Complex contracts in aviation make it difficult to establish the employer and social contributions.
Liviu Brăteanu
EU
Foto: Pixabay
Always see our news on Google
The authorities that verify the working conditions of pilots and cabin crews have encountered cases of pseudo-independence, missing social certificates, and arrangements that make it difficult to identify the real employer or the state to which contributions should be paid. The study by the European Labour Authority shows that these problems are amplified by the different rules regarding the posting of seafarers and the difficulty in establishing whether the declared base of the company corresponds to the actual place where the employee performs their work.
In short, 46% of the participating authorities in the survey reported cases of non-compliance with social security rules, 36% encountered missing PD A1 certificates, and 34% identified situations where seafarers were classified as independent even though the relationship could correspond to an employment. Authorities frequently encountered temporary employment agencies, direct independent activity, or through intermediaries, transfers between bases, and different forms of leasing of aircraft and crews, without such structures being illegal in themselves. Only eight member states have specific derogations from the rules regarding the posting of seafarers, and the solutions vary: some exclude certain flights, while others introduce exceptions based on duration, training, or type of operation. For social security, "home base" is the main reference for establishing applicable legislation, but inspectors must verify whether the base designated by the operator corresponds to how the crew actually works. The report does not establish that atypical forms of work or changing bases automatically represent fraud. Problems arise when contractual structures conceal the real employment relationship or hinder the correct establishment of contributions and workers' rights.
Almost half of the authorities participating in the European Labour Authority's research reported encountering non-compliance with social security rules in commercial air transport. 46% of respondents indicated such problems, 38% encountered violations of national labor legislation in mobility situations, 36% missing PD A1 certificates, and 34% the classification of some crew members as independents or in other contractual forms that did not correspond to the established situation.
The percentages come from a survey with 60 responses from authorities in 23 member states and do not represent the proportion of airlines or employees in the EU in these situations. They show how frequently various types of problems have been encountered by the participating institutions, some of which have a much more intense control activity than others.
Pseudo-independence appears in the report as one of the problems encountered in several states. Representatives of authorities from Belgium, Spain, France, Lithuania, and Poland reported cases where personnel presented contractually as independent could actually perform activities that corresponded to an employment relationship.
The problem is not the use of independent activity as such. A pilot can provide services independently in certain situations, but authorities must verify how the activity is organized: who gives the instructions, who sets the schedule, who bears the economic risk, and what real freedom the person has in performing the services.
In Poland, a representative of the social security institution described situations where independent activity had to be, in practice, reclassified as an employment relationship. Authorities also encountered structures where a person had an employment contract with one entity and a civil contract with another, even though the activity was carried out for the benefit of the first company, which could reduce the social contributions owed.
The report also includes a case described by a representative of the labor inspection in France, where the crew was provided through an intermediary from outside the EU and had been presented as independent. The investigation concluded that the workers were not independent in reality, and the case had a European dimension and would have affected approximately 1,500 crew members.
These examples do not allow for attributing practices to the entire sector and do not identify in the document the companies involved. They illustrate, however, the difficulty for authorities to establish who the employer is when between the airline and the person working on board there are agencies, intermediaries, or other contractual entities.
The survey shows that such structures are encountered relatively frequently. 45% of respondents saw personnel employed through temporary employment agencies, 43% independent activity and direct service provision for the operator, and 40% independent activity through an intermediary. 35% encountered temporary transfers of crews to another base in the EU, and 33% wet lease operations, where the aircraft is provided together with the crew.
The report specifies that such contractual models do not automatically represent violations of legislation. The difficulty arises when multiple legal relationships overlap, so the inspector must establish who exercises effective control over the worker, which entity pays their remuneration, and who is responsible for contributions and working conditions.
The same problem arises in the case of subcontracting. Authorities interviewed in Spain, Italy, and Poland described cascading structures where the airline outsources hiring to an intermediary, which can subcontract in turn, separating the operational control of the activity from the formal legal responsibility.
Establishing the employer has direct consequences on social contributions. Crew members who normally perform work in two or more states must be able to demonstrate which social security legislation applies to them, and the PD A1 document certifies the state whose system covers the respective person.
However, the available data is incomplete. In 2024, 13,170 PD A1 certificates were issued for flight or cabin personnel at the EU level, while the total number of persons employed in the statistical category used by the report was approximately 394,500. ELA specifies that this comparison does not allow for calculating the actual number of mobile persons, as many short-term mobility forms are not captured by centralized data.
The report estimates that notifications and available PD A1 certificates represent less than 4% of the total crew personnel, but warns that the information cannot be interpreted as evidence that the rest of the employees should hold such a document. Authorities do not have sufficient data to estimate how many pilots and cabin crew members are in situations that concretely require this certification.
For crew members, establishing the social security system is primarily linked to "home base." European legislation defines the base as the place assigned by the operator from where the crew member normally starts and ends a period or series of service periods and where the operator does not provide, under normal conditions, accommodation.
Normally, the activity of a pilot or cabin crew member is considered, for social security, to be carried out in the state where this base is located. The same principle is relevant regardless of whether the person works as an employee or is truly independent.
The designation of a base by the company does not, however, conclude the verification. Authorities must establish whether the declared location corresponds to the actual pattern of activity, and the report shows that access to flight programs, service rosters, and data regarding operational bases is essential for this verification.
The problem becomes more complicated when personnel are temporarily moved between bases. A short-term change does not automatically determine the transfer of the person to another social security system, as European rules aim to maintain a certain stability of the applicable legislation over a period of 12 months.
In contrast, a permanent or long-term move can change both the "home base" and the worker's real connection to a certain state. In these situations, different effects may arise on labor legislation, posting rules, and the social security system, which obliges authorities to analyze each dimension separately.
The rules regarding posting add another level of complexity. Not every cross-border flight means that the personnel is posted to another member state, and passing briefly through a country or carrying out auxiliary activities at the airport must be analyzed based on the effective connection of the work to that territory.
A temporary move to another base is much more likely to fall under the posting rules. The report provides the example of a pilot transferred for three months from Lisbon to Paris, a situation that would normally involve the application of the host state's basic conditions regarding remuneration, working time, and leave.
Member states, however, do not treat all situations in the same way. ELA identifies eight countries that have introduced specific derogations or exceptions applicable to crew members, and the model varies from one state to another.
In Belgium, the posting rules do not generally apply to crew members performing international flights, with exceptions related to cabotage operations. Personnel in international passenger and freight transport is also exempt from the mandatory Limosa declaration.
France uses a different approach. An airline cannot rely on the posting regime for personnel assigned to an operational base in France when the activity is carried out there in a stable, usual, and continuous manner, and the effective center of professional activity is located in another country; in such situations, French labor legislation applies.
In the Netherlands, employers in air transport who post personnel from another member state, from the EEA, or from Switzerland are exempt from submitting the posting declaration. Austria has several exceptions related to the duration and purpose of mobility, while Slovenia excludes crew members from the scope of its law on cross-border service provision.
The existence of derogations does not mean that the respective personnel is devoid of the protection of labor legislation or social security. They modify certain obligations associated with posting, while other European and national rules continue to apply, including those regarding the establishment of the social security system and the protections offered by the applicable labor law.
The differences between states, however, become a problem for companies and authorities operating cross-border. The report finds that there is no consensus among states on all situations in which crew members must be considered posted and that interpretations regarding "home base," "operational base," and the nature of the employment relationship may vary.
The practical consequence is that the same type of activity may require a different analysis depending on the duration of the move, the departure base, the host state, the contractual relationship, and any national derogations. Inspectors must correlate this information before they can establish who the employer is, which law protects the worker, and where social contributions are owed.
The ELA report recommends clarifying the concepts used in the sector and developing dedicated materials and training for national authorities. At the same time, it indicates the need for better information exchange between labor inspectorates, social security institutions, and aviation authorities, the latter having access to essential operational data for verifying bases and crew movements.
In a sector where the aircraft, operator, intermediary, contract, and the person working on board may have links to different states, verification is not limited to the document presented by the company. ELA's conclusions show that the social protection of crew personnel largely depends on the authorities' ability to reconstruct the real employment relationship and report it correctly to the base, activity, and contributions of the person.
In short, 46% of the participating authorities in the survey reported cases of non-compliance with social security rules, 36% encountered missing PD A1 certificates, and 34% identified situations where seafarers were classified as independent even though the relationship could correspond to an employment. Authorities frequently encountered temporary employment agencies, direct independent activity, or through intermediaries, transfers between bases, and different forms of leasing of aircraft and crews, without such structures being illegal in themselves. Only eight member states have specific derogations from the rules regarding the posting of seafarers, and the solutions vary: some exclude certain flights, while others introduce exceptions based on duration, training, or type of operation. For social security, "home base" is the main reference for establishing applicable legislation, but inspectors must verify whether the base designated by the operator corresponds to how the crew actually works. The report does not establish that atypical forms of work or changing bases automatically represent fraud. Problems arise when contractual structures conceal the real employment relationship or hinder the correct establishment of contributions and workers' rights.
Almost half of the authorities participating in the European Labour Authority's research reported encountering non-compliance with social security rules in commercial air transport. 46% of respondents indicated such problems, 38% encountered violations of national labor legislation in mobility situations, 36% missing PD A1 certificates, and 34% the classification of some crew members as independents or in other contractual forms that did not correspond to the established situation.
The percentages come from a survey with 60 responses from authorities in 23 member states and do not represent the proportion of airlines or employees in the EU in these situations. They show how frequently various types of problems have been encountered by the participating institutions, some of which have a much more intense control activity than others.
Pseudo-independence appears in the report as one of the problems encountered in several states. Representatives of authorities from Belgium, Spain, France, Lithuania, and Poland reported cases where personnel presented contractually as independent could actually perform activities that corresponded to an employment relationship.
The problem is not the use of independent activity as such. A pilot can provide services independently in certain situations, but authorities must verify how the activity is organized: who gives the instructions, who sets the schedule, who bears the economic risk, and what real freedom the person has in performing the services.
In Poland, a representative of the social security institution described situations where independent activity had to be, in practice, reclassified as an employment relationship. Authorities also encountered structures where a person had an employment contract with one entity and a civil contract with another, even though the activity was carried out for the benefit of the first company, which could reduce the social contributions owed.
The report also includes a case described by a representative of the labor inspection in France, where the crew was provided through an intermediary from outside the EU and had been presented as independent. The investigation concluded that the workers were not independent in reality, and the case had a European dimension and would have affected approximately 1,500 crew members.
These examples do not allow for attributing practices to the entire sector and do not identify in the document the companies involved. They illustrate, however, the difficulty for authorities to establish who the employer is when between the airline and the person working on board there are agencies, intermediaries, or other contractual entities.
The survey shows that such structures are encountered relatively frequently. 45% of respondents saw personnel employed through temporary employment agencies, 43% independent activity and direct service provision for the operator, and 40% independent activity through an intermediary. 35% encountered temporary transfers of crews to another base in the EU, and 33% wet lease operations, where the aircraft is provided together with the crew.
The report specifies that such contractual models do not automatically represent violations of legislation. The difficulty arises when multiple legal relationships overlap, so the inspector must establish who exercises effective control over the worker, which entity pays their remuneration, and who is responsible for contributions and working conditions.
The same problem arises in the case of subcontracting. Authorities interviewed in Spain, Italy, and Poland described cascading structures where the airline outsources hiring to an intermediary, which can subcontract in turn, separating the operational control of the activity from the formal legal responsibility.
Establishing the employer has direct consequences on social contributions. Crew members who normally perform work in two or more states must be able to demonstrate which social security legislation applies to them, and the PD A1 document certifies the state whose system covers the respective person.
However, the available data is incomplete. In 2024, 13,170 PD A1 certificates were issued for flight or cabin personnel at the EU level, while the total number of persons employed in the statistical category used by the report was approximately 394,500. ELA specifies that this comparison does not allow for calculating the actual number of mobile persons, as many short-term mobility forms are not captured by centralized data.
The report estimates that notifications and available PD A1 certificates represent less than 4% of the total crew personnel, but warns that the information cannot be interpreted as evidence that the rest of the employees should hold such a document. Authorities do not have sufficient data to estimate how many pilots and cabin crew members are in situations that concretely require this certification.
For crew members, establishing the social security system is primarily linked to "home base." European legislation defines the base as the place assigned by the operator from where the crew member normally starts and ends a period or series of service periods and where the operator does not provide, under normal conditions, accommodation.
Normally, the activity of a pilot or cabin crew member is considered, for social security, to be carried out in the state where this base is located. The same principle is relevant regardless of whether the person works as an employee or is truly independent.
The designation of a base by the company does not, however, conclude the verification. Authorities must establish whether the declared location corresponds to the actual pattern of activity, and the report shows that access to flight programs, service rosters, and data regarding operational bases is essential for this verification.
The problem becomes more complicated when personnel are temporarily moved between bases. A short-term change does not automatically determine the transfer of the person to another social security system, as European rules aim to maintain a certain stability of the applicable legislation over a period of 12 months.
In contrast, a permanent or long-term move can change both the "home base" and the worker's real connection to a certain state. In these situations, different effects may arise on labor legislation, posting rules, and the social security system, which obliges authorities to analyze each dimension separately.
The rules regarding posting add another level of complexity. Not every cross-border flight means that the personnel is posted to another member state, and passing briefly through a country or carrying out auxiliary activities at the airport must be analyzed based on the effective connection of the work to that territory.
A temporary move to another base is much more likely to fall under the posting rules. The report provides the example of a pilot transferred for three months from Lisbon to Paris, a situation that would normally involve the application of the host state's basic conditions regarding remuneration, working time, and leave.
Member states, however, do not treat all situations in the same way. ELA identifies eight countries that have introduced specific derogations or exceptions applicable to crew members, and the model varies from one state to another.
In Belgium, the posting rules do not generally apply to crew members performing international flights, with exceptions related to cabotage operations. Personnel in international passenger and freight transport is also exempt from the mandatory Limosa declaration.
France uses a different approach. An airline cannot rely on the posting regime for personnel assigned to an operational base in France when the activity is carried out there in a stable, usual, and continuous manner, and the effective center of professional activity is located in another country; in such situations, French labor legislation applies.
In the Netherlands, employers in air transport who post personnel from another member state, from the EEA, or from Switzerland are exempt from submitting the posting declaration. Austria has several exceptions related to the duration and purpose of mobility, while Slovenia excludes crew members from the scope of its law on cross-border service provision.
The existence of derogations does not mean that the respective personnel is devoid of the protection of labor legislation or social security. They modify certain obligations associated with posting, while other European and national rules continue to apply, including those regarding the establishment of the social security system and the protections offered by the applicable labor law.
The differences between states, however, become a problem for companies and authorities operating cross-border. The report finds that there is no consensus among states on all situations in which crew members must be considered posted and that interpretations regarding "home base," "operational base," and the nature of the employment relationship may vary.
The practical consequence is that the same type of activity may require a different analysis depending on the duration of the move, the departure base, the host state, the contractual relationship, and any national derogations. Inspectors must correlate this information before they can establish who the employer is, which law protects the worker, and where social contributions are owed.
The ELA report recommends clarifying the concepts used in the sector and developing dedicated materials and training for national authorities. At the same time, it indicates the need for better information exchange between labor inspectorates, social security institutions, and aviation authorities, the latter having access to essential operational data for verifying bases and crew movements.
In a sector where the aircraft, operator, intermediary, contract, and the person working on board may have links to different states, verification is not limited to the document presented by the company. ELA's conclusions show that the social protection of crew personnel largely depends on the authorities' ability to reconstruct the real employment relationship and report it correctly to the base, activity, and contributions of the person.
Latest News
23:00
A 30-meter luxury yacht, Angiola II, sank in Sardinia a few days after delivery. All 14 people on board were rescued.
22:57
Raúl Castro appeared in Havana to mark 100 years since the birth of his brother, Fidel Castro
22:45
The Swedish Parliament has adopted the reduction of the age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 14 years, with 281 votes in favor. The right-wing government has prioritized combating crime.
22:39
Etna has been putting on a rare volcanic show for seven days: tourists are flocking to the trails, ash is closing the airport.
22:23
The U.S. Secretary of Defense has dismissed allegations regarding the poor conditions on the USS Abraham Lincoln, but sailors are facing serious issues.
See more news
NEWS ON THE SAME TOPICS
Personalized news feed, AI-powered search, and notifications in a more interactive experience.
