KUCHING: AirAsia is taken aback by the High Court ruling on Thursday to dismiss the Striking Out Application by both AirAsia Berhad and AirAsia X Berhad in relation to the payment for outstanding Passenger Service Charges (PSC) to Malaysia Airports (Sepang) Sdn Bhd (MASSB).
AirAsia founders Tan Sri Tony Fernandes and Datuk Kamarudin Meranun jointly said: “AirAsia strongly believes that the court has erred and we will appeal this decision.
“AirAsia will apply for a stay of execution and challenge MASSB’s and its parent Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad’s (MAHB) actions – which we maintain are a burden on all travelling Malaysians – until w e exhaust all avenues available under the law.
“We would like to reiterate that these legal challenges are not simply a matter between AirAsia and MAHB.
“In the event we lose in the highest courts of appeal, it is the passengers especially Malaysian travellers who will have to pay the differential MAHB is charging.
“We believe that the people of Malaysia should have the right to a fair deal,” they said in a statement yesterday.
For the record, the monies being claimed against AirAsia by MAHB were to be collected from the passengers.
AirAsia did not collect the differential amount or withhold its payment to MAHB.
MAHB had imposed a new PSC of RM73 for passengers using klia2 to destinations out of Asean effective July last year.
This amount is RM23 higher than the previous rate of RM50 that AirAsia has continued to collect from passengers.
Since then, almost five million passengers have benefited from this lower PSC.
“AirAsia has since the beginning opposed this increase in PSC arguing that passengers using the inferior klia2 cannot be forced to pay the same charges as that of the better-equipped and more luxurious KLIA.
“On that principle, AirAsia has not collected the extra charges imposed by MAHB,” said Tony and Kamarudin.
“We have also sought that the Malaysian Aviation Commission (Mavcom), which is funded by the public through the RM1 regulatory service charge per travelling passenger, mediate as provided under the Mavcom Act.
“Unfortunately, Mavcom has refused to intervene. We will continue to challenge Mavcom’s decision to not intervene, which clearly goes against the provisions of the Mavcom Act,” they said.
They opined that the failure of Mavcom to intervene and mediate was also causing a further and bigger division in this industry, which led to a big drop in tourist arrivals and causes greater damage to the nation’s economy.