Rights of Airline Passengers in the Philippines

[Arianespace]

It is also known as Air Passenger Bill of Rights (APBR).

This is the summary.





 

[Arianespace]

Amidst the Christmas Chaos, Cebu Pacific was fined only P5,000.00. Well, that's what the Law says

Airlines not deterred by current fines -- Abaya
Businessworld

STIFFER PENALTIES are needed against airlines providing substandard service, the Transportation Secretary said, following the series of flight delays and cancellations that marred Cebu Pacific Air’s operations during the holidays.

Department of Transportation and Communications (DoTC) Secretary Joseph Emilio A. Abaya told reporters on the sidelines of an event in Quezon City on Wednesday that the Republic Act (RA) No. 776 or the Civil Aeronautics Act of the Philippines should be amended to allow for harsher penalties on airlines.

Earlier this week, regulators found that the country’s largest budget airline was at fault over the massive disruption of its services before, during and after Christmas day.

“I’m sure congressmen are hearing this. There is a need to amend the law. Definitely P5,000 for a multibillion-peso airline industry is something they’ll laugh at,” Mr. Abaya said.

He was referring to Chapter VII, Section 42B of RA 776, stating that “any air carrier or person who violates or fails to comply with any provision of this Act of the terms, conditions, or limitations in a permit or amendment thereto or any orders, rules, or regulations, issued by the Board, shall be subject to a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos for each violation.”

Mr. Abaya said that the P5,000 penalty “is something disproportionate to the inconvenience passengers have experienced.”

On Tuesday, the DoTC said in a statement that Cebu Pacific Air will face penalties due to the “appalling number of delayed flights” and “high absenteeism,” citing an initial report of an investigating panel composed of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines, and the Manila International Airport Authority.

Sanctions, according to DoTC Spokesperson Michael Arthur C. Sagcal, could range from a fine to the ultimate penalty of revocation of franchise.

“[There’s this] old Civil Aeronautics Act, which was approved in 1950; Back then P5,000 was a good deterrent, but now it’s not enough,” Mr. Abaya said.

According to data submitted by the airline to the panel last Dec. 29, Cebu Pacific had a total of 20 canceled and 288 delayed flights at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3 from Dec. 24 to Dec. 26.

Cebu Pacific Air, its spokesperson Juan Lorenzo T. Tañada said, was due on Jan. 7, to submit a report to the CAB regarding its operations last Dec. 24-26. “The report was required by the CAB panel during the hearing last Dec. 29,” he said.

Unsolicited advice, if you know any of the victims, tell them to sue. You have better chance of winning compensation claims, and make 5J pay up.

[Solblanc]

That is a very funny penalty indeed.

I'm definitely looking forward to Hollande's visit. It's still a ways away, so hopefully the recent tragedy in France won't lead it to being rescheduled or anything.

[Arianespace]

Cebu Pacific questions the amount of fine it had to pay the government.

“We would like to understand the basis for the fine so we would be guided moving forward,” Cebu Pacific vice president for corporate affairs Jorenz Tanada

His questions was actually the debate at CAB before handing down CAB Resolution No. 4 series of 2015, imposing them P52,110,000 fine for the inconvenience of 10,400 passengers.

The debate was is it per flight, or per passenger? Fine would have been considerably less if it were the former. The majority vote was that it was the latter.

Personally though, I think it was on "per flight basis" which was the intent of the law. And for that 5J has all reasons to ask the basis.

Decision however was that it all boils down to one thing, license to fly. We call it Legislative Franchise. And the congressional license happens to be added to the CAB law because 5J license to fly is also a law. And the law perfectly states "public convenience". That sounds a broad definition, but who are they really? Duh.... riding public, meaning passengers! You can do the math why it is 52 million.The decision also carries a reprimand, meaning the next time it happens again will already entitle CAB to SUSPEND Cebu Pacific.

Had the inconvenience been the result of government action, i.e. closures due to typhoons, it would have been okay. The thing is other airlines flew and they didn't at the most important dates of the year for Filipinos.

[chowpau]

Saw this

http://www.unaids.org.ph/apanel/uploads/RA776.pdf

[Arianespace]

That is the antiquated CAB Law which is more like the mother law. Its more like a trunk of a tree for example. The stem leading you to the leaves will give you the answers.

Perhaps you may want also to read this:

RA 7151

(Cebu Pacific Franchise)

Section 2. Civil Aeronautics Board – The grantee shall secure from the Civil Aeronautics Board the appropriate permits and licenses for its operations.

All aircraft used by the grantee including their accessories and equipment shall at all times be airworthy and the crew members shall be licensed by the Government of the Philippines. They shall be equipped with radio communication, safety and other equipment and shall be operated and maintained in accordance with the regulations and technical requirements of the Air Transportation Office or such other regulatory bodies as the Government may prescribe for this purpose.

The grantee's equipment and the operation of such equipment shall at all times be subject to inspection and regulation by the Air Transportation Office.

The grantee shall comply with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered Seven hundred and seventy-six, and the regulation promulgated thereunder from time to time.

Section 3. Responsibility to the Public – Excepting cases of force majeure and whenever weather conditions permit, the grantee shall maintain scheduled and/or non-scheduled and/or charter air transport services between any and all points and places throughout the Philippines and other countries at such frequencies as traffic needs may require with Cebu as its base: provided, however, that at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all its frequencies shall be for the domestic market.

 

You might be wondering what regulations are we talking about here? Well, one of those is in the very first post of this forum thread.

[romantic_guy08]

Arianespace wrote

That is the antiquated CAB Law which is more like the mother law. Its more like a trunk of a tree for example. The stem leading you to the leaves will give you the answers.

Perhaps you may want also to read this:

RA 7151

(Cebu Pacific Franchise)

Section 2. Civil Aeronautics Board – The grantee shall secure from the Civil Aeronautics Board the appropriate permits and licenses for its operations.

All aircraft used by the grantee including their accessories and equipment shall at all times be airworthy and the crew members shall be licensed by the Government of the Philippines. They shall be equipped with radio communication, safety and other equipment and shall be operated and maintained in accordance with the regulations and technical requirements of the Air Transportation Office or such other regulatory bodies as the Government may prescribe for this purpose.

The grantee's equipment and the operation of such equipment shall at all times be subject to inspection and regulation by the Air Transportation Office.

The grantee shall comply with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered Seven hundred and seventy-six, and the regulation promulgated thereunder from time to time.

Section 3. Responsibility to the Public – Excepting cases of force majeure and whenever weather conditions permit, the grantee shall maintain scheduled and/or non-scheduled and/or charter air transport services between any and all points and places throughout the Philippines and other countries at such frequencies as traffic needs may require with Cebu as its base: provided, however, that at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all its frequencies shall be for the domestic market.

 

You might be wondering what regulations are we talking about here? Well, one of those is in the very first post of this forum thread.

I still find the APBR to be toothless and worthless...

I have a pending complaint vs PAL with CAB filed last April 2014 that still remains unresolved. CAB wouldn't even respond to follow-up emails requesting for a status update or at least a timeline when the complaint can be resolved. They only acted when I involved the CSC... sheesh....

[Arianespace]

I did answer the question here above.

Now its the time of the CAB ED to answer his version of it

CAB Power Limited

Arcilla reiterated that passengers, with its assistance, can

1. seek “satisfaction of their rights from the airline” or

2. they can pursue a legal case.

“The CAB is an  administrative agency invested with authority under  its charter to oversee  the aviation industry, through the issuance of pertinent orders and regulations,”

“However, it may not be within the prerogative of the CAB under its limited jurisdiction to assess a situation as the Dec 24 to 25 event,  and determine compensation, in a manner that is akin to an adjudication of rights and award of damages that properly pertains to the courts of law,”

“If the airlines fail to satisfy the claims of the passengers in accordance with the rules, passengers may seek the assistance of the CAB in the enforcement of the rules and/or go to court to obtain redress,”

The 2012 Air Passenger Bill of Rights outlines how passengers can be compensated. Specifically, a delay of at least six hours grants a passenger either a free rebooking or refund on top of “compensation” equal to the value of the ticket,

Events from Dec. 24 to 26 “required the application of the Air Passenger Bill of Rights.”

“Therefore, the immediate reaction of the CAB while the  Dec 24 to 25 event was unfolding was to issue an advisory admonishing Cebu Pacific to faithfully adhere to the requirements of the APBR, and to go out of its way to ensure the protection of its passengers,”

[mminieri]

There is a central question regarding the application of the APBR section on "DISCLOSURE". The question is "Does it apply ONLY to the Contract of Carriage (CoC) or does it imply disclosures must also be made "elsewhere" particularly in the case of ON-LINE bookings"?

Other than the requirement that the CoC be explained to the passenger at the time of purchase, the remainder could be addressed by a set of criteria to be met in order for the CoC to be APPROVED by the regulatory agency. This would also mean the the airlines' on-line  ticketing function would need to include ONLY a link to the CoC.

The "disclosure" section of the APBR would seem to be of benefit to air passengers ONLY if it requires the key and essential information to be included on the Itenerary with the passenger allowed to accept or cancel what is stated there. If you consider that there are at least 4 separate documents (Itenerary, CoC, Warsaw Convention and Montreal Convention) a person would need to read 60+ verbose pages before every booking (in case of changes) as a matter of "ordinary diligence" in the course of purchasing an airline ticket.

I have posed this question to the CAB/DTOC, but if you should know of anyplace where this has been "officially" clarified in some way (court case, agency decision, etc.) Please let me know.

[Arianespace]

Before you are confused further, APBR applies only to domestic carrier operating in the Philippines. Online and interline in the Philippines, yes. International No. It does not bind international airlines. That would be covered by Warsaw as amended by Montreal Convention. COC as to operating airline only. You must prove which one is the cause of the cause. Of course you have to read the terms and conditions of fare, first and foremost, and then the carriage. That is SOP.

[mminieri]

Part of your response does not seem to be consistent with SECTION 3 of the APBR....just FYI

[Arianespace]

My answer would still be the same (no application to international carriers) when we are talking about "online" and "interline" disclosures, section 3 notwithstanding. You can however argue that in court. Good luck to that.

http://www.cab.gov.ph/downloads/air-passenger-bill-of-rights

central question regarding the application of the APBR section on "DISCLOSURE". The question is "Does it apply ONLY to the Contract of Carriage (CoC) or does it imply disclosures must also be made "elsewhere" particularly in the case of ON-LINE bookings"?

[romantic_guy08]

Senate hearing next week, Wednesday, June 21 on the incessant complaints against Cebu Pacific flight cancellations and lack of compensation and customer service. Not sure what or if anything will come out of this... but they should include PAL and Z2 as well...

Namumuro na! Senate to probe Cebu Pacific flight cancellations, offloading

Incessant complaints about Cebu Pacific’s seemingly random and sudden cancellation of flights have prompted the Senate to launch an investigation into the Gokongwei-owned carrier’s business practices.

The Senate Committees on Tourism and Public Services will hold a joint public inquiry on June 21 on Senate Resolution 575 filed by Senator Nancy Binay on passengers’ complaints against Cebu Pacific.

Binay has said that one of the objectives of her resolution is to know how passengers should be compensated by the airline when they suffer from booming glitches.

[Arianespace]

There is this ATO regulation issued sometime in 1982, IIRC, which require 4-6 airline seats, depending on size, BAC or Hawker Siddeley, to be vacant for VIPs, usually reserved for gov't officials. They remained unfilled until 2 hours prior to departure. To fill them up in the last minute, airline overbooks 4-6 seats, which we often heard as "chance passengers". Their transport is dependent upon the VIPs not showing up.

In one CAB case against CEB that I know, it argued they were not bound by said regulation because they are a private carrier, unlike PAL which was a government owned airline. The case was settled with CEB providing travel voucher, which is more than the plane fare paid. So no penalty was imposed on the airline.

However, PAL continued that practice in 1992 after privatization, this time you pay the fare difference for business class seats. Sometime in 2002 i think, PAL introduce the practice of overbooking seats, which you find them now. Noticed the offer given by PAL is way better than the fare you paid, provided you defer your travel to another date? Fact is, they already earned more by accepting a high paying passenger to fly on that date, at your expense, should you surrender your seat.

A different scenario however happens when you book flights on low cost carrier. So AO1 was born to answer abuses, known as Joint DOTC-DTI Administrative Order No. 1 Series of 2012, otherwise known as the “Air Passenger Bill of Rights”, which took effect on 21 December 2012, which you can see here.

Liability would not arise however, if delay or cancellation is caused by acts of god, (ie typhoon, thunderstorm, flood, volcanic eruption, etc) or airport closure due to fortuitous events, like power interruptions.

At best, airlines will just reschedule you to the next available flights, special or regular, which sometimes is months away, basically defeating the purpose of your travel.

For PAL, PR5xxx is special flight, categorize either as chartered, replacement, delivery, or rescue.

   

[romantic_guy08]

Arianespace wrote

There is this ATO regulation issued sometime in 1982, IIRC, which require 4-6 airline seats, depending on size, BAC or Hawker Siddeley, to be vacant for VIPs, usually reserved for gov't officials. They remained unfilled until 2 hours prior to departure. To fill them up in the last minute, airline overbooks 4-6 seats, which we often heard as "chance passengers". Their transport is dependent upon the VIPs not showing up.

In one CAB case against CEB that I know, it argued they were not bound by said regulation because they are a private carrier, unlike PAL which was a government owned airline. The case was settled with CEB providing travel voucher, which is more than the plane fare paid. So no penalty was imposed on the airline.

However, PAL continued that practice in 1992 after privatization, this time you pay the fare difference for business class seats. Sometime in 2002 i think, PAL introduce the practice of overbooking seats, which you find them now. Noticed the offer given by PAL is way better than the fare you paid, provided you defer your travel to another date? Fact is, they already earned more by accepting a high paying passenger to fly on that date, at your expense, should you surrender your seat.

A different scenario however happens when you book flights on low cost carrier. So AO1 was born to answer abuses, known as Joint DOTC-DTI Administrative Order No. 1 Series of 2012, otherwise known as the “Air Passenger Bill of Rights”, which took effect on 21 December 2012, which you can see here.

Liability would not arise however, if delay or cancellation is caused by acts of god, (ie typhoon, thunderstorm, flood, volcanic eruption, etc) or airport closure due to fortuitous events, like power interruptions.

At best, airlines will just reschedule you to the next available flights, special or regular, which sometimes is months away, basically defeating the purpose of your travel.

For PAL, PR5xxx is special flight, categorize either as chartered, replacement, delivery, or rescue.

I find AO 1 a bit toothless...

I can empathize with passengers whose flights are cancelled, and their new schedule is sometimes a week a way (which is happening now with PAL flights) and the carrier won't be shouldering cost for the extended stay... very difficult especially if you're stuck overseas...

Once filed a complaint against PR before the CAB for violating APBR... but all they got was a slap in the wrist..

And this is only an AO... legislation would be much better with stiffer penalties... if not, something similar to EU Regulation 261 would be nice...

[Arianespace]

We already have a laws for that (CA146) since 1936, amended by RA11659, effective April 1, 2023, where AAP is the first beneficiary. Another one is the "Law on Transportation", incorporated in the Civil Code enacted in 1950, and some other commercial laws.

But then, you need a lawyer to file that claim in court. Not in CAB. Most of the time, Airlines settles and give you more than what you want because they always lose. Certainly, that is not slap on the wrist. In fact, it is one reason why Air France left the country. Once any of their plane lands, they would not be flying back because they will be taken by the court.

[frequentflier]

Arianespace wrote

We already have a laws for that (CA146) since 1936, amended by RA11659, effective April 1, 2023, where AAP is the first beneficiary. Another one is the "Law on Transportation", incorporated in the Civil Code enacted in 1950, and some other commercial laws.

But then, you need a lawyer to file that claim in court. Not in CAB. Most of the time, Airlines settles and give you more than what you want because they always lose. Certainly, that is not slap on the wrist. In fact, it is one reason why Air France left the country. Once any of their plane lands, they would not be flying back because they will be taken by the court.

Very interesting. I simply thought they left due to poor yields. I wonder they did?

[Arianespace]

Bump off a "Filipino" business class passenger in favor of a "French" national, who turns out to be a CEO on the way to a very important business meeting in Europe.

[romantic_guy08]

First time PAL publicly acknowledges all these cancellations...

From Cielo Villaluna.

[frequentflier]

The disruption must be that severe to warrant this communication. If I understood it correctly, they’re cutting back on scheduled flights to match their working fleet?