Republic Act 776, otherwise known as the Civil Aeronautics Act of the Philippines, mandates that the Depart-ment of Transportation and Communications (now the Department of Transportation (DOTr), through the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), “regulate the economic aspect of aviation and develop and promote the air potential of the Philip-pines, with due regard to public interest and convenience.” Furthermore, Republic Act 7394, otherwise known as the Consumer Act of the Philippines, mandates that the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) “protect the consumers against deceptive, unfair and unconscionable sales acts or practices and from misleading advertisements and fraudulent sales promotions.”
Pursuant to such mandates, DOTC-DTI Joint Administrative Order 1, Series of 2012 “Providing for a Bill of Rights for Air Passengers and Carrier Obligations” was promulgated in December 2012.
This little known Administrative Order came to light because of the recent Xiamen Air fiasco. The Regulations provided thereunder “apply to all aspects of contracts of carriage for flights or portions of a flight into, from, and within the territory of the Philippines operated by Philippine air carriers, and flights or portions of a flight from the territory of the Philippines operated by foreign air carriers” (Section 3).
The Rights of Air Passengers under the said Administrative Order are as follows:
- Right to Full, Fair and Clear Disclosure of the Service Offered and all the Terms and Conditions of the Contract of Carriage (Section 4);
2. Right to Clear and Non-Misleading Advertisements of, and Important Reminders Regarding Fares (Section 5);
3. Right Against Misleading and Fraudulent Sales Promotion Practices (Section 6);
4. Right to Transportation and Baggage Conveyance (Section 7);
5. Right to be Processed for Check-In (Section 8);
6. Right to Sufficient Processing Time (Section 9);
7. Right to Board Aircraft for the Purpose of the Flight (Section 10);
8. Right to Compensation and Amenities In Case of Cancellation of Flight (Section 11);
9. Right to Compensation and Amenities in Case of Flight Delay (Section 12);
10. Right to Compensation for Delayed, Lost and Damaged Baggage (Section 14);
11. Right to Compensation In Case of Death or Bodily Injury of a Passenger (Section 15);
12. Right to Immediate Payment of Compensation (Section 16).
Clearly, the Right to Compensation of an airline passenger for canceled or delayed flights is provided for under the Passenger Bill of Rights. Thus:
“Section 11. Right to Compensation and Amenities in Case of Cancellation of Flight. In case of cancellation of flights, the following shall be observed:
11.1 In case of flight cancellation attributable to the carrier, a passenger shall have the right to:
(a) Be notified beforehand via public announcement, written/published notice and flight status update service (text); (b) Be provided with the following, if he/she is already at the airport at the time of the announcement of the flight cancellation: sufficient refreshments or meals (e.g., snacks consisting of at least a bottle of water and a sandwich, or breakfast, lunch, or dinner, or a voucher for the same, as the case may be); hotel accommodation (conveniently accessible from the airport); transportation from the airport to the hotel, v.v.; free phone calls, text or e-mails, and first aid, if necessary; and (c) Reimbursement of the value of the fare, including taxes and surcharges, of the sector cancelled, or both/all sectors, in case the passenger decides not to fly the ticket or all the routes/sectors; or (d) Be endorsed to another air carrier without paying any fare difference, at the option of the passenger, and provided that space and other circumstances permit such re-accommodation; or (e) rebook the ticket, without additional charge, to the next flight with available space, or, within 30 days, to a future trip within the period of validity of the ticket. However, for rebooking made in excess of the aforementioned 30 days for a trip likewise within the validity of the ticket, fees and/or fare difference shall apply.
Provided, that in case a carrier cancels a flight at least 24 hours before the ETD, it shall not be liable for the foregoing amenities, except, it shall be obliged to notify the passenger, and, in accordance with the preceding provisions, to rebook or reimburse the passenger, at the option of the latter.
11.2 In case the air carrier cancels the flight because of force majeure, safety and/or security reasons, as certified by the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines, a passenger shall have the right to be reimbursed for the full value of the fare.
11.3 The provisions of this Section shall be the minimum entitlement of a passenger in case of cancellation, and shall not prohibit the air carrier from granting more favorable conditions or recourses, as it may deem appropriate.
Section 12. Right to Compensation and Amenities in Case of Flight Delay and Exceptions Thereto.
12.1 In case of Terminal Delay of at least three hours after the ETD, whether or not such is attributable to the carrier, a passenger shall have the right to:
(a) Be provided with refreshments or meals (sufficient snacks, breakfast, lunch or dinner, as the case may be), free phone calls, text or e-mails, and first aid, if necessary; and (b) rebook or refund his/her ticket in accordance with the preceding Section or be endorsed to another carrier, in accordance with the preceding Section.
12.2 In case such Terminal Delay extends to at least six hours after the ETD for causes attributable to the carrier, it shall be deemed canceled for the purpose of making available to the passenger the rights and amenities required to be provided in case of actual cancellation, as provided for in Section 11.1; and in addition, an affected passenger shall be given the following:
(a) Additional compensation equivalent to at least the value of the sector delayed or deemed canceled to be paid in the form of cash or voucher, at the discretion of the air carrier; and (b) the right to board the flight if it takes place more than six hours after the ETD and the affected passenger has not opted to rebook and/or refund. For this purpose, the air carrier is obliged to exert all efforts to contact the passenger for the flight.
12.3 A passenger shall likewise have the right to be provided with sufficient food and beverage, in cases of Tarmac Delay of at least two hours after the ETD, reckoned from the closing of the aircraft doors, or when the aircraft is at the gate with the doors still open but passengers are not allowed to deplane.
12.4 The provisions of this Section shall be the minimum entitlement of a passenger in case of delay and shall not prohibit the air carrier from granting more favorable conditions or recourses, as it may deem appropriate.”
On August 19, 2018, a Xiamen Air Boeing aircraft skidded off a runway at Ninoy Aquino International Airport. This caused 300 flights to be canceled, delayed or redirected, which affected at least 45,000 passengers who were stuck in the three Naia terminals, some without food, beverages and hotel accommodations. Many overseas Filipino workers had given their last money to their families who bid them good-bye at the Airport and had no money to spend during their long, uncertain wait. Some OFWs feared they had lost their employment contracts as they were a no-show with their prospective employers abroad.
Clearly, under these circumstances, someone has to be held responsible and liable criminally, administratively and civilly for damages to those affected passengers. Obviously, Xiamen Air is the principal culprit. Manila International Airport Authority says Xiamen Air will need to pay at least P15 million. This is a paltry amount not commensurate to the chaos and furor they caused, which Miaa said cover only the cost of manpower and rental of crane and equipment used to lift the jet off the field. The entire crew should be detained pending further investigation. Domestic carriers Philippine Airlines, Cebu Pacific, Philippine Air Asia, Cathay Pacific and Singapore Airlines had apologies for the inconvenience their passengers suffered. But providing food, beverages and in few instances hotel accommodations do not excuse these carriers from failing to respond immediately with replacement flights, rescheduling of canceled flights, rescheduling of planes, crew and operational resources. Naia personnel, from sheer volume of affected passengers and pressure of work, were reportedly outright discourteous.
Where was the government while this crisis was ongoing at the Naia? Clearly, the Department of Transportation should have weighed in as the Miaa, the Civil Aeronautics Board and the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines—agencies directly involved with airport operations, air carriers and airline passengers are under the supervision of the DOTr. The agency’s bleak response was a statement of Secretary Arthur P. Tugade that this Naia mayhem is an “eye-opener” and cause for “the review of emergency protocols and a revisiting of the Air Passenger Bill of Rights.”
Fortunately, my family decided to go to Montemar Beach Resort in Bataan instead of flying out during that fatal long weekend. Otherwise, I would have immediately gathered signatures of the affected passengers to protest the incompetence, inefficiency and discourtesy of airport personnel. I would have demanded the immediate detention and full investigation of Xiamen Air pilots and crew for their blatant disregard and disrespect for our Philippine aviation regulations.
This is ripe for a class action suit to test whether the Air Passengers Bill of Rights truly protects the ordinary air passengers—not the powers that be. And certainly, our government must be petrified with the reality that a single aircraft stuck on a runway can cripple the operations of the entire airport for several days. This elevates the issue from protection of air passengers to the bigger issue of national security and defense.
That must be the lesson the government learned from this “eye-opener”!