Johannesburg, South Africa: The recent spotlight on South Africa’s aviation sector, particularly the controversies surrounding Fly Safair’s overbooking practices and a case of an unruly passenger incident in December 2024, is emblematic of the growing tension between operational sustainability and passenger rights. While the airline’s defence of overbooking as an industry norm aimed at mitigating potential losses has merit, this approach raises profound ethical, legal, and practical concerns. These issues must be unpacked thoroughly to assess whether overbooking practices are compatible with ensuring passenger satisfaction and adherence to international and domestic legal standards.
Overbooking, as the airline claims, is a global standard aimed at addressing the financial impact of no-show passengers. Airlines operate on razor-thin profit margins, and empty seats represent a lost opportunity to recoup costs. Thus, overbooking ostensibly serves as a mitigation strategy to balance risk. Yet, while this justification resonates from an operational perspective, it often fails to consider the human element—the inconvenience, frustration, and financial burden imposed on passengers left stranded at airports.
The South African Consumer Protection Act (CPA) directly addresses such scenarios, emphasizing the consumer’s right to fair treatment. The wording of Section 47 of the CPA prohibits suppliers (that is, businesses), including airlines, from overselling or overbooking services if such practices result in consumers being unable to access the service they have paid for. In the unfortunate event that this happens, the Act enjoins the supplier or airline to (1) refund the consumer (passenger) the amount paid plus interest, and (2) compensate the passenger for costs directly incidental to the airline’s breach of contract. The airline’s practice, therefore, exists on precarious legal footing, potentially exposing it to penalties or lawsuits for non-compliance. Strikingly, the CPA underscores the duty of airlines to ensure passengers’ rights are safeguarded.
What compounds this dilemma is the risk of unruly passenger incidents that might flow from passenger frustration with being denied boarding. Frustrated passengers, left with no recourse but to demand better service, may inadvertently cross the line into behaviour classified as unruly. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), through its Montreal Protocol 2014 amendment to the Tokyo Convention, defines and addresses unruly passenger incidents. This international framework grants airlines the authority to deny boarding or even offload passengers deemed unruly, provided such measures are justified and proportionate. At the domestic level, Section 135 of the Civil Aviation Act 2009 makes it an offence for a passenger to disrupt the operations of an aircraft, and grants similar powers to the Pilot-in-Command to restrain and disembark any unruly passenger. While such actions may preserve safety and order onboard, they also risk deepening tensions between passengers and airlines, particularly when passengers perceive their treatment as unfair.
In this case, the question that begs an answer is: does overbooking not actively contribute to creating the very circumstances that lead to unruly passenger behaviour? Consider a scenario where passengers, after hours of waiting and feeling stonewalled, become agitated. An airline’s response, then, is to label such passengers as unruly and invoke their removal, often exacerbating their frustration. This vicious cycle underscores the urgent need for airlines to adopt more compassionate and transparent communication strategies, and for state agencies charged with consumer protection to push for policy reforms towards a more passenger centric, rights based framework.
Interestingly, Airlink, another South African carrier, issued a press release emphasizing its non-engagement in overbooking practices. Airlink’s stance provides a stark counterpoint, signaling that airlines can operate sustainably without resorting to strategies that compromise passenger trust. Airlink’s transparency not only strengthens its brand reputation but also showcases a model for balancing operational needs with passenger satisfaction.
This broader debate invites a critical question: should South Africa’s aviation sector embrace mandatory regulations to curb overbooking practices? Internationally, countries such as the United States and the European Union have stringent passenger rights regulations that compel airlines to provide compensation and alternative arrangements for passengers affected by overbooking. Adopting similar measures domestically could bridge the gap between passenger expectations and airline practices.
However, regulation alone is insufficient. Airlines must proactively innovate to enhance service delivery while maintaining sustainability – in this regard Fly Safair could take a leaf from Airlink. Digital tools, such as real-time data analytics, can better predict no-show probabilities, minimizing the need for overbooking. Furthermore, transparent policies—clearly communicated at the point of booking—can help set realistic expectations for passengers.
Airlines should also look to examples like Airlink’s for inspiration, embracing transparency and innovative approaches to passenger management. Ultimately, a balance must be struck: one that ensures operational viability without compromising the dignity, trust, and satisfaction of the flying public. This case serves as a reminder that aviation is not merely about moving people from one place to another but about ensuring their journey—from booking to landing—is one of trust, reliability, and respect. Unless this is infused into the company ethos and booking system, the risk of unruly and disruptive passenger behaviour will continue to loom large.
Prof Angelo Dube
