FlySafair Faces Fresh Questions Over Customer Care
A documented Ombud complaint by a Johannesburg father over his two young daughters and a R1,500 unaccompanied minor fee has brought renewed attention to a question TownPress has been hearing from readers since 2025: Is customer service at South Africa’s largest low-cost airline coming under growing pressure?
PRETORIA – For more than a year, TownPress has received complaints from FlySafair passengers describing disputes over refunds, baggage, booking changes and customer support. The complaints have varied in circumstance and have not all been independently verified. Individually, they did not warrant broader reporting.
That changed when Johannesburg father Andrew Els submitted documentary evidence supporting a complaint now before the Consumer Goods and Services Ombud.
Unlike many complaints received by the newsroom, Els’ case is supported by payment receipts, booking invoices and written correspondence exchanged with FlySafair following a disrupted journey involving his daughters, aged eight and six.
According to documents reviewed by TownPress, the children travelled alone for the first time after FlySafair diverted their father’s inbound flight because of adverse weather, preventing him from boarding their scheduled flight to Durban.
Els alleges FlySafair staff proposed that the children continue their journey under the airline’s unaccompanied minor service, for which their mother paid R1,500 at the airport before departure. The payment receipt forms part of the evidence reviewed by TownPress.
The father further alleges that while travelling under the airline’s care, the children attempted to buy water and refreshments using cash but were unable to do so because the aircraft operated a cashless payment system. According to his complaint, another passenger eventually purchased refreshments for them.
The complaint has since been referred to the Consumer Goods and Services Ombud.
FlySafair told TownPress it would not debate the specifics of a matter currently before the Ombud but said it remains satisfied that it acted reasonably and fairly throughout the incident.
The airline stressed that no findings have been made against it and said it has submitted documentary, operational and meteorological evidence to the Ombud in support of its position.
Responding to questions from TownPress, FlySafair said the safety and care of children travelling alone is taken “extremely seriously” and outlined procedures that include dedicated documentation, ground escorts, crew briefings and controlled handovers to verified guardians.
The airline also clarified that while its cabins operate on a cashless payment system, drinking water is available on every flight and cabin crew are expected to provide it to unaccompanied minors irrespective of their means of payment.
That response introduces one of the central issues now before the Ombud.
While Els alleges his daughters were unable to obtain water until another passenger intervened, FlySafair says any suggestion that its policy prevents unaccompanied minors from receiving drinking water is “simply incorrect.”
The airline also disputes Els’ broader claim that he was unfairly required to purchase another ticket after the disruption.
However, correspondence reviewed by TownPress shows FlySafair acknowledged that one airport booking amendment “was supposed to be a free change” and confirmed that the associated charge would be refunded.
Els ultimately rejected a R1,000 FlySafair travel voucher and referred the dispute to the Consumer Goods and Services Ombud, where it remains pending.
Beyond the Ombud complaint, TownPress reviewed recent publicly available customer reviews published on HelloPeter and Trustpilot. While these reviews have not been independently verified and do not establish systemic shortcomings, recurring concerns include refund disputes, baggage damage, customer communication and complaint resolution. They broadly mirror many of the issues raised in emails received by the newsroom since 2025.
FlySafair rejects suggestions that its customer service is deteriorating.
The airline says it carries almost one million passengers each month, accounting for more than 60% of South Africa’s domestic seat capacity. It says customer feedback is continuously monitored using AI-assisted analysis of approximately 8,600 individual customer comments each week, while repeat business and consistently strong Net Promoter Scores indicate that customer satisfaction remains high.
The airline further noted that every carrier receives complaints and argued that the appropriate measure is not whether complaints exist, but how they compare with the size of the operation and how consistently they are addressed.
Whether Andrew Els’ complaint reflects an isolated dispute or highlights broader questions around passenger care will ultimately be determined through the Ombud process.
For TownPress, however, the significance of the case lies elsewhere.
After receiving passenger complaints over the past year, this is the first matter reviewed by the newsroom that combines documentary evidence, a formal Ombud complaint and detailed responses from the airline itself. For that reason, it raises questions that extend beyond one family’s journey and into the broader conversation about passenger care, complaint resolution and consumer confidence in South Africa’s aviation sector.
TownPress will continue to follow the Ombud proceedings and publish any further developments.
Anyone with additional information relating to this matter may contact the TownPress News Desk at press@townpress.co.za.