Flysafair Referred to Tribunal for Overbooking Flights

The National Consumer Commission (NCC) has referred Safair Operations (Pty) Ltd trading as FlySafair to the National Consumer Tribunal (Tribunal) for alleged contraventions of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA). This follows an investigation initiated by the NCC in terms of section 71(2) of the CPA.

The NCC noted concerns in the media, including social media platforms, regarding allegations of FlySafair overbooking and/or overselling flight tickets.

The matter first drew public attention after a consumer had reportedly purchased a flight ticket for FlySafair and, upon arrival to check in, was informed that no seat was available because the flight had been overbooked. The NCC further noted several complaints by consumers who alleged that they had experienced the same issue with the airline. The airline publicly acknowledged that overbooking is part of its business practices.

The NCC’s investigation revealed that FlySafair’s conduct contravened sections 47, 48(1), 49(1), 22(1), 40(1), 41(1), and 19(2) of the CPA. These provisions deal with prohibitions including overselling of services, unfair and unreasonable contract terms, inadequate disclosure of material risks, misleading representations, unconscionable conduct, failure to provide services on agreed terms, and failure to communicate information in plain language.

The investigation assessed bookings made during November and December 2024, and January 2025, where the investigation revealed that the overbooking or overselling of flight tickets was systematically implemented by FlySafair. The investigation further revealed that overbooking averaged up to over 5000 passengers in the months assessed, earning the airline significant revenue that it would not have earned if it were not for this practice.

The NCC has referred the matter to the Tribunal for adjudication and for the imposition of an administrative penalty of 10% of the FlySafair’s annual turnover and to have FlySaFair’s conduct declared prohibited.

The NCC’s Acting Commissioner, Mr. Hardin Ratshisusu, said: “The NCC’s investigation has found FlySafair’s booking practices to be inconsistent with multiple sections of the CPA, which is the basis of the referral of the matter to the Tribunal. The CPA prohibits suppliers from taking consumers’ money for goods or services they cannot provide.”

Flysafair’s Response:

The group said it has cooperated with the NCC’s investigation fully, and the issue boils down to a difference in legal interpretation of the laws.

“We remain confident that, on a full consideration of the facts, the legal framework and prevailing industry practice, it will be demonstrated that FlySafair has acted lawfully, transparently and in good faith, with due and careful regard to the rights of consumers,” it said.

The airline said that overbooking is expressly contemplated by Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, and has long been recognised as a lawful and globally accepted practice within the airline industry when responsibly managed.

It added that the Consumer Goods and Services Ombud has also specifically recognised overbooking within the travel and aviation sector through an advisory note.

“FlySafair understands that the advisory note is no longer published on the website of the Ombud, but does not understand that it was formally withdrawn,” it said.

The airline added that the removal of the advisory was also not based on formal industry consultation or direct notification processes, clearly communicating a changed regulatory interpretation to affected operators.

“We believe this matter highlights the need for greater clarity and consistency regarding the treatment of overbooking practices across the aviation sector, tourism sector and consumer goods and services industry as a whole,” it said.

FlySafair maintained that overbooking is widely used by airlines globally as a mechanism to account for anticipated no-show passengers, improve operational efficiency and help keep air travel affordable.

“FlySafair believes that it operates one of the more conservative overbooking policies in the market, with overbooking levels maintained below historical no-show rates,” it said.

“During the period under review, more than 99.98% of FlySafair customers travelled successfully as booked.”

It acknowledged that approximately 5,000 customers were on overbooked flights during the period assessed, but stressed that the vast majority travelled exactly as booked.

“Only 0.02% of passengers were denied boarding and every one of them was offered re-accommodation, a refund, and compensation,” it said.

“93.3% of flights over that period departed on time, and no flights were cancelled.”

The airline said it will continue to operate all scheduled flights as normal, and customer bookings remain unaffected.

“As the matter is now before the Tribunal, it would not be appropriate to litigate the detailed merits of the case through the media, and FlySafair will therefore refrain from further substantive public comment at this stage.”