Date: 16 February 2013
No-frills flights shouldn't mean no standards.
SINGAPORE - Scooting off on a holiday was no fun for
thousands of travellers stranded at Changi and other airports in recent weeks.
On Jan 19, frustrated travellers booked on Scoot kicked up such a fuss that
police had to step in.
A faulty emergency slide had meant that seats near the exit
of the Singapore Airlines-owned long-haul budget carrier had to be left vacant.
It took seven hours before 23 volunteers stepped forward to give up their
seats. Two weeks later, a problem with a fuel tank led to a group of more than
400 Singapore- Qingdao-Shenyang travellers waiting for 15 hours for their flight
to take off.
With just four planes and a tight schedule, each delay had a
knock-on effect. It took days for Scoot to recover fully. By then, as many as
20 arrivals and departures were late. Asked to comment on the disruptions,
Scoot reiterated that travellers on budget carriers pay low fares so they
should not expect meals and accommodation when flights are disrupted. The terms
and conditions which customers must acknowledge they have read and accepted
before making their purchase are clear, the airline said.
Inconvenienced passengers really should have bought
insurance, it added. In the end, it was Changi Airport Group - the airport, not
the airline - that gave out blankets and meal vouchers to passengers stranded
overnight in some cases. The only compensation Scoot offered was a $50 travel
voucher to offset against the next new Scoot booking.
The lengthy disruptions reignited debate on whether there
should be a set of rules to ensure that airlines meet minimum operational and
service standards, with penalties imposed if they don't. Over the last decade,
there have been repeated calls from frustrated travellers for regulation in the
low-cost carrier business.
Travellers put up with delays and disruptions, understanding
that these are sometimes beyond the control of an airline, especially a
low-cost one. But what if services promised are not delivered? Shouldn't there
be a framework for consumers to be compensated? Another common complaint is
that budget carriers take ages to process refunds and reply to e-mails.
One can argue that expecting quick responses and refunds are
"extras" in customer service for tightly run, margin-obsessed
carriers. But some basic level of customer service must surely be maintained.
Like being informed of likely delays, and getting regular updates so they are
not left hanging around at the airport not knowing what to expect next. For
long delays, food and drinks are essentials.
Airlines should also deploy staff to manage upset travellers
instead of leaving it to airport staff or ground handlers to deal with the
mess. Yet the authorities here have shied away from wielding the stick to
mandate basic standards of customer service.
Leave it to market forces?
The official view is that in an intensely competitive
industry like the airline business, market forces should suffice to motivate
airlines to serve their customers well. It is self-correcting. If service
sucks, customers will vote with their feet and switch to another airline.
According to this school of thought, regulating airlines and imposing minimum
service standards could drive fares up, and not be good for consumers.
But there are good reasons for a serious review of the
issue. In just eight years, the market share of low-cost carriers like Scoot,
Tiger Airways, Jetstar and AirAsia at Changi Airport has soared from 5.6 per
cent of total passenger traffic in 2005 to more than a quarter last year. The
proportion is set to increase with Asia driving air travel growth, especially
on budget airlines. More flights will criss-cross Asian skies. Changi's
traffic, which hit a record 51.2 million last year, is set to grow further.
Against such a backdrop, it does not do the airport or
Singapore's hub status any good if budget travellers complain of bad treatment
and management each time a flight is late or cancelled. Those who support
regulation also note that for many other industries including retail and
telecommunications, there are minimum guidelines and service benchmarks that
operators must comply with. If they don't, penalties are meted out.
Meanwhile, the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act does
not offer any real recourse for aggrieved travellers either, because it kicks
in only when a promise made to a consumer is broken. So while travellers can
take a carrier to task if it promises in writing a refund but does not deliver,
the Act does not apply for other grievances like waiting for hours without food
and drinks for a plane to be fixed.
Better protection elsewhere
In mature markets like Europe, Australia and New Zealand
where consumer laws are strict, travellers are better protected. Within the
European Union, for example, a traveller is entitled to compensation which
includes cash of up to €600 (S$1,000) when flights are disrupted.
Airlines must also provide accommodation when there are
overnight delays. In Asia, regulation is more scarce but things are changing.
In the Philippines, a law has just been passed to hold airlines accountable for
operational and service lapses. Indonesian authorities are also contemplating a
similar approach.
Passengers' wish list
What should Singapore be doing? In a competitive industry
where profit margins are thin, it is not in Singapore's interest to go the EU
way. There, any disruption - whether it is the airline's fault or an act of God
- is treated the same. Excessive regulation with heavy penalties could end up
backfiring if it drives carriers away and reduces Singapore's competitiveness
as a premier air hub. Doling out cash for delays is not recommended either,
unless it is to refund passengers who cancel their flights. Deciding how much
to give, whether more if it is the airline's fault or less if not, can also be
a complicated and messy affair.
But there should, at the very least, be clear guidelines on
what travellers can expect when there are service disruptions. Beyond a certain
delay period, meal and drink vouchers must be provided. If the delay is
overnight, the least carriers must do is offer blankets to those stranded.
Where possible, senior citizens and families with young
children should be provided with hotel rooms. Staff must also be on the ground
to manage disgruntled travellers and provide regular updates. Instead of
leaving it to the airlines, common guidelines should also be set on the maximum
delay tolerable before a traveller can demand a refund. And there should be
guidelines on how long he should have to wait before getting his money back.
Regulation need not be limited to just managing flight
disruptions. It can go one step further to include regular tracking of airline
performance. What proportion of flights depart and land on time? What is the
airline's response time to consumer calls and feedback? For the stick to work,
the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, which regulates the industry, and
Changi Airport Group must work together.
If the worry is that over-regulation and hefty fines may
affect the competitiveness of Singapore carriers, a good middle way to help
consumers and punish errant carriers is to make public information on service
lapses and operational hiccups easily available. This will keep airlines on
their toes and empower consumers to make the right choices.
Yes, regulation may drive costs up for budget airlines. But
as consumers have shown, they are willing to pay a bit more for basic service -
be it a confirmed seat or extra baggage allowance. There is little doubt they
will do the same to fly an airline that they know will take good care of them
when turbulence hits.
By Karamjit Kaur, The Straits Times
Copyright © 2013 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd
