Utterly Disgusted.

Date: 05 January 2026 Complainant: Shirley Matshego Piko Passengers Affected:

Piko Boitswarelo (CHD) Dipuo Piko (15 years old) Booking *** Ticket Numbers: ***503 and associated ticket for Dipuo Piko Date of Issue: 24 November 2025 To: The Commissioner Competition Commission of South Africa

RE: COMPLAINT AGAINST AIRLINK FOR EXCESSIVE, UNEXPLAINED, AND POTENTIALLY ******** SURCHARGES IMPOSED ON MINOR PASSENGERS Upon reviewing the fare breakdown when i called this morning to request changes to my kids travel dates, I identified a disproportionately high YQ carrier‑imposed surcharge, which significantly inflates the total ticket cost without any transparent justification. This surcharge appears to contravene the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), aviation pricing regulations, and fair‑competition principles.

1. SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE For Piko Boitswarelo, the total fare charged is ZAR 3,579.14, of which ZAR 1,464.00 is attributed solely to the YQ carrier‑imposed surcharge—an amount nearly equal to the base fare of ZAR 1,540.00. The same pattern applies to the ticket issued for Dipuo Piko.

These charges raise serious concerns regarding:

Pricing transparency Fairness and reasonableness Potential abuse of market power Compliance with consumer‑protection and aviation‑pricing regulations Given that both passengers are minors, the financial prejudice is even more concerning.

2. LEGAL AND REGULATORY BASIS FOR THIS COMPLAINT 2.1 Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA) Airlink’s conduct appears to violate multiple provisions of the CPA, including:

Section 22: Pricing must be clear, transparent, and easily understood. Section 48: Prohibits unfair, unreasonable, or unjust pricing, including excessive or unjustified fees. Section 49: Requires that unusual or material terms be conspicuously disclosed. Section 54: Guarantees the right to fair, quality service, including fair pricing and proper disclosure. Section 52: Allows consumers to seek relief where suppliers engage in unfair pricing practices. 2.2 Civil Aviation Regulations & Air Services Licensing Act Air carriers must ensure that all fare components comply with transparent pricing standards and must not impose arbitrary or unjustified surcharges.

2.3 IATA Guidance on Carrier‑Imposed Fees Carrier‑imposed surcharges must be:

Reasonable Cost‑based Clearly disclosed A surcharge nearly equal to the base fare for a short domestic route (BFN–CPT) is prima facie excessive.

3. SPECIFIC CONCERN: YQ CARRIER‑IMPOSED SURCHARGE The YQ surcharge is typically used to recover fuel or operational costs. However:

No explanation or cost basis is provided. The surcharge is disproportionately high relative to the route. The fee is not linked to any disclosed cost structure. The CPA requires full transparency, which is absent. The issue affects two minors, compounding the prejudice. This raises concerns of unfair pricing, lack of transparency, and potential anti‑competitive conduct.

4. REQUEST FOR REGULATORY INTERVENTION I respectfully request that the Competition Commission and the National Consumer Commission:

4.1 Investigate Airlink’s pricing practices, specifically the calculation, justification, and disclosure of the YQ surcharge. 4.2 Determine whether the surcharge constitutes: Unfair, unreasonable, or unjust pricing (CPA Section 48) A failure to disclose material terms (CPA Section 49) A violation of transparent‑pricing obligations under aviation regulations Anti‑competitive or exploitative conduct 4.3 Direct Airlink to provide: A detailed written explanation of the YQ surcharge Regulatory justification for the amounts imposed Evidence of cost‑based calculation 4.4 Order appropriate remedial action, including but not limited to: A free itinerary change for both minors (CPT–KBY), OR A full refund of all amounts paid, including: Base fares All taxes (EV, UM, ZA, ZV) The full YQ surcharge Any additional booking charges Any UMNR‑related fees (if applicable) 5. URGENCY OF THE MATTER I require an urgent resolution as I must make travel arrangements for both minors to return to Kimberley before schools reopen on 14 January 2026. Airlink has been requested to respond by close of business today, failing which this complaint is being escalated to your offices for immediate intervention.

6. CONCLUSION This matter involves two minor passengers and excessive, unexplained, and potentially ******** charges. I request that your offices investigate this matter with urgency and ensure full compliance with South African consumer‑protection and competition‑law standards.