MAVCOM responds to allegations of unfair treatment by Eaglexpress and Suasa Airlines executives

    Malaysian Aviation Commission (MAVCOM) responded (26-Jun-2018) to allegations by Eaglexpress Air Charter president Azlan Zainal Abidin and Suasa Airlines CEO Sheikh Salleh Abod, as follows:

    • On 22-Jul-2016, MAVCOM rejected Suasa Airlines’ application to operate a non scheduled commercial service from Kuala Lumpur to Langkawi as the airline did not possess an air service permit (ASP). Suasa Airlines continued to operate the service on the pretext of a “demonstration flight”. On 09-Jan-2017, Suasa Airlines pleaded guilty to carrying passengers for hire or reward on a non scheduled service without a valid ASP and was fined;
    • Eaglexpress failed to comply with the conditions of its ASP, issued by MAVCOM on 30-Aug-2016, within the stipulated deadlines. MAVCOM issued a show cause letter to the airline on 01-Dec-2016, giving Eaglexpress an opportunity to justify why its ASP should not be revoked. Eaglexpress responded on 14-Dec-2016. On 20-Dec-2016, MAVCOM revoked the carrier’s ASP as the reasons provided were “not satisfactory”. Eaglexpress applied for a judicial review of MAVCOM’s decision and its application was dismissed by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on 14-Aug-2017.

    Mr Azlan and Mr Salleh claimed the airlines were unfairly treated by MAVCOM and called for a government review of MAVCOM (Bernama/New Straits Times/The Edge Markets, 26-Jun-2018). Mr Azlan said: “They [MAVCOM] have practically killed us. The new Transport Minister should look at the function of MAVCOM whether it is still a viable thing to have. We hope the accountability will be there because Eaglexpress has been subjected to a lot of unfairness by MAVCOM”. Mr Salleh said: “MAVCOM is not efficient in governing the country’s airline industry and it is bringing more harm than good. We urge the new… government to study back the feasibility of MAVCOM, which brings nothing but sadness to the aviation industry”. He added: “We want the new government to investigate the purpose of MAVCOM and why they had treated us unfairly”. [more – original PR]