Journal of Air Transport Management 87 (2020) 101851

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Air Transport Management

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jairtraman

Supporting the needs of special assistance (including PRM) passengers: An

international survey of disabled air passenger rights legislation
Lucy Budd *, Stephen Ison
Department of Politics, People and Place, Faculty of Business and Law, De Montfort University, Leicester, LE1 9BH, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Passengers who require special assistance at airports and on aircraft represent one of the fastest growing de­
Special assistance mographics for aviation worldwide. At some airports, annual growth in PRM (persons with reduced mobility)
PRMs traffic is six times greater than the overall rate of passenger growth yet barriers to accessible air travel remain
Disabled travellers
and disabled passengers continue to exhibit a lower propensity to fly than other travellers. In an attempt to aid
National legislation
Airports
disabled passengers’ accessibility to air travel, countries have introduced dedicated air passenger rights and
Airlines consumer protection legislation which seeks to specifically address the needs of disabled travellers. These reg­
ulations typically state minimum service standards and levels of service provision that must be provided by air
transport operators to enable disabled travellers to access air travel on an equal basis to other passengers. These
legal interventions, however, have been developed on a country-by-country basis and this has created a lack of
international regulatory alignment. This paper reports on the findings of an international survey of disabled air
passenger rights legislation in 47 countries covering 20 aviation markets (the single market in the European
Union and 19 other States). It identifies the differences in regulatory frameworks, highlights their implications
for consumers and ultimately concludes by recommending the formation of more harmonised global policy
making to better support the needs of special assistance passengers and facilitate their greater mobility by air.

1. Introduction
The in/ability of passengers with additional or complex needs to
access air travel is becoming a focus of newfound academic interest and
industry inquiry (ACI, 2018; Graham et al., 2019). There is growing
recognition that the physical mobility and travel experiences of airline
passengers who have locomotive, sensory and/or communicative needs
is circumscribed and constrained not only by the design and built
environment of airport terminal buildings and the configuration of
aircraft cabins but also by the attitudes of customer-facing staff and the
practices and regulatory regimes of global air travel. These physical,
behavioural and institutional factors have, both individually and
collectively, created a politics of aero-immobility for a growing section
of the global population which either effectively prevents, or severely
impacts upon, their ability to access air travel and/or their experiences
of it (Chang and Chen, 2011, 2012a; Darcy, 2012; Davies and Christie,
2017). This situation is compounded by a lack of international regula­
tory alignment in the field of disabled air passenger rights which creates,
according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA, 2012), a
‘legal minefield’ for airline and airport operators. Indeed, as this paper
will detail, the rights and protections of a disabled passenger in one
territorial jurisdiction may be different or unavailable in another, a
situation which potentially adds to traveller anxiety and confusion and
may reduce their propensity to fly.
The paper begins by documenting the current situation pertaining to
disability and air travel. This is followed by a review of relevant liter­
ature concerning dis/abled bodies and mobility rights. An outline of the
method that was used to generate the empirical dataset is then provided
before the findings are presented and their implications for consumers,
in terms of observed disparities in national approaches, and civil avia­
tion in general are discussed. The paper concludes by considering the
implications of divergent practice for disabled passengers and air
transport operators and makes a number of recommendations regarding
the potential benefits and challenges of pursuing future international
regulatory alignment.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: lucy.budd@dmu.ac.uk (L. Budd).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.101851
Received 28 November 2019; Received in revised form 11 May 2020; Accepted 2 June 2020
Available online 13 June 2020
0969-6997/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Budd and S. Ison
2. Research background and context
Over 650 million people worldwide (including 50 million in Europe
and 13 million in the United Kingdom) have some form of disability
(United Nations, 2006; ONS, 2016) and individuals with disabilities
represent the world’s largest minority (WHO, 2011). Although equality
of access to transport and mobility is a fundamental human right, it is
one that, in practice, is often rendered challenging for people with dis­
abilities on account of both physical obstacles and socio-cultural im­
pediments to their movement. In recognition of the importance of
transport in addressing social exclusion and isolation, Article 9 of the
2007 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Dis­
abilities states that to ‘enable persons with disabilities to live indepen­
dently and participate fully in all aspects of life’ countries must ‘take
appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an
equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation,
to information and communications, including information and com­
munications technologies and systems, and to other facilities and ser­
vices open or provided to the public’ (United Nations, 2007 p9).
Despite growing awareness of the needs of disabled travellers and
improvements in physical infrastructure, including greater provision of
step free access at railway stations and low floor buses, many people
with disabilities continue to experience high levels of social isolation
and transport disadvantage (Hine and Mitchell, 2016). For many people
with disabilities ‘daily reality is of restricted mobility, no mobility, or
forms of mobility and movement which serve to highlight their
impairment and difference’ (Imrie, 2000 p1641). Within the context of
commercial air travel, the built environment of airport terminals and the
internal configuration of aircraft cabins is not always conducive to easy
and unrestricted mobility. Indeed, despite laudable aspirations towards
creating ‘barrier free airports’ (ACI, 2018), facilitating mobility and
equality of access to air transport represent a growing operational
challenge to airports and airline operators and they are a frequent source
of customer service failure and complaint (Poria et al., 2010; Chang and
Chen, 2012b; Ancell, 2017; Ancell and Graham, 2016).
Actively supporting greater inclusivity and accessibility to air travel
is not only important for moral and ethical reasons, it also has com­
mercial implications as airports and airlines seek to grow passenger
numbers so as to increase commercial revenues and capture and retain
market share. At some airports, annual growth in PRM (persons with
reduced mobility) traffic is six times greater than the overall rate of
passenger growth (ERA, 2018) yet barriers to accessible air travel
remain and disabled passengers (and particularly older travellers with
health issues) consequently exhibit a lower propensity to fly than other
travellers (on which see Clery et al., 2017 and Gordijn, 2019). Although
over 50 per cent of British citizens flew in 2018 only 36 per cent of
people with a disability did (The Independent, 2019). A 2019 survey of
disabled people by the UK consumer organization Which? and the
Research Institute for Disabled Consumers (RiDC), found that almost
half (46 per cent) of all respondents felt that their disability had
restricted their ability to fly in the last two years (Baker, 2020). Those
that did fly reported feeling “humiliated”, robbed of their dignity and
even being physically injured while travelling (Coffey, 2020). As
numerous internet news stories attest, such experiences are not un­
common and occur worldwide (Coffey, 2019; Fraser, 2019).
A key challenge for operators and service providers is managing the
diverse needs of a heterogeneous PRM market (that could variously
include the elderly, the obese, the physically immobile and passengers
with ‘hidden’ disabilities such as autism and dementia) in the face of
increasing consumer demand. In 2018, over 3.7 million PRM assistance
requests were received at UK airports, an 80% increase on 2010 figures
(CAA, 2019a). These requests represented just under 1.3% of the 292,
245 million passengers that used UK airports in 2019 (CAA, 2019b).
Given that 8.4% of the global population and 19.6% of the UK popula­
tion is disabled, it is not unreasonable to assume that more disabled
passengers would use UK airports every day if they could travel as
2
Journal of Air Transport Management 87 (2020) 101851
readily as the rest of the population. For example, a 2007 study in the
United States reported that disabled passengers would take two more
flights per year (the equivalent to 18.8 million more journeys) if airlines
were better able to accommodate their needs (see Van Hoorn, 2012).
The extent of these ‘missing’ passengers strongly indicates that
people with disabilities have a lower propensity to fly than other trav­
ellers and that physical, organisational, and logistical barriers to flight
remain which need to be addressed to enable them to access air travel on
an equal basis. The 4th Annual CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) Con­
sumer Survey of accessibility at UK airports, for example, discovered
that almost 25% of respondents who requested assistance did so because
they felt that the airport environment was becoming more difficult to
navigate (CAA, 2019c). It also reported that a small but important mi­
nority of passengers who requested assistance were not confident that
they would receive all the support they needed, or that they would be
treated with dignity and respect. Half of respondents who self-identified
as living with a disability or long-term health condition that limits their
day-today activity said travelling by air was difficult (CAA, 2019c).
In recognition of the challenges disabled passengers face when
travelling by air, a number of countries have introduced consumer
protection legislation and/or dedicated disabled passenger rights regu­
lations that stipulate the minimum service levels to which disabled
passengers are entitled. However, as Ancell (2016) has detailed, trans­
porting potentially heavy and/or bulky mobility aids invariably imposes
additional financial costs on airline operators and this potentially cre­
ates a disincentive for airlines to deliver high PRM customer service
standards, particularly in countries where disability regulation provides
for complimentary cargo space for mobility aids and medical equipment.
An additional issue is the potential for PRM service abuse since users
self-declare their needs and, in Europe, are not obliged to provide in­
dependent confirmation of genuine need (European Commission, 2012).
The Finnish airport operator Finavia estimate that 6% of PRM passen­
gers in Europe abuse the free (at point of use) service (Finavia, 2016),
possibly to take advantage of being fast tracked through security and
immigration or to receive priority boarding (Humberside Airport,
2019). Service abuse not only impacts on genuine users but also
potentially generates resentment among other travellers.
As later sections of this paper reveal, different countries and regions
adopt different approaches to the carriage of PRMs. This is significant,
for in the fields of aviation safety, airworthiness, flightcrew certification,
air carrier liability and air service agreements (among others), where
there is clear need for mutual international agreement, common stan­
dards and regulations have been developed within and across different
national legal frameworks and political jurisdictions (for a detailed
discussion see Truxal, 2017). In the domain of air passenger consumer
protection, policy initiatives and legal interventions have historically
been driven by political reactions to pressing domestic issues, such as the
provision of compensation for lengthy flight delays and denied board­
ing, the carriage of animals in the passenger cabin or (in the case of the
United States) a regulation limiting Tarmac delays. Although one of the
core principles of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) is
that passengers should be able to access air travel in a
non-discriminatory manner with appropriate assistance if they are
disabled, a unified global policy on disabled air passenger rights does
not yet exist with ICAO’s position being that individual countries should
have the flexibility to develop regulations pertinent to their own needs.
This has led to the patchy development of national legislation which can
be contradictory, conflicting or difficult to enforce and which create
confusion and anxiety for passengers.
2.1. ICAO and the formation of international regulations for aviation
ICAO, founded in 1947 as a specialised agency of the United Nations
with the purpose of ensuring the safe and efficient growth of civil
aviation, has taken the lead in developing harmonised global standards
for commercial aviation. A key aspect of the organisation’s work has
L. Budd and S. Ison Journal of Air Transport Management 87 (2020) 101851

been to develop technical Standards and Recommended Practices Table 1

(SARPs) to which Contracting States must (or should endeavour to) Selected IATA SSR codes for PRMs (derived from IATA, 2019).
conform to. The 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Avia­ SSR SSR name/description
tion, which established the foundation for ICAO, contained 22 Chapters code
and 96 Articles. Chapter 6 Article 37 concerned the adoption of Inter­ AOXY Airline Supplied Oxygen
national ‘Facilitation’ standards and procedures for airports, rules of the BLND Blind Passenger
air, airworthiness requirements, aircraft registration, the provision of DEAF Deaf Passenger
meteorological information, air accident investigation and customs and DPNA Disabled passenger with intellectual or developmental disability needing
assistance
immigration procedures. ESAN Passenger with Emotional Support/Psychiatric Assistance Animal in
The Facilitation SARPs were first adopted by ICAO’s Council on Cabin
March 25, 1949 in accordance with the provisions of Article 37 of the MAAS Meet and assist (for example an elderly or pregnant passenger)
Convention on International Civil Aviation (ICAO, 1944). They were MEQT Medical Equipment
PETC Animal in Cabin
designated as Annex 9 to the Convention under the heading ‘Standards
POXY Passenger Own Oxygen
and Recommended Practices — Facilitation’. They became effective on PPOC Personal Portable Oxygen Concentrator
September 1, 1949. Significantly, explicit reference to special provisions STCR Stretcher Passenger
for ‘accessibility to air transport by elderly or disabled persons’ did not SVAN Passenger with Service Animal in Cabin
appear until the 14th amendment in the 9th Edition which was adopted WCBD Wheelchair - Non-spillable battery
WCBW Wheelchair - Wet cell battery
by ICAO on December 4, 1989 and became effective from July 30, 1990 WCHC Wheelchair - C for Cabin (Passenger totally immobile)
(ICAO, 2018). The 15th Edition expanded the scope of the provisions to WCHR Wheelchair - R for Ramp (Passenger can ascend/descend steps and make
define an individual with a disability as being: own way to/from cabin seat but requires wheelchair for distance to/from
aircraft)
‘Any person whose mobility is reduced due to a physical incapacity WCHS Wheelchair - S for Stairs (Passenger cannot ascend/descend steps, but is
(sensory or locomotor), an intellectual deficiency, age, illness or any able to make own way to/from cabin seat)
other cause of disability when using transport and whose situation needs WCLB Wheelchair - Lithium ion battery
WCMP Wheelchair - Manual power
special attention and the adaptation to the person’s needs of the services WCOB On-board Wheelchair (provided by airline)
made available to all passengers’ (ICAO, 2018 1–2).

Although this definition clarified the scope of the SARP it did not
specify responsibility for the service provision or who must assume the
costs of any service adaptation and both aspects were left to individual
legal and territorial entities to define.
Within the European Union (EU), the European Commission defines
a Person with Reduced Mobility (PRM) 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’. The European regulation EC 1107/2006
mandates that all EU airports handling over 150,000 passengers per
annum must provide, free of charge, help and assistance to wheelchair
users, elderly travellers, and those with communication, social interac­
tion and ‘hidden’ disabilities. The right to assistance applies when a
passenger flies on any airline from an EU airport or flies on an EU-
registered carrier to an EU airport (EC, 2006). In the United States,
the Department of Transportation (DoT) Air Carriers Access Act (ACAA)
14 CFR Part 382 (May 13, 2008), defines a person with a disability as
‘Any individual who has a physical or mental impairment that, on a per­
manent or temporary basis, substantially limits one or more major life ac­
tivities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an
impairment’ and makes airlines operating to/from/within US territory
legally responsible for disabled passenger care.
In order to help airlines and airport operators meet the needs of
disabled passengers, IATA Resolution 700, which was first adopted in
1952 and is now in its 29th edition, sought to set standards on the
acceptance and carriage of passengers needing special assistance. The
Resolution includes Special Service Request (SSR) codes (see Table 1).
These four-letter strings of information ascribe a service (such as a meal
option) or, in the case of a PRM, provide additional contextual infor­
mation about a passenger’s disability, the level of support they require,
and the type of assistive technology or support animal (if any) they need
to travel with. The SSR codes are primarily used for planning, resourcing
and auditing purposes. They are, however, potentially problematic as
any categorisation may ‘fail to recognise the diversity of physical and
mental impairments and the often-conflicting mobility needs of different
categories of disabled people’ (Imrie, 2000, p1644). Furthermore,
although IATA pre-define the codes and prescribe their recommended
use, not all suppliers or providers use all available SSR codes and some
airlines employ their own additional specific codes (Amadeus, 2020).
The provision of these codes arguably counterpoises the mobile from
the immobile, the unimpaired from the impaired, the independent from
the dependent, and the able from the disabled. As such, they reflect
socio-cultural values and norms which prioritise mobile and indepen­
dent bodies. These binary juxtapositions, it could be argued, ‘serve to
alienate impaired bodies and prioritise the movement of what one might
term the mobile body’ (Imrie, 2000, p1642). Indeed, ascribing notions of
‘difference’ to disabled passengers is used as a way to distinguish be­
tween groups of travellers, with policy experts and medical professionals
assessing their needs and prescribing what they consider to be appro­
priate medical interventions (such as in-flight oxygen or dedicated
sensory rooms in airports), equipment (adaptive or assistive technology)
and policy formulations which reinforce disabled travellers’ dependence
on others.
That is not to say that the IATA classification is wholly without merit,
indeed, there are important safety reasons for ensuring that heavy and/
or bulky mobility aids, many of which are powered by lithium or other
forms of dry or wet cell battery, are correctly handled and stowed and
that passengers are aware of their airline’s policy concerning the car­
riage of service or emotional support animals in the aircraft cabin. This
latter issue has become particularly pertinent given widely-publicised
news stories about service and emotional support animals as diverse
as pigs, turkeys, monkeys and horses travelling in the cabin on domestic
flights in the US (O’Shea, 2018) and emotional support animals dis­
rupting flights in the UK(in October 2019 two French bulldogs wearing
tutus had to be removed from a flight prior to departure as they became
distressed (BBC News, 2019)).
3. Method
In order to determine the existence and content of national legisla­
tion concerning the rights of disabled air passengers, an internet-based
survey of 47 countries was conducted in the summer of 2019. The
countries collectively covered 20 leading aviation markets. These 20
markets comprised the European Union (EU), a supra-national region of
28 sovereign States (at the time the research was conducted the UK was a
full EU Member) which have harmonised many aviation consumer
protection regulations under EU law, and 19 other countries. These
markets were selected on account of the fact they were, according to

3
L. Budd and S. Ison
World Bank data (2019) the largest air passenger markets in their
respective world regions in 2018 (Table 2). Any country that was in the
top 5 passenger markets in their respective world region but which had
fewer than 1 million passengers in 2018 was excluded from the analysis.
Collectively, the 20 markets in the sample accounted for 3.26 billion
passengers or 78% of the total number of passengers who flew world­
wide in 2018.
In every case, information was obtained from official Government
sources and corroborated with information contained on the website of
the country’s national or leading airline and airport operator. Official
websites were selected owing to: the validity and veracity of the infor­
mation they contain; the ubiquity of the internet as a medium for in­
formation exchange and its importance of websites to pre-notify; and the
fact that Government (but also airline and airport) websites are a key
information tool for prospective passengers/guests. The UN Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recognises the importance of
ensuring access to information and individual Member States have
started to regulate the content and the presentation of webpages. In
2016, the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) presented
guidelines on website’s information to PRMs. This proposed 4 general
guidelines on accessibility of information (including the observation of
the ‘one-click’ principle to ensure that information is readily accessible
from the main website) as well as 13 specific guidelines for airlines and
11 for airports (ICAO, 2016).
The ease of locating relevant, user-friendly, accessible information
should, it is believed, help to lessen pre-flight anxiety, minimise frus­
tration, reduce stress and promote positive air travel experiences among
disabled passengers (on which see Smith et al., 2013). In every case, a
leading global search engine was used and three separate searches were
conducted using the phrases ‘disabled air passenger legislation [name of
country]’, ‘disabled air passenger rights [name of country]’ and
‘disabled air passenger consumer protection [name of country]’
respectively. This resulted in 60 individual search inquires (3 each for
the 19 countries plus 3 for the EU as a whole). Priority was given to
official Government sources. Where these were not immediately
apparent, the major national airline and airport operators’ sites were
used and their content triangulated with information contained within
dedicated aviation law publications. No information on any other
third-party sites such as news channels, blogs or charities was used in
case it was incomplete, inaccurate or out of date. The searches were
conducted over a two-week period in the summer of 2019.
Of course, no survey of this type can make any claim towards
completeness. The principal limitations of the approach are that it is
possible that legislation exists but is not publicly available on the
internet or that the legislation exists but is not published in English.
Regarding the former point, if the legislation exists it is arguably in the
public interest to publish it so that passengers are aware of their rights
and responsibilities when travelling by air. As to the latter, English is the
lingua-franca of aviation and is spoken natively, officially or widely as a
second language in more than 100 different countries. Consequently,
many countries publish relevant legislation in both the official national
Table 2
Sample of countries.
Region Number of Countries
countries
Africa Five Ethiopia, Egypt, Morocco, South Africa,
Kenya
Asia Five China, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea
Australasia Two Australia, New Zealand
Central and South Five Brazil, Mexico, Columbia, Chile, Argentina
America
Europe 28 EU28 (at the time the research was
undertaken the UK was a full EU Member
State)
North America Two Canada, United States
4
Journal of Air Transport Management 87 (2020) 101851
language and English.
Once the existence of relevant legislation had been established, it
was entered into a spreadsheet which referenced the legislation and
detailed any other information that could be obtained about its scale and
scope. As of November 2019, all of the countries surveyed were signa­
tories to the 2007 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities (UN, 2019). The findings are presented in Table 3.
4. Findings
The data presented in Table 3 demonstrates the variety of ap­
proaches to the issue of disabled air passenger rights. The authors were
not able to identify any legislation concerning the rights of disabled air
travellers in 10 of the 47 sampled countries. Two countries, Kenya and
Canada, were in the process of drafting and enacting legislation
respectively but in both cases provisions for disabled travellers appear to
be contained within broader air passenger consumer protection regu­
lations. Of the surveyed countries and regions, only Argentina, Chile,
China, the EU, India and the US appeared to have dedicated laws or
regulations that only concerned the rights of disabled air passengers.
With the exception of the 1986 Air Carrier Access Act in the United
States, all the legislation had been passed since 2006. Three had been
passed since 2017 and, as stated, two further countries were in the
process of developing and enacting legislation for disabled passengers.
Two important issues must be raised at this point. Firstly, the
inability to identify relevant legislation does not make any claim that
such legislation does not exist. Indeed, it is merely acknowledging the
inability to identify it using the method described above. Secondly, a
country may not feel the need to specifically legislate to ensure air travel
is accessible for disabled passengers. Indeed, the websites of the national
airlines that were accessed demonstrated that, though service provision
varied between them, all made some provision for disabled passengers.
Consequently, legislation may not be deemed to be necessary if air
service operators are voluntarily providing support to disabled passen­
gers and the absence of a legal obligation is not the same as stating there
is an absence of service provision.
When reviewing the content of the legislation that was identified,
wide variations were apparent, not least in terms of what constitutes a
PRM, who is responsible for PRM service provision, the geographic
jurisdiction of the legislation, and the costs of providing it. These issues
are now examined in turn.
4.1. Defining PRMs and disabled passengers
The legislation did not adopt a single universal or standard definition
of what constituted a PRM or disabled passenger and each country
(region in the case of the EU) adopted its own. Although most legislation
concurred that long-term mobility impairments gave rise to a genuine
need for PRM assistance, individual countries treated pregnancy,
obesity, ‘hidden’ developmental or learning conditions, and temporary
injuries in different ways (or not at all). Pregnancy, for example, where
mentioned, was typically treated on a case-by-case basis according to the
health of the mother and her particular needs at that point in the
pregnancy. Interestingly, there is no dedicated SSR code for pregnancy
and according to IATA (2019) a pregnant traveller who requires assis­
tance is normally categorised as MAAS (‘meet and assist’). Obesity was
another condition that may or may not be included in a definition of
‘disability’. As the regulations do not oblige passengers to present
medical evidence of their need for PRM assistance to airports or ground
handlers (although they do to airlines), individual travellers self-identify
need for assistance and this may lead to potential abuse of the service.
4.2. Rights and responsibilities
In every case, disabled passengers have the right, subject to certain
derogations and conditions, not to be refused a reservation or
L. Budd and S. Ison Journal of Air Transport Management 87 (2020) 101851

Table 3
Summary of disabled air passenger rights legislation by country.
Region Country Size of air National disabled air passenger rights Scope and provisions (or other relevant information)
passenger market legislation (plus date of approval, if known)
(2018)a

Africa South Africa 23,921,748 None identified

Egypt 12,340,832 None identified
Ethiopia 11,501,244 None identified
Morocco 8,132,917 None identified The 2006 Euro-Mediterranean Air Transport Agreement
signed between Morocco and the EU makes no explicit
reference to EC Regulation 1107/2006.
Kenya 5,935,831 In preparation Forthcoming Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection)
Regulations will cover disabled access.
Asia (including China 611,439,830 Measures of Air Transportation of Disabled Airlines cannot refuse to carry a disabled passenger
Middle East) Passengers unless it is for safety reasons. Airlines, airports and
ground handling agents must provide assistance and
equipment in terminal buildings and in aircraft. Service
dogs can accompany disabled passengers in the aircraft
cabin during a flight.
India 164,035,638 Civil Aviation Requirements on Carriage by Air Contains guidelines and recommended practices for
for Persons with Disability and/or Persons with airlines and airports.
Reduced Mobility (2009)
Japan 126,387,527 None identified
Indonesia 115,154,101 None identified
UAE 95,533,069 None identified
Australasia Australia 75,667,645 No direct provision but Civil Aviation Order Airlines and airport operators are encouraged to produce
20.16.3 establishes some processes and Disability Access Facilitation plans to provide
procedures. information on how they will meet the needs of disabled
travellers. Airlines must identify disabled passengers and
ensure they are not seated in such a way as to obstruct or
hinder access to any emergency exit by other persons on
the aircraft. Procedures must be in place to assist disabled
passengers in the event of an emergency and ensure they
are adequately briefed on safety procedures.
New Zealand 17,249,050 None identified
Central and Brazil 102,109,977 None identified
South Mexico 64,569,640 Official Gazette of the Federation, two Federal Disabled passengers have the right to transport
America laws: Civil Aviation and Consumer Protection wheelchairs and prostheses to support their personal
(June 26, 2017) mobility needs.
Colombia 33,704,037 None identified
Chile 19,517,185 Supreme Decree No. 369 in the Official Discrimination against disabled passengers is prohibited.
Gazette, Regulation for air travel for Airlines cannot charge disabled passengers an additional
passengers with disabilities and reduced fee for their tickets and must make ‘necessary or
mobility (October 26, 2018) reasonable’ adjustments for disabled passengers, their
assistance partners or assistance dogs. This includes easy
access to the aircraft, priority seating assignment,
accessible lavatories and the right to travel with
protheses and mobility aids. Failure to comply will
render companies liable for civil damages in addition to
administrative sanctions.
Argentina 18,081,937 Decree No. 914/97 related to Law No. 22,431 Provisions include the right to safely access and egress an
aircraft, the provision of aisle wheelchairs and seats with
foldable armrests, the right for guide dogs to travel free of
charge on flights and the provision of general and
emergency instructions in Braille, written and spoken
forms.
Europe EU28 (including UK. UK 802,248,766 EC Regulation 1107/2006 (2006) All EU airports handling over 150,000 passengers per
has stated it intends to annum must provide, free of charge, help and assistance
retain EU standards post- to wheelchair users, elderly travellers, and those with
Brexit) communication, social interaction and ‘hidden’
disabilities, publish quality standards and report
performance. Air carriers must provide assistance free of
charge. Each Member State has the responsibility for
enforcing the Regulation.
North America US 889,022,000 Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) (1986) ACAA prohibits any discrimination against passengers
and with disabilities. Act covers any flight departing from or
US Dept of Transportation 14 CFR Part 382 landing at a US airport, regardless of nationality of
(Non Discrimination of the Basis of Disability operating carrier, and any flight operated by any US
in Air Travel) registered airline anywhere in the world.
Airlines are responsible for PRM assistance.
Canada 89,380,000 Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR) Currently being enacted, will apply to all flights to, from
(2019) and within Canada
a
World Bank data (2019) on air passenger numbers in each country/region.

5
L. Budd and S. Ison
embarkation. Individual airlines do, however, have their own policies
on the number of PRMs they will accept on a flight (or on a particular
aircraft type). The only exception is the US which prohibits limitation on
PRM carriage and which also places no prenotification of travel
requirement (see SDG, 2010). In the case of EU airports, there is a need
to share data between the airlines and the airports (and where PRM
provision is contracted to a third-party supplier, with the airport’s pri­
vate PRM service provider) to ensure appropriate support is provided.
However, this is not always straightforward and some airports,
including London Heathrow, offer financial incentives (in the form of
lower fees) to airlines to improve pre-notification rates. Within the EU,
passengers also have the right to assistance from staff who have received
special training, although the nature and duration of the training is not
specified.
In terms of the responsibility for PRM service provision, the US
legislation makes airlines responsible for special assistance at airports
whereas in the EU it is the responsibility of airport operators to provide
such assistance. In China, the responsibility for PRM service provision is
split between airports, ground handlers and airlines. Although such
variations may have internal logic to the countries/region concerned,
they potentially add a layer of complication for passengers who may find
that the agent responsible for providing them with support on their
journey differs between their origin and destination. There is also the
potential for a conflict of laws when, for example, an EU-registered
carrier operates flights to/from the US or when EU airlines engage in
codesharing arrangements with US operators. Even within the EU,
which operates a harmonised policy, national laws within each nation
state (for example concerning manual handling or maximum permitted
weights that can be lifted) still affect the range and type of PRM support
services that can be provided (SDG, 2010).
4.3. Geographic scope of the legislation
In terms of the spatial scope of the legislation, PRM regulations are
typically effective on flights to/from airports within the territory of the
legislating State irrespective of where in the world those flights originate
or terminate. In the case of the US, the regulations also extend to US
registered airlines operating aircraft anywhere in the world. The raises
an important issue as it is the geographic origin/destination of the flight
that determines the level of support and responsibility for PRM service
provision (if any) a disabled passenger can expect to receive and not
other attributes such as nationality or (with the exception of the US) the
country in which the airline is registered. We were not able to identify
legislation that specifically concerned the rights to support if a disabled
passenger’s flight had to be diverted and make an unscheduled landing
in a third country (for example a flight to an EUcountry that originates
outside the EUbut which is forced to divert to another non- EU country
en-route).
4.4. Cost and charges
In most cases, the legislation makes explicit reference to the fact that
PRM assistance should be made available to the passenger free of
charge. Chile, for example, explicitly prohibits airlines from charging
disabled passengers an additional fee for their ticket. Most of the regu­
lations also stipulate that airlines must carry wheelchairs and other
mobility equipment, such as protheses and walking sticks, free of charge
and permit guide dogs to accompany their owners at no additional cost.
The legislation in Argentina and China, for example, explicitly obliges
airlines to transport guide dogs and service animals in the cabin for free.
5. Discussion
The research has revealed a lack of global standards for passengers
with disabilities and their support animals. Regulations in the EU differ
significantly from those in the US while other countries appear to have
6
Journal of Air Transport Management 87 (2020) 101851
no specific regulations at all. From a practical standpoint, it could
arguably ‘be far more beneficial for all passengers with disabilities if a
global set of standards could be implemented’ (IATA, 2012) as current
national variations in disabled air passenger rights impose a number of
important challenges for both users and service providers. In the case of
disabled passengers, these challenges may manifest themselves irre­
spective of whether they are travelling domestically within the territory
of one State or internationally. In the subsections that follow, implica­
tions for passengers are identified and discussed before specific chal­
lenges for operators are identified and examined.
5.1. Implications for disabled passengers
5.1.1. Inconsistency
At present, disabled air passengers’ rights regulations and legislation
are not aligned and assistance that is provided in one country/territory
may not be mandated or available in others. This could result in the
needs of disabled passengers being only partially met (or indeed wholly
unmet) at different stages of a journey depending on where in the world
they are at any given time. This experience runs counter to other pre­
scribed elements of a passenger’s identity, including their citizenship
and residency status, which should ensure a minimum standard of ser­
vice throughout a journey.
5.1.2. Loopholes
A second key challenge is that the lack of regulatory alignment and
absence of a set of global standards mean loopholes in the regulations
are almost inevitable. Such loopholes may manifest themselves to
disabled passengers who are transiting through intermediate hubs. For
example, a passenger may board a flight operated by a non-EU regis­
tered carrier at an EU airport and change aircraft at a hub in the Middle
East to continue their journey to Asia. In this case, only the first of the
four flight sectors (that which originates at an EU airport) would be
covered by the EU Regulation and there would be no obligation on the
airline to provide the same level of service on the subsequent legs.
Furthermore, the Minimum Connection Times (MCTs) given in airline
reservations systems may not be long enough for PRM transfers. Given
the current configuration of airline networks and the importance of
transfer traffic to airline revenues, this issue requires further
exploration.
5.1.3. Compliance and enforcement
A third challenge relates to regulatory compliance and enforcement.
The form and level of sanctions and/or penalties that could be levied on
an airline or airport operator for non-compliance was not always clearly
stipulated, potentially leaving consumers unsure of their rights of re­
dress in the event of service failure or complaint. There was also rela­
tively little publicly accessible information on the role of State actors
and institutions in enforcing any regulations. There is also the potential
for a conflict of interest if State owned airlines and airport operators are
sanctioned or fined by State agencies.
5.1.4. Concerns and complaints
Relating to the previous point, it was not always clear from the
regulations how a disabled passenger could express concern about ser­
vice failure or indeed to whom they should address their complaint.
Within the EU, each individual State’s National Enforcement Body
(NEB) is responsible for dealing with passenger complaints and
imposing sanctions on operators for non-compliance with the Regula­
tion. However, passengers may not always be clear which NEB should
receive their complaint. For example, a passenger who is a national of
country w could fly on EU-registered airline x within the EU but between
two different EU countries y and z. Given the existence of the single
market for air services within the EU, such a situation would not be
unusual. A seamless global system of international agreement may be
the best solution for consumers but is likely to be challenged by
L. Budd and S. Ison
individual countries which are concerned about the competitiveness of
their national air transport industry. As such, there is potential for in­
dependent arbiters and consumer protection agencies to defend the
rights of disabled passengers and support regulatory compliance.
5.1.5. Compensation entitlements
The potential for disabled passengers to be compensated (and at
what level and in what currency) for services that failed to meet their
needs or services which damaged their mobility equipment was not al­
ways clear. There is arguably a need for a clear and independent
complaint handling mechanism. For example, EU Regulation 261/2004
is explicit in that passengers who are delayed, denied boarding or whose
flights are cancelled due to circumstances within an airline’s control are
entitled to monetary compensation, the level of which is calculated ac­
cording to flight distance, delay duration, and the amount of notice a
passenger was given of intended cancellation. No equivalent was iden­
tified for disabled passengers. Moreover, the level of compensation that
is due to passengers whose belongings are lost or damaged in transit is
often far lower than the value of any electronic mobility aids and
medical equipment that could be damaged. At present, the 1999 Mon­
treal Convention allows compensation for damage to baggage up to
1131 SDRs (approximately €1370) and yet many electric wheelchairs
cost considerably more to purchase and consumers may find it difficult
to obtain insurance for their mobility aids (see SDG, 2010).
5.1.6. Lack of alternatives
Air travel, particularly on long-haul international and interconti­
nental services, is often the only viable transport option as ground-based
modes may be unavailable or not equivalent in terms of time and cost. As
such, ensuring disabled passengers can access air travel on equal terms is
important in meeting national commitments to the UN Convention on
the Rights of Disabled Persons.
5.1.7. Difficulty of identifying relevant information
Difficulty was experienced in identifying relevant official informa­
tion online. As a consequence, even if such legislation exists, consumers
may rely on airline and airport operators to interpret their legal obli­
gations, with the result that passengers potentially are not aware of the
existence or full extent of their rights within different national juris­
dictions. There is scope for improving the visibility and transparency of
information that is available.
5.1.8. Multitude of service providers
Although not explicitly referenced in the legislation, the provision of
special assistance often involves many different service providers from
the public and private sectors. Unless the process is managed carefully,
there is the potential for miscommunication and service failure. The
transmission of personal (and possibly medical) data between countries
also poses issues surrounding data protection and data sharing.
5.1.9. Focus on ‘in airport’ and ‘in-aircraft’ stages of a passenger’s journey
The final issue concerns the fact that existing legislation focuses
exclusively on what happens within an airport and aircraft cabin and the
end-to-end journey is not considered in the existing legislation. There is
arguably a compelling need to consider ground access/egress journeys
and accessible surface transport modes to/from airports (which invari­
ably are the responsibility of different operators and which fall under
different national accessibility and transportation policy) in the provi­
sion (or revision) of future legislation. Indeed, if disabled passengers
cannot reliably, safely and cost effectively access airports at the start of
their journey then the provision of excellent support in the terminal
building and on board the aircraft is pointless.
7
Journal of Air Transport Management 87 (2020) 101851
5.2. Implications for operators
5.2.1. Absence of global standards
Airline operations are inherently international but at present there is
no level playing field and some carriers have, by virtue of their country
of registration, to adhere to more onerous obligations than their com­
petitors overseas. In addition, and according to their country of regis­
tration and/or location of operation, airlines could be bound by no
regulations, one system or two depending on where in the world the
flight occurred and where in the world the airline and its aircraft were
registered. In addition, it is worth noting that passengers have a legal
contract of carriage with an airline operator, not an airport, and yet
regulations in the EU make special assistance service provision the re­
sponsibility of airports. Some degree of international standardisation
would provide a greater clarity for consumers and a greater degree of
legal certainty for operators.
5.2.2. Recent regulations
With the exception of the US ACAA of 1986, the disabled air pas­
senger regulations identified by this research have all been introduced
since 2006 and, in the case of those passed since 2017, there may not
have been sufficient opportunity to adequately test or review their
application and suitability. Moreover, there may not have been time for
the implications of the regulations to have been evaluated. The addition
of new national regulations threatens to confuse matters still further as
the patchwork of legislation concerning disabled passengers expands.
The recent introduction of national legislation contrasts with efforts to
harmonise other areas of air transport operation and service delivery at
an international level.
5.2.3. Lack of ‘best practice’
There is, at present, no international standard or universally
accepted ‘best practice’ for disabled air passenger consumer protection
or PRM rights. There is arguably a need to identify and share best
practice internationally, to ensure that future policies and regulations
meet the needs of users while recognising the operational challenges
facing airlines and airports.
5.2.4. Potential for service abuse
The provision of free at point of use PRM services has led to concerns
that some passengers are accessing support to which they are not enti­
tled as they do not have a genuine need. According to a report by Steer
Davies Gleave in 2010, Brussels airport experienced a significant uplift
in demand for PRM services after the EU Regulation had taken effect and
services became free. Other airports reported that passengers were
claiming to need PRM assistance to take advantage of being fast tracked
through security and receiving priority boarding. This was reportedly
the case particularly when low cost airlines did not pre-assign seats and/
or charged passengers for pre-allocating seats (see SDG, 2010). Future
research could usefully explore the extent of PRM service abuse and the
implications this has both for those in genuine need and for the opera­
tors in terms of increased costs.
6. Conclusion
This paper has addressed an area of air transport management that
has hitherto received relatively little academic attention. In reporting on
the findings of an international survey of disabled air passenger rights
legislation in 47 countries covering 20 major aviation markets, it has
revealed the existence (or in some cases absence) of conflicting and
contradictory regimes that have the potential to cause distress and
confusion to passengers and frustrate attempts to enable disabled trav­
ellers to access aviation on equal terms. The findings are significant not
just for individual disabled consumer welfare and independence but also
for a mobile global society which is ageing and experiencing growing
levels of immobility, obesity and disability. Ensuring equal access to air
L. Budd and S. Ison
travel also matters for airline and airport operators as not only can the
reputational damage from service failure and customer complaint be
severe and long-lasting there is also a commercial implication to PRM
service provision. There is an arguably a compelling case from a con­
sumer protection standpoint to strengthen existing international avia­
tion law rather than adding to what is already a complicated patchwork
of national regimes.
As a result of this research, the following recommendations can be
advanced:
� There is a need to standardise the definition of what constitutes a
disabled passenger or PRM.
� Harmonising international PRM policy and sharing best practice
between countries would help to provide greater clarity and cer­
tainty for airport and airline operators and service users.
� Information about disabled passenger rights and responsibilities
when travelling by air could be made more accessible, visible and
transparent.
� The mechanisms for requesting PRM assistance and reporting in­
cidents of service failure need to be improved so that passengers are
aware of their rights and know when they can seek redress.
� There needs to be a debate about the cost of PRM service provision
and how to prevent possible abuse of the service.
� Existing legislation may need to be revised to make its scope and
terminology clear and unambiguous.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our thanks to the two anonymous referees
for their detailed and considered reviews of an earlier version of this
paper.
References
ACI [Airports Council International], 2018. Airports & Persons with Disabilities
Handbook, fifth ed. Airports Council International, Washington D.C.
Amadeus, 2020. SSR codes and airline-specific codes. Retrieved from. https://serviceh
ub.amadeus.com/c/portal/view-solution/768896/en_US/ssr-codes-and-airline-speci
fic-codes. (Accessed 18 February 2020).
Ancell, D., 2016. The paradox of competition for airline passengers with reduced
mobility (PRM). J. Air Transport. Studies 7 (1), 111–129. http://etem.aegean.gr/f
iles/JATS_V7I12.pdf. (Accessed 18 February 2020).
Ancell, D., 2017. Clipped Wings: Corporate, Social And Environmental Responsibility in
the Airline Industry Abingdon. Routledge.
Ancell, D., Graham, A., 2016. A framework for evaluating the European airline costs of
disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility. J. Air Transport. Manag. 50,
41–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2015.10.001.
Baker, T., 2020. Disabled passengers failed by poor airport accessibility service. https
://www.which.co.uk/news/2020/01/almost-half-of-disabled-people-feel-they-cant-
travel-by-air/. (Accessed 18 February 2020).
BBC News, 2019. Gatwick airport: dogs in tutus delay Norwegian air flight 24/10/19.
Available online at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-50170507.
(Accessed 22 November 2019).
CAA [Civil Aviation Authority], 2019a. UK Civil Aviation Authority reports on disabled
access at UK airports. Available online at: https://www.caa.co.uk/News/UK-Civil-
Aviation-Authority-reports-on-disabled-access-at-UK-airports/.
CAA [Civil Aviation Authority], 2019b. Airport data 2018. Retrieved from. https://www.
caa.co.uk/Data-and-analysis/UK-aviation-market/Airports/Datasets/UK-Air
port-data/Airport-data-2018/. (Accessed 12 August 2019).
CAA [Civil Aviation Authority], 2019c. Airport accessibility report 2018/19. Retrieved
from. http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1821.pdf. (Accessed 15 August
2019).
Chang, Y.-C., Chen, C.-F., 2011. Identifying mobility service needs for disabled air
passengers. Tourism Manag. 32, 1214–1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2010.11.001.
Chang, Y.-C., Chen, C.-F., 2012a. Overseas travel choice for persons with reduced
mobility. J. Air Transport. Manag. 20, 43–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jairtraman.2011.11.005.
Chang, Y.-C., Chen, C.-F., 2012b. Meeting the needs of disabled air passengers: factors
that facilitate help from airlines and airports. Tourism Manag. 33, 529–536. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.06.002.
Clery, E., Kiss, Z., Taylor, E., Gill, V., 2017. Disabled People’s Travel Behaviour and
Attitudes to Travel. Department for Transport, London.
Coffey, H., 2019. Disabled passenger told to stand up and ‘stop doing drama’ by airport
security staff independent, 11/09/2019. https://www.independent.co.uk/travel
8
Journal of Air Transport Management 87 (2020) 101851
/news-and-advice/disabled-wheelchair-delhi-airport-virali-modi-india-a9100731.
html. (Accessed 18 February 2020).
Coffey, H., 2020. Disabled passenger ‘humiliated’ when travelling through UK airports
independent, 13/01/2020. https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advi
ce/disabled-travel-passengers-uk-airports-which-survey-flights-accessible-a927
8026.html. (Accessed 18 February 2020).
Darcy, S., 2012. Disembodied air travel experiences: disability, discrimination and the
affect of a discontinuous air travel chain. J. Hospit. Tourism Manag. 19 (1), 91–101.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jht.2012.9.
Davies, A., Christie, N., 2017. An exploratory study of the experiences of wheelchair
users as aircraft passengers – implications for policy and practice. Int. Assoc. Traffic
Safety Sci. Res. 41 (2), 89–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2017.05.003.
EC [European Commission], 2006. 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 (Text with EEA
relevance). Off. J. Eur. Union L204/1, 26.7.2006. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/leg
al-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri¼CELEX:32006R1107&from¼EN. (Accessed 22
November 2019).
EC [European Commission], 2012. Commission Staff Working Document. Interpretative
Guidelines on the application of Regulation (EC) N� 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 Brussels,
11.6.2012 SWD(2012) 171 final. https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport
/files/themes/passengers/air/doc/prm/2012-06-11-swd-2012-171_en.pdf.
(Accessed 18 February 2020).
ERA [European Regions Airline Association], 2018. Passengers with reduced mobility
(PRMs). Available at:, Accessed. https://www.eraa.org/sites/default/file
s/180924_th_era_prm_brochure_online.pdf. (Accessed 18 February 2020).
Finavia, 2016. Traveling without borders 24/10/2016. https://www.finavia.fi/en/n
ewsroom/2016/travelling-without-borders. (Accessed 18 February 2020).
Fraser, J., 2019. New federal requirements show airlines damage thousands of
wheelchairs each year USA Today, 25/11/2019. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/ne
ws/nation/2019/11/22/airlines-department-transportation-report-damage-whee
lchairs/4270695002/. (Accessed 18 February 2020).
Gordijn, H., 2019. Trends in the propensity to fly in The Netherlands 1991-2016. In:
Contribution to the Symposium on Trends in Propensity to Fly of EUROCONTROL
and OECD/ITF Held in Brussels, 4 December 2018. Available at: https://www.resea
rchgate.net/profile/Hugo_Gordijn/publication/330452321_Trends_in_the_propensi
ty_to_fly_in_The_Netherlands_1991-2016/links/5c40e189a6fdccd6b5b4f513/Tren
ds-in-the-propensity-to-fly-in-The-Netherlands-1991-2016.pdf. (Accessed 18
February 2020).
Graham, A., Budd, L., Ison, S., Timmis, A., 2019. Airports and Ageing Passengers: Study
of the UK Research In Transportation Business And Management 100380. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2019.100380.
Hine, J., Mitchell, F., 2016. Transport Disadvantage And Social Exclusion Exclusionary
Mechanisms In Transport In Urban Scotland. Routledge, London.
Humberside Airport, 2019. Minutes of the special assistance & reduced mobility meeting
13th november 2019. Available at: https://www.humbersideairport.com/media/22
9114/Special%20Assistance%20Consultation%2013%20November%202019.pdf.
(Accessed 18 February 2020).
IATA [International Air Transport Association], 2012. All Passengers this way 1/4/2012.
Available online at: https://airlines.iata.org/analysis/all-passengers-this-way.
(Accessed 22 November 2019).
IATA [International Air Transport Association], 2019. List of service SSRs. https://gu
ides.developer.iata.org/docs/list-of-service-ssrs.
ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organisation], 1944. Convention on international
civil aviation done at Chicago on 7th december 1944. Available online at: https://
www.icao.int/publications/Documents/7300_orig.pdf. (Accessed 22 November
2019).
ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organisation], 2016. In: Guidelines On Websites’
Information to Passengers with Reduced Mobility (PRMs) Facilitation Panel 9th
Meeting FALP/9-IP/2 23/3/16. (Accessed 21 November 2019).
ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organisation], 2018. Standards and recommended
practices Annex 9 to the convention on international civil aviation facilitation,
fifteenth ed. ICAO, Montreal. October 2017. https://www.icao.int/WACAF/Doc
uments/Meetings/2018/FAL-IMPLEMENTATION/an09_cons.pdf. (Accessed 20
November 2019).
Imrie, R., 2000. Disability and discourses of mobility and movement. Environ. Plann. 32,
1641–1656. https://doi.org/10.1068/a331.
ONS [Office for National Statistics], 2016. Total number of disabled people in Great
Britain. https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomo
finformationfoi/totalnumberofdisabledpeopleingreatbritain. (Accessed 22 October
2019).
O’Shea, R.J., 2018. Strangest emotional support animals taken on planes from peacocks
to monkeys independent, 2/2/2018. https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/ne
ws-and-advice/emotional-support-animals-planes-flights-peacocks-marmoset-
horse-a8190576.html. (Accessed 22 November 2019).
Poria, Y., Reichel, A., Brandt, Y., 2010. The flight experience of people with disabilities:
an exploratory study. J. Travel Res. 49 (2), 216–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2F0047287509336477.
SDG [Steer Davies Gleave], 2010. Evaluation of Regulation 1107/2006 Final Report.
SDG, London.
Smith, M.L., Amorim, E., Umbelino, J., 2013. Accessible tourism and disability service
information provided on leading airline websites. Cont. Ana;. Int. J. Respon. Tour. 2
(4), 7–23.
L. Budd and S. Ison
The Independent, 2019. Flying with a disability: Everything disabled travellers need to
know about booking and catching a flight, 06/02/2019. https://www.independent.
co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/disabled-travel-disability-flights-flying-airport-a
ccessible-barriers-a8762846.html. (Accessed 24 February 2020).
Truxal, S., 2017. Air carrier liability and air passenger rights: a game of tug of war? J. Int.
Comp. Law 4 (1), 103–122.
United Nations, 2006. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional
Protocol Geneva (United Nations).
United Nations, 2007. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Available
online at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CTC/Ch_IV_15.pdf. (Accessed 22
November 2019).
Journal of Air Transport Management 87 (2020) 101851
United Nations, 2019. United nations treaty collection status as at 20-11-2019. Retrieved
from: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?
src¼TREATY&mtdsg_no¼IV-15&chapter¼4#EndDec. . (Accessed 20 January 2020).
Van Horn, L., 2012. The United States: travellers with disabilities. In: Buhalis, D.,
Darcy, S., Ambrose, I. (Eds.), Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion,
Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism. Channel View Publications, Bristol,
pp. 65–78.
WHO [World Health Organisation], 2011. WHO Disability Report. Available online at:
http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf. (Accessed 20
October 2019).
World Bank, 2019. Air transport, passengers carried. https://data.worldbank.org/ind
icator/IS.AIR.PSGR. (Accessed 20 October 2019).