The Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) is being contacted by e-hailing companies, such as Uber and Bolt, regarding the limitations on their operations at Nigerian airports.
According to Daily Trust, passengers and industry stakeholders are becoming increasingly critical of the development.
Finding a framework that will allow e-hailing services to continue operating within the airport environment while addressing issues with passenger safety, security, accountability, vehicle identification, and pick-up arrangements is the goal of the operators’ engagement with FAAN.
Recall that FAAN prohibited e-hailing companies from picking up passengers at its terminals nationwide, leaving many travellers at the whim of conventional airport car rental companies that charge exorbitant rates.
It was learned that the Bolt and Uber operators were forced by the authorities to join a new platform that FAAN had introduced, which they protested.
Many of them said that before imposing a general ban on e-hailing services without taking passenger wellbeing into account, FAAN ought to have consulted with the platforms’ management.
Our reporter was informed yesterday by a source close to the management of one of the e-hailing platforms that the management has started discussions with FAAN in an effort to address the persistent problem.
The source, who spoke under the condition of anonymity because he was not permitted to do so, also expressed dismay at FAAN’s action.
Like everyone else, we are shocked by what FAAN has done. Remember that our platform has a terminal at the major airports because we already have a licence to pick up passengers at the airports. Therefore, shouldn’t you speak with our management before introducing a new platform? However, we are investigating the situation, and the problem will be fixed shortly,” the insider stated.
In a statement released yesterday, FAAN made it clear that their stance was not intended to restrict passengers’ alternatives for transportation or to undermine the function of e-hailing services in offering air travellers seamless mobility.
According to the Authority, its main duty was to make sure that operations on airport property were carried out in a way that ensured travellers’ and other airport users’ safety, security, and convenience.
Airports are highly regulated environments, according to FAAN, so commercial transportation operators must operate within a framework that allows for effective coordination during security or passenger-related incidents and gives the airport authority visibility over vehicles and drivers.
Concerns that its Airport Concession, Hospitality and Related Management System (ACHRAMS) platform was created to rival Uber, Bolt, or other e-hailing apps were also rejected by the Authority.
According to FAAN, ACHRAMS was created mainly to facilitate the accountable management of relevant concessions and associated airport fees while offering operational visibility and tracking inside the airport environment.
The Authority said that it had seen operational difficulties and complaints related to commercial transportation activities near airports, such as passenger solicitation and touting.
It stated that these issues necessitated the creation of a precise structure for overseeing commercial transportation operations on airport property.
The Authority stated, “FAAN has been engaging the relevant e-hailing operators to achieve a mutually workable operational framework that recognises the value of their services while addressing the unique safety, security, accountability, and passenger-experience requirements of the airport environment.”
FAAN emphasised that the existing state of affairs should not be seen as a complete ban on e-hailing services, characterising it as a continuing process of operational alignment.
However, parties who contend that passenger convenience should continue to be at the center of any regulation decision influencing airport transportation have continued to criticise the development.
One industry expert called the restriction “concerning,” noting that while regulation was required, it shouldn’t cause passengers needless suffering.
“FAAN should scale back,” stated Capt. Samuel Caulcrick, an aviation analyst. They ought to include the passengers in their conversation. Call the folks that rent cars to the table if you want to do so.
He claimed that prohibiting alternative airport providers demonstrated a lack of regard for the travellers. He described the move as anti-competition and said the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) ought to intervene.
About the Author
