Consultation outcome

Response to the aviation consumer policy reform consultation

Updated 27 June 2023

Foreword

Passengers are at the heart of UK aviation and government is committed to working with industry to improve the consumer experience. Following an incredibly challenging period for aviation and consumers during the pandemic, and while the industry has been recovering, it is more important than ever to ensure that passengers feel confident to travel by air.

For passengers to feel confident, it is essential that they have the necessary rights and protections they need. The UK is starting from a strong base, with UK aviation passenger rights and protections being well regarded internationally, and consumers benefitting from these, as well as established routes, for redress. However, as aviation continues to modernise, and the way in which consumers choose to travel evolves, we need to continue to assess existing rights and protections and ensure they adapt where needed, to maintain consumer confidence.

That is why, in January 2022, we launched a consultation seeking views on reforming aviation consumer policy. The consultation covered a range of air passenger rights issues and focused on enhancing consumer protection and improving the consumer experience, including accessibility.

The consultation built on proposals considered pre-pandemic through the Aviation 2050 consultation (2018), while recognising important contextual changes. It included new opportunities to enhance consumer protections following Brexit and the importance of learning lessons from the pandemic around consumer experience and expectations.

This response forms an important part of government’s wider commitment to improving the consumer experience. In our strategic framework for the future of aviation – Flightpath to the Future – we committed to improving the consumer experience by building consumer confidence, making aviation accessible and inclusive for all and facilitating a smooth border experience. This included a commitment – which we fulfilled in July 2022 – to publish the Aviation Passenger Charter to provide passengers with the information they need about their rights and responsibilities for each stage of their journey. We continue to review and build on the Charter to improve access to information for all consumers.

We are enormously grateful for the views received through this consultation and will continue to work closely with industry, consumer groups and individuals to ensure our consumer reform programme delivers for passengers who remain at the heart of UK aviation.

Baroness Vere

Minister for Aviation

Executive summary

Background

Aviation is an essential UK industry, connecting people across the UK and around the world. Passengers are at aviation’s core and government is clear that everyone should have the confidence to travel by air, and that flying should be a positive experience for all.

While the aviation industry recognises the importance of passengers in their businesses, we know some passengers have faced challenges recently. Government wants to work with industry to ensure consumers are put first: that everyone receives excellent service by default and, in exceptional situations where that expectation is not met, problems are promptly and properly addressed by industry.

We also need to ensure that passengers have appropriate routes of redress if that does not happen. This is why the Department for Transport (DfT) conducted the Aviation Consumer Policy Reform consultation, which was designed to ensure we are developing robust policy and that, if things go wrong, passengers have the protections they need.

The consultation covered potential reforms in 4 key areas to ensure that consumers are protected, treated fairly, and that best practice from the industry becomes commonplace. These included:

• considering the tools the regulator has to enforce consumer protection regulations and how they could be enhanced
• methods available for individual consumers to resolve issues and how these could be strengthened
• compensation for domestic flights for cancellations and delays
• accessibility provisions for disabled and less mobile passengers. Reference to disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility includes (but is not limited to):
  • people who are less mobile, such as older people, a person with a broken leg or pregnant women
  • physical disabilities, such as wheelchair users, or people with vision or hearing impairments
  • non-visible disabilities, such as people with heart conditions, those with chronic illnesses, people living with autism, Alzheimer’s disease or dementia

Consultation method and overview of respondents

The consultation was published on 31 January 2022 and ran for 8 weeks, closing on 27 March 2022. We received 65 responses to the consultation via the response form, as a written report, or through email text. During the consultation period, we held workshops with stakeholders to enable further discussions and help us understand some of the responses in more detail.

Responses were submitted by a mixture of individuals (29%) and organisations (71%), including advisory bodies, government, regulators, consumer bodies – including non-governmental organisations (NGOs) – trade bodies, travel agents and tour operators, airlines, airports, legal services and consultancy groups.

Chart showing percentage of respondents by business type

Respondents by type	Percentage of responses
Airline	15
Airport	3
Consultancy	3
Consumer body	1
Government/local government	2
Consultancy	3
Individual	29
Legal service/dispute resolution	9
Non-governmental organisation	5
Regulator/transport authority	3
Tour operator	5
Trade body	14
Travel agent	6
Advisory body	5

Of these respondents, 5 individuals and one organisation only addressed one question in the consultation. The 5 individuals specifically responded to the question around whether delay compensation should be amended in chapter 3, and the organisation responded to question 22 on providing in legislation the ability for package organisers to seek a refund for cancelled flights that are part of a package holiday.

The majority of respondents were from England (76%). 2% of respondents were from Northern Ireland, 5% from Scotland, 2% from Wales and 2% from across the UK. Thirteen per cent of respondents were from outside of the UK.

Chart showing percentage of respondents by region

Respondents by region	Percentage of responses
England	76
Northern Ireland	2
Scotland	5
Wales	2
UK	2
Outside the UK	13

Cross-cutting themes

There were some cross-cutting themes in responses to questions across the chapters. These included:

• focusing on maintaining the current collaborative approach between the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and industry as a way of ensuring consumers receive the best possible service, in preference to regulatory or legal enforcement being the first line of response
• concerns that increased regulation of airlines could negatively impact consumers by causing increased ticket prices
• calls for better information about and promotion of the services and rights passengers are entitled to. For example, some passengers were unaware of the ability to make ‘special declarations’ and the availability of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) if a complaint cannot be resolved between an airline and a passenger
• publication of data and concerns about poor transparency about how consumers are treated when things go wrong. Respondents said greater transparency could support learning lessons and drive practical improvements to passenger service and enable consumers to make informed choices
• concerns from industry that the use of claims management companies (CMCs) is not helpful for consumers or operators. Industry wanted to reiterate the importance of the relationship between the passenger and the airline/airport in relation to resolving issues directly
• concerns about differences in regulation of flight-only and package holidays, with calls for greater alignment where possible and for a collaborative approach for the whole of the travel industry

Summary of next steps

The consultation responses have been invaluable in informing the next steps the government will take to enhance aviation consumer rights. The responses have clearly indicated that, in some of these areas, there is a strong case for change and we, therefore, intend to take forward reforms.

We will legislate when parliamentary time allows to enhance the enforcement powers of the CAA by providing additional administrative tools, such as issuing financial penalties. This will enable the CAA to step in more promptly and flexibly where appropriate. We will work closely with the CAA on the design of those powers to make sure they are effective and proportionate.

We will take steps to improve the coverage of ADR, with a view to legislating when parliamentary time allows to make ADR membership mandatory for airlines operating to, from and within the UK. Most UK airlines are already members of an ADR body. For the minority that are not currently ADR members, this will ensure consumers have a full suite of options available to resolve disputes no matter who they travel with.

We will conduct further consultation on the compensation and payment framework across all forms of disruption (cancellations, delays and denied boarding), taking on board feedback provided from this consultation. We consulted on reforms to compensation for cancellations and delays for domestic UK flights. Responses highlighted some benefits of changes to domestic compensation, but also significant complexities. We concluded that more work is needed to consider the merits and limitations of any changes in this area and are not committing to implement these proposals at this stage.

We will legislate when parliamentary time allows to remove the cap on compensation for wheelchairs or mobility aids damaged on domestic UK flights. In line with our commitments to ensure that air travel is accessible for all, we welcomed positive feedback on our proposals to increase the level of compensation available if a passenger’s wheelchair or mobility aid is damaged.

In the meantime, we will work with industry to move to a standard of voluntarily waiving the cap for compensation on both domestic and international flights. We will also continue to explore with the CAA, industry and consumer groups other options to improve accessibility and, thereby, increase the confidence of passengers. Measures include those suggested in consultation responses including:

• better information provision for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. Since the consultation, we have published the Aviation Passenger Charter. We will continue to work closely with stakeholders to consider if there is more we can do in this area, including seeking feedback on the Charter
• improving accessibility training for staff assisting disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. We will consider options to build on previous work in this area
• more broadly, continuing to work with stakeholders to ensure we can engage directly with passengers with personal experience and seek their views on further options for improvement

Government is committed to ensuring that the aviation sector is putting passengers first. While most operators already do the right thing and meet their obligations to consumers, these reforms will ensure that, where behaviour falls short, consumers have the protections they need and the CAA has sufficient enforcement powers to effectively uphold consumer rights.

Chapter 1: Tools for regulator to protect consumers and ensure fair treatment

Chapter 1 of the consultation sought views on whether the CAA should be provided with additional administrative powers to enforce consumer protection laws, and whether the CAA should be able to enforce cases that do not fall within the definition of collective harm, that is, to enforce individual cases.

It considered that while the CAA works with industry to help ensure consumers are protected, the powers it has to enforce consumer rights could be stronger and less time-consuming. This aligned with the considerations of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) consultation on whether the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) required additional administrative powers for consumer protection enforcement.

Question 1: What, if any, additional powers to enforce aviation consumer protection laws directly through civil sanctions should the CAA have? What specific issues would these powers address beyond the enforcement powers already available to the CAA?

There were 53 responses to this question. Over half indicated that they agreed that the CAA should be provided with additional administrative powers to enforce consumer rights in aviation. Those that agreed were spread across different types of respondents. A third of those who agreed were individuals, and two-thirds represented a variety of organisations including airlines, advisory bodies and travel agents.

There was a wide range of suggestions for what additional administrative powers the CAA should have, which mainly reflected those outlined in the consultation in paragraph 1.6. The most common suggestion was for the CAA to be able to issue fines for non-compliance. Under this, one respondent referenced other regulators – including in the European Union (EU) – that have powers to fine for breaches. There was also a proposal that the income received from fines should be used to fund benefits for consumers or to cover the costs of consumer-focused work to the CAA, and a suggestion that this would help to improve support for the use of fines.

Other common suggestions included for the CAA to be able to decide if an organisation has breached consumer rights law. It was suggested that, if the CAA reaches this conclusion, it should be able to order organisations to:

• pay compensation to consumers
• stop behaviour that is against the law
• change their internal policy, guidance and training to ensure they are not acting in a way that is detrimental to consumers

Some responses from travel agents and tour operators also sought for the CAA’s powers to be extended to enforce refunds to intermediaries where flights are part of a package.

In response to which specific issues such powers would address, beyond the current CAA’s enforcement powers, respondents expressed a number of views including that such powers:

• would help deter breaches of consumer protection laws

• could result in swifter action and results for consumers

• would enable the CAA to clarify grey areas and provide clarification of the role between the CAA and CMA

• could result in better data collection

One respondent suggested that the CAA would need to conduct regional proportionality tests when setting its annual priorities and for investigations This would include tests of proportionality for consumer impact in different regional markets to recognise that some parts of the UK are more reliant on domestic connectivity than others.

There was some concern that the current CAA powers are limited, and/or that these powers are not used. Consequently, if additional powers were to be provided to the CAA, it would need to indicate how they would be used.

Just under a third of respondents to this question indicated that they did not agree with the proposal. The majority of these were airlines, airports and trade bodies.

Those respondents felt strongly that the CAA had sufficient powers and, given the interpretative nature of the consumer protection legislation, the court process was the right one. There was also concern that over-regulation could negatively affect an otherwise positive, collaborative relationship between the CAA and industry.

Instead, it was suggested that the focus should be on increasing collaboration and making escalation a last resort, to be used only in instances where agreement cannot be reached between consumers and airlines directly. There was also concern that there is not enough evidence that there is consumer detriment or that the CAA’s current powers are not enough, and that consideration of additional powers should not be a reaction solely to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic:

… there should be a reasonably high bar set for the introduction of new powers for the CAA. Evidence that this bar has been met needs to be clear, consistent and not based solely on disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, a once-in-a-100-year event.

— Airline

It was also clear from this group of respondents that if the CAA was to be given any additional powers, they would need to be proportionate, balanced and transparent, with decisions made by people with appropriate training and expertise, decision-makers distinct from the operational enforcement team and an appropriate appeals process.

Q2. If the CAA were to have increased enforcement powers, should its enforcement remit remain as it is currently, that is, only for cases of collective harm? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of the CAA having increased powers to enforce consumer laws in individual cases?

The responses to this question were mixed. For those who felt that the CAA’s powers should be extended to include individual cases (from a mixture of individuals and a range across different organisation types), the feeling was that this would incentivise compliance, boost consumer confidence and address gaps in the current escalation routes.

There was some concern across the board around resourcing for the CAA in the event of such powers. Some respondents suggested that giving the CAA the ability to choose which cases to take forward, making decisions on a flight-by-flight basis, focusing on the most egregious cases or where there is already principal or precedent set, would allow it to focus on the cases with most consumer detriment or purse the worst offenders. This could help the CAA to manage caseload and resourcing. Another option was for the CAA to create a code of practice that is enforceable in the event of a breach.

Conversely, respondents disagreeing with this approach (the majority of which were from organisations, with over half being airline representatives) felt there were already other routes available for individual consumers, including ADR or through the courts. Other concerns included that such a power could be confusing for the passenger and create inconsistency, and that any enforcement needs to be fair, transparent and proportionate.

Q3. Are there any specific issues for the aviation sector that should be considered in the development of any administrative framework for the CAA?

Several responses to this question (mainly from trade bodies and airlines) emphasised the need for transparent decisions by experts who are distinct from the enforcement arm of the CAA, and that there should be an appropriate appeal process and/or ability to test difficult issues within the court system.

Other considerations (from a mixture of different organisations and individuals) included ensuring parity between the treatment of UK and international carriers and processes to ensure that unmeritorious claims are filtered out. It was also suggested that the CAA powers should be expanded to travel agents, including non-UK online travel agents, to protect consumers across the travel industry.

Government response

Ensuring consumers have the protections they need remains a priority for government and this includes ensuring the CAA can promptly and flexibly address systemic breaches of consumer rights if and when they occur.

We understand that industry representatives want to maintain their good working relationships with the CAA and resolve issues without recourse to enforcement action where possible. We recognise that a collaborative approach between the CAA and industry is often in the best interests of consumers. Accordingly, the CAA will continue to take a collaborative approach in the first instance.

We will continue to work with industry and the CAA to ensure effective processes are in place to identify issues that are collectively harming consumers, so that they can be addressed proactively by industry and the CAA in a way that puts the consumer at the heart of the service. We encourage industry to address consumer issues effectively without the need for further intervention.

However, when that is not enough, there must also be escalation routes to ensure consumers are protected collectively and industry is complying with consumer laws.

Taking into account all the views shared through this consultation, government, therefore, remains of the view that additional powers are needed for the CAA to ensure compliance with consumer protections.

We will legislate when parliamentary time allows to provide additional administrative powers to the CAA. We want to ensure operators meet their obligations to consumers and enable the CAA to act more promptly and flexibly step in where needed. For now, we consider that the CAA should continue to focus its enforcement activity on issues affecting the collective harm of consumers, as we consider there are other ways for individuals to seek redress (see chapter 2).

We will work closely with the CAA on the design of those powers to make sure they are effective and proportionate. For example, when it might be appropriate for the CAA to issue fines and how those decisions should be taken. Calibrating these new powers may include some further informal consultation with stakeholders. Powers will be developed in a fair and proportionate way and will consider options to build in appropriate appeals processes. We will also continue to work with the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) as it develops and implements administrative powers for the CMA, to ensure consistency across different regulated sectors.

DfT announced a review of the CAA as part of the programme of reviews of sponsored bodies in August 2022. The review is focused on assessing efficacy, efficiency, governance and accountability of the CAA, and will include looking at the CAA’s effectiveness in enforcing consumer rights with its current powers. A report will be published following completion of the review later in 2023, and we will consider any recommendations in relation to the use of the CAA’s current powers.

Chapter 2: Resolution for individual consumers

The second chapter of the consultation considered whether membership of a CAA-approved ADR scheme should be made mandatory for all airlines flying to, from and within the UK, as an additional mechanism for enforcing air passenger rights.

Q4. Should ADR be mandatory for all airlines flying to and from the UK? Explain the reasons for your answer.

There were 51 responses to this question. Approximately two-thirds of those who responded indicated they agreed with the proposal. A third of those who agreed were individuals and the rest were a mixture from across different organisations, including airlines, consultants, consumer-facing groups and trade bodies.

The main reasons cited for supporting the introduction of mandatory ADR were clarity and ease of use for consumers, quicker decisions and ADR being more cost effective than going through the court system.

Some respondents (a mix of individuals, legal/dispute resolution services and travel agents/operators) felt the ability for airlines to opt out of the current voluntary scheme was confusing and allowed bad behaviour. Some individuals also suggested that the current system allows airlines to make decisions based on profit and to benefit from not being a member.

Other suggested advantages of making ADR membership mandatory included:

• freeing up CAA resources to be able to focus on significant breaches
• consistency with other regulated sectors
• creation of a level playing field for all with a fair and proportionate response that avoids using court processes
• encouraging airlines to improve their complaint-handling processes.

Two organisations stated that, while a move to mandatory ADR would be positive, the current system would need to be reformed to ensure it is working effectively.

The government needs to reform ADR so that it works more effectively for consumers and provides an accessible and affordable alternative to court proceedings. Enforcing their rights through ADR should be easier, cheaper and quicker for consumers than going through the court system.

— Consultant

Notwithstanding the current limitations of the existing ADR system, we support, in principle, the mandatory requirement for aviation to have ADR.

— Transport authority

Just under a quarter of responses to this question disagreed with the proposal. This group was mainly made up of airlines, trade bodies and a couple of individuals. One of the main concerns around mandatory ADR included the potential for increased costs to business from the cost of membership, and that this may be passed onto passengers through ticket prices. Other issues raised by these respondents included:

• the concern that it is unfair that ADR decisions are only binding on the airline, and some organisations requested that if ADR is made mandatory, both parties should be able to appeal the decision

• there were also some concerns about the resourcing, operation, qualification and expertise of ADR providers, particularly where aviation cases are very complex and can include significant sums of money

• one respondent flagged that some airlines are already members of ADR outside the UK and should not be required to duplicate this

• a few respondents felt there was no clear case for mandatory ADR

• others indicated that over-regulation could limit competition and that it could make the UK market less attractive to airlines

• some felt there are already voluntary processes in place that work for consumers

• others felt the current system does not work and should not be made mandatory for that reason

Some respondents felt that the CAA should have oversight of cases going to ADR, to identify recurrent themes and to feed into their assessments around enforcement action. There were also a couple of respondents who were unsure of the benefit of mandatory ADR in improving the consumer experience.

Two organisations also expressed some concerns around disabled passengers. One (a disability NGO) was concerned about how long the ADR and CAA passenger advice and complaints team (PACT) systems can take to process complaints, and that this may be too long for someone to wait. For example, if an individual requires compensation to urgently repair mobility equipment in order to remain independent. There was also a call by one organisation to ensure that ADR bodies receive training and meet accessibility requirements to ensure their service is accessible:

In developing a mandatory ADR system, accessibility is very important. DfT should consider a requirement for the ADR provider to have BS18477 accreditation (which provides a framework to help organisations and their employees understand the underlying factors involved in consumer vulnerability) and to follow the recommendations of the World Wide Web Consortium (Accessibility W3C) on accessibility.

— Transport authority

Q5. Should all airlines flying to and from the UK be required to register with the ADR provider, or should parent organisations be able to register on behalf of all businesses within their parent group? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each of these options?

The key theme highlighted in response to this question was that it is vital for consumers to have a single, clear route for escalating complaints. While some respondents (a range of organisation types including trade bodies and legal/dispute resolution groups) felt that it is important for consumers to be able to address any issues with the airline they are booked with, as the contract will be between those 2 parties, one trade body suggested that parent organisation membership could help to reduce costs for airlines.

Enabling parent organisations to register on behalf of all businesses could avoid costly and needless duplication, as long as this would enable individual carriers to be a party to ADR proceedings in their own name.

— Trade body

Others (from a range of organisation types including airlines, trade bodies and legal/dispute resolution groups) felt that as long as consumers had the option of redress, it did not matter how the business organised membership. One other comment (from a legal/dispute resolution service) was that while allowing parent organisations to register on behalf of individual airlines could increase consumer protections, it could limit airlines choosing a different ADR provider.

Q6. How successful are the current compliance and enforcement mechanisms for the voluntary ADR schemes, and what alternative enforcement mechanisms should be in place to ensure compliance with any determinations made by an ADR body?

There was a mixed response as to how successful the current system is, with some respondents (mainly airlines, but across some other organisations as well) stating the system works well and is appropriate and efficient, using contractual enforcement and escalation to the CAA and through the courts. Conversely, a couple of respondents (one individual and a consumer group) felt ADR is “largely toothless” with the only real recourse for ADR providers being to terminate their contract with the airline, which is not always proportionate or beneficial for passengers.

A couple of airlines that are members of the voluntary scheme indicated that they see ADR decisions as binding and, therefore, no enforcement action is required.

One dispute resolution body showed concern for the approach permitted whereby the ADR body can hold funds on behalf of airlines in order to pay compensation to the consumer. This is not a practice seen in other sectors and the respondent felt it indicated that airlines would not comply with the decision made by the ADR body. They commented that in other sectors, there would be tougher penalties for not complying with a decision:

If an estate agent did not comply with the decision of the Property Ombudsman they would be expelled from the scheme, meaning they could no longer legally trade.

— Dispute resolution body

The main suggestion for alternative enforcement to ensure compliance with ADR decisions (mainly from individuals, but also from some organisations such as legal/dispute resolution services and advisory bodies) was for the CAA to have the power to take enforcement action where operators do not comply. For example, fines for airlines failing to comply with outcomes of ADR, alongside a requirement on ADR bodies to report non-compliance to the CAA, or for the CAA to monitor ADR more closely for compliance issues and take enforcement action as necessary. Other options put forward included additional compensation to be paid for non-compliance and requiring publication of recommendations and the airline action, by the ADR body.

One airline and one trade body also said that ADR should be binding on both parties and that there should be an appeals process (or recourse through the courts) for both parties. Currently, it is up to the individual whether they accept the determination from the ADR body.

Q7. What mechanisms could be put in place to ensure compliance with mandatory ADR for non-UK registered airlines?

The main suggestion (from a range of different organisation types) for ensuring compliance for non-UK registered airlines was to make it a requirement of their licence/condition to operate or sell tickets in the UK. Other suggestions included:

• fines or other CAA enforcement action
• confiscation of slots
• impounding of aircraft
• publication of data on non-compliance

Q8. Are there any other alternatives to mandatory ADR? What incentives could be used to encourage more airlines to voluntarily utilise ADR?

There were 35 responses to this question. A mixture of individuals and organisations felt there was no alternative to mandatory ADR, and that the CAA had already taken action to encourage uptake of ADR in the UK. However, there were some suggestions for options to increase uptake of voluntary ADR. These included:

• increasing consumer choice, by requiring airlines to advertise their use of ADR and publish compliance data

• increasing the CAA PACT levy for non-members

• introducing additional penalties for cases found in the passenger’s favour at appeal

• allowing airlines equal ability to appeal decisions

• introducing more ADR bodies and improving the current service provided

Some (airlines and trade bodies) felt the current system including PACT works well.

Q9. Do you have any further evidence on the likely impact of mandatory ADR on the number of ADR cases brought forward by consumers?

There were only 14 responses to this question, with a mixture between individuals and a range of organisations including airlines, advisory bodies and legal/dispute resolution services.

Four respondents suggested that the number of ADR cases brought by consumers would be unlikely to change, either because 80% of consumers were already covered, so the increase would not be significant, or because passengers were already choosing not to use ADR.

Four respondents felt there would be an increase in the number of ADR cases – there was limited evidence provided for this. However, an advisory body stated:

A report produced for the EU’s DG MOVE [the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport] and published in 2020 suggests that around 3% of flights were cancelled or delayed in 2018. Applying this rate to the reported number of overseas visits by air from the UK for that year (approximately 60 million as reported by the ONS), we can estimate that there were around 1.8 million instances of individuals being affected by disruption that could give rise to a cause for complaint. Not all these instances will qualify for compensation, of course, but this figure seems to be significantly at odds with the 35,000 cases handled by the CAA-approved ADR schemes in 2018.

— Advisory body

Two advisory bodies felt that there would potentially be a decrease, with improved company behaviour and sharing of lessons learnt as a result of ADR, while one airline felt that mandatory ADR could result in a reduction in the number of cases in the court system.

Q10. What, if any, considerations should be had in relation to whether ADR should be mandatory for airports in relation to complaints around services for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility?

There were 22 respondents (a mixture of individuals and organisations including airlines, legal services/dispute resolution, consultants, NGOs/consumer body) who directly indicated that they felt that ADR should be mandatory for complaints against airports relating to services for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. Reasons for this included enhancing provisions for passengers with reduced mobility, improving clarity for consumers as to who was responsible for those services between the airline and airport, and for consistency if it is decided that airlines must be mandatory members. Two respondents felt that ADR should also be available beyond complaints from disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility.

Alternatively, some (mainly airports) felt that making it mandatory for airports was not necessary, with indications that it would be disproportionate or that the system in place already seemed to be working.

Q11. What incentives could be used to encourage more airports to voluntarily use ADR?

Only 19 respondents provided a response to this question, with a mixture of individuals and organisations including legal/dispute resolution services, advisory bodies, airlines and trade bodies. The most frequent answer to this question was to use voluntary ADR as both good and bad publicity, such as, if an airport is a voluntary member, they may want to advertise that on their website, which would also help provide consumers with more choice.

Other options included, adding ADR membership to the CAA’s performance framework for accessibility compliance at airports, increasing PACT charges and increasing the number of ADR bodies.

Q12. Should ADR be completely free for consumers or would a ‘nominal fee’ in the event of an unsuccessful claim across ADR be advantageous to deterring frivolous claims?

There were 47 responses to this question. Roughly half (individuals and consumer-facing organisations) indicated it should be completely free and the other half (mainly airlines and trade bodies) felt there should be a nominal fee to help reduce unmeritorious claims.

Some of those who called for ADR to be free highlighted that a fee (no matter how small, or where in the process) can discourage consumers from bringing a case to ADR:

… the existence of a fee, even where this is refundable, creates an obstacle for consumers as a report published by Citizens Advice shows that over 60% of consumers are put off by the need to pay a fee.

— Advisory group

Almost a quarter (24%) say that they would not pay a fee in any circumstances and significant numbers would not pay a fee if the transaction was less than £200.

— Consumer body referencing survey results

There was also concern from one advisory group that a fee could be discriminatory against those with protected characteristics:

… introducing a fee to access redress would disproportionately affect those with protected characteristics due to the ethnicity pay gap.

— Dispute resolution service

On deterrence of unmeritorious claims, views were again split, with respondents on one side stating there is no evidence of free schemes resulting in such claims, and others stating that it would.

There is no evidence from free access ADR schemes of frivolous complaints being encountered and the balance of businesses that have chosen to join the ADR scheme, which does not charge a fee, suggests that this is also not a significant concern for industry.

— Advisory group

… over the years, [we have] seen exaggerated claims and those without merit brought through ADR. We have also received claims with fictitious names. A nominal fee, either to present a claim in the first place or payable in the event the claim fails, is a sensible safeguard to ensure the credibility of the scheme is preserved.

— Airline

Q13. Should the cost per ADR case for the airline be capped at a specific amount? If so, at what level? Should there be different cost levels for different types of case and if so, how could those be determined?

Approximately half of responses to this question (a mixture of individuals and range of organisations including airlines and trade bodies) agreed to a cap, with options including a flat rate, or rates based on the number of cases a business has had in the previous year. One option put forward was to take a tiered approach to incentivise early settlement by businesses, or to introduce a cap for cases that are relatively easy to deal with, such as those under Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 and the Montreal Convention 1999.

For those that disagreed (a range of organisations and some individuals), reasoning included that ADR providers should set the rates to encourage competition and that since there is no such thing as an easy or difficult case, it would be hard to decide where the cap should sit, so the cost should be the actual cost of dealing with the case.

Other points highlighted in this question were that:

• ADR providers need to be sufficiently resourced and businesses not overburdened
• there should be read-across to other sectors to see what they do in relation to this
• taxpayers should not have to subsidise complaints

It should be noted that there seemed to be some misunderstanding of what we were seeking to understand from this question, with several respondents (mainly individuals) responding that compensation should not be capped. This question was about the costs of the ADR process, not the quantification of compensation for passengers.

Q14. What are the advantages and disadvantages of CAA-approved ADR entities as opposed to other options such as a single ombudsman? What benefits would there be to moving away from the current model?

There were 37 responses to this question, of which 15 specifically noted a single provider/ombudsman would be appropriate for the aviation industry. This group were mainly individuals and consumer-facing groups, while industry tended to favour multiple ADR bodies. Ten responses specified a multiple-body framework was preferable (mainly made up of industry and a few individuals). Others who answered this question did not specify a preference but rather provided views on advantages and disadvantages.

Half of those who specifically called for a single provider or ombudsman stated that this would bring more clarity and consistency in redress for consumers, as well as raise public awareness of how to seek redress. In addition, it was felt that a single ombudsman could bring more focus to engaging with industry with the aim of making improvements, providing training, ad hoc advice and sharing data and lessons learnt. It was, however, made clear that any such body would need to be well-resourced, neutral and have relevant expertise and powers to enforce decisions.

Conversely, those who did not support an ombudsman service felt such an approach would threaten the amicable resolution of disputes by making it too formal, and that having an ombudsman may encourage consumers to raise concerns with that service rather than trying to resolve the issue with the airline or airport first. Other concerns included that:

• one size does not fit all and having more ADR bodies to choose from was beneficial to industry, as they could choose one that was right for them

• having only one organisation could be unwieldy and may not be able to cope with the volume of cases

• it would be costly to set up

Some (individuals and a mix of organisations including airlines and trade bodies) felt that the multiple-body model works well for aviation. Positives identified included that the current bodies already have expertise in aviation, and the multiple-body model is more suitable for international travel, drives down costs and drives innovation and quality customer service.

Conversely, some (mainly legal/dispute resolution services) felt that multiple providers created a race to the bottom and decisions were not focused on the consumer interest, with providers wanting to be more business focused. One dispute resolution body felt that this model left a gap for addressing novel and contentious issues that could be addressed by an ombudsman.

Alternative options included having ADR bodies involved first, with the ability to appeal to an ombudsman if not satisfied, or for the CAA to set standards on complaint handling and be able to enforce those standards.

One other key point highlighted was that whatever ADR model is used, it should be accredited and overseen by the CAA.

Government response

Aviation is the only regulated sector that does not have mandatory ADR. Government is keen for airlines to be able to manage their own complaints-handling processes and to reach agreements with consumers directly. Where a satisfactory outcome can be reached between the airline and passenger, that often also means a quicker resolution for the consumer. To make sure those processes are as effective as possible, we think it would be beneficial to work with industry, the CAA and complaint-handling bodies to consider best practice on complaint handling. We believe this will help create consistency for consumers and help industry to address consumer concerns and minimise the need for escalation.

However, consumers do need the ability to escalate their complaints if they are not satisfied and everyone should have equal access to that escalation, no matter which operator they book with. Consequently, government will legislate when parliamentary time allows to introduce mandatory ADR membership for all airlines operating to, from and within the UK.

The ADR process should be beneficial for both consumers and industry. We would, therefore, like to see more voluntary uptake of ADR membership by airlines and airports and will work with the CAA on ways to achieve this.

We will also explore improvements that could be made to the ADR process. This could include, for example:

• better data collection to assist the CAA to identify trends and themes and to inform consumers
• more transparency in decision-making processes by ADR bodies, including processes to ensure consistency across cases
• more transparency in the training of ADR body staff and expertise in aviation policy

As we work with industry to improve the current system, we will also keep under consideration whether this ADR model works best for the aviation industry, or whether an alternative, such as a single ombudsman, would be more effective.

We will keep mandatory ADR membership for airports under review, particularly in relation to voluntary uptake and better industry complaint handling.

We will also continue to work alongside other government departments as they consider dispute resolution to ensure consistency wherever possible, and that ADR in aviation continues to work in the wider dispute resolution landscape.

Chapter 3: Compensation for delays and cancellations

Chapter 3 of the consultation looked at the current rules around compensation for delayed domestic UK flights (not including those stopping in another territory or those considered as a leg of an international journey). The current system provides compensation for passengers in the event of delays resulting in arrival more than 3 hours after the original scheduled arrival, in set amounts, depending on the distance of the flight.

The consultation sought views on whether this should be reformed for domestic flights, so that compensation was instead linked to the price of the ticket and was also available for shorter delays. There were some themes that were raised across multiple questions in this section. These included:

• industry were clear that they felt airlines should not be held responsible for delays and cancellations that are caused by circumstances outside of their control and where they have taken reasonable steps to avoid the delay or cancellation. Therefore, they strongly advocated that any changes to compensation should not remove the current approach. In addition, there were calls for greater clarification of the definition of “extraordinary circumstances”

• there were some respondents (mainly industry) across these questions that reiterated that aviation is not comparable to rail, due to the operational complexities in aviation

• there were also many across industry who requested that the UK government refer to a previous review by the EU of the regulation that considered extending the trigger points for compensation for delayed flights

Question 22 in this chapter looked at whether package organisers should be able to make a claim through legislation on behalf of the consumer for a refund when a flight (that is part of a package holiday) is cancelled.

Q15. Should compensation for delays to domestic flights be calculated as a percentage of the cost of the ticket?

There were 48 respondents who specifically responded to this proposal. Of those, 12 neither agreed nor disagreed, 18 agreed and 18 disagreed. These responses were fairly evenly spread across all the different respondent types.

The main reason for favouring this option cited by respondents was that the current system, under Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 (as retained in UK law), is seen as disproportionate and overly burdensome on airlines while this proposal was seen as a fairer option. Other themes in favour of this proposal included:

• increased competition within the UK domestic travel market by removing the disproportionate economic burden on lower-cost airlines, or through alignment with compensation in other modes of transport in the UK. Some felt that this approach could potentially result in lower prices for domestic flights, where airlines may have inflated prices to cover the costs associated with Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004

• a suggestion that it could potentially improve UK domestic connectivity to regional routes that are more exposed to disruptions

For those not in favour of this approach, the most common reason was that the actual impact of a delay on the passengers is not linked to the cost of travel, nor does it account for consequential losses caused. Other common arguments against this approach included:

• that airlines could construct fares to lower the amount of compensation

• that ticket prices vary for a single flight and, therefore, passengers on the same flight would be entitled to different amounts of compensation, which was seen as unfair for passengers, but could also increase the administrative burden on airlines

• concern that the deterrent effect of the current system would be lost and that it could result in airlines making decisions on which flights to cancel or delay based on the cost of compensation

• concerns around the proposal affecting consumers, such as:

  • a reduction in the likelihood of consumers making a claim
  • reducing consumer confidence
  • reducing domestic connectivity, particularly for more remote areas of the UK
  • being confusing when there are different systems in place for domestic flights, EU flights and wider international flight

Q16. What are the advantages and disadvantages to the above proposal for compensation for delayed domestic UK flights?

This question sought views on the following proposal:

• passengers may request compensation from the airline if their domestic UK flight is delayed as set out below:

  • for a delay of more than 1 hour but less 2 hours, passengers are entitled to compensation of 25% of their ticket price

  • for a delay of more than 2 hours, but less than 3 hours, passengers are entitled to compensation of 50% of their ticket price

  • for delays of over 3 hours, passengers are entitled to compensation of 100% of their ticket price

There were 34 responses to this question. Some respondents (a mixture of individuals and range of different organisation types) felt this was a fairer scheme, that aligned with other modes of domestic transport. It was recognised by 2 individuals that more passengers would be entitled to compensation under this proposal as the trigger for compensation in this proposal is earlier than the current system. Other things mentioned were that it was easy to understand and there was merit in the concept of more compensation for a longer delay.

From an industry perspective, the main disadvantage of the proposal was that compensation would not be feasible for delays of one hour, specifically referring to the need to consider safety as a paramount concern in airline operation. There was some suggestion that delays for safety reasons should not be subject to compensation.

There were also conflicting views as to when would be reasonable for compensation to be triggered, with some suggesting delays over 2 hours would be reasonable, while others felt it should remain at 3 hours. There were some who felt it should be longer than 3 hours, referring to a previous EU review that considered the trigger points to be 5, 7 and 9 hours. Some did not consider rail or maritime to be appropriate comparisons, as aviation operates very differently:

The operation of a train compared to the operation of an aircraft, and the potential safety implications involved, are non-comparable. Very little can be done by airlines within an hour to avoid delays.

— Airline

There was also some concern from airlines around the increased resource requirement to calculate the refund for each passenger, particularly as different passengers would have paid different amounts for their ticket. Finally, a point was also made that it did not work for all airline types with different operating models and pricing, and that this approach disproportionally favoured low-cost airlines.

From a consumer perspective, the main disadvantages identified included:

• the impact of delay is not linked to the cost of the ticket

• the removal of incentive for airlines to prevent delays

• that it would be unfair for domestic passengers to be subject to lower levels of compensation and those consumers would be less likely to make a claim

• that a separate scheme to the one under Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 would be confusing for consumers

• that as this proposal would also only relate to domestic flights – and not flights that are part of a leg of an international journey – this could result in different rules applying to different passengers on the same flight, depending on whether the passenger was in transit or only travelling domestically

• that airlines would perhaps make tactical decisions to cancel or delay certain flights in order to reduce the amount of compensation owed

Q17. What other options, if any, are there for delay compensation, delay triggers and proportion of ticket price for domestic UK flights?

There were many suggestions for alternative options to this proposal, which included:

• the use of alternatives to cash sums, such as vouchers, or allowing consumers to choose what type of compensation they would like (proposed by a range of organisations, mainly airlines)

• provision of the actual consequential cost to passengers caused by the delay, such as a missed train connection (sought by a consumer body and an individual)

• different trigger points, for example, those considered in the previous EU review at 5, 7 and 9 hours (recommended by trade bodies and an airline)

• using a combination of a percentage of the ticket price and a fixed rate for the inconvenience of a delay (suggested by a transport authority)

• the improvement of re-routing, including the use of alternative modes to limit the amount of delay caused

• considering lessons learnt from other modes on ensuring quicker and easier compensation payments, such as automatic payments

• setting fixed amounts with reduced trigger points

Q18. Should similar changes be made to compensation for cancelled flights and denied boarding? What are the advantages and disadvantages of both?

A total of 34 respondents indicated whether they agreed or disagreed with introducing similar changes to cancelled flights and denied boarding, of which, about half agreed (mainly from industry) and just under half disagreed.

The main advantage indicated (mainly from airline respondents) was consistency and clarity between the different types of compensation, and an indication from a few respondents was that this kind of approach was fairer for airlines.

Disadvantages identified here mirrored those identified in earlier questions in this chapter including:

• the negative effect on domestic connectivity

• the impact of these events not being linked to ticket price

• the reduction of disincentive to avoid cancellations and denied boarding

• reduced compensation for consumers

In addition, one respondent made the point that this type of approach would not work for cancellations or denied boarding because they are not based on time, and one other suggested that it could result in passengers who paid less for a ticket being targeted for denied boarding as it would result in less compensation.

Other points made in response to this question included:

• the need to maintain full refunds being available for cancelled flights

• that the compensation should be more than 100% of the ticket price to avoid airlines choosing to cancel flights rather than delaying

• that there should be more choice in how airlines provide compensation

• that there should be fixed amounts of compensation rather than percentages

Q19. If compensation for delayed domestic UK flights is linked to ticket price, what should the definition of ticket price include?

There were 36 responses to this question. The majority (split evenly between individuals and organisations, but not including airlines) indicated that the ticket price for compensation should be the full amount paid by the passenger, including any additional amounts and taxes/charges. One individual suggested that it should include the ticket price for all flights affected by the delay, for example, if there were connecting flights for an onward journey.

The majority of airline responses to this question felt the definition should be airfare only, excluding taxes and ancillary payments, although some also said the basic fare including taxes but that ancillary fees were optional and should be excluded. One airline suggested it should be the total price minus air passenger duty (APD), and one said the price paid for all compulsory charges. The reason given for not including ancillary services was because those services are still received in the case of a delayed flight, just at a later time, and that, in some instances, this could result in a double payment for certain elements depending on the way the airline operates.

Some other points made included that it can be difficult to decouple the ticket price of a flight when it is booked as part of a package, and if the ticket price is considered anything other than the full amount the passenger paid, this could result in disappointment for passengers when they receive less than they may have expected.

Q20. Government is keen to understand the impact of the proposal to link compensation to ticket price. Provide any evidence on the number of passengers on domestic flights who are currently eligible to claim compensation for delays or the proportion of eligible passengers who currently make a successful compensation claim for delays of domestic flights.

There were only 5 responses to this question. Some general comments were to look at review sites and forums about consumer dispute resolution and to consider rail as a proxy, which shows consumers are less likely to claim the lower the compensation is. There were some specific responses, but the data provided was limited.

Q21. Is there anything else that can be done internationally within the confines of the 1999 Montreal Convention to help link compensation to the costs of travel for delay?

There were 20 responses to this question from individuals and a range of organisation types, including airlines and trade bodies. Suggestions under this question included:

• using international agreements

• reforming the statute of limitations for claims in the UK to reduce the amount of time passengers have to make a claim for compensation to align more with other countries

• that there should be alignment to the Montreal Convention 1999 to ensure that compensation is not required where all reasonable steps have been taken by the airline to avoid delay and that compensation should be for the harm actually caused

Other comments included that this proposal would be against the spirit of the Montreal Convention, and one respondent felt it would be a backward step to revert to the Montreal Convention 1999.

Others felt that the UK is not limited by the Montreal Convention 1999 in this area.

Q22. What would be the advantages and disadvantages of enabling package organisers to seek a refund for cancelled flights that are part of a package holiday through legislation?

There were 34 responses to this question. Advantages were outlined mainly by organisations (including travel agents and tour operators, advisory bodies and legal services), which included clarity and consistency, fairness to package organisers and streamlining of the flow of the travel ecosystem. Another advantage noted was the potential for better consumer protection by ensuring package organisers have the cash flow to ensure consumers receive their refunds.

Some respondents (travel agent and advisory body) were vocal that mass cancellations, such as those experienced during the pandemic, present significant challenges for package organisers, which will not be able to operate sustainably if they are unable to claim refunds back from airlines. It was also stated that mass cancellations could result (and, in some cases, had already resulted) in package organiser failures, in turn resulting in risk to the Air Travel Trust Fund and reduced competition in package organisers, thereby, reducing consumer choice.

Some (from a range of organisations but mostly airlines) felt that Article 29 of the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018, already provides the ability for organisers to claim back from airlines and, therefore, there is no need for reform, while others felt it is unclear and needs clarification. Similarly, some said that there were commercial arrangements in place, although conversely, others (advisory body and travel/tour agents) said that these arrangements were not always in place and when they are, they’re often weighted in favour of airlines.

Disadvantages identified (mainly from airlines and some other organisation types) included creating package requirements on airlines that are not package organisers and additional bureaucracy. There was also some concern that package organisers may be levying a fee for the service of applying for the refund on the consumer’s behalf or may be less likely to refund in time if there is no financial interest to secure the compensation. It was also noted that in some cases during the pandemic, refunds made by airlines to the package organiser had not been transferred to the passenger. Consequently, it should be a requirement for the organiser to ensure that refunds are passed back to the consumer.

Some (a mixture of organisation types) felt that the CAA should be able to enforce payment of refunds for flights that are part of a package to the organiser, or package organisers should be able to refer to ADR. It was also noted that if this proposal was to go ahead, there should be safeguards in place to protect against double remedy, and that the passenger should be able to choose how they seek their refund (either directly with the airline or through their package organiser). An alternative option, put forward by a trade body, is to require organisers to pass on all passenger information so airlines can make the refunds directly.

Government response

The responses received to this section of the consultation illustrate that any reform to the compensation system will be complex and involve a range of competing factors.

At this stage, government has concluded that more work is needed to consider the merits and limitations of any changes in this area. Therefore, it commits to further consultation on the compensation and payment framework across all forms of disruption (cancellations, delays and denied boarding), taking onboard feedback provided to this consultation.

Chapter 4: Accessibility

Chapter 4 sought views on improving consumer confidence and accessibility for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. It focused primarily on compensation for repair or the replacement of wheelchairs or mobility aids in the event of damage or loss on a domestic UK flight. The consultation also sought views on what other reforms could be considered to encourage more support for passengers with accessibility requirements when travelling by air.

Recurring themes across the questions in this chapter included:

• the focus should be on avoiding damage to wheelchairs and mobility aids in the first place, with more and better training, guidance and processes
• the disconnect between industry and consumers around the use of travel insurance for wheelchairs and mobility aids. One airline indicated that their passengers preferred to use insurance, whereas one individual said that insurance is often hard to get
• industry was keen to ensure that disabled and less mobile passengers are properly protected, with some already waiving compensation limits. However, there were some concerns that increasing the compensation available may lead to fraudulent claims. This assertion was rebutted by some of the responses from consumer-facing groups. There were also suggestions of ways for the passenger and industry to agree on the condition of the equipment in order to avoid any fraudulent claims
• calls for working with manufacturers to ensure wheelchairs are built to withstand air travel, and to help provide information to those handling the equipment to help them secure and handle the items better
• consumer-facing responses said requirements to provide information can be difficult for passengers. Conversely, industry reiterated the importance of pre-notification and information in providing the best service. It was suggested passengers would benefit from an explanation of why they need to provide the information, and for industry to better share that information between themselves.

Q23. What are the advantages and disadvantages of special declarations for anyone travelling with a wheelchair or mobility equipment?

There were 28 responses to this question. It was clear that some (a mixture of individuals and range of organisation types) felt that the use of special declaration for wheelchairs and mobility equipment was an additional cost to disabled passengers and created another hoop for disabled people to jump through in order to travel by air, which could be considered discriminatory. One specific example of this is that the information needed for a special declaration may not be available to the consumer, so they may not be able to provide it. Therefore, some felt that special declarations were not appropriate. It was also clear that there is more to be done to ensure special declarations are more widely known about:

I have been flying as a paraplegic, full-time wheelchair user for about 30 years and I hadn’t even heard about the possibility of completing a special declaration about the value of my personal made-to-measure wheelchair until I read this consultation paper.

— Individual

I asked some friends whether they have ever heard of this when travelling with their power wheelchair, or were advised about this when booking, the answer was a negative.

— NGO

Other concerns included that mandating special declarations could result in:

• additional costs to airlines that would be passed onto consumers through ticket prices
• airlines being able to set disadvantageous limits for compensation, resulting in consumers remaining unsure they would receive sufficient compensation to repair or replace their wheelchair in the event of damage

The main advantage identified (mainly by organisations) of using special declarations was that it would give passengers peace of mind when travelling with a wheelchair or mobility aid. It was also suggested that it would ensure advance notice and could result in a higher level of care as airlines would be aware of the costs of the equipment.

Some respondents felt the current system is sufficient, with insurance available, which may be a preferable option for passengers. Conversely, others specifically indicated that the current cap for compensation for wheelchairs and mobility equipment should be removed.

Q24. What would be the impact of removing the need to pay a supplementary fee for wheelchairs and mobility equipment?

Removal of the supplementary fee was seen positively and as a fairer option that would reduce barriers and improve accessibility of aviation, thereby removing discrimination and improving consumer confidence. This was the opinion of both individuals and a mixture of organisation types (but not including airlines). It was also suggested by one advisory body that it could result in better stowage standards to avoid damage in the first place. Although one felt that it would have little impact because they are not widely known about.

Only 5 respondents (all from different parts of the industry) of the 27 indicated a disadvantage to removing the fee. These included believing that private insurance was a better option for passengers, that removal of the fee could increase the financial pressure on airlines, which would be passed onto passengers through ticket prices, or could result in airlines lowering the compensation caps for special declarations.

There was some misunderstanding (from airlines) about this question in relation to airlines not charging to carry wheelchairs and mobility equipment, which was not the focus of the question. All airlines are required to carry up to 2 mobility aids per person without charge, under Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2006 (as retained in UK law).

Q25. What evidence would it be reasonable to expect a passenger to provide to demonstrate like-for-like replacement/repair of a wheelchair or mobility equipment for a special declaration?

There was a range of options put forward from the 25 responses to this question. The main ones were receipts, quotes or statements from the manufacturer or place of purchase, such as stating market value, letters from a doctor or documents that include specifications and costs. Two airlines noted that they would deal with each situation on a case-by-case basis.

It was flagged, however, by an advisory group that getting this level of information can be difficult for the passenger. Others also noted that the onus should not be on passengers to ensure accessibility of aviation for all.

Other issues mentioned in response to this question included using photographs and checks or cataloguing the condition of any wheelchair or mobility aid before it is loaded to ensure there are no fraudulent claims. However, it was also noted that fraudulent claims for wheelchair or mobility aid damage are unlikely:

It is highly unlikely that a passenger would take an inoperable wheelchair on a flight in an attempt to gain compensation. They need an operational wheelchair to get to the airport and aircraft door.

— Individual

Some (mostly airlines) suggested that evidence in instances where damage has occurred could include a statement of costs or irreparability and that damage should be reported immediately.

Q26. What, if any, steps could be taken, beyond special declarations, to provide sufficient compensation for wheelchairs and mobility equipment damaged during transit on a domestic UK flight?

This question received 22 responses, with most (individuals and a mix of organisation types, including airlines) saying that full compensation for the costs of repair or replacement should be an automatic right in the event of damage or loss. Two respondents also called for this to be extended to international flights as well as domestic only. In addition, one consultant suggested that in addition to the compensation to address the damage, a fixed percentage of the cost of the flight should also be refunded.

It was clear from responses that the key focus should be on avoiding damage from occurring in the first place, with suggestions including:

• ensuring appropriate training
• incentives for better handling by ground handlers
• more transparency on how items are handled
• better data collection to understand the scale of the problem

One of the recurring themes across the questions in this chapter (mainly from industry groups) was that there should be work undertaken with manufacturers to ensure wheelchairs are made to be fit for travel by air.

Q27. Other than compensation for the damaged or lost wheelchair or mobility equipment, are there any additional provisions that would reduce the impact on an individual whose wheelchair or mobility equipment has been damaged in transit on a UK domestic flight?

Half of the 26 respondents to this question suggested that it would be helpful to have equipment available at airports that could be loaned to passengers on a temporary basis in the event of an unusable wheelchair/mobility aid. This group was made up mostly of industry, including airlines and trade bodies, but also included some individuals. Additionally, it was suggested that having technicians onsite who may be able to deal with smaller fixes, or airlines and airports working closely with a supplier nearby to arrange for faster repairs would be a positive step. One airline suggested that pre-notification could allow airlines to source replacements if needed. It was also clear that each case should be assessed on an individual basis to ensure the needs of the passenger are met.

There were also some calls (from a range of different respondent types) for compensation for consequential losses. Similarly, one respondent (disability NGO) suggested that the individual should be offered a return flight and compensation.

A longer-term suggestion from an airline included mandating that all gates should be independently accessible, with security processes to enable independent use of mobility aids throughout the airport and for passengers to remain in their wheelchairs right up until boarding.

Q28. What else could be done to protect wheelchairs and mobility equipment during carriage? What would the impact on the individual and the airline be?

The key message (from a range of different respondent types) from the 20 responses to this question was the importance of appropriate training and awareness of all staff and those handling the equipment. This should also be alongside better procedures, facilities and guidance for handling and securing equipment.

Longer-term recommendations (mainly from different organisation types) were for more innovation to enable better stowage solutions, such as:

• cameras in the hold to identify issues with damage
• designated spaces in the hold designed for wheelchair and mobility aid stowage
• protective materials

In addition, there were calls for work with manufacturers to develop wheelchairs that are more able to withstand the stresses of travel by plane, and to develop means of providing those who handle equipment all the information and instructions they need, such as a mobility aid “passport.”

Other options included mandatory reporting of cases of damage to provide data and act as an incentive for better handling and enabling passengers to stay with their equipment for as long as possible.

Q29. What other reforms can we consider to encourage more support for passengers with accessibility needs when travelling by air?

In 29 responses to this question, there was a wealth of information put forward on current barriers and options for improving accessibility. Responses were from across all respondent types. The overwhelming narrative for this question, and this chapter in general, was that it is of vital importance that all passengers are treated with dignity and that the focus should be on removing the barriers that disabled people face when travelling by air.

The top suggestion was around better information for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. This would help passengers to understand what their rights are and what they need to do to help the industry assist them better.

Members have told us that they find airline websites inaccessible or otherwise difficult to use.

— NGO

It was also flagged that there was a gap in resourcing levels and training across all staff that the passenger may come into contact with, including examples of people not being treated with dignity and respect:

There is also an issue, down to a lack of good quality disability equality training (DET), with airport security staff not understanding the needs of disabled people.

— NGO

Industry reiterated the importance of pre-notification to help provide a good service to passengers, and the effect of low levels of pre-notification on the support provided. However, it was flagged by consumer-facing groups that pre-notification requirements can be difficult for passengers who may not have the information they are asked for.

Recent pre-notification rates among the top 50 airlines at [our airport] in terms of PRS [passengers requiring support] numbers showed that no airline was above 70% and some airlines were as low as 1%. This means we often do not know a passenger requires support until the aircraft door opens and they are left waiting for assistance.

— Airport

There was also a suggestion that better communication between industry, government and the CAA would help ensure consistency in services provided.

There were some calls for enforceable remedies for breaches of consumer protection. These included, for example, for the CAA to:

• introduce an accessibility framework for airlines similar to the one already in place for airports that the CAA uses to assess airport compliance accessibility obligations

• have the power to award compensation to passengers where a business’ behaviour is found to be discriminatory:

Introduce an investigatory and compensatory scheme similar to that administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA).

Give the CAA power to fine, award compensation to passengers, and/or otherwise penalise airlines for discriminatory conduct.

— Individual

There were some responses (from consumer-facing respondents) that looked specifically at services, equipment and facilities available at airports that would help individuals to travel independently and/or with dignity, such as sky corridors and moving pavements, and facilities, such as changing places toilets and quiet spaces/sensory rooms. This also linked into the suggestion of sharing best practice between industry, better use of the airport accessibility panels and ensuring more disabled people are working in the aviation industry.

There were also some longer-term suggestions, such as for new aircraft to be designed accessibly, passengers to be able to travel in their own wheelchairs and exploration of the use of technology and innovation to improve consumer experience.

Better data collection was again suggested to improve understanding of the experiences of disabled passengers at each stage of their journey.

Government response

Accessibility in aviation remains a priority and more needs to be done to ensure everyone can travel with dignity and ease.

Disabled and less mobile passengers should be able to travel without worrying about their wheelchairs or mobility equipment being damaged. It should be an industry priority to ensure that damage does not happen. We will be working with industry on ways to ensure that this kind of equipment is handled appropriately in order to minimise that risk.

We have worked with the government-appointed Disability and Access Ambassador – Ann Frye OBE – to develop training for ground handlers on handling powered wheelchairs and the importance of ensuring they are properly and sensitively handled and secured. This will form part of DfT’s REAL training. We encourage industry to take up this training to help ensure more effective handling of powered wheelchairs and to understand the effects of not doing so.

If damage or loss does occur, it is obvious that the disruption and distress caused can be significant. We want passengers to receive sufficient compensation, appropriate to the value of the item and damage caused, and in good time. Some UK airlines already waive the Montreal Convention 1999 compensation cap. We will work with industry to encourage voluntary uptake of such waivers, and public commitment to fair and prompt compensation, for both domestic and international flights. We will legislate when parliamentary time allows to remove the cap for UK domestic flights.

We do not consider that special declarations are the most appropriate method for ensuring compensation that will cover any damage or loss of wheelchairs and mobility aids, as they put additional burden on the individual.

However, we recognise that more work still needs to be done to provide greater peace of mind for passengers while action is taken to ensure compensation covers any repair or replacement. Therefore, while this work is undertaken, special declarations should be an option for passengers if they wish to use them. We encourage airlines not to charge a fee for the use of a special declaration for any wheelchair or mobility equipment to help reduce the burden associated with this approach and to make sure information about their availability is clear and easy to access.

We are already undertaking activity to further strengthen the support for all disabled and less mobile passengers in some of the key areas raised. This includes working with industry and consumer groups to provide information to passengers on their rights and responsibilities through the Aviation Passenger Charter, which includes information for disabled and less mobile passengers. We will continue to review the Charter and consider ways to ensure information is accessible and meets passengers’ needs.

We understand that training for staff is vital to ensure passengers are treated with respect and based on their individual passenger needs. DfT, alongside transport sector professionals and people with personal experience of disability, developed a package of training to improve the sector’s confidence and skills in delivering inclusive journeys for disabled passengers. The training was designed for all transport modes and includes mode-specific aviation modules. We will consider options for re-promoting these training modules in aviation and consider further evaluation of their use.

We will continue to work with Ann Frye OBE, whose role is to help drive forward improvements for accessibility in the industry. Ann’s work includes reviewing the use of access panels at airports to consider if there are any improvements that could be made, as well as sharing best practice.

The CAA is also committed to introducing an airline accessibility framework, similar to the one already in place for airports, and they published a consultation on this framework in April 2023. The commitment to providing the CAA with additional administrative powers to enforce consumer rights, outlined in Chapter 1, will apply to the rights of disabled and less mobile passengers (under Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2006 (as retained in UK law).

We have begun further engagement with stakeholders and the CAA and intend to continue this work with service users with personal experience, to further understand the barriers to flying faced by disabled and less mobile passengers, and what more can be done to help support them.

Chapter 5: Public sector equality duty and other questions

Q30. Please provide an indication of how you think the policies set out in this consultation would affect people who share protected characteristics.

For those who responded to this question (27 responses from a mixture of individuals and organisation types), there was a general consensus that the proposals in chapters 1, 2 and 4 were positive for various groups with protected characteristics, most notably for disabled people.

There were, however, some issues raised that could have a negative impact:

• the proposal set out in chapter 3 on compensation for delayed flights was seen as potentially having a discriminatory impact on disabled people, older people and those in some (often more remote) areas of the UK

• for chapter 2, some thought having a fee for consumers in relation to ADR could disproportionately affect individuals on lower incomes. The respondent who highlighted this specifically referred to the ethnicity pay gap

• research from one individual (expert in EU law) suggested that the young and old were more vulnerable in understanding their rights and being able to secure redress.

We have noted these points and will take them into account in the development of any new policy under the public sector equality duty.

Q31. Do you have any further information or evidence in response to the questions in the impact assessments published alongside this consultation?

There were only 5 responses to this question.

In relation to the impact assessment on compensation, feedback included:

• one individual said the document confused 2 concepts:

  • the level of compensation being proportionate to disruption for the consumer
  • the level of compensation being proportionate to the price of the ticket

• a couple of respondents were concerned about some of the data and did not feel it was sufficiently evidenced

• one respondent said it needed to include an assessment of the impact on the devolved administrations

In relation to the impact assessment for ADR, one criticism was that it does not include consideration of the benefits of an ombudsman and does not compare CAA’s enforcement of individual cases to ADR, nor does it consider the requirements of Regulation (EC) No.1107/2006 in relation to enforcement.

There was also a suggestion from one respondent that there should be a more detailed look into the different impacts between manual and powered wheelchairs.

We will take these points into consideration in any future policy development and impact assessments.

Q32. Do you have any further information or evidence to add to your response to this consultation not covered elsewhere in your response?

There were a few additional issues raised by 20 respondents (a mix of respondent types), examples of which are set out below.

The most common comment in response to this question was around the response to consumer protections being fragmented, with multiple government departments leading on different parts of the travel sector and multiple consultations on various aspects. Those who raised this called for a cohesive approach to the travel sector overall.

Others raised further issues around accessibility, including a call to reform Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2006 to include protection from discriminatory treatment of those with protected characteristics and removal of the pre-notification requirement. In addition, one respondent asked for clarity on how assistance dogs are carried, such as guidance on where the dog should be while onboard the aircraft.

Some industry respondents called on government not to over-regulate the sector or add additional burdens, and to consider any unintended consequences that might be caused. A response from a travel agent flagged that they would want to see a formal legal right for consumers to use a booking intermediary and that those who chose to do so should receive the same level of customer service from airlines as other consumers.

We have taken all comments on this question into account and will keep these issues under review. If necessary, we will take steps to develop a further understanding of the issues and consider what next steps may be needed.