By OBIOMA TORI

Nigeria’s Aviation Crisis: Delayed Flights, Lost Money & Passengers Left Without Answers

AT 2pm, a national newspaper editor was already checked in at Murtala Muhammed Airport Terminal Two in Lagos, preparing to board his 2.30pm Enugu Air flight to Port Harcourt. Then a message disrupted his plans: the airline had rescheduled the flight to 8.10pm.

Unwilling to sacrifice almost an entire day to an unexplained delay, he went downstairs and purchased another ticket from ValueJet for a 2.35pm departure. His decision cost him extra money, but it offered a chance to reach his destination closer to the intended time.

Unfortunately, his experience was not unusual. Within the same fortnight, three other travellers he knew encountered disruptions that exposed different weaknesses in Nigeria’s domestic aviation system.

One passenger boarded an Air Peace flight from Lagos to Abuja scheduled for 2pm but did not arrive until 11pm. Another, travelling to the All Nigerian Editors Conference in Enugu on a 3.15pm Air Peace flight, discovered at the counter that her name was missing from the passenger list despite having a confirmed booking on her phone. After a prolonged argument, she abandoned the trip.

A fourth traveller, booked on a 10am flight to Akwa Ibom, saw his departure pushed back until 7am the following day.

None, the editor said, received a satisfactory explanation.

These experiences illustrate the growing frustration among Nigerian air travellers, who often pay premium fares for a service that may deliver neither punctuality nor reliable communication. For passengers, a delay can mean more than an inconvenient wait. It can lead to missed meetings, abandoned engagements, additional transport expenses and accommodation bills, while complaints and refund requests may take days or weeks to resolve.

The figures published by the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) suggest that this is not merely a collection of isolated incidents. Instead, they point to a persistent reliability problem that continues to undermine confidence in domestic air travel.

When a Flight Disruption Becomes a Financial Penalty

For Baritule Gift Bema-Aromeh, an early-morning flight became an expensive ordeal.

She arrived at the airport about an hour before a scheduled 7am departure, despite heavy traffic. However, she reportedly found passengers stranded outside a check-in counter that had already closed.

Under the airline’s stated policy, check-in closed 45 minutes before departure. Bema-Aromeh therefore questioned why passengers who arrived within the permitted period could not complete the process.

In a Facebook post, she alleged that airline staff communicated poorly and attended to some passengers who pushed their way to the counter or appeared to know staff members ahead of others waiting patiently. She suspected overbooking but acknowledged that she could not confirm the reason for the early closure.

The disruption also threatened a 9am meeting she had specifically planned to attend by taking the early flight. With the next departure scheduled for approximately 1.40pm, she changed her travel arrangements and rerouted her journey to another city where she had a training engagement.

That decision cost her ₦56,000. She subsequently faced another ₦25,000 charge for failing to board the original flight, bringing her total loss to ₦81,000. When she requested a refund, she said the airline told her that none was available.

“E pain me,” she wrote, describing the financial burden in an economy where households and businesses carefully account for every naira.

Although she did not publicly identify the airline, Bema-Aromeh said she intended to name it in a formal complaint to the NCAA.

Her account raises questions about the balance between airlines’ commercial policies and their responsibility to treat passengers fairly. If a traveller arrives within the published check-in window but cannot access the counter, the airline should provide a clear explanation and an appropriate process for resolving the dispute.

Moreover, charging a passenger for failing to board a flight becomes particularly contentious when the passenger alleges that the airline’s own procedures prevented boarding. Such cases require investigation rather than automatic assumptions about responsibility.

The August Figures Reveal a Widespread Problem

The NCAA’s report on domestic flight disruptions for August 2026 recorded 7,961 flights operated by 15 airlines. Of these, 4,765 were delayed, representing 59.9 per cent of all reported operations. Another 36 flights, or 0.45 per cent, were cancelled.

In practical terms, only about four in every 10 flights departed on time.

Although most delays lasted between 16 minutes and one hour, the disruption extended well beyond that window for many passengers. The regulator recorded 1,322 flights delayed by one to two hours, 407 delayed by two to three hours and 235 delayed by at least three hours.

Air Peace accounted for 108 of the longest delays, followed by Enugu Air with 46 and United Nigeria Airlines with 41.

Performance varied considerably among operators. United Nigeria Airlines delayed 943 of its 1,231 flights, or 76.6 per cent, and recorded eight cancellations. Air Peace, the largest operator by flight volume in the NCAA report, recorded 1,330 delays out of 1,864 flights, equivalent to 71.4 per cent, and seven cancellations.

Enugu Air delayed 66.3 per cent of its flights, while Arik Air recorded 62.5 per cent, Max Air 60.7 per cent, Overland Airways 58.2 per cent and ValueJet 56.7 per cent.

Umza Air presented a contrasting result, recording delays on 12.9 per cent of its flights and no cancellations. Although one month of data cannot establish long-term performance, the difference suggests that punctuality can vary substantially within the same operating environment.

Nevertheless, the statistics do not, by themselves, establish why each flight was delayed. Weather, airport congestion, technical faults, fuel constraints and scheduling decisions may affect operations differently. To understand the underlying causes, the industry needs reliable information connecting individual disruptions to their actual triggers.

Passenger Rights Exist, but Enforcement Remains the Test

Nigeria has a regulatory framework intended to protect air travellers. Part 19 of the Nigeria Civil Aviation Regulations 2023, issued under the Civil Aviation Act 2022, sets out obligations concerning delays, cancellations, denied boarding, assistance, refunds and compensation.

Under the provisions described in the report, airlines must inform passengers of the reasons for delays within 30 minutes of the scheduled departure time. The rules also provide for assistance as delays lengthen, including refreshments and accommodation for eligible passengers stranded overnight between 10pm and 4am.

For domestic flights delayed beyond six hours, compensation is generally set at no less than 25 per cent of the fare, subject to the applicable conditions and exceptions. The corresponding minimum for international flights is 30 per cent. Airlines must also inform passengers of their rights, while refund timelines depend on the circumstances and payment method, including prescribed periods for online purchases and immediate payment for cash purchases.

These provisions matter because passengers need more than an apology after a disruption. They need clear information, reasonable assistance and a transparent way to recover money where the regulations entitle them to refunds or compensation.

However, the existence of rules does not guarantee compliance. When travellers cannot obtain explanations, struggle to secure refunds or receive conflicting information from airline staff, the effectiveness of the regulatory framework comes into question.

The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission has also emphasised assistance for stranded passengers, including meals and accommodation where applicable. Internationally, the International Civil Aviation Organisation encourages states to establish clear consumer-protection rules, while the International Air Transport Association supports passenger access to assistance, refunds or compensation in appropriate circumstances.

Both organisations recognise that airlines cannot reasonably control every disruption, particularly those caused by severe weather, air traffic restrictions or other unavoidable circumstances. The challenge, therefore, is to distinguish legitimate operational constraints from failures that airlines could have prevented through better planning and communication.

NCAA Steps Up Pressure on Airlines

The NCAA has increasingly challenged airlines over alleged breaches of passenger-protection rules.

In September, its Director of Public Affairs and Consumer Protection, Michael Achimugu, accused operators of showing a “gross disregard for the regulations, Part 19”. He alleged that airline representatives sometimes disappeared from terminals when disruptions provoked passenger protests, leaving the regulator’s consumer-protection officers to manage the anger.

Achimugu also raised concerns about refund commitments that airlines allegedly failed to honour despite promising to process payments within 48 hours.

The regulator has repeatedly warned operators against publishing schedules that exceed their available aircraft and crew capacity, particularly when maintenance leaves aircraft grounded.

In March, after a disruption involving an Air Peace Heathrow–Abuja service left passengers stranded in Lagos, Achimugu summoned the airline and declared: “We will not tolerate any abandonment of paying passengers.”

The NCAA subsequently directed Air Peace to develop a compensation package for passengers affected by a disrupted flight in September. It has also pursued enforcement action over alleged breaches involving delayed refunds and other consumer-protection obligations.

Furthermore, the publication of monthly disruption statistics represents an attempt to make airline performance more transparent. By identifying delays and cancellations, the regulator can give passengers information that may help them make better travel decisions and place pressure on airlines to improve.

Yet transparency must lead to effective action. Publishing poor performance figures will have limited value if airlines do not explain their results, correct recurring problems and fulfil their obligations to passengers.

Government Promises Have Yet to End the Disruptions

The federal government has also promised to defend passengers’ interests.

In December 2023, Aviation and Aerospace Development Minister Festus Keyamo announced plans to publish weekly lists of airlines responsible for delays and cancellations. He acknowledged public frustration, saying the government was not deaf to complaints about disrupted flights.

Keyamo also promised to enforce compensation provisions and suggested rebates of 40 to 50 per cent on subsequent tickets, potentially exceeding the minimum compensation prescribed by regulation.

However, he warned that grounding airlines or taking them to court could create further difficulties for an industry already facing operational and financial pressures. The Senate subsequently summoned Keyamo and NCAA Director-General Chris Najomo over persistent delays and their economic consequences.

The government’s dilemma became more pronounced in 2026 when aviation fuel prices surged following the escalation of conflict in the Middle East. According to figures cited by airline operators, Jet A1 rose from about ₦900 per litre in late February to ₦3,300 by mid-April.

The increase prompted the Airline Operators of Nigeria to threaten a suspension of operations. Keyamo appealed to the airlines to reconsider, warning that the industry had been stretched to its limits.

Although the threatened shutdown was averted, travellers continued to report lengthy delays and cancellations, sometimes without adequate meals, transport or accommodation.

This episode exposed the tension between preserving airlines’ financial viability and protecting passengers from bearing the full cost of operational difficulties. Both objectives matter, but financial pressure cannot automatically excuse failures to communicate or comply with consumer-protection rules.

Airlines Dispute the Regulator’s Figures

Airline operators argue that the NCAA’s statistics do not adequately distinguish delays within their control from those caused by external factors.

Air Peace chairman Dr. Allen Onyema has cited weather, security concerns, VIP movements and grounded aircraft among the causes of disruption. He has also argued that passengers sometimes underestimate the complexity of airline scheduling, estimating that delays cost the industry about ₦15 billion annually.

Following publication of the August figures, Air Peace chief operating officer Oluwatoyin Olajide challenged the regulator’s reported flight total. She said the airline had operated 2,564 flights during the month, rather than the 1,864 recorded in the NCAA report.

The airline also said only 391 delays, about 15 per cent of its reported disruptions, resulted from internal factors, principally unscheduled maintenance and fuel-related problems. It attributed more than half of its external delays to airport congestion and said diversions could trigger hours of subsequent disruption.

However, even if the airline’s stated total of 2,564 flights is used, the 1,330 delays recorded by the NCAA would amount to approximately 52 per cent of its operations. The discrepancy over total flights and the different ways the parties classify delays underline the need for transparent, independently verifiable data.

Air Peace has apologised for previous waves of disruption attributed to weather, technical faults, a bird strike, a false fire alarm and fuel supply difficulties. The airline maintains that safety must take precedence over punctuality and that it will not compromise safety to meet a schedule.

United Nigeria Airlines chairman Professor Obiora Okonkwo has similarly argued that most disruptions originate outside operators’ control. He has told lawmakers that between 80 and 90 per cent of delays are beyond airlines’ control, insisting that keeping aircraft on the ground costs operators money.

“No airline operator takes delight in keeping his aircraft on the ground,” he has said, calling for greater attention to airport infrastructure and other systemic constraints.

Rano Air customer experience manager Aisha Alonso has also appealed for understanding, stressing that safety remains paramount.

These arguments deserve examination, but they cannot settle the dispute on their own. Without independently verified evidence showing why each flight was delayed, airlines and regulators can continue to trade accusations while passengers remain caught between them.

The Human Cost Extends Beyond the Airport

The financial impact of delays is only one part of the problem. Passengers may miss weddings, examinations, conferences, business meetings and connecting flights. Others pay for additional transport, accommodation or replacement tickets, while businesses lose productive time and incur unplanned expenses.

Disruptions can also heighten tensions at airports, exposing ground staff and cabin crew to angry confrontations when passengers cannot obtain answers. Although frustration does not justify harassment or violence against aviation workers, poor communication and the absence of timely assistance can intensify already difficult situations.

For travellers such as Bema-Aromeh, the problem becomes especially serious when a disrupted journey leads to additional charges and a denied refund. Such cases demonstrate why airlines need clear complaint channels and why regulators must provide a credible process for resolving disputes.

A Longstanding Crisis Needs More Than Another Warning

Nigeria’s flight disruption problem predates the latest increase in aviation fuel prices. Figures cited in earlier reports showed that Air Peace delayed 14,067 of its 22,055 flights in 2018, or about 64 per cent. In 2021, United Nigeria Airlines, Max Air, Arik Air and Air Peace were each reported to have delayed more than half their flights.

Figures cited during an earlier Senate intervention recorded 16,945 delays and 696 cancellations among 35,398 operations, producing a delay rate of about 48 per cent.

Between September and October 2024, reports recorded 5,225 delays and 901 cancellations among 10,804 flights. By August 2026, the NCAA’s reported delay rate had reached 59.9 per cent.

Over the years, the response has included Senate hearings, regulatory warnings, threatened sanctions, compensation promises and plans to publish performance records. Nevertheless, the persistence of disruptions suggests that these measures have not produced sustained improvements.

International comparisons underline the gap. The United States recorded an on-time domestic flight arrival rate of 76.42 per cent in 2025, according to its Bureau of Transportation Statistics, while cancellations accounted for 1.53 per cent. Europe recorded on-time performance of about 76 per cent over the same period. In Cirium’s 2025 rankings, South Africa’s FlySafair achieved 91.06 per cent punctuality, while Aeromexico led the global rankings at 90.02 per cent.

These figures are not perfectly comparable because the reporting periods, definitions and measurement methods differ. In addition, Nigeria’s reported cancellation rate of 0.45 per cent was lower than the US figure. That could suggest that Nigerian airlines are keeping flights operating despite disruption, leaving passengers to endure long waits instead of cancelling services outright.

Even with those qualifications, Nigeria’s reported on-time departure rate of approximately 40 per cent remains a serious concern.

Reforms Must Protect Both Safety & Passenger Rights

A lasting solution requires action across the aviation system.

First, airlines must publish realistic schedules that reflect the aircraft, crews and maintenance capacity available to them. They should communicate disruptions promptly, explain the reasons clearly and comply with applicable requirements for assistance, refunds and compensation.

Second, government and airport authorities must address congestion, infrastructure deficiencies and weaknesses in air navigation services. Greater stability in aviation fuel supply and pricing would also help operators manage costs and plan schedules more effectively.

Third, the NCAA should enforce Part 19 consistently and publish more detailed statistics identifying the causes of delays. Independent verification would help resolve disputes between the regulator and airlines while identifying recurring operational failures.

Finally, passengers need accessible complaint channels and a dependable process for resolving claims without prolonged disputes. Compensation rules must be applied fairly, taking account of the circumstances and the relevant regulatory conditions.

Ultimately, accountability must extend throughout the aviation system. Airlines should not face punishment for genuinely unavoidable disruptions, but neither should weather, congestion, fuel costs or other external pressures become blanket excuses for poor planning and inadequate customer service.

For the editor who bought a second ticket and Bema-Aromeh, who says she lost ₦81,000 after failing to board a flight she believed she had reached in time to catch, the consequences are immediate and personal.

They have paid for transport, lost valuable time and been left searching for answers. After years of warnings, hearings and promises, Nigerian travellers have every reason to demand more than another explanation.

They need an aviation system in which schedules mean something, passenger rights are enforceable and a ticket represents a reasonable expectation of reaching the destination on time—not the beginning of another gamble.