In recent years, technology has transformed how we plan our trips, making it easier to search for and purchase airline tickets from any device. However, an important question arises: are airline websites accessible to everyone, including those with disabilities?
With this concern in mind and taking into account that as of June 2025, all e-commerce that operate in the European Union must be accessible by the European Accessibility Act, we have analyzed the accessibility of the web portals of the main airlines that operate in Spain.
To carry out this ranking, key aspects were evaluated in the most common sections of airline web portals, such as the home page, the flight reservation process, the contact form and the registration section. Among the criteria analyzed are the ability to navigate only with the keyboard, the existence of alternative descriptions in images, the correct use of headings, color contrast, and accessibility in the forms.
Qatar Airways
Qatar Airways leads this ranking with a score of 8.06, being partially compliant with European regulations and having a level of AA adequacy. Although it obtains the best score, its web portal is not fully accessible.
There are navigation problems for certain interactive components of the portal, problems in the definition of hierarchical headers and there are complications at the accessibility level in some forms.
Binter Canarias
Binter Canarias closely follows Qatar Airways with a score of 7.81, but its website presents basic errors, such as difficulties in keyboard navigation, contrast errors and problems caused by the purpose defined for the links.
Factors that result in its level of adequacy not yet fully complying with current regulations.
Iberia
Despite Iberia’s popularity, there are key areas that need attention and as a result its score is 7.10, this being the last of the airlines analyzed with an AA adequacy situation.
To begin with, we find errors such as incorrectly defined labels in forms, incorrect header structure, which does not always follow a logical order, and, finally, several links that lack a clear description.
In addition, some elements present insufficient contrasts when applied depending on what resolutions and formats.
Air Europa
The Air Europa portal shows a lack of attention to basic standards, causing it to have a score of 6.90 and being the only airline in the ranking with an adequacy level A. Although it is partially navigable, there are serious errors such as the header structure.
Another error that should not be overlooked is due to the fact that the portal does not comply on several occasions with the WAI-ARIA specifications, which negatively impacts those who use screen readers.
Problems have also been detected with form labels and links, as well as insufficient contrasts in some texts.
Emirates
Entering the airlines that present a level of adequacy “Invalid”, we find Emirates with a score of 6.77. Among the errors detected in the Emirates portal, poorly defined labels on various elements stand out, as well as sections that lack adequate headings, making structured navigation difficult.
Buttons without semantic labels that provide meaning were also found, as well as links without clear descriptions, which complicates their understanding.
Finally, the incorrect use or absence of WAI-ARIA specifications is quite common, a factor that negatively impacts the user experience with screen readers.
easyJet
Sharing a grade and level of adequacy with Emirates, easyJet also presents significant deficiencies in terms of the accessibility of its web portal.
One of the main problems identified is the lack of textual alternatives for images, which excludes users with visual disabilities. Furthermore, the labels on the forms are poorly defined or completely absent.
Multiple contrast errors derived from the corporate color of the website have been detected, which affects readability. Finally, errors have been identified in the assignment of name, function and value in interactive components.
Ryanair
Ryanair is perhaps the most popular airline in the low-cost airline category. However, despite its popularity, it has significant accessibility problems that require immediate attention, which has resulted in a score of 6.67.
Inadequacies were observed in the textual alternatives for some visual elements, which makes access to information difficult for users with visual disabilities.
The header structure also presents inconsistencies, complicating hierarchical navigation. One of the most serious problems lies in the contrasts and use of color, which do not meet the minimum standards to guarantee readability.
Lufthansa
With a score of 6.56 and in eighth position in the ranking we find Lufhansa. Among the errors detected on the Lufhansa portal, the lack of textual alternatives in key elements stands out, in addition, the forms do not have correctly defined labels, making their use difficult.
On the other hand, the links lack texts that clearly describe their purpose. In addition, contrast errors were detected in the responsive version of the site and difficulties with keyboard navigation in resolutions other than desktop. Again, we encounter several problems regarding the definition of the name, function and value in various components.
Vueling
Entering the most critical part of the ranking, we find Vueling with a score of 5.45, an airline that presents significant deficiencies in terms of accessibility.
Among the main problems, textual alternatives for visual elements are insufficient, and form fields lack well-defined labels.
Sections are not properly delimited, making structured navigation difficult. Additionally, buttons and links do not adequately describe their purpose, and status messages are not implemented correctly. There are also errors when it comes to clearly describing the function of the interactive components of the portal.
Volotea
The Volotea portal is the one that presents the most accessibility problems among those analyzed, finding itself in a situation of non-compliance with legal compliance and with an insufficient grade of 4.40.
Numerous contrast errors were detected in all resolutions and formats, seriously affecting readability. Additionally, there are empty links and several images with functionality that do not have alt text to describe said functionality.
Form labels are incorrectly inserted on several occasions, and buttons lack text to explain their purpose. Consecutive repeated links were also observed, which causes confusion, and errors in the assignment of name, function and value in several interactive elements.
Summary Table of Level of Web Accessibility in Airlines
| POSITION | AIRLINE | LEVEL OF SUITABILITY | AVERAGE WEBSITE SCORE | COMPLIANCE SITUATION | ACCESSIBILITY STATEMENT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qatar Airways | AA | 8.06 | Partially compliant | Invalid |
| 2 | Binter Canarias | AA | 7.81 | Partially compliant | Not available |
| 3 | Iberia | AA | 7.10 | Partially compliant | Invalid |
| 4 | Air Europa | A | 6.90 | Partially compliant | Not available |
| 5 | Emirates | Invalid | 6.77 | Partially compliant | Invalid |
| 6 | easyJet | Invalid | 6.77 | Partially compliant | Invalid |
| 7 | Ryanair | Invalid | 6.67 | Partially compliant | Not available |
| 8 | Lufthansa | Invalid | 6.56 | Partially compliant | Not available |
| 9 | Vueling | Invalid | 5.45 | Partially compliant | Not available |
| 10 | Volotea | Invalid | 4.40 | Not compliant | Not available |
After this analysis, we can affirm that the websites of the largest airlines operating in Spain have problems in terms of accessibility, being these partially compliant or even non-compliant with European regulations.
Therefore, if you want you can count on our services. From Web Accessibility, we encourage you to visit us www.tuwebaccesible.es.
This analysis has been carried out manually, but in addition, it has had the support of the observatory tool to contrast the review carried out, so the notes obtained have resulted from a review where some of the most notable criteria in accessibility have been taken into account:
- Cannot navigate with the keyboard
- There are images without alt
- Headers are misused, there are header breaks and missing main headers
- There are contrast problems
- Forms do not have labels
- There is redundancy of links
