Flight Disruptions: Stakeholders Seek Tough Labour Laws to Protect Passengers

Chinedu Eze

Stakeholders in the aviation industry have called for stricter labour laws that will protect passengers during flight disruptions by aviation unions or other actions that will deny travellers their right to travel as scheduled.

Reacting to the recent disruption of flights by aviation unions, they said passengers were usually the victims when such disruptions take place.

Industry consultant and former Rector of the College of Aviation Technology (NCAT), Zaria, Captain Samuel Caulcrick, spoke on how passengers’ interest could be protected during such incidents

Caulcrick wants government to introduce legislation preventing industrial disputes from disrupting passenger journeys.

His proposal follows the union picketing of Air Peace on Tuesday, which disrupted flight operations and left passengers bearing the consequences of a dispute between organised labour and an airline.

He argued that travellers should not become collateral damage whenever unions, airlines and aviation agencies disagree over money, labour or operational issues.

According to Caulcrick, passengers fund the aviation system through numerous charges but have little influence over disputes involving the organisations that receive those funds. He said the situation exposed a serious weakness in passenger protection because travellers pay upfront yet can suffer major financial and personal losses when flights are disrupted.

“They fund the industry completely (100 per cent), yet their trips are disrupted at the slightest disagreement among beneficiaries of their money,” Caulcrick said.

The former rector argued that the people financing the system should not become the first victims when stakeholders fall out.

He said passengers pay Ticket Sales Charge (TSC), Cargo Sales Charge (CSC), Passenger Service Charge (PSC), fuel surcharges and security costs to aviation agencies before completing their journey.

However, those payments offer no guarantee that passengers will reach their destinations when industrial disputes escalate into operational disruptions.

He said passengers have no seat at the negotiation table when unions, airlines and government agencies negotiate behind closed doors. Therefore, they can lose business opportunities, miss meetings, incur hotel costs and suffer disrupted connections without adequate compensation.

“The reason passengers are the ‘most abused’ is simple: they have no seat at the negotiation table,” Caulcrick said.

His comments placed passenger protection at the centre of the debate over how aviation labour disputes should be handled after flight disruptions.

He was worried about how airport routes were blocked and passengers could not gain access to the airport during flight disruptions and therefore miss their flights and no one speaks for them.

Caulcrick also compared Nigeria’s framework with the European Union’s passenger compensation system. He argued that Nigeria needs stronger passenger protection when disputes involving aviation stakeholders cause significant disruption.

He, therefore, proposed an “Aviation Essential Services Act” to establish clear limits around industrial action in aviation. Under his proposal, aviation would receive treatment similar to other essential services where disruption can have serious consequences for the public.

However, he said the proposal would not remove the right of unions to protest. “Instead, it would distinguish peaceful picketing from actions that stop flights, block terminals or prevent passengers from travelling. Under the proposed framework, unions could peacefully picket the headquarters of the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria, the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority and airline offices. Such demonstrations would take place between 8am and 4pm with proper notice,” he said.

He wants blocking of terminals, airport gates, runways and check-in counters prohibited because such actions prevent flights from operating. He believes unions should retain their right to protest without gaining the ability to bring passenger operations to a standstill.

His proposal would also introduce hefty penalties for unions and personal liability for leaders responsible for prohibited disruptions. Repeated violations could, under his proposal, lead to the withdrawal of union recognition.

The industry consultant also wants a mandatory 30-day cooling-off period before aviation disputes can escalate into disruptive industrial action. During that period, disputes involving TSC remittances and other issues would undergo mediation involving the Ministry of Aviation, the Nigeria Labour Congress and the NCAA.

The proposal would also create a compensation scheme funded by airlines and aviation agencies when prolonged disruptions occur. Passengers delayed for more than three hours would automatically receive compensation under the proposed framework.

On his part, the Managing Director and CEO of Aero Contractors, Captain Ado Sanusi said Nigeria remained a country of law and, “we are law abiding citizens. I think the federal government should investigate this because people are taking laws into their hands.”

Aviation Round Table (ART) in a statement said that such disruption by labour should be done at the headquarters of the airlines or the agencies and not at the airports where travellers are affected and also other businesses are disrupted.

“Any airline perceived to be hindering their staff during a strike or picketing should be approached at their corporate head office, not in or around the sensitive airport areas where other businesses are disrupted,” the body said.