AIRASIA has filed a RM400 million counter-claim against Malaysia Airports Holdings Bhd (MAHB) claiming losses and damages experienced due to operational disruptions at klia2.

The counter-claim is in response to MAHB’s action filed last December against the low-cost carrier and its long-haul sister airline AirAsia X Bhd for a combined RM36.11 million for outstanding airport taxes.

AirAsia and AirAsia X have also applied to strike out MAHB’s suit on grounds that it was misconceived and premature as MAHB has not complied with the statutory provisions for dispute resolution within the Malaysian Aviation Commission (Mavcom) Act 2015.

AirAsia CEO Riad Asmat and AirAsia X CEO Benyamin Ismail announced the counter-claim in a joint statement today.

In their statement of defence, AirAsia and AirAsia X criticised MAHB for being heavy handed in filing the suit.

They also listed the operational disruptions at klia2 which had caused them losses and damages, including a ruptured fuel line which impeded operations at Pier P for more than a month at klia2 from October 11, 2016 to November 22, 2016.

They also stated that Runway 3 had been closed on numerous occasions in 2018.

They are also claiming losses incurred due to additional aircraft towing requirements and fuel costs, delays, manpower involved, flight cancellations resulting in loss of revenue, and taxiing costs.

On MAHB’s alleged failure to comply with the statutory provisions for dispute resolution within the Mavcom Act 2015, AirAsia and AirAsia X said sections 74 to 78 of the act state that both MAHB and airline operators have a statutory obligation to mediate any dispute regarding any matter under the act, and legal action may only be used as a last resort after mediation and dispute resolutions efforts have failed.

Riad and Benyamin said in the statement that they were always prepared to engage constructively with MAHB and its subsidiaries, and it was regrettable that MAHB had chosen litigation for reasons best known to them.

“We maintain that the dispute over airport taxes, which is at the core of MAHB’s suit, is specifically a matter subject to Mavcom’s purview for mediation and dispute resolution. MAHB is well aware of this and prior to filing the suit, had engaged AirAsia in both oral discussions and written correspondence. However, MAHB has chosen to improperly circumvent the Mavcom Act by filing the suit.

“We will continue to adhere to the legislative provisions under the Mavcom Act and seek our claim through mediation. However, we reserve the right to exhaust all avenues in recovering losses and damages caused by MAHB’s failure to carry out their duties as aviation service providers.

“We have repeatedly communicated these and other issues to MAHB but nothing has been done,” they said.

They also reiterated their stand that travellers flying from klia2 should not be made to pay the same airport tax as those departing from KLIA due to inferior services at klia2.

Airport tax at klia2 was increased to RM73 from RM50 for non-Asean international passengers and to RM11 from RM6 for domestic passengers – equalising the rates at klia2 and KLIA.

“MAHB does not provide the same level of service at klia2, where AirAsia operates from, compared to KLIA, which is a terminal for full-service carriers. It is for this reason that we have refused to collect the higher airport tax imposed by MAHB on non-Asean international passengers departing from klia2,” Riad and Benyamin said.

“Not only are the facilities and level of service at the two terminals not comparable, MAHB has also done a poor job of maintaining klia2, as evidenced by recent videos showing the presence of maggots and rats at the terminal.”

Referring to the airport tax, AirAsia maintained that MAHB had not performed its tasks in managing costs in building klia2, leading to cost overruns the airport operator was now seeking to recover from the travelling public by charging higher airport taxes.

AirAsia said that although it had proposed to build its own low-cost terminal at Labu, Negri Sembilan in 2008 at a fraction of the cost of klia2, the government rejected these plans because MAHB claimed it could construct a similar terminal closer to KLIA with the same facilities and the same charges as the Low-Cost Carrier Terminal (LCCT), AirAsia’s former Kuala Lumpur hub.

The filing of the counter-claim was expected as AirAsia had earlier indicated that it wanted to pursue cross claims against the airport operator in relation to the infrastructure and state of the airports, and its operations, which include major apron defects, random runway closures, aircraft damage, and fuel pipeline ruptures.

In its suit, MAHB has demanded that AirAsia and AirAsia X remit outstanding airport taxes or passenger service charges (PSCs) for international departures from July 1 onwards.

While the PSC is set at RM73 per passenger beginning January 1 last year, both airlines had only been collecting RM50 per passenger. MAHB is now demanding that the airlines pay up the RM23 difference per passenger from July onwards. – January 23, 2019.