The recent controversy over e-hailing services has raised questions on how best to balance revenue generation with passenger convenience, security, affordability and efficient mobility, OLUSEGUN KOIKI reports.

For many air travellers, the convenience of booking e-hailing rides from airport terminals after a flight has become an integral part of the airport experience. With a few taps on a mobile phone, passengers can identify their drivers, obtain vehicle details, monitor their journeys and often secure relatively lower fares than those charged by conventional airport taxis.

It was, therefore, hardly surprising that the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria’s (FAAN) suspension of e-hailing operations at Nigerian airports for about two weeks in August generated public concern, particularly among passengers who suddenly faced higher transportation costs and fewer options.

The controversy escalated when social media influencer Chris Joondeph, popularly known as Authentic Travelling, raised the alarm over a N30,000 transport fare between Lagos airport and Ikeja, compared with the former N6,000 or N8,000 fare through FAAN-backed Airport Car Hire Rank Management System (ACHRAMS).

Concerned stakeholders and frequent airport users questioned the initiative, alleging it paid little attention to passenger comfort and convenience, arguing that travellers were already burdened by multiple charges imposed by airport authorities, including FAAN and the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA).

FAAN, however, said its primary concern was regulating commercial transport in a highly sensitive and security-conscious environment such as an airport, where thousands of passengers, vehicles, workers, aviation personnel, and other users converge daily.

The authority maintained that the popularity or affordability of an e-hailing platform, for instance, does not exempt it from regulatory requirements. Rather, every commercial activity taking place within such an environment must operate within a framework that guarantees safety, security, accountability and operational visibility.

The Director, Public Affairs and Consumer Protection, FAAN, Henry Agbebire, told The Guardian that the agency never sought to deny passengers access to convenient transportation.

According to him, its primary responsibility is to ensure that commercial activities on airport premises are conducted in an orderly manner and that those who provide services to passengers are held accountable.

He maintained that this was particularly important at airports, where the consequences of an unregulated commercial transportation system could extend beyond inconvenience to issues of security, passenger protection and traffic management.

He explained that complaints and operational challenges had accumulated over the years, including passenger solicitation, touting, random pick-ups and unregulated commercial activities within and around airport premises.

Agbebire emphasised that the convenience offered by digital mobility platforms could not eliminate the need for safety and operational controls within airports, adding that ACHRAMS was not intended to compete with Uber or Bolt.

He added: “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.

“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.”

Commenting on the issue, a former aeronautical engineer with the defunct national carrier, Nigeria Airways, Charles Amokwu, said the rapid growth of e-hailing across the country had transformed the traditional relationship between passengers and airport taxis.

Amokwu explained that whereas conventional airport taxi systems relied heavily on physical ranks and queues, e-hailing platforms use technology to connect passengers and drivers remotely.

He emphasised that, for FAAN, the issue was not whether e-hailing should exist, but how such services could operate within airport premises without compromising the airport’s operational and security requirements.

He said: “Unlike ordinary roads or commercial locations, airports operate under layers of security and safety requirements. Access to restricted areas is controlled, vehicle movements are managed, and activities around terminals are coordinated to prevent congestion and security vulnerabilities.

“A commercial driver picking up passengers at an airport is therefore not simply another road user. The airport authority needs to know who the driver is, what vehicle is being used, where the vehicle is going and how that movement fits into the airport’s operational system.”

Also, Founder, African Aviation Group, Chidozie Uzoezie, said the crisis was largely triggered by an administrative and regulatory impasse involving licensing, compliance, concession arrangements and the integration of e-hailing operators into FAAN’s regulatory framework.

He argued that the crisis could have been avoided through stronger engagement between the agency and the operators. He posited that regulation works best when those being regulated understand the framework before enforcement begins.

Uzoezie, however, recognised FAAN’s legitimate responsibility to regulate commercial activities within airport premises.

He suggested that FAAN develop a distinct commercial licensing category for e-hailing companies, stressing that their operating model differs substantially from that of traditional airport car-hire operators.

Such an arrangement, he pointed out, could provide a permanent framework for access, charges, operating procedures, technology integration and enforcement.

He added: “Across the world, modern airports are built around passenger experience. FAAN can regulate commercial transportation on airport premises, generate legitimate revenue, and maintain safety and security without compromising passenger convenience or affordability.

“One option worth considering is to review the rigid aspects of the ACHRAMS static entry-tracking model and explore digital geo-fencing around airport terminals. E-hailing operators could provide FAAN’s relevant security and operational teams with appropriate access to real-time information on authorised airport trips. Instead of overriding e-hailing safety technology, FAAN should plug into it.

“Most importantly, whatever commercial arrangement is eventually adopted should be transparent and reasonable. Regulatory or concession charges should not become so burdensome that operators simply transfer the costs to passengers. Passengers should not become collateral damage.”

To prevent a recurrence, Uzoezie suggested establishing a stakeholder engagement committee comprising FAAN’s relevant departments, e-hailing operators, airport security representatives, and other affected stakeholders.

Such a forum, he said, could address issues including access, charges, operating procedures, technology integration and enforcement.

However, the former Rector of the Nigerian College of Aviation Technology (NCAT), Zaria, Samuel Caulcrick, argued that e-hailing platforms already possess useful security features, including driver identification, trip tracking and digital records.

Caulcrick explained that rather than perceiving those technologies as incompatible with airport security, FAAN could integrate them into its own operational systems.

He emphasised that banning e-hailing at Nigerian airports violated antitrust laws and appealed to FAAN to always consider passengers in its initiatives.

He added: “On security, e-hailing platforms already have built-in safeguards: trip tracking, driver ID and digital records. Policy should be about modernising security and competition, not banning efficiency.”

Also, a former Director at the Nigerian Aviation Handling Company (NAHCO) Plc, Lawal Badamasi, described the policy as an over-commercialisation of airport services.

According to Badamasi, the policy was driven largely by the need to meet revenue targets, with insufficient consideration for the economic realities facing the average air traveller.

Badamasi also questioned FAAN’s involvement in landside security and traffic management, arguing that such responsibilities should primarily fall to agencies with statutory mandates in those areas.

He said: “Landside security is not the work of AVSEC in the first place. FAAN AVSEC has nothing to do with safety traffic management. It is the work of the Nigerian Police, Federal Road Safety Corps and the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps.”

He called for a clearer separation of responsibilities among aviation agencies, particularly between FAAN and the NCAA.

Also, Director, Zenith Travels and Consults, Olumide Ohunayo, said passengers were already bearing several air travel charges and should not be subjected to additional costs imposed by restrictive airport transportation policies.

According to him, international passengers pay a Passenger Service Charge (PSC) of $100, regional passengers $50, while domestic travellers pay N2,000 per ticket to FAAN.

He appealed to FAAN to always consider passengers first in its initiatives and policies.

Ohunayo, however, commended the performance of FAAN’s Managing Director, Olubunmi Kuku, noting that she had undertaken some positive initiatives since assuming office about three years ago.

“Her performance is commendable. She has been doing some good work since she assumed office,” he said.