Ares(2026)3191893

Factual summary report on the public consultation for a possible revision of the Air Services Regulation

This document should be regarded solely as a summary of the responses to the public consultation, that took place between 12 August and 15 December 2025, on a possible revision of the Air Services Regulation. It cannot in any circumstances be regarded as the official position of the Commission or its services. Responses to the consultation activities cannot be considered as a representative sample of the views of the public or stakeholders more generally.

1.Objective of the consultation

The Air Services Regulation is the framework governing access to the EU internal market for aviation and determines the right of EU airlines to operate freely within the EU, the right to freely set their prices, and how ticket prices should be displayed to consumers. The objective of the consultation was to obtain the views of citizens, Member States and relevant stakeholders on the problem definition (ten identified problems), objectives (general and specific) and policy measures considered for the possible revision of the Air Services Regulation.

The public consultation took the form of an online survey, with a mix of closed and open questions. The questionnaire was published in 24 EU official languages. Participants to the questionnaires could reply in any of the EU official languages. This public consultation was also promoted through Twitter and DG MOVE’s website.

2. Respondents overview

There was a total of 143 respondents to the public consultation across twelve stakeholder groups with the largest being trade unions (31) 1 , air carriers (29) and Member States national authorities (26). Overall, respondents represented a wide geographic distribution. The largest number of respondents (25) came from Belgium, as many associations providing European-level representation are registered in this Member State. The second and third largest shares of respondents came from Germany (21 respondents) and France (11 respondents), followed by Sweden and Italy, with 9 respondents each.

3.Results of the public consultation

The statistics computed in this summary are based only on contributions to the closed questions of the public consultation submitted through the online questionnaire. In addition to the replies provided through the questionnaires, 41 position papers and contributions were sent outside the online tool, mainly by public authorities and business organisations. This summary presents only the results reflecting stakeholders’ level of agreement with the objectives of the revision, the problem statements and the proposed policy measures. It does not include the results concerning stakeholders’ views on the severity of each identified problem or their level of agreement with the problem drivers.

All these aspects which are not summarised in this document will be nevertheless taken into account in the preparation of the legal proposal and the accompanying impact assessment report (the staff working document will include a synopsis report reflecting all stakeholder consultation activities).

3.1General objectives

Stakeholders were questioned on their level of agreement with the general objective of the revision: “shape a more resilient, competitive and more sustainable air services industry, while maintaining the highest levels of air safety and continuing to ensure connectivity, to protect consumer interests, and preserve high quality employment”. 39 respondents strongly agreed and 87 agreed out of a total of 143 respondents. Only 1 disagreed and 1 strongly disagreed, while 15 respondents selected no opinion.

3.2Specific objectives

Stakeholders were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each specific objective. The results below show the level of agreement calculated as the sum of respondents who selected agree or strongly agree out of a total of 143 stakeholders.

3.2.1Improve regulatory resilience and the good functioning of the air services market. 117 respondents agreed.

3.2.2Support the global competitiveness of EU air carriers. 102 participants agreed.

3.2.3Promote environmentally sustainable and socially responsible connectivity. 100 participants agreed with the objective.

3.2.4Help consumers to make better informed choices. 117 participants agreed with the objective.

3.2.5Simplify rules and reduce administrative burden. 87 participants agreed with the objective.

3.3Problems

Stakeholders were asked on their level of agreement with the ten identified problems. The results are explained below by reflecting the level of agreement, calculated as the sum of respondents who selected agree or strongly agree, with the problem statement. The total number of respondents varies across problems, as not all participants provided an answer to every question.

§Problem 1: The EU air services market is not sufficiently resilient in the face of disruptions and crises. 83 out of 100 of stakeholders responded positively to the suggestion that the EU market is not sufficiently resilient in the face of disruptions and crises.

§Problem 2: Elevated costs and an unequal playing field hamper EU air carriers’ ability to rebuild balance sheets and compete internationally, potentially undermining decarbonisation efforts. 75 out of 83 respondents agree with Problem 2.

§Problem 3: Difficulties to implement environmental flight bans and questions about the effectiveness of this tool to promote sustainable connectivity

oProblem 3a: There is a lack of clarity about when national authorities may implement flight bans on environmental grounds to address climate change. 59 respondents out of 74 agree with problem 3a.

oProblem 3b: There is a lack of clarity about use of flight bans to address other environmental problems. 45 respondents out of 62 agree with Problem 3b.

§ Problem 4: Challenges exist for authorities to fully enforce applicable labour laws for aircrews. 48 respondents out of 59 agree with Problem 4.

§Problem 5: Customers are not always able to make fully informed choices on air tickets. 67 respondents out of 84 agree with Problem 5.

§Problem 6: Traffic distribution rules (TDR) may have an unjustified discriminatory impact on carriers. 24 respondents out of 37 agreed with the statement.

§Problem 7: Unclear legal framework for operators of Innovative Aerial Services (IAS), and risk of disproportionate obligations or imbalance with manned aviation

oProblem 7a: Air services market rules are unclear as to whether IAS including drone-based services fall within the scope of the Air Services Regulation. Problem 7a shows 48 respondents out of 52 agreeing with the statement.

oProblem 7b: There is a risk that imposing air services market rules on businesses such as air taxis and drone-based delivery services would be disproportionate. Problem 7b shows 32 out of 60 respondents agreeing with the statement.

§Problem 8: Requirement for safety prior approval of intra-EU leases is no longer necessary as all EU aircraft operators are subject to the same rules. Problem 8 shows 31 respondents agreeing, while 30 disagreed out of a total of 61.

§Problem 9: Leasing requirements limit air carriers’ financial and operational flexibility. Problem 9 shows 34 out of 48 stakeholders agreeing.

§Problem 10: Authorities are not able to sufficiently take into account justified environmental considerations when imposing PSOs

oProblem 10a: Authorities are not able to sufficiently take into account justified environmental considerations when imposing PSOs. Problem 10a shows 36 respondents out 58 agreeing with the statement.

oProblem 10b: Air services market rules for PSOs are inflexible and/or unclear about how authorities may take into consideration environmental criteria. Problem 10b shows 39 respondents out of 58 agreeing with the statement.

3.4Level of agreement with the proposed policy measures

Stakeholders were asked to express their views on a long list of initial policy measures that could address the problems identified. The tables below present the level of agreement for each proposed measure, calculated as the sum of respondents who selected agree or strongly agree. Other response options included disagree, strongly disagree, and no opinion. The percentages are calculated on the basis of the number of responses received for each question, as respondents were not required to answer all questions.

Problem 1: The EU air services market is not sufficiently resilient in the face of disruptions and crises
N.	Proposed policy measure	Level of agreement
1	Require Member States to assess regularly the crisis resilience of large passenger air carriers.	62.9%
2	Clarify that the existing capital requirements for air carriers (ability to meet fixed and operational costs without taking into account revenue from operations for three months) apply on an ongoing basis.	64.3%
3	Increase capital requirements for air carriers (ability to meet fixed and operational costs without taking into account revenue from operations) from three to six months.	49.1%
4	Require large passenger carriers to have in place contingency arrangements (insurance, convertible bonds, credit lines or similar agreements) to prevent cash reserves going below the level required to maintain an operating licence.	49.1%
5	Oblige Member States to share information with each other to facilitate operating licence supervision.	91%
6	Repeal the system of temporary licences and replace it with a system based on a structured dialogue between the authority and the air carrier.	77.8%
7	Provide Member States with the possibility of a structured dialogue for carriers in financial difficulties, alongside the system of temporary licences.	86.5%
8	Encourage airlines to offer cheap tickets to passengers who need to be repatriated when an airline goes bankrupt (“rescue fares”), including to passengers who booked their tickets via intermediary ticket vendors.	51.8%
9	Require Member States to nominate a Member State authority as responsible for coordinating the repatriation of EU residents and EU citizens with a return ticket to a Member State, in a situation that is not an emergency one and where commercial flights are available. This would include liaising with counterparts and airlines, negotiating rescue fares and providing information to affected passengers through its website and other channels.	60%
10	Create reimbursement and repatriation guarantee funds, paid for by a surcharge on all air tickets, allowing passengers and package travel organisers to draw on in the event of flight cancellations, where the air carrier is unable to ensure reimbursement and, if necessary, repatriation due to insolvency or serious liquidity problems.	34.9%
11	Create passenger guarantee funds, paid for by a surcharge on all air tickets, allowing passengers and package travel organisers to draw on in the event of flight cancellations, where the air carrier is unable to ensure reimbursement due to serious liquidity problems, but where the air carrier does not enter insolvency and retains its operating licence.	26.1%
12	Allow Member States to award an emergency PSO for a short pre-defined period in the event of a sudden interruption of service on existing open PSO routes after which they would need to tender the route.	96.3%
13	In the event of a sudden crisis where basic connectivity needs to be ensured, authorise Member States to award a PSO directly for a short pre-defined period on routes which were not subject to a PSO, and allow this awarded PSO to be renewed/prolonged a limited number of times.	92.4%
14	Allow Member States to extend limitations on traffic rights for up to three months rather than the current 14 days at a time, in the event of a persistent crisis of longer duration, and remove the obligation for the Commission to formally approve extensions of limitations on traffic rights imposed by Member States.	46.5%
15	Require Member States to ensure a common minimum strike notice period (including individual prior notifications) of 15 days for ATC strikes.	60.3%
16	Require Member States to ensure the preservation of all overflights in the event of ATC strikes.	51.7%
17	Require Member States to ensure the preservation of all intra-EU overflights in the event of ATC strikes.	43.6%
18	Make Member States liable for compensation and reimbursement to passengers in the event of delay/cancellation to overflights due to ATC strikes in their Member States.	32.1%
Problem 2: Elevated costs and an unequal playing field hamper EU air carriers’ ability to rebuild balance sheets and compete internationally, potentially undermining decarbonisation efforts
N.	Proposed policy measure		Level of agreement
19	Clarification of the current O&C rules, in particular for complex structures.		93.6%
20	Remove all ownership restrictions but maintain the requirement for EU effective control.		19.1%
21	Relaxation of O&C rules for non-EU institutional investors only (e.g. pension funds).		28.4%
22	Case-by-case relaxation of O&C rules for investors from certain non-EU countries.		29.2%
23	Relaxation of O&C rules for all investors, with an aviation-specific screening mechanism to address strategic concerns.		30.9%
24	Require passengers to be informed at the start of the booking process about air tickets where one or more legs is not covered by EU legislation aimed at decarbonising aviation.		71.6%
25	Provide an EU-level framework enabling Member States to impose a levy on journeys with a departure point in the EU, where one or more legs of that journey is not subject to EU legislation aimed at decarbonising aviation or equivalent non-EU-country or international rules. The levy would cover the full journey from departure to final destination and would serve to mitigate carbon leakage risks.		52.1%
26	Require Member States to impose a levy on journeys with a departure point in the EU, where one or more legs of that journey is not subject to EU legislation aimed at decarbonising aviation or equivalent non-EU-country or international rules. The levy would cover the full journey from departure to final destination and would serve to mitigate carbon leakage risks.		53.1%
27	Add the fuel-taxation clause to the standard list of clauses Member States are required to include in their bilateral air services agreements with non-EU countries.		55.4%
28	Require passengers to be informed at the start of the booking process about air carriers which do not comply with the EASA Conflict Zone Alert System guidance, that their flight may pass over a conflict zone.		76.1%
29	Allow Member States to impose a departure/arrival levy on flights operated by air carriers which do not comply with the EASA Conflict Zone Alert System.		61.8%
30	Remove the possibility for non-EU-country carriers to operate intra-EU air services, unless authorised through an agreement with a non-EU-country to which the EU is a party		63.5%
Problem 3: Lack of clarity around environmental flight bans and questions over the effectiveness of environmental flight bans in promoting sustainable connectivity
N.	Proposed policy measure		Level of agreement
31	Require Member States to receive prior approval of the Commission for proposals to ban or limit flights for serious environmental reasons (instead of the current Commission power to suspend non-compliant measures).		66.2%
32	Allow Member States to ban or limit flights for serious global environmental reasons, such as climate change, only when other available measures are exhausted, including if more sustainable modes of transport offer comparable connectivity for the route (such as in terms of frequencies and time schedules).		36.7%
33	Allow Member States to require zero emissions aircraft on short routes (under 500 km), where the market is sufficiently developed to ensure competition between air carriers on the route, without a disproportionate impact on connectivity or price. and on a non-discriminatory basis among EU air carriers		45.2%
34	Require Member States to carry out a consultation of interested parties and conduct a full impact assessment before banning or limiting flights for serious environmental reasons, similar to those imposed under Regulation (EU) No 598/2014 (Balanced Approach Regulation) in respect of noise-related operating restrictions.		85.1%
Problem 4: Challenges exist for authorities to fully enforce applicable labour laws for aircrews
N.	Proposed policy measure		Level of agreement
35	Require carriers to notify the relevant authorities when they open an operational base outside their principal place of business (PPoB).		86.2%
36	Require carriers to notify the relevant authorities when they assign any aircrew to an operational base outside their PPoB, including in the context of a wet lease.		85.4%
37	Require the relevant authorities in the PPoB Member State to notify the relevant authorities in another Member State when a carrier opens an operational base or makes recourse to a wet lease in that Member State.		91.5%
38	Clarify what constitutes an operational base outside the carrier’s PPoB.		86.3%
Problem 5: Customers are not always able to make fully informed choices on air tickets
N.	Proposed policy measure		Level of agreement
39	Require anyone offering tickets for sale to communicate which price elements are reimbursable if the passenger cancels or does not turn up for boarding (‘no-show’).		97.2%
40	Display the price of optional price supplements next to the fare.		82.6%
41	Require that all air tickets include an item of hand luggage with dimensions 40cm x 30cm x 20cm and the ability to sit with others in the same booking.		76.8%
42	Require that all air tickets include at least an item of hand luggage or an item of checked luggage with dimensions 56cm x 45cm x 25cm and the ability to sit with others in the same booking.		50.8%
43	Require that air carriers allow all passengers in a booking to sit together at no extra cost if there are children in the booking.		73.8%
44	Require air carriers to allow all passengers in a booking to sit together at no extra cost.		50.9%
45	Require air carriers to display clearly the policy on carriage of unaccompanied minors at the start of the booking process.		83%
46	Require air carriers to allow unaccompanied minors to fly with them.		52.2%
47	Require air carriers to display clearly the policy on carriage of pets at the start of the booking process.		78.5%
48	Require air carriers to allow passengers to bring pets with them in the cabin as long as they comply with safety rules.		48.7%
Problem 6: Traffic distribution rules (TDRs) may have an unjustified discriminatory impact on carriers
N.		Proposed policy measure	Level of agreement
49		Remove the possibility for Member States to impose traffic distribution rules.	30.5%
50		Clarify the existing framework for traffic distribution rules.	76.2%
Problem 7: There is an unclear legal framework for operators of innovative aerial services (IAS), and a risk of disproportionate obligations or imbalance when compared with manned aviation
N.		Proposed policy measure	Level of agreement
51		Clarify that open and specific category drone operations are out of scope of the Air Services Regulation.	57.6%
52		Clarify that certified category drone operations are in scope of the Air Services Regulation.	94.3%
53		Introduce lighter licensing requirements for small-scale (certified category) drone operations and comparable manned operations.	59.2%
Problem 8: The requirement for safety prior approval of intra-EU leases is no longer necessary as all EU aircraft operators are subject to the same safety rules
N.		Proposed policy measure	Level of agreement
54		Remove the requirement for a safety prior approval of intra-EU leases.	51.6%
Problem 9: Leasing requirements limit air carriers’ financial and operational flexibility
N.		Proposed policy measure	Level of agreement
55		Clarify the requirements/evidence required for prior approval for leasing from non-EU-country carriers.	94%
56		Liberalise the leasing of aircraft from non-EU-country carriers (with safeguards to ensure that non-EU crew are subject to EU labour law).	29.7%
Problem 10: Authorities are not able to sufficiently take into account justified environmental considerations when imposing public service obligations (PSOs)
N.		Proposed policy measure	Level of agreement
57		Clarify that environmental considerations can be taken into account as part of the evaluation of bids for PSOs (e.g. in the form of extra points for environmental performance).	74.2%
58		Extend the maximum length of PSO contracts beyond the current 4/5 years to facilitate PSO operators’ investment in fleet renewal.	76.6%

(1)

The statistical results shown on the consultation website indicate a different number of replies per stakeholder group. This difference is due to the fact that a limited number of organisations submitted their replies under the NGO category, whereas in the charts presented in this report they have been classified under the trade union category.

Choose the experimental features you want to try