I REFER to the news dated June 28 entitled “MAVCOM to enhance consumer protection code”.

When asked regarding the refund by AirAsia X Bhd (AAX) for flights affected by the pandemic, Malaysian Aviation Commission (MAVCOM) executive chairman Datuk Seri Saripuddin Kasim said the commission needs to follow the court’s order on this matter.

“MAVCOM’s stance is clear, the refund shouldn’t be part of the restructuring but we have to abide by the court order. The court decided that the refund is part of the restructuring. We hope the public understands our stance,” he said.

In truth, it is the Malaysian Aviation Consumer Protection Code (MACPC) 2016 – particularly Paragraphs 7A (1) and 12(5) – which fails to protect consumers’ rights and instead protects airlines even after its amendment in 2019.

In fact, it is the root cause of the public outcry over the apparent discrepancies in AAX’s refund policy under unprecedented circumstances.

How disgraceful MAVCOM’s stance is as it continues to protect airlines when airlines cancel flights under all circumstances.

That’s why MAVCOM has been often described as “toothless” for failing to act against AAX and instead allowing the company to ignore the rights of consumers. This is wrong – AAX should return money it owes its passengers.

Two years ago, I booked an AAX flight scheduled to depart from Kuala Lumpur to Perth on Aug 16, 2020. However, the flight was cancelled by AAX on July 11, 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On the next day, AAX decided to issue a credit account without offering a refund option.

Under such a situation, it is deceptive for AAX to even thank the passengers for choosing and accepting travel credits and also for MAVCOM to use this ground conveniently to close the passengers’ complaint cases when there was no refund option in the first place.

The truth is that all the passengers wanted a refund and not by way of credits or vouchers.

Grossly unfair practice

Obviously, AAX’s stance on refund by way of issuing credits or vouchers is grossly unfair and misleading given many local and international passengers whose cases were considered resolved by AAX are still demanding a refund from the airline.

For the record, I have lodged four complaint to MAVCOM between July 2020 and July 2021 regarding AAX’s rejection over my request for a refund.

To my surprise and great disappointment, MAVCOM also rejected and closed all my cases even before the court order, and asked me to deal directly with AAX myself.

In order to get clarification on this matter, I personally spoke to MAVCOM many times and was very disappointed that MAVCOM could not even provide me with a simple good valid reason for closing all my cases.

Here are their disappointing responses:

• We note that the airline had reviewed your case and already offered you a credit account last August 2020. Are you aware about their restructuring plan or proof of debt exercise? If yes, please provide a copy of the correspondence on this matter.
• Based on the restructuring plan by AAX, consumers are advised to wait for the decision of the High Court regarding refund claim.
• Kindly be informed that AAX has gone into corporate restructuring in October 2020 and in line with our MACPC, the commission will not be able to pursue further with your complaint.
• Please be informed that AAX’s restructuring application is still on-going. The airline will not be able to review consumers’ refund requests during this time.
• Based on the information provided, the commission is of the view that the airline has fulfilled your initial request of the credit account as per your request. In line with the above, the commission will not be able to pursue further with your complaint and you may contact the airline directly for your concerns.
• MAVCOM is cognisant that consumers are equally impacted by COVID-19 pandemic but as an economic regulator, we play a critical role to ensure the airline exercise reasonableness in executing their service recovery options to passengers impacted by the pandemic that is not within the airline’s control. Given that the flight cancellation in 2020 was beyond the airline’s control, the offer of a credit account by AAX then was reasonable.
• Please be advised that the flight ticket refund policies differ from airline to airline, and are purely at the airline’s commercial decision.
• MAVCOM concluded that AAX has fulfilled its obligation and therefore will not be able to pursue your complaints further. You may contact AAX directly to further submit your request.
• Please take note that MAVCOM has responded to the press statement and your queries and MAVCOM’s stand remains the same.

However, what puzzled me most is that MAVCOM could even deceptively publish an announcement on its website dated Nov 12, 2021 entitled “MAVCOM to Exercise Its Statutory Powers if AirAsia X Bhd Does Not Reimburse Air Travel Consumers for Tickets Purchased.”

An aviation practice group asked “What can MAVCOM do if AAX does not reimburse its passengers for the value of tickets purchased?” The answer is nothing.

Violation of obligation

Clearly, MAVCOM’s stance on AAX’s refund policy is also unclear, unfair, deceptive, misleading and needs clarification, too.

It’s unfair and deceptive when AAX repeatedly says that it has already refunded almost all passengers by providing travel credits or vouchers.

A travel credit is not money that is given back to passengers and is therefore not a refund. In fact, AAX is enjoying all the benefits and interests by withholding passengers’ money.

Accordingly, it is necessary for MAVCOM to view any contract of carriage provision or airline policy that purports to deny refunds to passengers when the airline cancels a flight to be a violation of the airline’s obligation that could subject the airline to an enforcement action.

In the interest of protecting consumers’ right and avoiding any unfair and deceptive airline refund policies, I believe the only way out is for MAVCOM to revamp the MACPC 2016 as follows:

• All consumers are entitled to a refund within seven (7) days, of the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought, including taxes and fees, if the airline cancelled a flight, regardless of the reason including under extraordinary circumstances and non-refundable tickets, and the consumer chooses not to travel.
• The airline may issue travel credit or voucher in lieu of refunds provided the airline shall be obliged to notify those passengers that they have the option of a refund.

In conclusion, if MAVCOM’s stance remains the same, then it can be assured that MACPC will continue to fail to protect the consumers’ rights to a refund when the airlines cancel flights.

Consumers don’t buy air tickets to kiss their money goodbye. Based on the feedback from many affected international passengers, AAX’s refund policy has brought a bad reputation to Malaysia.

Accordingly, Malaysia now urgently needs to revamp a flawed consumer protection code as described above – not announcements, stances and statements that are full of hot air.

Affected passenger

Ipoh.

https://focusmalaysia.my/sympathetic-with-airasia-x-mavcoms-flawed-consumer-protection-code/