legislative process at this point. 

Therefore, in its role as coordinator and supervisor, the Commission would like to propose a 
number of axes of improvement within the existing framework. 

First axis: Uniform interpretation of the Regulation 

•  The Commission will propose that the NEB network be formally established as a group of 

experts from the national enforcement bodies. 

•  The  Commission  will  discuss  with  this  group  the  guidelines  for  interpreting  the 
Regulation, guidelines that it will adopt in a Commission document in order to enable as 
uniform an interpretation as possible of the provisions of the Regulation. 

•  The Commission will ensure that a special effort is made to adopt a common interpretation 
of  safety  requirements  that  can  be  used  to  justify  denial  of  reservation  or  boarding.  The 
Commission will act in concertation with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). 

•  The Commission will see to it that a consolidated list common to all Member States of the 
reasons  that  can  serve  as  a  basis  for  refusing  to  transport  PRMs  or  for  requiring  the 
presence of an accompanying person is drawn up and made public. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

Second axis: Improving how the regulatory instruments work in practice  

•  The Commission, together with the interested parties, in particular consumer organisations 
(for example, European Consumer Centres), will see to it that an active information policy 
aimed  at  the  public  concerned  by  the  Regulation  is  conducted  at  all  times,  especially 
among  those  who  do  not  consider  themselves  handicapped  but  who  are  nonetheless 
covered by the definition of PRM.  

•  The  Commission  will  encourage  the  establishment  of  training  programmes  together  with 
organisations  representing  PRMs  in  order  to  improve  service  and  strive  to  apply  the 
relevant European rules more efficiently. 

•  The  Commission  will  propose  that  the  group  of  experts  from  the  national  enforcement 
bodies adopt measures  so that  notification  of the need for assistance is requested already 
when the reservation is made and that documentary evidence thereof is provided. 

Third  axis:  Strengthening  the  efficacy  of  the  penalties  and  their  supervision  by  national 
authorities 

•  The Commission and the group of regulators will discuss the possibility of establishing a 
common  database  to  follow  up  the  handling  of  complaints  and  the  administrative  and 
judicial decisions concerning the implementation of the Regulation. 

•  The  Commission  also  hopes  that  an  action  plan  that  is  harmonised  at  the  EU  level  and 
includes a detailed list of the actions national authorities should undertake (regular audits 
of operators, inspections in the field, etc.) will be introduced. 

•  The  Commission  will  encourage  airlines  to  appoint  a  person  that  would  be  in  charge  of 
dispute resolution on the spot and would be authorised to immediately take the decisions 
necessary to settle a dispute with a passenger. 

•  The  Commission  and  the  NEBs  will  discuss  the  possibility  of  publishing  a  list  of  the 
penalties imposed and the operators concerned in order to reinforce the dissuasive nature 
of the penalties. 

Fourth axis: Handling the issue of medical oxygen 

The  Commission  will  encourage  negotiations  about  a  voluntary  commitment  among  all 
parties  concerning  the  use  of  medical  oxygen  on  board.  Failing  this,  the  Commission  will 
consider  adopting  a  general  approach,  either  by  a  non-binding  act  or,  if  it  is  considered 
appropriate, by laying down binding rules. 

Any solutions should target the following three principal elements, in particular:  

–  Establishing  certification  schemes  for  the  air  transport  of  certain  types  of  equipment  that 

are allowed on board, on condition that the maintenance requirements are met. 

–  Setting a maximum fixed fare applicable throughout Europe for the supply of oxygen on 

board. 

–  Providing  passengers  with  clear  and  detailed  information  on  the  conditions  of  supplying 

medical oxygen on board. 

EN 

10 

   EN