Should Airports Stock Campbeds and Baby Food for Disruptions?

As weather extremes, air traffic control failures and staffing shortages trigger waves of cancellations, a growing debate is emerging over whether airports should be required to stock campbeds, snacks and baby food for stranded passengers.

Rights in Law, Gaps on the Ground

Across major aviation markets, formal passenger rights frameworks focus on airlines rather than airports. In the European Union, Regulation 261/2004 and its forthcoming update set out entitlements to meals, refreshments and accommodation during long delays or cancellations, with air carriers responsible for providing care when flights are disrupted, regardless of the cause, once certain thresholds are met. Similar rules in the United Kingdom and Canada also place primary duties on airlines to ensure access to food, drink and hotel rooms when passengers are forced to wait for extended periods.

Publicly available guidance from European institutions stresses that passengers should not be left to arrange their own food and accommodation during major disruption, and that reasonable costs can be reclaimed when assistance is not offered. In Canada, national regulations specify that carriers must provide food and drink in reasonable quantities relative to the length of the wait and time of day, as well as overnight accommodation and transport when required. These frameworks are designed to ensure a minimum standard of care, but they do not directly require airports to maintain physical stocks of items such as campbeds, blankets or baby food.

That legal distinction often becomes blurred in practice. During large-scale events, such as system failures or widespread weather disruption, airlines can quickly reach the limits of their contracts with local hotels and caterers. At that point, passengers may look to the airport operator itself for support in the form of somewhere to sleep, something to eat and facilities to care for children, even though formal obligations may remain with airlines under consumer legislation.

Existing Practice: Cots, Campbeds and Emergency Stores

Operational guidance and written evidence submitted to public inquiries in Europe and North America indicate that many large hubs already keep basic welfare supplies on hand. These typically include cots or campbeds, blankets, bottled water and simple food items that can be distributed on the terminal floor when hotels are full and passengers must stay airside overnight. Industry case studies show that airports also use contingency contracts with retailers and caterers to extend opening hours, secure bulk deliveries of sandwiches or hot food, and issue vouchers that can be redeemed in airport outlets.

Specialist travel resources that track airport facilities report that cots are usually brought out only during severe weather events, prolonged air traffic control failures or other major incidents. Distribution points can shift depending on which terminals are most affected, with airport staff and airline ground handlers jointly managing queues. The overall picture suggests that while there is no universal requirement to stock beds, many airports treat them as an essential part of their disruption toolkit, particularly at hubs with a high proportion of transfer passengers who cannot easily leave the secure area.

In written evidence to policymakers, airport associations have pointed to widespread use of terminal disruption plans that detail how welfare supplies are deployed. These plans often reference maintaining stocks of food, drinks, baby food, baby milk and hygiene products, alongside arrangements for free Wi Fi, printing facilities and temporary rest areas. The practices are not uniform worldwide, but they illustrate how some airports are already moving beyond minimum legal requirements to manage the reputational and operational risks that come with images of families sleeping on hard floors.

Families, Baby Food and a Particular Vulnerability

The question of baby food and formula has become a focal point in discussions about airport preparedness. Security rules in many jurisdictions allow passengers to carry reasonable quantities of baby milk and food through checkpoints, provided the baby is present and items can be screened. For most journeys, that is sufficient. During extended disruption, however, supplies that parents packed for a typical flight plus a short buffer can quickly run out, especially when delays stretch into overnight stays in the terminal.

Publicly accessible guidance submitted by airport groups highlights the prioritisation of baby-specific supplies in emergency planning. Some disruption playbooks recommend that airports maintain small reserves of shelf stable formula, jars or pouches of baby food and nappies that can be accessed only when a formal disruption plan is triggered, not for routine retail sale. The aim is to provide a safety net for families who cannot easily source suitable products airside once regular shops are closed or existing stock has been purchased.

Consumer advocates argue that this is not just a matter of convenience, but of health and safety. Infants may not be able to tolerate improvised substitutions, and parents cannot always leave the secure zone to visit pharmacies without jeopardising their place in rebooking queues. As regulators revisit passenger rights regimes in light of recent mass disruptions, the question of whether baby food and child oriented supplies should be explicitly referenced in contingency planning is gaining prominence.

Who Should Pay for Preparedness?

The debate over campbeds, snacks and baby food ultimately hinges on responsibility and cost. Airlines are already under legal obligations in many jurisdictions to provide care and assistance, including meals and accommodation, when disruptions fall within the scope of passenger rights regulations. Industry consultations at European level have explored whether these duties should be clarified or expanded, particularly around the provision of full meals via vouchers and clear reimbursement rules when care is not offered.

Airport operators, meanwhile, emphasise that they are infrastructure providers rather than transport providers. Public documents from regulators and parliaments show that there is currently no consistent global standard requiring airports to maintain welfare stockpiles. However, some national reviews of major disruption events have recommended closer coordination between airlines and airports on welfare provision, including joint planning for food supplies, rest areas and communications, to reduce gaps in support during peak stress.

Financing these measures can be approached in several ways. Airports may treat emergency supplies as part of their broader safety and resilience budgets, recouped through aeronautical charges or commercial revenues. Alternatively, regulators could specify minimum welfare standards and allow airports and airlines to negotiate cost sharing, for example via ground handling agreements or service level clauses. The trend in recent policy discussions is toward clearer allocation of responsibilities, with an expectation that passengers should experience a seamless welfare offer regardless of which entity technically pays the invoice.

From Exceptional Response to Standard Expectation

What was once considered an exceptional response is increasingly seen as a baseline expectation. Climate change is contributing to more frequent severe weather events, while tightly optimised airline schedules and congested airspace leave little slack when things go wrong. Official analyses of recent system failures have urged aviation stakeholders to treat major disruption as a recurring risk that must be systematically managed, rather than a rare shock.

As a result, there is growing momentum to embed welfare measures directly into airport resilience planning. This could include pre designated zones that can be converted into overnight rest areas, stockpiles of campbeds and bedding sized to realistic worst case scenarios, and contracts that guarantee rapid delivery of snacks, hot drinks and baby specific supplies. Transparent communication about what passengers can expect during such events, and how responsibilities are shared between airlines and airports, is likely to play an important role in rebuilding trust after high profile disruption episodes.

Whether mandated by regulators or adopted voluntarily, comprehensive contingency plans for passenger welfare are becoming a key test of how seriously the aviation sector takes its duty of care. Campbeds, snacks and baby food may seem like small details in complex global operations, but for stranded travellers on a terminal floor, they increasingly define the difference between a managed disruption and a memorable ordeal.

UK Civil Aviation Authority: Flight delays and cancellations guidance

European Union: Air passenger rights information

Canada: Air Passenger Protection Regulations

Airport Operators Association written evidence on disruption planning

Overview of airports providing cots during disruptions