No cap on airlines overbooking flights, says CAB
Civil Aeronautics Board (File photo from its Facebook page)
MANILA, Philippines — There’s no threshold for air carriers overbooking flights, Carmelo Arcilla, the executive director of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), told senators on Wednesday.
This was during a probe conducted by the Senate tourism and public services panels into the barrage of passenger complaints against budget carrier Cebu Pacific.
He noted that the Air Passenger Bill of Rights (APBR), which was approved in 2012, is the “prevailing law” on this issue.
“The current provision there does not set a limit to the overbooking. With no set limit, the belief there is that there is an effective counterweight to discourage overbooking,” Arcilla said partly in Filipino.
The equalizer he was referring to is the cost incurred by airlines when compensating passengers who have been denied boarding due to overbooking.
Article continues after this advertisementArcilla cited the APBR, which says, “While it is an accepted practice for an air carrier to overbook its flights, any expense, consequence, or inconvenience caused to affected passengers must be borne by the carrier.”
Article continues after this advertisementOverbooking flights is an air industry practice across the globe. But, Arcilla said, some countries implement overbooking caps for airlines.
In the Philippines, Arcilla pointed out that there used to be a 10-percent overbooking ceiling, but this was dropped upon the implementation of the APBR.
“The perception was that there is an effective counterweight in the sense that the compensation package for passengers affected by an airline’s overbooking is a deterrent for abuse,” he explained.
Arcilla said there are two “public interest values” to overbooking.
He said filling the aircraft with passengers could lead to a decline in airfares due to a broader distribution of overall costs. It would also mean a wider scope of passengers could be serviced on each flight.
But, according to Arcilla, the “distinct disadvantage” of overbooking is that it causes inconvenience and stress to those denied boarding.
Sen. Raffy Tulfo was visibly troubled after learning that airlines had a limitless overbooking capacity.
“Why is there no limit? Do we need legislation to limit this? Because as you said, it is being abused and causing inconvenience to the riding public. So, therefore, we must do something about it. Does it need legislation to limit overbooking? Instead of it being limitless, we can set it up to two percent only,” he pressed.
Arcilla said CAB believes, “Different times call for different measures.”
The agency is already reviewing the prevailing policies on overbooking flights.
It will likewise seek guidance from the Senate, he added.
‘New modus’
Sen. Nancy Binay, who filed the resolution calling for the probe, decried what appeared to be the “new modus” of air carriers that cancel flights without explanation so they could minimize their costs.
According to Arcilla, this is illegal. But when asked how many airlines have so far been sanctioned by CAB for engaging in this practice, he said none so far.
His answer seemingly irked Tulfo, who called the agency “useless” for not being able to penalize air carriers taking part in this “rampant practice.”
The senator said there should be appropriate sanctions imposed on airlines engaging in these illicit activities.
“We have to set an example and penalize violating airlines, so they can say: ‘Hey, it seems like our attention is being called. We’re being sanctioned. We’re being fined. We should take it easy now.’ But you’re [CAB] just letting them loose. You’re enabling them,” Tulfo said.
Arcilla said, however, that there would be a need to look into the situation surrounding these frequent airline flops. He argued that these were just “novel incidents” triggered by a global supply chain disruption plaguing the aviation industry.
Taking it for granted?
To address the flurry of overbooking complaints, Arcilla said CAB’s agenda, as expressed in its recent meetings on the issue, included a goal “to reduce the flights in an orderly fashion.”
“Of course, we can’t just abruptly stop all these flights because then, there will be a collapse of our services,” he said.
But, Binay said, “Technically, there’s already a collapse, and it’s our riding public who’s absorbing this burden.”
Sen. Grace Poe, head of the public services panel, questioned the seemingly lax monitoring of CAB.
“The public services panel can call for the Civil Aeronautics Board and ask about their qualifications? It seems like they’re not taking their jobs seriously. Are their jobs cushy positions only?” she said.
Poe later reminded local airlines that their franchise called for a commitment that must be complied with.
She took note of the reportorial requirement, which both Cebu Pacific and Philippine Airlines had yet to submit.
“This is really the primary responsibility of CAB. You shouldn’t give permits to operate for airlines sans their compliance of reporting to Congress. You should have been able to check that,” Poe said.
She then dangled the need to review the commitments made by air carriers through their franchise, “otherwise, I think they’re taking it for granted.”
