Airport Mobility: Why Passenger Safety and Convenience Must Go Together
By Henry Agbebire, Director, Public Affairs & Corporate Protocol, Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN)
The continuing public conversation around the operations of Uber, Bolt and other e-hailing services at Nigerian airports deserves a little more context and a broader perspective.
Understandably, passengers want convenient, affordable and readily available transportation when they arrive at an airport. E-hailing platforms have transformed urban mobility and have become an important part of the travel experience for many Nigerians. FAAN recognises this.
It is within this wider context that FAAN’s position and its ongoing engagements with the e-hailing operators should be understood. Indeed, the Authority has never been opposed to e-hailing services.
The issue before us is not whether passengers should be able to use Uber, Bolt or other platforms. It is how commercial transportation operates within a highly regulated airport environment. That distinction is important.
An airport is not an ordinary pick-up point
An airport is a security-sensitive environment where thousands of passengers, employees, vehicles and service providers interact every day.
Consequently, every commercial vehicle operating within the airport environment must be identifiable and accountable. The airport authority needs to know, where necessary, who is operating the vehicle, what vehicle is involved, where passengers are being picked up and how the activity can be tracked if a security or passenger-related incident occurs.
This is not peculiar to Nigeria. Even Uber’s own published guidance recognises that airports operate under specific rules, including designated pick-up locations, staging areas and other airport-specific requirements. The principle is simple: the convenience of digital mobility does not remove the need for airport-specific safety and operational controls.
The real issue is visibility and accountability
One of the questions that has become somewhat lost in the current debate is what happens when something goes wrong.
If a passenger reports an incident involving a vehicle that picked him or her up at an airport, the relevant question cannot simply be whether the trip was booked through an app. There must also be an operational framework through which the airport authority can establish the identity of the vehicle and driver, the circumstances surrounding the pick-up and the appropriate channel for intervention.
This is why FAAN has been seeking an arrangement that gives the Authority adequate visibility over commercial transportation activities within its airports. It is about accountability. It is about security. And ultimately, it is about the passenger.
ACHRAMS is not an alternative to Uber or Bolt
There has also been some misunderstanding about FAAN’s Airport Car Hire Rank Management System, ACHRAMS.
ACHRAMS is not FAAN’s attempt to create an alternative e-hailing platform. It was developed to provide greater operational visibility and tracking within the airport environment, while facilitating the accountable management of applicable concession and related airport charges.
The broader objective is to bring greater structure to airport ground transportation and address some of the long-standing challenges associated with unregulated activities, passenger solicitation and touting.
These are not imaginary concerns. FAAN has received complaints from passengers and has observed challenges associated with commercial transportation activities around airport premises.
A modern airport cannot afford to operate without adequate visibility over commercial activities taking place within its environment.
This is not about protecting one category of taxi from another
It is equally important to dispel the impression that FAAN’s position is designed to protect conventional airport taxis from competition. That is not the issue. FAAN’s concern should be, and is, the standard under which any commercial transportation provider operates within the airport.
Whether the vehicle is an airport taxi, an e-hailing vehicle or any other authorised commercial transport service, the same basic principles should apply: safety, security, identification, accountability, orderly operations and protection of passengers.
Competition is healthy. Passenger choice is important. Innovation is welcome. But none of these should require an airport authority to surrender operational visibility over vehicles and persons operating within its environment.
What about the concern over fares?
There is understandable concern that when transportation options are temporarily affected, passengers may face higher fares or reduced availability.
FAAN does not dismiss that concern. On the contrary, passenger convenience is an important consideration in resolving the current situation quickly.
But we should be careful not to allow the legitimate concern about fares to obscure the equally legitimate question of safety and security. The answer to a temporary inconvenience should not be to abandon a necessary safety framework. The answer should be to resolve the outstanding issues as quickly as possible so that passengers can enjoy both convenience and protection.
This is precisely why FAAN has continued its engagement with the affected operators.
The way forward is cooperation
There is little value in turning this into a contest between FAAN and the e-hailing companies. Uber and Bolt have become important parts of the transportation ecosystem, and FAAN recognises the value they bring to passengers.
At the same time, FAAN has a responsibility that cannot be delegated: ensuring that activities within the airport environment are conducted safely, securely and in an orderly manner.
The appropriate solution, therefore, is not confrontation. It is collaboration. The objective is to arrive at an operational framework that allows e-hailing companies to continue providing passengers with convenient transportation while satisfying the airport’s legitimate safety, security, accountability and operational requirements.
That is why the current engagement between FAAN and the operators is important, and why it is in the interest of everyone, particularly passengers, that it is concluded expeditiously.
Ultimately, the passenger must remain at the centre
The debate should therefore not be framed as FAAN versus Uber or FAAN versus Bolt. It should be about finding the right balance between two things that should never be presented as mutually exclusive: passenger convenience and passenger safety.
FAAN wants passengers to have choices. FAAN wants passengers to have convenient transportation. FAAN wants technology and innovation to thrive within the airport environment. But FAAN must also be able to answer the fundamental safety and security questions that arise whenever commercial vehicles operate within an airport.
That responsibility is not anti-competition. It is not anti-technology. And it is certainly not anti-passenger. It is responsible airport management.
As discussions continue with the relevant operators, FAAN remains committed to achieving a solution that preserves the convenience passengers value while providing the visibility, accountability and security that the airport environment requires.
At the end of the day, the objective is simple: every passenger should be able to leave a Nigerian airport conveniently, confidently and safely.
That is the balance FAAN is seeking, and it is a balance worth achieving.
Henry Agbebire, Director of Public Affairs and Consumer Protection, FAAN, writes from Lagos.
