A consumer group strongly rejects any increase in airport fees pending changes or improvements at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA).
In a statement, Bantay Konsyumer, Kalsada, Kuryente (BK3) leader Patrick Climaco said increasing airport fees at this point is “unacceptable and will unjustly burden Filipino passengers.”
“It is unacceptable that Filipinos using the airport will have to immediately pay higher fees even before they see any improvements in the airport. Many Filipinos who use the airport are those who sacrifice to be away from their family to work abroad or ordinary Filipinos, who were able to save a little to be able to go on a short vacation to rest,” Climaco said.
“This is another unjust burden imposed on ordinary Filipinos. The welfare of the majority of travelers, who can only afford the budget fares, should take precedence. Let us consider the millions of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) enduring the heartache of being separated from their families and toiling far from home to provide the needed support for their loved ones,” he added.
Earlier reports quoted Transportation Secretary Jaime Bautista confirming that the passenger terminal fees in NAIA would increase from P500 currently to P950 next year for international passengers, and P200 to P390 for domestic passengers.
These increases will be added to the over-all cost of the ticket that will be paid by the passengers.
Bautista explained that the increase is necessary to compensate the concessionaire for their investment, but also assured the public that these charges will be used for the improvement of the airport.
Climaco, however, questioned why the supposedly capital expense or investment needed to rehabilitate NAIA is being passed on in advance to consumers, instead of being shouldered by the winning concessionaire like other infrastructure projects under a Public Private Partnership (PPP) scheme.
“The NAIA has been criticized for being one of the worst airports in the world for some time now. But now that the government has chosen a concessionaire from the private sector to fix NAIA, why is the capital expenses needed to fix the airport going to be advanced by the passengers? Is this not the main purpose of awarding the NAIA rehabilitation to an investment partner that fund the building and then eventually recover investments and profit from an upgraded and hopefully, very efficient airport services?” Climaco argued.
“The airport management has a lot to explain about their decision to approve the increase in airport fees considering improvements have yet to be done in our airport. There is no basis to burden the public with additional fees because it should be the winning bidder, which should fund the improvements in the airport. Isn’t financial capacity a requisite for being awarded the contract for the project?” he added.
“What is the basis in determining how much additional fees should be paid by those who will use the airport and what are the benefits that they will get from these increases aside from mere promises of improving the facilities?” Climaco asked.
Climaco also sought clarity about the reported order for airport concessionaires and operators to vacate their offices and stalls, to make way for the start of the airport rehabilitation.
“Why is there a letter addressed to current airport concessionaires to vacate their stalls and offices within 40 days? What is the plan for these legitimate businesses, which are now facing uncertainty and whose employees are in danger of losing their jobs?” Climaco noted.
