While Moebus Aviation's panel of experts was able to find consensus on all points, EASA considers the study's findings and recommendations to fall into different categories of "scientific robustness". Some are based on very sound scientific evidence, others are based on evidence that is not sufficiently sound in all aspects, and other findings show a need for further research.

Particularly the recommendations falling into the first category demonstrate a clear need for the European legislator to amend several aspects of Subpart Q. In line with the EU-OPS Regulation's mandate, these amendments should have been done "without delay", to ensure passengers can rely on highest, scientifically supported safety rules in Europe.

After the study’s finalisation, in Sept. 2008, ECA had advocated that the OPS NPA process (2009-2c), which had been launched in late January 2009, is used to integrate the study’s recommendations into future EU law. However, despite having had 4 months to assess the study, and as a result of heavy airline lobbying against the study’s findings (see “Chapter on “What Do the Airlines Say?”) EASA chose to disregard those findings in its OPS-NPA. Instead, the Agency announced the opening of a separate EASA rule-making process.