Access to Fly: A Review of International, U.S., and Canadian Air Travel Policies for Passengers with Disabilities

Abstract

People with disabilities continue to face significant barriers when flying, despite decades of policies enacted to protect their rights and ensure equitable and dignified access. These challenges are often linked not to a lack of policy but to inconsistencies, fragmentation, and unclear responsibilities across operators and jurisdictions. This review examines international, U.S., and Canadian air travel policies to assess their comprehensiveness, coherence, and alignment across jurisdictions, to promote accessible air travel for travelers with disabilities. We conducted a structured policy review following Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. We systematically identified, selected, charted, and analyzed 28 U.S. policies, Canadian policies, and international guidelines. Policy content was compared using the themes of a scoping review on air travel experiences of people with disabilities and the Disability Policy Lens to examine definitions, aims, and coverage. Findings highlighted substantial variation across jurisdictions in the allocation of responsibilities among actors and the specificity of policy provisions. These variations contribute to uneven interpretation and implementation of accessibility measures, shaping inconsistent travel experiences for people with disabilities. International guidelines have the potential to serve as an important reference point, but currently lack comprehensiveness. There is a need for greater cross-jurisdictional coherence in air travel policies.

1. Introduction

Approximately one in four Americans and one in four Canadians have a disability [1,2]. People with disabilities routinely encounter barriers that limit their participation as equal members of society, constraining the full enjoyment of their human rights [3]. Accessible mobility options, including air travel, are essential for supporting their participation [4]. Moreover, accessible air travel benefits not only individuals with disabilities but also contributes to economic activity and enriches the lives of all travelers [5].

Many travelers with disabilities have had at least one negative experience when flying, leading some individuals to give up air travel altogether [6]. In 2023, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) received a total of 49,082 disability-related complaints, with the majority concerning the failure to provide assistance to travelers with disabilities [7]. Authors argued that these problems do not arise from a lack of regulation, but from inconsistencies in policy requirements and a lack of coordination across different actors in the air travel system [8,9]. Our recent scoping review of the literature on air travel experiences of individuals with disabilities further highlighted how the non-standardized and fragmented nature of air travel policies could create inconsistent and inequitable experiences for travelers with disabilities [10]. Policy variations across airports and airlines, both domestically and internationally, affect not only travelers’ comfort but also their understanding of what assistance to expect at different stages of the journey [9].

1.1. Role and Importance of Air Travel Policies

Because these barriers persist despite existing regulations, it is essential to understand the role and effectiveness of air travel policies. In the U.S., the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) was among the first to explicitly prohibit airlines from discriminating against passengers based on disability, affirming their right to access air travel [9,11]. International organizations, such as the International Air Transport Association (IATA), have recently started to emphasize the importance of creating policies on inclusive design and operations to protect the rights of air travelers with disabilities [12].

Policies serve as the mechanisms through which governments operationalize commitments to inclusion into concrete actions [13,14,15]. They help establish the standards that shape the everyday experiences of individuals with disabilities, including for transportation [16]. When policies are clearly written and effectively implemented, they facilitate equitable participation by ensuring accessible aircraft design, consistent assistance, and responsive complaint mechanisms [17]. Conversely, ambiguous or poorly designed policies can create uncertainty and negative experiences for travelers with disabilities, such as unfair disability accommodation strategies, inadequate staff training, and loss or damage of assistive devices [10]. Thus, examining policy comprehensiveness, coherence, and alignment across jurisdictions is critical for promoting accessible air travel [9,10].

1.2. Context of Air Travel Policies Examined

Considering this gap, we need to map who is responsible for each facility or service within each domain to enable us to identify where practices are consistent across the different entities, which are the airlines and the airport. It is also important to see how they align or diverge, potentially leading to gaps in services or uneven accessibility for travelers with disabilities. In this paper, we reviewed international and national policies—particularly those of Canada and the U.S.—to identify gaps, inconsistencies, and areas of fragmentation, and to compare how different policies support travelers with disabilities.

We focused on U.S. and Canadian policies, primarily because in both countries, federal authorities regulate the entire air transportation system, which encompasses airline and airport operations. This centralized governance provides uniform regulation for safety, accessibility, and consumer protection as air transportation crosses provincial/state borders. Both countries have several provisions for people with disabilities and have well-established legislation promoting accessible air transportation, including the ACAA in the U.S. and the Accessible Canada Act (ACA) [15,18,19]. Moreover, these countries have an Open Skies Agreement that created frequent transboundary travel between the two countries [20,21]. Airlines in the U.S. and Canada frequently operate under code-share agreements, which means that passengers may book their travel through one carrier while being served by another [22].

We also included international guidelines, as they oversee the aviation sectors worldwide, aiming to achieve uniformity and consistency across countries [23]. Although international aviation bodies such as the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the IATA do not function as legal jurisdictions, their standards and recommended practices shape how national governments develop and update accessibility regulations [24,25]. These international guidelines are directed at airlines and airport operators, while allowing national governments to determine how responsibilities for accessibility are allocated within their domestic regulatory frameworks. The U.S. and Canada, as ICAO member states, align aspects of their domestic aviation policies with these international guidelines even though these standards are not legally binding. Including them allows us to contextualize national regulations, highlight gaps and differences, and explore pathways for harmonizing accessible air travel standards. For clarity, we use “jurisdictions” throughout this review to refer to each regulatory level examined (international, U.S., and Canada), recognizing that international aviation bodies do not function as legal jurisdictions but issue standards that influence national policy development and implementation.

This policy review examined existing air travel policies to determine how comprehensive and coherent they are across the different actors, such as airlines and airports, in promoting accessible air travel across all levels of service provision. It sought to answer the following research questions that are critical to mapping the policy landscape and identifying both strengths and shortcomings in existing laws:

• What international guidelines and U.S. and Canadian policies govern the accessible air travel of passengers with disabilities?
• How do those policies define disabilities and who is covered, and how do those definitions align?
• How do international, U.S., and Canadian air travel policies compare in mandated services for travelers with disabilities and the responsibilities assigned to stakeholders?
• What are the gaps and divergences in terms of content in these policies that affect the coordination of services for travelers with disabilities?

2. Methods

The methodology for this policy review of air travel policies followed an approach similar to the structured framework outlined by Arksey and O’Malley for scoping reviews, to guide the systematic identification and analysis of relevant policies [26]. The process involved four stages: (1) determining the search question; (2) identifying and selecting all relevant policies for detailed analysis; (3) documenting and charting the policies according to key concepts; and (4) collating and summarizing the findings of the selected policies.

2.1. Determining the Search Question

To identify relevant policies, our search question was: “What are the international guidelines and national legislations from the U.S. and Canada that regulate accessible air travel for people with disabilities?”

2.2. Identifying and Selecting All Relevant Policies for Detailed Analysis

The inclusion criteria for the federal policies for Canada and the US were: (1) addressing air travel or any of its components (e.g., booking, airports, in-flight experience); (2) focusing on passengers with disabilities; (3) issued by a recognized governmental body; (4) being legally binding; and (5) being written in English. Policies that had been repealed or were non-binding (e.g., advisories, recommendations) were excluded.

We also included international guidelines, which, as mentioned, are non-binding standards issued by recognized international organizations. They serve as important reference documents that inform, influence, and harmonize national approaches to accessibility in air travel across countries. Thus, including these documents allowed us to capture broader normative directions and compare how national legislation aligns or diverges from global standards. We used the following inclusion criteria: (1) addressed air travel or its components; (2) focused on passengers with disabilities; (3) were issued by a recognized international organization; and (4) were written in English.

A structured search strategy was developed to identify relevant American and Canadian federal policies as well as the international guidelines for air travel and disability. Using the PICO for qualitative research, the key search terms used were: disability (population), accessibility and rights (phenomenon of interest), and air travel (context). We used truncations (*) to allow for inclusion of word variants (e.g., disabled, accessible). These keywords were combined using Boolean operators to ensure comprehensive retrieval of policies addressing the rights and accommodations of travelers with disabilities. The final list of policies identified was reviewed by the project’s community partners, who possess expertise in policies and air travel of people with disabilities, to ensure accuracy and completeness.

We searched for national-level policies using the official government websites of Canada and the United States related to policies and transportation. Canadian websites included the Government of Canada Publications (publications.gc.ca), Transport Canada (tc.canada.ca), and the Canadian Transportation Agency (otc-cta.gc.ca). For the US, we searched the websites of the U.S. Congress (congress.gov), the U.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo.gov), the U.S. Department of Transportation (transportation.gov), and the Federal Aviation Administration (faa.gov). To identify relevant international guidelines, we searched the websites of the two recognized international organizations overseeing the aviation industry: the ICAO, a United Nations agency helping countries to cooperate in sharing their skies; and the IATA, an inter-airline cooperation that promotes safe, reliable, secure, and economical air services [24,25]. The search was conducted between May and August of 2024 and updated in November 2025 to ensure the inclusion of any newly issued or amended documents. No additional eligible policies were identified with the updated search.

2.3. Documenting and Charting the Policies According to Key Concepts

Relevant policies were independently documented and charted by three trained research assistants, which included the first author, using a standardized data extraction form designed to organize information in alignment with the research questions. The extraction was overseen by the first author, a Ph.D. candidate with experience in policy review of transportation and disabilities (see [16]). For each policy, we recorded the year it was enacted and updated (if applicable), the stated purpose, the entity responsible for implementing the provisions, i.e., airline or airport operators, and the content or provisions of the policy specifically relevant to services for air travelers with disabilities.

Additionally, the policy content was documented using questions from the Disability Policy Lens, developed by the Canadian Disability Policy Alliance [27]. This lens comprises seven questions, including sub-questions, and examines how policies are framed in relation to people with disabilities. Using the lens supports a critical understanding of the implicit or explicit assumptions about the identities, perceived needs, and social positioning of people with disabilities [27]. We specifically used Q2 and Q3 to answer our research questions. Q2 examined how disability is defined in the policies by asking the sub-questions: (a) How is disability defined; (b) Who is considered disabled according to the policy; and (c) Does the policy refer specifically to people with physical, cognitive, sensory, or mental illness or permanent, long-standing, temporary, episodic, severe, moderate, or mild disability? The Q3 sought to determine the aim of the policy. It distinguishes between three aims: Access, i.e., to enhance accessibility and enable participation; Support, i.e., to provide resources to acquire goods and services; or Equity, i.e., to be free from discrimination and protect human rights [28].

2.4. Collating and Summarizing the Findings of the Selected Policies

The first author independently collated and summarized the included policies. The policies were first grouped by jurisdiction (international guidelines, U.S. policies, and Canadian policies) to enable structured comparison. Policy content within each jurisdiction was then categorized according to a set of themes and categories identified from our recent scoping review on the air travel experiences of people with disabilities [10]. Using the themes to frame the analysis enabled us to examine the comprehensiveness of policies within and across jurisdictions and examine how policies addressed the factors identified in the literature as influencing the experiences of air travelers with disabilities. Each theme encompassed specific categories representing factors that shape travelers’ experiences: (1) information-related services, including booking and flight; (2) personnel interaction, encompassing knowledge and attitudes; (3) built infrastructure, covering airport and airline facilities; (4) assistive devices, including both personal and operator-provided devices; and (5) protocols and procedures, covering service protocols and disability accommodation strategies. Information was then presented side by side to allow us to identify policy content that appeared across jurisdictions and content that differed. Finally, the principal investigator (second author) reviewed the extracted information to ensure accuracy, consistency, and alignment with the aims and research questions of the policy review.

3. Results

3.1. Overview

We identified 28 relevant air travel policies and guidelines internationally, in the U.S., and in Canada. The names of the policies or guidelines, their jurisdiction, year of enactment, update, and aims are shown in Table 1. The review included seven international guidelines, nine Canadian policies, and 12 US policies enacted or updated between 1968 and 2024. The policy number, as listed in Table 1, will be provided in parentheses in the section below.

Table 1. Overview of included International, U.S., and Canadian Air Travel Policies for people with disabilities and their aims.

Policy No.	Name of Law/Policy	Jurisdiction	Year Enacted/ Updated	What Is the Aim?
				Access	Support	Equity
P1.	IATA Battery powered wheelchair and mobility aid guidance document 1	International	2022	X
P2.	IATA Guidance on the Transport of Mobility Aids 1	International	2023		X
P3.	IATA Ground Operations Manual 1	International	2012/2015		X	X
P4.	IATA Resolution on passengers with disabilities 1	International	2019			X
P5.	ICAO Accessibility in International Civil Aviation (Res A41-15) 1	International	2022	X	X	X
P6.	ICAO Facilitation to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Annex 9) 1	International	1949/2017	X	X	X
P7.	ICAO Manual on Access to Air Transport by persons with disabilities (Doc 9984) 1	International	2013	X	X	X
P8.	Accessible Canada Act (SC 2019 c10)	Canada	2019/2023	X		X
P9.	Accessible Transportation for persons with disabilities Regulations (SOR/2019-244)	Canada	2019	X	X	X
P10.	Accessible Transportation Planning and Reporting Regulations (SOR/202-243)	Canada	2021		X
P11.	Air Passenger Protection Regulations (SOR/2019-150)	Canada	2019/2022	X	X
P12.	Air Transportation Regulations—Part VII (SOR/88-58)	Canada	1987/2021		X	X
P13.	Aircraft Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities—Code of Practice	Canada	2016	X	X
P14.	Canada Transportation Act (SC 1996 c10)	Canada	1996/2023	X	X
P15.	Personnel Training for the Assistance of Persons with Disabilities Regulations (SOR/94-42)	Canada	1994/2020		X
P16.	Removing communication barriers for travellers with disabilities—Code of Practice	Canada	2004/2020	X	X	X
P17.	Air Carrier Access Act (49 USC 41705)	U.S.	1986/2003	X	X	X
P18.	Air Carrier Access Act Regulations (14 CFR 382)	U.S.	2008	X	X	X
P19.	Americans with Disabilities Act (42 USC 12101-12213)	U.S.	1990/2008			X
P20.	Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Specification for Transportation Vehicles (49 CFR 38)	U.S.	1991	X
P21.	Americans with Disabilities Act Regulations (28 CFR 35&36)	U.S.	1991			X
P22.	Architectural Barrier Act (4 USC 51)	U.S.	1968/1976	X
P23.	Architectural Barrier Act Regulations (41 CFR 102-76)	U.S.	2005	X
P24.	FAA Reauthorization Act (PL 118-63)	U.S.	2024	X	X
P25.	Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act Regulations (49 CFR 27)	U.S.	1979	X	X
P26.	Section 508 Accessibility Policy (FAA Order 1370.120A)	U.S.	2021	X	X	X
P27.	Standards and procedures essential for ensuring access to airport facilities by persons with disabilities (FAA Order 1400.9B)	U.S.	2021	X	X
P28.	Transportation Services for individuals with disabilities (49 CFR 37)	U.S.	1991	X

¹ International guidelines serve as recommendations for airlines and member states. IATA = International Air Transport Association, ICAO = International Civil Aviation Organization.

3.2. How Disability Is Defined by Policies (Q2)

The conceptualization of disability in international aviation guidelines reflected a narrow understanding of who qualifies for accommodations and the types of support they may require. Only two of the four IATA guidelines provided an explicit definition of disability. These definitions conceptualized disability by emphasizing reduced mobility and individual limitations as the basis for eligibility for assistance. Similarly, two out of three of the ICAO guidelines defined disability in terms of reduced mobility and individual impairment, emphasizing passengers who require special attention or service adaptations. While international guidelines acknowledged both visible and invisible disabilities, the overall framing remains rooted in functional limitations, highlighting personal conditions requiring special attention and service adaptation.

The definition in US policies is more comprehensive, while still focusing on impairment. Seven U.S. policies explicitly adopt the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) definition, which covers “those with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits at least one major life activity, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment”. Among U.S. policies, only the ACAA and its regulations explicitly include passengers with temporary disabilities, as long as they substantially limit life activities. However, five U.S. policies still did not provide a definition of disability.

Canada’s air travel policies vary in how they define disability, ranging from broad, barrier-focused definitions to narrower, limitation-based ones, while many policies provide no definition at all. Two foundational policies, the Accessible Canada Act and the Canadian Transportation Act, provided a broad definition of disability that encompassed “any impairment or functional limitation—whether permanent, temporary, or episodic, evident or not—that, in interaction with a barrier, hinders full and equal participation in society.” Another policy, SOR/94-42, offered a narrower definition based on functional limitations. Six out of the nine included policies lacked a definition of disability (one due to the repeal of the provided definition).

3.3. Aim of the Policies (Q3)

The distribution of policy aims across access, support, and equity reflects the intentions of policies to shape the experiences of travelers with disabilities. Most policies (n = 19) focused on improving the accessibility of facilities, including airports, airplanes, and ground transportation services. Several policies (n = 11) aimed to provide and improve support services for travelers with disabilities, including assistance with boarding, personal care, and mobility devices. Nine policies aimed to enhance equity by reducing discrimination and ensuring that travelers were treated with dignity. Many policies (n = 17) addressed more than one of these objectives, reflecting the overlapping priorities of accessibility, support, and equity.

3.4. Content and Responsible Entities Stated in the Policies

We organized the content of the policies into the five key themes and their categories that emerged in our recent scoping review on air travel as impacting the experiences of individuals with disabilities [10]. Those were: (1) information-related services, (2) personnel interaction, (3) built infrastructure, (4) assistive devices, and (5) protocols and procedures. Table 2 outlines the themes and their related categories, guiding the analysis of air travel policies for passengers with disabilities, mapping the relevant policies within each jurisdiction. In the following subsections, we examined each theme by describing who holds responsibility for service provision and how the related categories are addressed within the policy texts. This framing helped clarify the systemic dynamics behind travelers’ experiences.

Table 2. Themes and categories of air travel policies for passengers with disabilities, with corresponding policies by jurisdiction.

Theme	Categories	Policies Number
		International	Canada	U.S.
1. Information-related Services	Booking Information	P1, P7	P9, P16	P18, P26
	Flight-related Information	P3, P6, P7	P9, P10, P12–14, P16	P18, P21, P24, P26
2. Personnel Interaction	Personnel Knowledge	P1, P2, P7	P9, P15	P18, P24, P28
	Personnel Attitude	P7	P9, P15	P18
3. Built Infrastructure	Airport Accessibility	P2, P6, P7	P8, P9, P10, P16	P18, P20–25, P28
	Airplane Design	P6, P7	P8, P9, P10, P13	P18
4. Assistive Devices	Personal Devices	P1–3, P6, P7	P9, P12, P13	P18
	Operator Provided Devices	P2, P6, P7	P9, P13	P18
5. Protocols and Procedures	Service Protocols	P3, P5–7	P9, P11, P12, P16	P17–19, P21, P25
	Disability Accommodation	P2, P3, P6, P7	P9, P12	P18

3.4.1. Information-Related Services

The content of the policies that fall under this theme governs the access to information throughout the various phases of air travel, such as websites or audio announcements in airports or airplanes. A total of 14 policies addressed this theme, including four international guidelines (P1, P3, P6, P7), six Canadian policies (P9, P10, P12–14, P16), and four U.S policies (P18, P21, P24, P26). Information-related services include two categories: (1) booking information and (2) flight-related information (see Table 3).

Table 3. Requirements and responsible entities for information-related services in air travel operations, by jurisdiction.

Categories	Responsible	International	Canada	USA
Booking Information	Airline	Web Accessibility Standards-compliant websites Booking process captures relevant passenger needs	WCAG-compliant websites Alternative communication systems for telephone services Engage in a dialogue with the person to identify their needs in relation to their disability and the services offered by the carrier in relation to those needs	WCAG (Level AA)-compliant webpages Teletypewriter availability for telephone booking Disclosure of discounts and fee waivers for non-website booking Booking has mechanisms to request disability accommodation services
Flight- related Information	Both	Accessible information & guidance materials (e.g., alternative format) Audiovisual announcements	WCAG-compliant websites Accessible public information on services and facilities Alternative communication systems for telephone services Audiovisual public announcements	WCAG (Level AA)-compliant webpages Communication of accessibility-related information and services
	Airport	—	Online publication of terminal services and facilities	Accessible multimedia, electronic, and posted documents
	Airline	—	Accessible publication of terms and compensation for flight disruptions Documentation of available services in the person’s reservation Accessible safety and travel information (e.g., audio-visual, large print, Braille)	Accessible online dashboards with information on seating and flight disruption Published cargo dimension of aircraft

Both mean that the entity delivering the service—whether an airline or an airport operator—is accountable.

Booking information. International guidelines held airline operators responsible for ensuring that their websites met accessibility standards. To align with the guidelines, both Canadian and U.S. policies mandated compliance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). Moreover, both countries require the provision of alternative booking options, such as telephone services with accessible communication systems (e.g., teletypewriters), for passengers who cannot access online systems. The U.S. additionally required airlines to disclose existing discounts and waive any applicable fees (e.g., call center fees).

Regarding accessibility needs, international guidelines recommend that airlines record passengers’ specific requirements at the time of booking. This is reflected in U.S. policies but is notably absent from Canadian policies. Instead, Canadian policies required airlines to engage in a dialogue to identify the traveler’s specific needs and explain the services available to meet them when a passenger indicated the nature of their disability during booking. However, the Canadian policy did not specify how airlines should conduct dialogue with the traveler. Both countries also extended the requirements for accessible flight-related information in ways the guidelines did not explicitly address, mandating that airport websites comply with the WCAG.

Flight-Related Information. International guidelines recommended that both airline and airport operators provide accessible information and guidance materials, as well as audiovisual announcements. Both countries follow international recommendations but operationalize them differently. In Canada, airport operators are required to publish details of terminal services and facilities online, while airline operators must provide accessible digital and/or printed publications that include terms, safety information, travel details, and services. In the U.S., airport operators must ensure effective communication regarding accessibility assistance and provide accessible multimedia, electronic, and posted documents. Airline operators, on the other hand, are required to provide accessibility-related information, including published cargo dimensions, accessible online dashboards with information on seating and flight disruptions, and accessible safety and travel information. However, U.S. policies did not address the need for accessible announcements.

Overall, both Canada and the U.S. generally aligned with international guidelines on making booking processes and flight-related information accessible. However, they diverged in the assignment of responsibilities to airlines or airport operators. Canada also considered the importance of accessible live announcements, a feature that the U.S. did not address. Both countries also differed in how accessibility needs are captured and addressed at booking, with Canada requiring airlines to engage in a dialogue to identify a traveler’s needs—without specifying how this dialogue should occur—while the U.S. mandates the recording of passengers’ specific accessibility requirements at the time of booking. At the same time, both countries went beyond the international guidelines by extending accessibility requirements to include airport website compliance with WCAG and the creation of alternative means of booking, which the international guidelines did not explicitly address. These cross-jurisdictional differences may contribute to uneven implementation and varied accessibility experiences for travelers with disabilities across operators and jurisdictions.

3.4.2. Personnel Interaction

The content of the policies under this theme regulates personnel interaction throughout air travel, and who is responsible for it. A total of eight policies addressed this theme, including three international guidelines (P1, P2, P7), two Canadian policies (P9, P15), and three U.S. policies (P18, P24, P28). Personnel interaction covered two categories: (1) knowledge and (2) attitude (see Table 4).

Table 4. Requirements and responsible entities for personnel interaction in air travel operations, by jurisdiction.

Categories	Responsible	International	Canada	USA
Personnel Knowledge	Both	Regular training on handling mobility devices Means to communicate with travelers with cognitive or sensory disabilities	Training and triennial refreshers for public-facing and decision-making personnel on: o Policies and regulations o Assistance o Assistive devices o Roles of support person & service dogs Training and triennial refresher for personnel providing physical assistance on: o Assistance techniques o Mobility device maneuvering Training program updates and communication on new disability-related policy, procedure, technology	—
	Airport	—	—	Training for ground transportation personnel on o Vehicle & equipment operation o Proper assistance
	Airline	Role-specific training on organizational policies and regulatory requirements	Training and triennial refresher for relevant personnel on types and handling of mobility aids Training for personnel assisting with special equipment or aids on o Telephone for the deaf o Mechanical lifts/ramps o Stretchers o Portable oxygen, respirator o Electrical supply	Training, and refresher every 3 years, on o Policies, regulations, procedures o Assistance o Equipment use o Communication accommodation o Methods of communication Annual training for flight attendants on proper use of moveable armrest and assisting passengers with disabilities to and from the lavatory Annual Hands-on training for staff assisting passengers on communication, transfer, & handling of assistive device
Personnel Attitude	Both	No forced disclosure if disability-related services are not requested Training on disability awareness and barriers for assisting personnel	Training on principles relating to persons with disabilities, types of barriers, and how to interact with person with disabilities	—
	Airline	—	—	No requirement for passengers to accept any unrequested services Training, and refresher every 3 years, on disability awareness and appropriate responses

Knowledge. To improve personnel knowledge regarding disability and related services, international guidelines recommend regular training for airline personnel on organizational policies and regulatory requirements, as well as training for airport or airline personnel—whoever provides the service—on the safe handling of mobility devices. Canada adhered to these recommendations and required all airline and airport personnel to receive training, with refresher programs every three years, covering policies, regulations, and assistance provision. Canadian policies also mandated training on the role of support people, service animals, and assistive devices, and required airline personnel who assist with special equipment (e.g., portable oxygen, mechanical lifts, telephones for the deaf) to receive appropriate training. Training on the proper handling of mobility aids, a subset of assistive devices that often require physical handling during loading, stowage, and transfer, was delegated only to airline operators.

In the U.S., only airline personnel—which include contracted laborers—are required to be trained in policies, regulations, assistance provision, and handling of mobility aids, as well as in communication accommodations and transfers. However, U.S. policies also require airport operators to provide training to their ground transportation personnel (i.e., airport buses) on providing proper assistance. In December 2024, the U.S. updated its policy to require annual refresher training for all airline personnel assisting travelers with disabilities, though enforcement for this requirement, along with several others, remains on hold [29].

Attitude. To improve personnel’s attitude towards disability, international guidelines recommend that all airline and airport personnel who assist the public be educated on disability awareness and barriers to air travel. This included discouraging any forced disclosure of disability. Similarly, Canadian policies required airport and airline personnel to be educated on disability awareness, types of barriers, and how to appropriately interact with passengers with disabilities. U.S., however, only required airline operators to provide training on disability awareness and how to appropriately respond to passengers with disabilities, including prohibiting personnel from forcing passengers to accept any unrequested services.

Overall, personnel-related policies across jurisdictions largely reflected international recommendations. Both Canada and the U.S. required training to strengthen personnel’s knowledge of disability-related services and relevant regulations, though Canada had a broader scope encompassing both airport and airline personnel. Thus, while the policies set standards for training, they leave notable gaps—particularly in the U.S.—in ensuring that airport personnel are equally accountable for creating an inclusive and welcoming environment. However, policies across jurisdictions did not specify how training should be delivered or who is responsible for providing it. An exception is the 2024 U.S. amendment, which introduced a requirement for hands-on training, although this provision has not yet been implemented. The public is also unable to inspect training content, even upon request. Finally, international guidelines did not clearly identify all personnel groups who should receive training—particularly those who directly or indirectly affect the air travel experience (e.g., pilot, security)—nor did they comprehensively specify the expected scope of that training. This gap is highlighted by the policies of both countries, which include the role of support person, service animal, and proper interaction with passengers with disabilities—areas not explicitly covered in the international guidelines.

3.4.3. Built Infrastructure

The content of the policies under this theme focused on making the built infrastructure accessible to enhance navigation and facilitate the equitable use of facilities. A total of 16 policies addressed this theme, including three international guidelines (P2, P6, P7), five Canadian policies (P8–10, P13, P16), and eight U.S. policies (P18, P20–25, P28). The built infrastructure included the categories: (1) airport accessibility and (2) airplane design (Table 5).

Table 5. Requirements and responsible authorities for built infrastructure in air travel operations, by jurisdiction.

Categories	Responsible	International	Canada	USA
Airport Accessibility	Both	Accessible and identifiable automated check-in kiosks Accessible Information desks Variety of boarding equipment	Accessible and visually and tactilely identifiable automated check-in kiosk with priority access	Accessible kiosks Ramps or mechanical lifts Animal relief areas
	Airport	Accessible public areas o Seating areas o Service animal relief areas o Unobstructed routes o Wayfinding methods Adequate parking facilities Pick-up and drop-off points near the exit Accessible, reasonably priced ground transportation	Accessible public areas o Lifts, ramps, or stairs o Seats at the boarding areas o Relief areas for dogs o Airport shuttle and trains o Signage for ▪ security screening ▪ border clearance ▪ direction Obstructions due to repairs or maintenance are detectable by cane users Published accessibility plan on policies, practices and services to identify, prevent, & remove terminal barriers Accessible ground transportation	Accessible buildings o Ramps, elevators o Doors, corridors, and route o Wheelchair seating o Toilets o Universal changing station o Telephone and TTYs o Drinking fountains o Service counters o Alarms and signage o Parking spaces o Automated gateway transit Accessible buses between terminal and to/from airport High-contrast caption and audio description for audiovisual displays and multimedia
	Airline	—	—	Accessible controlled facilities Accessible route from gate to aircraft Accessible terminal transportation
Airplane Design	Airline	Design that meets the needs of persons with disabilities o Moveable armrest o Accessible lavatories o Sturdy handrails o Slip-resistant floor o Suitable lighting o Signage o Tactile markers	Accessible aircrafts o Lifts, ramps, or stairs o Moveable armrest & call buttons o Accessible washrooms o Electronic system o Sturdy handrails o Slip-resistant floor o Floor space for service animals o Tactile markers o lighting and signage Published accessibility plan on policies, practices and services to identify, prevent, and remove aircraft barriers	Accessible aircrafts, ensuring at least o 50% are moveable armrest o 1 Wheelchair accessible lavatory on twin-aisle planes o Lavatory of sufficient size on single-aisle plane with at least 125 seating capacity * High-contrast caption and audio description for audiovisual presentation and displays

* This only applies to aircraft delivered on or after October 2026.

Airport Accessibility. International guidelines recommend that airport and airline operators install accessible kiosks and information desks. Canadian and U.S policies also required the installation of check-in kiosks. In fact, Canadian policies specified that these kiosks must be visually and tactually identifiable, while neither country required accessible information desks.

International guidelines also recommended that airport operators ensure a barrier-free public area, including unobstructed routes and seating areas, provision of service animal relief areas, and the installation of wayfinding signage to enable passengers with disabilities to navigate airports independently and safely. They also recommended that airports should have accessible parking spaces, pick-up and drop-off bays, and ground transportation available for travelers with disabilities to use. In addition, international guidelines included recommendations on the provision of boarding equipment; however, they do not specify whether airport or airline operators should be responsible for providing and managing such equipment. These recommendations are reflected and expounded upon by Canadian and U.S. policies. For instance, Canada has implemented signage that not only serves as direction but also ensures that security and border clearance signage are accessible. They also explicitly identify the need for installing lifts, ramps, or stairs as part of an accessible public area. In addition, Canadian policies also recognize the barriers caused by airport repairs and maintenance, thereby mandating that such obstructions be made detectable. Moreover, to ensure compliance, Canada also requires airport operators to publish their accessibility plans. The U.S., on the other hand, included toilets, telephones, water fountains, multimedia displays, and charging stations, among others. It is important to note that, ultimately, the U.S. delegated the responsibility for accessibility to the party that controls the space. If an area of the airport is leased or operated by an airline, the airline—not the airport operator—is responsible for making that space accessible.

Airplane Design. International guidelines emphasized that airline operators should adopt designs that meet the needs of persons with disabilities, such as movable armrests, accessible washrooms, slip-resistant floors, and tactile markers. Moreover, they specified the features of an accessible washroom. Canadian policies impose relatively similar accessibility requirements on air carriers, with additional requirements for accessible call buttons, on-board electronic systems, and floor space for service animals. They also required airline operators to publish their accessibility plans to ensure compliance. The U.S., on the other hand, is more limited, only ensuring that at least 50% of armrests are movable. Requirements on accessible washrooms primarily apply to certain aircraft types rather than mandating universal access across all flights.

A major difference is in the requirement for wheelchair-accessible washrooms. In Canada, it is required that every washroom on an aircraft be wheelchair-accessible unless physical constraints of the washroom (e.g., doorway width or interior space) make it infeasible. However, in the U.S., only twin-aisle planes are required to have wheelchair accessible lavatories. Twin-aisle planes are typically used for long-haul international flights and some popular domestic routes [30]. When requirements only apply to certain aircraft types, passengers with disabilities may still encounter barriers during travel when traveling on single-aisle planes.

Overall, international guidelines provide only a baseline for airport and airplane accessibility, rather than a standard of what a fully accessible built infrastructure would look like. Policies in Canada and the U.S. demonstrate a strong commitment to enabling passengers with disabilities to travel safely and independently, but the assignment of responsibility varies across jurisdictions. Both countries introduced variations and expansions to the guidelines, with Canada specifying additional accessibility features and requiring publication of accessibility plans. U.S., on the other hand, delegated responsibility to the entity controlling the space and service, potentially creating variations across local airports.

3.4.4. Assistive Devices

The content of the policies under this theme governed the proper transport and provision of assistive devices when traveling by air. A total of 9 policies addressed this theme, including five international guidelines (P1–3, P6, P7), three Canadian policies (P9, P12, P13), and one U.S. policy (P18). Policies on assistive devices cover two categories: (1) personal devices and (2) operator-provided devices (Table 6).

Table 6. Requirements and responsible entities for managing assistive devices in air travel operations, by jurisdiction.

Categories	Responsible	International	Canada	USA
Personal Devices	Airline	Approval of battery-powered mobility devices Prompt return of checked-in mobility aids at the aircraft door or as requested Free carriage of disability aids Avoidance of hand-carrying large mobility aids Immediate provision of replacement for damaged, delayed, or missing mobility aids Refund or alternative transportation provision if a wheelchair cannot be accommodated	Free check-in of mobility aids as priority baggage Free disassembly, reassembly, and prompt return of mobility aid In-cabin storage of manual wheelchairs and personal mobility aids, space permitting Allow usage of personal manual wheelchair until boarding gate or plane door/seat Advise transport arrangements of mobility aids for planes with less than 60 passengers Immediate provision of temporary replacement mobility aid and reimbursement of expenses for loss or damaged mobility aid	Acceptance of electric mobility devices as checked baggage, with battery handling and stowage subject to safety regulations and aircraft limitations. Return of wheelchairs and other devices as close to the door as possible Free carry-on for assistive devices Priority stowage and retrieval of wheelchairs and other devices in the baggage compartment Cabin storage of at least one folding manual wheelchair Return devices in the condition in which it was received, compensating based on original purchase price for lost, damaged, or destroyed devices * Allow use of electronic respiratory devices
Operator Provided Devices	Both	Mobility device provision, upon request, to move between aircraft and terminal	—	—
	Airport	—	Wheelchairs for use by passengers	—
	Airline	On-board wheelchairs to aircrafts with more than one aisle.	On-board wheelchairs on aircraft with wheelchair-accessible washroom, or upon advance request	On-board wheelchair to all aircraft that have an accessible lavatory, or upon advance request

* Original purchase price compensation policy only applies to domestic flights.

Personal Devices. International guidelines recommend that airline operators transport assistive devices free of charge and ensure the prompt return of any checked-in mobility aids. They also require airlines to provide immediate replacement of mobility aids that are broken, lost, or delayed. IATA has further issued guidance on the safe transport of battery-powered mobility devices, including proper stowage, battery safety (including disconnection and protection), labeling, and staff training. To facilitate the proper handling of mobility aids, be it manual or battery-powered, international guidelines recommend that travelers and manufacturers issue a mobility aid passport, documenting all necessary information for transporting the device. Yet, neither the U.S. nor Canada institutionalized the use of mobility aid passports.

Both Canada and the U.S. have enforced the free carriage and prompt return of mobility aids, as well as expanded this responsibility by requiring airline operators to categorize mobility aids as priority baggage and to store a limited number of manual wheelchairs in the cabin. Both countries also required airline operators to provide immediate replacement and compensation for damaged, destroyed, or lost mobility aids. However, only the U.S. explicitly mandated the proper carriage of electric mobility devices.

Operator-Provided Devices. International guidelines recommended providing mobility devices to support the movement of travelers with disabilities between aircraft and terminals, without specifying which operator is responsible for these provisions, leaving implementation to the discretion of individual countries. Canada required airport operators to carry wheelchairs within terminal buildings for passengers to use. Moreover, they allowed manual wheelchair users to use their mobility device up until the aircraft or their seat. U.S. policies did not reflect this recommendation.

International guidelines also recommend that airplane operators equip their aircraft with more than one aisle with on-board wheelchairs (also referred to as aisle chairs or transfer chairs). Both Canada and the U.S. had similar policies, requiring airline operators to carry on-board wheelchairs on all aircraft along with wheelchair-accessible lavatories. Passengers can also make an advance request for airline operators to provide on-board wheelchairs, regardless of whether the plane has wheelchair-accessible lavatories.

To sum it up, international policies set the minimum standard and expectation for the transport and handling of mobility aids. Thus, both countries introduced several requirements, such as priority baggage classification, to protect the rights of travelers with disabilities. Policies across jurisdictions agreed that the airline held sole responsibility for the safe transport of personal mobility devices and the provision of on-board wheelchairs. Thus, while air travelers with disabilities are protected by the policies, they are largely dependent on each airline operator to implement and operationalize these requirements.

3.4.5. Protocols and Procedures

The policies’ content included under this theme regulated the conduct of services and strategies to support travelers with disabilities. A total of 14 policies addressed this theme, including five international guidelines (P2, P3, P5–7), four Canadian policies (P9, P11, P12, P16), and five U.S. policies (P17–19, P21, P25). Two categories were covered: (1) service protocols and (2) disability accommodation (Table 7).

Table 7. Requirements and responsible entities for air travel protocols and procedures, by jurisdiction.

Categories	Responsible	International	Canada	USA
Service Protocols	Both	Stakeholder coordination for accessible, seamless, and dignified end-to-end services Uniform standard for services, training, information dissemination Free, timely passenger assistance upon request Frequent contact between assisting staff and the traveler	May require documentation from a person with a disability who is requesting for a service Free passenger assistance & services upon request Assisting personnel remain near the traveler	Ensure non-discrimination and full enjoyment of services o Safety requirements must be based on actual risk and objective evidence Free and timely services and assistance
	Airport	Security screening and border checks adapted to the traveler’s needs Verbal & visual communication of security procedures Offer physical search away from public view	Expedited security screening and border clearance Audible and visual communication of security procedure Personnel accompaniment to assist with security screening and border clearance procedures Simultaneous security clearance of service dogs, support persons, devices	—
	Airline	Communication & documentation of required assistance to all appropriate personnel No refusal of transport except for safety reasons, with required justification and rebooking or refund options o Traveler’s self-assessment of fitness to travel are accepted o May require medical clearance if unclear with fitness to travel o May require a travel assistant for safety purposes	Relay passenger information to relevant personnel and connecting air carriers Prioritize carriage of people with disabilities and their party when seats are limited No refusal to transport except if due to undue hardship reasons (e.g., medical report that demonstrate risk)	No limit on the number of passengers with disabilities on a flight No refusal to fly except for safety reasons, responding least restrictively o May request medical certificate if condition raises safety concern o May require a travel assistant for safety purposes No refusal to transport service animal except for health or safety reasons May require advance notice for services and accommodation in certain circumstances No unattended passengers for more than 30 min
Disability Accommodation	Airline	Seating that meets the needs of traveler Free or discounted, adjacent seating for assistants Free cabin carriage for service animals Preboard those who need assistance or additional time disembarkation before or after others for passengers who self-identify as needing assistance or extra time Discreet individualized safety briefings	Reserved accessible seats, with additional seating provided if needed Adjacent seating for support persons Free cabin boarding for properly documented, leashed service dogs Priority boarding only for those receiving disability assistance Discreet individualized safety briefings Establishment of buffer zone around passengers with severe allergies	Accessible seating on all flights within a traveler’s class of service that meets their needs. Additional seating may incur charges Adjacent seating for companions and without charge if required against passenger’s self-assessment Free cabin carriage of up to 2 service animals with minimal documentation; free relocation of large service animals to suitable space or cargo hold Preboard those who self-identify as needing assistance or extra time to board, stow equipment, or be seated Discreet individualized safety briefings

Service Protocols. This category pertains to the overall management and operational conduct of services such as the security and border checks, the assistance to and communication with passengers with disabilities, and the right to travel. International guidelines recommended the establishment of a standardized and coordinated service, training, and information dissemination among airline and airport operators to ensure an accessible, seamless, and dignified air travel experience for passengers with disabilities.

Building on these broader coordination expectations, international guidelines also provided recommendations to airport operators, particularly on security and border checks, advising them to adapt their procedures to meet the needs of travelers with disabilities through the use of audiovisual means and private physical searches. Canada created its own standards for security and border clearance by establishing expedited services, conducting simultaneous security clearance for the traveler’s support person and service dog, utilizing audiovisual means in security procedures, and allowing personnel to assist the traveler. These standards are lacking in the examined U.S. air travel policies. Rather, the U.S. has internal directives that are covered by broader disability policies (e.g., ADA, Section 504), or programs such as the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Cares, which provides information on security procedures aimed at helping passengers with disabilities better prepare for the security screening process. This variation suggests that, while all jurisdictions recognize the need for accessible services, the U.S. relies more on procedural guidance and voluntary programs.

Beyond security procedures, international guidelines also outline the operational responsibilities that service providers must meet, including the provision of free and timely passenger assistance, where the assisting staff should have frequent contact with the passenger. However, they did not specify whether the airline or airport operator is responsible for providing passenger assistance. Canada similarly mandated free passenger assistance, with staff required to be near the passenger. Yet, the entity responsible for the assistance differs depending on the stage of air travel. Airline operators are responsible for assisting travelers from check-in through to terminal areas, boarding and deplaning, baggage stowage and retrieval, transfers, and in-flight assistance. Airport operators, on the other hand, are responsible for assisting with check-in kiosks that they manage, providing wheelchairs, and escorting passengers from the curbside zone to a public area, check-in area, or an airline representative. As for the U.S., policies dictate that free and prompt boarding assistance is a joint responsibility of airport and airline operators, while all other types of requested assistance fall under the airline operator’s responsibility. Personnel providing assistance must not leave passengers unattended for more than 30 min, thereby giving a measurable timeframe. Airline operators also carry a range of additional responsibilities that shape the accessibility of the air travel experience. International guidelines recommended that they maintain adequate communication and documentation among relevant personnel. However, only Canadian policies explicitly mandated airline operators to have a system to relay passenger information to relevant personnel and connecting air carriers.

International guidelines also recommended that airline operators not deny the right to travel to passengers with disabilities, except when there is a genuine safety concern. Even then, a traveler’s self-assessment of their fitness to travel should be considered. It is only when there is a reasonable doubt that airlines may require medical clearance and a travel assistant. U.S. policies also explicitly protect travelers with disabilities from experiencing discrimination by prohibiting procedures that may exclude them, such as limiting seats for people with disabilities, refusing carriage of a service animal, or denying a person the right to fly, unless due to safety concerns. And, if safety concerns are present, airline operators may require medical clearance and a travel assistant. Nonetheless, they must select the least restrictive response based on the passenger’s perspective. Canada, on the other hand, prohibits refusal to transport, except in cases where airline operators perceive an undue hardship. However, they lack a policy explicitly prohibiting acts of discrimination. Rather, Canadian policies explicitly permit operators, be it airlines or airports, to require documentation from a person with a disability when they request a service. It is essential to note that both countries’ policies on refusing to transport travelers with disabilities implicitly grant airline personnel the authority to deny transport based on their individualized assessment and judgment of risk and safety. Yet, as shown in the theme on personnel interaction, it is not described how the type of knowledge the personnel gain from the training can equip them to make such a determination about a passenger with a disability’s capability to fly.

Disability Accommodation. This category covers the specific and tangible resources, accommodations, or strategies provided to passengers with disabilities to ensure their needs are met, and their participation in air travel is equitable. Policies across the three jurisdictions covered the following: seating, carriage of support persons, carriage of service animals, and priority boarding. International guidelines recommend that airline operators provide seats that meet the needs of travelers with disabilities, including seating them adjacent to their assistants and alongside their service animals. To meet these recommendations, Canadian and U.S. policies mandated airline operators to reserve and allocate accessible seats to travelers with disabilities. Additionally, they also require airline operators to provide additional seating if the traveler needs it, due to the nature of their disability. In Canada, extra seats are free on domestic flights, while in the U.S., airlines may charge for them.

To protect the dignity of travelers with disabilities, international guidelines recommend that airline operators provide preboarding for those needing assistance or extra time, allow disembarkation either before or after other passengers as needed, and ensure safety briefings are individualized and discreet. These were reflected in varying degrees in both countries. While Canada aligns with international guidelines in requiring airline operators to provide discreet and individualized safety briefings, priority boarding requirements are more limited, an accommodation strictly for those who availed of disability assistance. U.S., on the other hand, aligned more closely with international guidelines concerning preboarding and safety briefing. However, neither country had a policy on disembarkation. In terms of safety, only Canada considered the safety of passengers with severe allergies by creating buffer zones.

In summary, international guidelines have called for more coordinated and standardized services. National policies across the U.S. and Canada required airline operators to implement fundamentally similar disability accommodation strategies (e.g., preboarding, carriage of service animals, accessible seating) and conduct of services (e.g., passenger assistance). However, Canada was more exhaustive and prescriptive in its security procedures, systems for relaying passenger needs, and accommodations for other disability groups (i.e., buffer zones). Both countries also incorporated the international guideline that airline operators should not categorically refuse carriage due to disability; however, they differ in how refusals, medical assessments, and documentation are managed, resulting in different protections and obligations for travelers across jurisdictions.

4. Discussion

This policy analysis aimed to examine and compare air travel policies for travelers with disabilities across three jurisdictions—international, Canada, and the U.S.—with the goal of understanding how responsibilities are allocated to airports or airlines and how policy content aligns or diverges. Our findings revealed two key factors that help explain the similarities and differences observed across these jurisdictions: the distribution of responsibilities among operators and the comprehensiveness of content in the policy provisions. By examining these factors, this study moves beyond cataloging provisions to explain why comparable policy frameworks diverge in practice and identifies key leverage points for future regulatory development.

4.1. Variation in Disability Definition Across Jurisdictions

The variations in disability definition highlight a critical source of inconsistency in how disability itself was defined. These definitional differences shape who is recognized within policy frameworks and whose needs are addressed. Within North America, Canada’s federal legislation adopted a broad, barrier-based definition, whereas U.S. federal law explicitly included temporary disabilities. However, some other U.S. and Canadian policies did not define disability at all. Comparisons with international guidelines show further variation: the IATA adopted a broad definition, whereas the ICAO used a narrower, mobility-focused definition. Narrow, impairment-focused definitions in international guidelines and some U.S. policies primarily protect passengers with functional limitations, while broader, barrier-focused definitions in Canadian policies, such as the Accessible Canada Act, extend coverage to those whose participation is hindered by environmental barriers. These differences shape who is eligible for assistance, how accommodations are applied, and the consistency of the travel experience across airlines, airports, and jurisdictions. Moreover, framing disability primarily as an individual limitation rather than as an interaction with barriers may constrain the adoption of rights-based, inclusive approaches to air travel. Travelers with temporary disabilities may face inconsistent recognition and access to accommodations, and service providers may interpret policies differently depending on how disability is defined. This variation in the conceptual definition is similarly observed in public transportation policies for people with disabilities [16]. A uniform definition is critical in determining who is successfully protected by the policies and who is marginalized [27,31]. Inconsistencies in the definition of disability in air travel policies can therefore result in uneven eligibility for accommodations, effectively limiting the applicability of provisions to certain disability groups [32]. Improving the alignment and comprehensiveness of definitions between jurisdictions is crucial to better support the needs of people with disabilities [15].

4.2. Allocation of Responsibilities Across Jurisdictions

The key principle in distributing responsibilities is that the entity providing the service or facility is responsible for making it accessible. For example, if an airport provides a shuttle service, the airport is responsible; if an airline provides a boarding service, the airline is responsible. Although this appears straightforward, it produces different outcomes depending on how each aviation system allocates operational control.

Our findings suggest an overall discrepancy between the U.S. and Canada in how responsibilities are allocated, with some categories showing more pronounced differences than others. This pattern was particularly evident in areas related to airport accessibility, affecting the traveler experience in distinct ways. For example, in the U.S., airports are typically operated by independent airport authorities or local governments, yet airport gates are frequently leased to airlines for exclusive use [33,34]. This arrangement shifts many terminal-level accessibility responsibilities to carriers, making airline practices central in shaping the traveler experience. In Canada, airports are locally managed—either by provincial governments for regional airports or by private airport authorities for major hubs [35]. Because Canadian airports operate on a common-use system, where multiple airlines share gates and check-in infrastructure, airport authorities retain more direct responsibility for terminal accessibility [36]. These structural arrangements broadly characterize how accessibility responsibilities are allocated across U.S. and Canadian jurisdictions.

Our findings also indicate that differences in how responsibilities are distributed across actors can create a varied experience in specific areas of air travel. This was particularly evident in check-in services. For instance, in the U.S., accessible check-in kiosks were under the responsibility of airlines, whereas in Canada, SITA-managed kiosks fell under the responsibility of airport operators, with airline-specific kiosks assigned to respective carriers. A similar pattern is observed in wheelchair provision. Canada required airports to maintain wheelchairs within terminal buildings, distributing accessibility responsibilities across both airports and carriers. In contrast, the U.S. placed this obligation solely on airlines. These discrepancies align with patterns identified in our scoping review of literature, highlighting that procedural inconsistencies were an important barrier to the air travel experience [10]. Travelers with disabilities already face numerous challenges when navigating complex travel systems [4,10]. Understanding which actor is responsible for certain services or having to communicate with multiple organizations when traveling can add stress and hinder smooth and consistent access [37]. Sharing this information with airline companies and airports emphasizes how something as simple as extending the communication between the responsible entities could impact air travel experiences, without extra costs. Training would be particularly important for this issue, to ensure everyone understands the importance of communicating both with the passengers about what is happening and who is responsible, but also with the other actors involved in the travel chain of the passengers.

International guidelines should serve as the standard that countries should aspire to follow [38]. ICAO is relied upon to chart the future for international flights, and IATA plays a critical role in formulating industry policy on key aviation issues [24,25]. However, as observed in our findings, they are not as comprehensive or exhaustive as one would hope. Thus, countries must interpret and expound upon the guidelines independently. This is particularly observed in how Canadian policies substantiated security and border clearance procedures in terms of catering to the needs of travelers with disabilities, among others. In December 2024, a joint symposium organized by the IATA, ICAO, and Airports Council International was held to discuss existing issues in air travel for people with disabilities [39]. This initiative served as initial steps toward streamlining and creating comprehensive policies [39]. Although the effects of these initiatives on improving the travel experiences of people with disabilities remain to be seen, this represents an important step toward enhancing coherence and reducing disparities within the aviation system, which could ultimately lead to improved travel experiences for people with disabilities. Future research should assess both how these guidelines were implemented within individual countries and whether they meaningfully improve the challenges that people with disabilities face when traveling. Such research would need to be conducted longitudinally, as policy implementation takes time and is influenced by numerous other factors, including the economic and political conditions

4.3. Comprehensiveness and Alignment of Content Between Jurisdictions

The second factor shaping air travel relates to how comprehensive and aligned the content of policies was. Our findings revealed that even when the policies of the U.S. and Canada align with international guidelines, differences in how substantively the policies are articulated can influence their interpretation and implementation. For example, Canadian policies specified how security screening should protect the dignity of travelers with disabilities, providing concrete guidance to airport and airline staff. In contrast, U.S. policies set broad prohibitions against discrimination but leave many operational decisions to the security administration (i.e., TSA Cares). These findings can be attributed to the differences in standards and obligations between the two countries. Canada emphasizes standardization and uniformity to reduce variability across providers and improve welfare, whereas the U.S. reflects a more liberal, open-market system that delegates discretion to industry actors, allowing flexibility [21,40]. These differences in content can affect consistency, as broad or vague language allows flexibility but can create ambiguity and uneven implementation, as demonstrated by ongoing discussions to clarify airline responsibilities [29,41,42]. When accommodations rely on operational guidelines rather than enforceable standards, they fail to safeguard a consistent and dignified air travel experience, as the conduct of services can shift over time [43]. Moreover, the lack of clear standards on service delivery and personnel competence makes it difficult to know if the training program sufficiently ensures that travelers with disabilities are not discriminated against and that their needs and rights are correctly addressed. Thus, advocacy organizations, including the Paralyzed Veterans of America, have long emphasized the need for more descriptive and defined policies, which can strengthen accountability and ensure a more consistent travel experience for people with disabilities [44].

4.4. Limitations

A limitation of this study is that we only included policies from the U.S and Canada and international aviation guidelines that explicitly identified people with disabilities as stakeholders. In reality, all air travel policies can affect the overall travel experience of travelers with disabilities. Moreover, it is essential to recognize that responsibility structures vary globally. In other parts of the world, each airport authority is responsible for its own accessibility, which could lead to other types of policy gaps. Another limitation is that we only included enacted policies. By-laws, internal guidelines, and operational directives of government agencies, such as the Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, and the Canada Border Services Agency, can greatly impact the travel experience of people with disabilities. These documents translate policy into day-to-day procedures and can significantly shape the experience of travelers with disabilities. Because operational guidelines can emphasize certain provisions over others or introduce additional steps that are not visible in formal policy, they can be sources of variability or barriers. However, these documents are frequently updated and are not always publicly accessible, making systematic comparison challenging. Additionally, this review adopts a high-level approach and does not fully capture technical regulatory nuances—such as provisions contingent on aircraft acquisition dates, the extent of modifications, or cost thresholds—which may further influence how policies are applied in practice.

5. Conclusions

This policy analysis aimed to examine and compare air travel policies for travelers with disabilities across jurisdictions to understand how responsibilities are allocated between airports and airlines and how policy content aligns or diverges. Our analysis offers a foundational understanding of how accessibility is formally regulated across jurisdictions, which can inform future research and policy development. Our study revealed how the distribution of responsibilities among operators and the content of policy requirements differ between jurisdictions, thereby shaping the inconsistent air travel experience of people with disabilities. This review also demonstrated that gaps in accessibility are not solely the result of missing policies, but of how existing requirements are articulated and interpreted within different aviation systems. Differences in responsibility allocation, policy specificity, and conceptual definitions of disability collectively contribute to variability across the travel chain, reinforcing the complexity of navigating air travel for people with disabilities and making the overall experience less predictable for travelers with disabilities. There is a need for greater coherence in both the assignment of responsibilities and the articulation of standards across jurisdictions. International efforts to harmonize accessibility requirements—such as recent collaborations among ICAO, IATA, and Airports Council International—represent promising steps toward improving consistency. However, meaningful progress will depend not only on introducing additional guidance but also on ensuring that responsibilities, definitions, and implementation expectations are aligned across systems. Future research should examine how emerging international initiatives are operationalized at the national, airline, and airport levels across a broader range of regions—including South America, Western and Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Far East—and whether they translate into tangible improvements in the travel experiences of people with disabilities over time. It would also be valuable to investigate how disability in air transport is perceived within these contexts to better understand how sociocultural factors may shape policy implementation and user experience.