Lagos — The British Airways (BA) was unable to operate its scheduled flight from Lagos to London on June 25 as a result of disagreements with Nigerian aviation authorities over flight frequency. The matter was such that the airline could not meet its obligation to passengers already booked for the flight.

As the press reported it, the Nigerian government, apparently unhappy with BA for flouting its instruction to cease operating the three extra flights granted it last year, came hard on the airline by ordering the cancellation of its flight on the fateful date. The immediate consequence of the action was that passengers already booked to travel on the flight, became stranded both in Nigeria and at Heathrow airport in London.

The nation's aviation authorities said that BA's extra frequencies were only for a specific period which had since expired. To renew it, the airline needed to reapply and if granted, pay the accompanying fees in line with the Bilateral Air Services Agreement (BASA) between Nigeria and Britain. But BA continued to operate the extra flights as though it couldn't care what the rules say.

The increase had been based on a request by BA to be granted higher frequencies to enable it cope with the rising volume of passengers travelling on the airline to London from Nigeria.

It would seem, however, that in granting that request the relevant authorities failed to reckon with foreign airlines' penchant for taking the country for granted, in utter defiance of the BASA which clearly spells out conditions under which each nation is to operate flights to the other.

Besides, the extra frequencies gave undue advantage to BA over other airlines even when it is doubtful that any Nigerian airline could ever enjoy such favour from the British aviation authorities. By implication, to continue to allow BA to operate three extra flights per week at no benefit to the nation, amounted to disadvantaging other carriers. Which in turn, would not be in line with the goals of the reforms in the aviation industry.

According to officials of the ministry of aviation, the decision to withdraw BA's extra three flights was preceded by several warnings to the airline to regularise the operation or discontinue. The airline was said to have been reminded that the deadline for reverting to its standard frequency had expired. But it would appear that BA under-estimated the ministry's resolve to enforce the directive until that fateful Sunday.

The airline's explanation that its flight to Lagos had left London before it got information that it could not operate it does not jell with the position of the aviation ministry. It is either that the airline was not telling the whole truth or that the nation's aviation authorities were not explaining all that happened on the matter. Whatever the case, it has to be said that the incident was untidy and rather symptomatic of the shoddiness that has characterised the nation's aviation industry over the years.

To think of the hardship which this imposed on Nigerian passengers of the BA can be saddening. Some certainly missed important business and other appointments as a result of the stalemate. And although BA had to adopt an interim solution by flying its Nigerian passengers from Ghana, the inconvenience involved was rather much. We do not think that all of that was entirely unavoidable. In matters of agreement, parties must never wait to be prodded to act accordingly.

While the action of the aviation ministry might seem drastic, it can hardly be faulted. Agreements are meant to be kept, not breached arbitrarily. The inability to enforce such agreements has been the bane of many otherwise well-meaning government policies. That cannot continue indefinitely.

Even while we sympathise with the stranded passengers of the BA, we have no such sympathy for the airline. It must draw the necessary lessons from this experience in order not to jeopardise its customers in the future.