Aviation is considered to have a high risk for compliance with social contribution rules, but controls remain rare in many EU states.

National authorities that verify the mobility of workers and social contributions consider commercial air transport a high-risk sector for compliance with European rules, but this assessment is not reflected in the frequency of inspections or in the resources allocated. A study by the European Labour Authority shows that 45 out of 60 participating authorities in the survey, equivalent to 75%, identify at least one high-risk area in aviation, while only 15% say that the sector is a priority for their institution.

In short, 45 out of 60 participating authorities in the survey, equivalent to 75%, consider commercial air transport to be high-risk in at least one of the areas analyzed regarding worker mobility, social security, contractual relationships, or health and safety at work. The risk is most frequently perceived in the application of rules regarding the posting of workers, where 62% of respondents to the respective assessment consider the sector to be high-risk, followed by the coordination of social security, at 61%, and the correctness of contractual arrangements, at 58%. 38% of respondents say that aviation checks are not a priority for their institution, compared to 15% who consider it a priority, while 62% state that activity in this sector consumes only a small part of resources. Inspections are often triggered by complaints from employees or unions, and 64% of respondents say that the number of inspections has remained roughly unchanged in the last five years. Inspectors indicate among the main difficulties the determination of where crews actually work, access to information and secure areas of airports, complex contracts, and slow cooperation between authorities from different states.

The European Labour Authority has analyzed how member states verify compliance with rules regarding worker mobility and the coordination of social security for pilots and cabin crew members in commercial air transport. The research covers all 27 member states and combines an analysis of legislation with a survey addressed to national authorities, 28 interviews, and ten case studies. The survey received 60 responses from 23 member states, mainly from labor inspectorates, social security institutions, and aviation authorities.

The percentages resulting from the survey do not show how many airlines violate legislation or the proportion of affected crew members. They describe the experience and perception of the institutions that carry out inspections or administer the rules regarding mobility and social contributions. The difference is essential for interpreting the results: the fact that an authority considers the sector to be high-risk indicates the need for increased attention, without demonstrating the existence of a violation in a specific company.

In this assessment, 75% of participants identified commercial air transport as a high-risk sector in at least one of the four categories analyzed. The greatest concern relates to the posting of workers: 62% of respondents to the respective question agreed or strongly agreed that aviation presents a high risk for the application of these rules. An almost identical proportion, 61%, indicated a high risk in complying with European social security coordination rules, while 58% made the same assessment for the correctness of contractual arrangements for crew members.

These issues are related to the unusually mobile nature of the activity. A pilot or cabin crew member can cross multiple jurisdictions in a single day of service, while the company, the intermediary that employs them, the aircraft, and the operating base may have links to different states. Inspectors must determine which labor legislation applies, in which system social contributions must be paid, and whether the situation declared by the operator corresponds to how the person actually works.

A central criterion for social security is "home base," the place assigned by the operator from where the crew member normally starts and ends a period or series of service periods. For crew members, this reference is usually used to establish the state whose social security system applies. Verification becomes more difficult when personnel are transferred between bases, work through intermediaries, or have a declared base that does not correspond to the actual pattern of activity.

The report shows that institutions encounter both standard contracts and a wide variety of atypical arrangements. 83% of respondents encountered standard contracts for an indefinite duration, but 45% also reported the use of temporary work agencies, 43% direct independent activity for the operator, and 40% independent activity through an intermediary. Other situations include the temporary relocation of crews between bases, leasing aircraft together with personnel, employees without a designated base, and subcontracting through entities located in other states.

These structures are not in themselves illegal, and many represent common forms of organizing activity in aviation. For authorities, the problem arises when multiple companies, agencies, and intermediaries are involved in the same employment relationship, and legal responsibility is no longer easy to identify. In such situations, inspectors must determine who effectively exercises authority over the worker, who pays them, where they work, and who must pay the social contributions.

The high-risk assessment contrasts with the priority given to the sector. 38% of respondents said that the application of rules regarding mobility and social security in commercial air transport is not a priority for their institution, while only 15% indicated otherwise. The difference is also visible in the allocation of resources: 37 out of 60 participating authorities, equivalent to 62%, say that activity in aviation consumes only a small part of the institution's resources.

Another 20% of authorities indicated that the sector receives a moderate share of resources, while only 8% of respondents come from organizations that focus exclusively on enforcing rules in aviation. The report shows that investigations are in many cases rare or occasional, and 64% of participants say that the number of inspections has remained roughly the same in the last five years. Increases have been reported by 30% of authorities responsible for worker mobility and 39% of those dealing with social security.

A large part of the control activity remains reactive. 63% of respondents indicate inspections initiated by complaints from employees or unions among the practices used by their institution, 57% conduct routine checks, and 55% use interviews with workers to identify possible irregularities. Dependence on complaints can have special relevance for crew members, who may spend very short periods in a state and may have limited information about the institution to which they need to report a problem.

Available resources are another difficulty indicated by institutions. 52% of participants who answered questions regarding the conduct of inspections consider that limits on personnel, funding, and time represent an obstacle, while 35% do not consider the resources sufficient for the necessary investigations. At the same time, 38% consider the current level of control activities and the framework available to protect crew members against violations to be insufficient.

The authors of the report do not claim that the low level of inspections demonstrates the existence of a determined number of undiscovered violations. The study shows that there may be a control deficit, but admits that the low activity in certain states may also reflect a small number of complaints or identified issues. The main finding is the difference between the risk perceived by authorities and the capacity they actually allocate to monitoring the sector.

One of the greatest practical difficulties is determining where a crew member effectively carries out most of their activity. 71% of respondents to the question regarding obstacles encountered in inspections indicated this problem, and access to all relevant information represents a difficulty for 59%. To reconstruct the actual situation, inspectors may need flight schedules, duty lists, contracts, information about bases, and other operational data that their own institution does not always possess.

This lack of information also reflects how competencies are distributed among institutions. On average, about four authorities from each member state have responsibilities related to the mobility of crew members or social security, and the number varies between two and eight. Labor inspectorates usually have competencies over working conditions, social security institutions establish or verify the contribution system and PD A1 certificates, while aviation authorities hold the most specialized information about flights, licenses, and bases, without having direct competencies over social legislation in most states.

Physical access to the workplace represents an additional aviation-specific problem. 40% of respondents find it difficult to obtain the necessary authorizations before inspections or to enter certain airport areas, and security procedures may limit the possibility of unannounced checks. Inspectors sometimes need to find a short window between two flights to interview crew members, and their departure can turn the verification into a cross-border document request process.

Cooperation between institutions of a state is much more frequent than that between authorities from different countries. 90% of respondents say they work with other public institutions in their own country, while only 60% report cooperation with authorities from other states. In cross-border cases, delays in obtaining information, language barriers, different interpretations of legislation, and misunderstandings regarding the competent state to perceive social contributions or the conditions under which a worker must be considered posted arise.

The report highlights significant differences between states in the way control is organized. France is presented as one of the examples with high capacity, through the use of specialized structures, cooperation between institutions, and controls oriented towards the specific risks of aviation. In other countries, the activity is much lower: the case study for the Czech Republic shows that approximately ten relevant inspections were carried out in five years, of which only four concerned aviation companies, and the sector is not treated as an institutional priority.

The European Labour Authority does not propose transferring national competencies to a single European inspectorate. The conclusions of the report indicate the more systematic use of existing information exchange tools, the preparation of dedicated aviation guidelines, training of inspectors, and the development of cooperation between labor authorities, social security institutions, and aviation authorities. Several coordinated control campaigns and joint inspections for cross-border situations are also recommended.

ELA supported the first concerted and joint inspections in this sector in 2024, but the competencies for investigation and sanctioning remain primarily with national authorities. The report considers that existing tools, including European systems for the exchange of information regarding posting and social security, can be used more intensively to verify activities that cross borders. Cooperation with aviation authorities is identified separately as a way to allow inspectors access to information about flights, bases, and crew movements.

In the EU, approximately 394,500 people worked as crew members in 2024, representing 0.3% of total employment. The relatively small size of the group contrasts with the high level of mobility and the legal complexity of its activity, as a single work report can have links to multiple jurisdictions. The ELA report concludes that this combination justifies a greater monitoring capacity, while the collected data shows that in many states the level of controls and resources allocated remains below the level of risk perceived even by the responsible authorities.