TO PREVENT a recurrence of the “lightning strikes thrice” agony following massive outcry over refund policy, perhaps it is high time that the Malaysian Aviation Commission (MAVCOM) step in to evaluate airline advertisements before they are allowed to be aired whether on mainstream media or social media.
At a glance, there is no element of deception on this latest advertisement by the airasia Super App even as the price tag of RM639 seems too alluring to be true for a round flight between Kuala Lumpur and the listed destinations of Bangkok, Krabi and Ho Chi Minh.
Frequent flyers who are already familiar with the antic of the low-cost airline are well-aware that the RM639 price tag “is far” from being the final ticket price.
But both the uninitiated and ‘newbie’ passengers are in for rude shock if they overlook the fine print on the bottom right hand corner which states that the RM639 price tag “excludes airport tax, MAVCOM fee, fuel surcharge and other applicable fees” which can work out to an additional RM100 if not more.
Perhaps MAVCOM should take a cue from the US Department of Transportation (DOT) which requires any ad or solicitation for passenger air transportation that includes a price to “state the entire price to be paid by the customer,” either in the exact amount or rounded up to the next whole dollar.
Previously, as a matter of enforcement policy, the DOT allowed certain government-imposed taxes and fees to be stated separately from the advertised fare; however, airline-imposed charges (such as fuel surcharges) and taxes calculated on a percentage basis (such as the US domestic 7.5% excise tax on the sale of commercial air transportation) were required to be included in the fare.
Recall that in December 2018, MAVCOM had slapped a RM160,000 fine on both AirAsia and AirAsia X for advertising misleading ticket prices. This fine includes advertisements and promotions places across the social media as well as on their respective websites. The penalties had been paid in full by both airlines.
The non-compliance comes under the Malaysian Aviation Consumer Protection Code (MACPC) which came into effect in 2016. Under the MACPC regulations, an airline must indicate the final price of airfares to be paid to the airlines, including taxes, fees, charges and surcharges that are unavoidable at the time the advertisement is put up.
Prior to this, AirAsia was fined A$200,000 in Australia for not including taxes and charges in their advertised air fares. AirAsia, on that occasion also pleaded no contest to the breach and paid the fine.
Refund issue
In his media conference on Monday (March 28) following the launch of the airasia Super App’s new Super+ plan, Capital A Bhd (formerly AirAsia Group Bhd) CEO Tan Sri Tony Fernandes drew distinction between AirAsia and its long haul sister airline whereby he claimed that the former “has handled over 90% of refunds and it was not an issue as we had been transparent”.
Yesterday (March 29), AirAsia Aviation Group Ltd (AAAGL) further clarified that it has resolved over 99% of guest queries and refund requests set off by the COVID-19 pandemic over the past two years.
“We have spoken to over five million guests since the pandemic began and settled the vast majority of requests relating to cancelled flights by issuing credit accounts, cash refunds or flight changes,” AAAGL’a CEO Bo Lingam pointed out in a media statement.
“Given the sheer volume, this is no mean feat. Across all airlines in AAAGL, we have provided a cash refund or credit shell to over three million bookings to-date. In total we received US$1.8 bil in refunds requested by guests since 2020.
“Of the total cash refund requested, over 99% has been resolved with only US$14.66 mil or 0.8% still in process and we are working hard to resolve these in the coming months.”
This is definitely an astonishing feat except that “99%” sounds an almost perfect figure when the affected passengers are seeking “cash refunds” but “could have been forced” to accept the option of credit shell/travel voucher. Perhaps Bo should be more specific as to how many passengers were actually refunded with cash.
According to MAVCOM in its COVID-19 flight disruption FAQs (frequently asked questions), if an airline has committed to offering consumers a cash refund, then the onus is on the airline to honour it.
“You may contact the airline to request a cash refund as per their original offer. If you are unhappy with the outcome, you may contact MAVCOM at https://flysmart.my/en/make-a-complaint/.”
However, in the event that the scheduled flight was cancelled and the airline has only offered a travel voucher or a choice to re-schedule the flight, MAVCOM noted:
“The request for a refund in the original mode of payment will be reviewed on a case-to-case basis. This is a commercial decision by the airline, taking into consideration that the cancellation of the flight was beyond the airlines’ control.”
Furious passengers told FocusM that cash refund options definitely does not apply to AirAsia X passengers, many of whom prefer cash refund as they are uncertain when they will fly again given the recent spike in global COVID-19 cases.
“By the way, things are moving, are they waiting for every disgruntled passenger to haul them to the small claims court first before paying? Probably, a class-action lawsuit should be initiated to get to the bottom of this issue which has dragged on for two years now,” said a family head who had booked a ticket for his Indonesian maid in December 2019 for a flight scheduled for May 2020.
Another disgruntled passenger who has to cancel his holiday trip to Japan, lamented that MAVCOM has been “toothless” in the whole affair.
“The authorities should just disband MAVCOM. Save taxpayers money at a time like this. The DCA (Department of Civil Aviation) could have done a better job,” he suggested. “The money could have been better channelled to beef up our healthcare instead facilities which are facing chronic under-investment.” – March 30, 2022.
https://focusmalaysia.my/airasia-should-be-transparent-in-its-ads-by-enlarging-its-fine-prints/
