Airport rules not behind Uber’s Nigeria exit — FAAN

The Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria has rejected suggestions that its regulation of ride-hailing services at airports forced Uber to withdraw from the Nigerian market.

FAAN Managing Director, Olubunmi Kuku, said Uber’s departure was a commercial decision that should not be linked to the authority’s recent intervention in airport e-hailing operations.

Kuku spoke on Friday while addressing journalists at the Murtala Muhammed Airport in Lagos, days after FAAN suspended commercial pick-ups by e-hailing drivers at its airports.

The suspension, which is temporary, was introduced pending the completion and signing of licence agreements with operators.

The decision generated speculation that FAAN was seeking to push conventional e-hailing companies out of the airport environment to promote its newly launched Airport Car-Hire and Ride Management System (ACHRAMS).

Kuku, however, said the authority’s action was prompted by complaints from passengers who had encountered problems with some e-hailing and car-hire operators, particularly during the December travel rush.

“I work for the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria, and my first responsibility is to ensure that our passengers are safe, protected and have a seamless passenger experience,” she said.

On Uber’s departure, she said, “I can’t speak to their exit from Nigeria. I’m sure they have their own economic and regulatory considerations as to why they chose to exit.”

According to the FAAN chief, the authority received numerous complaints about the conduct of some transport operators serving passengers at the airports during the festive period.

“We received a lot of complaints, especially around the December holiday period, from passengers who used some of the e-hailing services, as well as car-hire services, and had very unpleasant experiences,” she said.

Kuku said some of the complaints involved intimidation and passengers being dropped at destinations other than those they had requested, while other incidents were more serious.

She further alleged that some drivers exploited the airport system by presenting themselves as e-hailing operators before switching to car-hire services and charging passengers higher fares.

“We also had situations where some Uber and Bolt drivers would get out of their cars under the guise of coming into the airport as e-hailing drivers, and then join the car-hire operators to charge higher fares,” she said.

“Because there were widespread complaints about touting at the airport, it was important for us to provide some form of regulatory oversight for the car-hire operators.”

Kuku said ACHRAMS was introduced to give passengers greater information about the operators and drivers providing transport services within the airport environment.

“The app that was developed was strictly focused on ensuring that passengers have visibility into who the car-hire companies are and who the driver taking them from Point A to Point B is,” she said.

She denied that FAAN was itself operating the transport services or receiving money from passengers on behalf of drivers.

“FAAN does not collect money on behalf of the drivers. Those car-hire drivers are not FAAN drivers. All we do is provide an indication of the rates based on the destination you are travelling to,” she said.

The FAAN managing director also defended the pricing of airport car-hire services, saying the cost reflected the operators’ business model and that passengers retained the freedom to select their preferred means of transportation.

“It is the passenger’s choice whether to pre-book a car, use an e-hailing app, or use a car-hire service. We have no jurisdiction over that,” she said.

According to Kuku, FAAN’s concern is not to dictate how passengers travel but to ensure that transport operators within airport premises can be identified and held accountable.

“The only responsibility I have is to ensure that passengers have visibility into who is driving them and that there is accountability for those operating within our airports,” she said.

She also disclosed that negotiations between FAAN and e-hailing companies had been complicated by disagreements over liability.

Kuku said the companies had sought designated airport pick-up areas and that FAAN was willing to accommodate the request, but the authority wanted the companies to accept greater responsibility for drivers operating through their platforms.

“One of the issues we were struggling with the e-hailing companies over was largely around liability clauses,” she said.

“But we also wanted them to take responsibility for the drivers. However, we were told that those drivers are not Uber’s drivers; rather, they are independent drivers.”

Kuku said FAAN was particularly concerned that operators wanted passengers to rely on safety mechanisms embedded in their apps while the companies themselves declined responsibility for the drivers.

“So, with regard to any safety concerns we raised, they wanted passengers to use the safety features available on their platforms. They did not want to take on that responsibility, and we had a major issue with that,” she said.

The FAAN chief further maintained that Uber’s plans to leave Nigeria predated the latest airport restrictions.

“I’m sure they had their own reasons, and I know they had been considering exiting Nigeria for a while, which is why we had a stumbling point with them,” she said.

“So, it has nothing to do with FAAN. Again, the airport is just a small part of the wider area in which they operate within Nigeria,” Kuku added.