According to multiple publication sources, including Kommersant, the Ministry of Transport of Russia is weighing a new policy idea: to introduce an additional fee for airlines in the event of bankruptcy or urgent flight cancellations. The exact amount has not been fixed yet, but it is anticipated to fall within a range of 150 to 300 rubles for each passenger. This potential surcharge would attach to tickets as soon as they are issued and could be charged regardless of the passenger’s destination or travel type. The industry reaction has been swift and largely resistant. Airline representatives argue that such a levy would add another financial burden to carriers at a moment when margins are already tight. Legal experts, meanwhile, note that while a fund dedicated to passenger protection might speed up refunds after a collapse, it could also push up overall ticket prices and obscure who benefits from the collection, leaving the true beneficiaries unclear.
Behind the scenes, the Ministry of Transport has been examining this concept since 2021. The framing idea envisions a national mechanism for mutual settlement in air transport, anchored by a single operator, Aviagarant JSC. The fund would be financed through the new regulated fee collected during ticket registration, with the aim of providing a robust safety net for travelers. Aviagarant is currently led by Alexei Shubenkov, who serves as Vice President of the Transport Clearing House (TCH). The leadership and governance structure have become part of the debate, as stakeholders assess how the cross-subsidization would operate in practice and who would oversee disbursements in cases of cancellations or airline insolvency.
Rostec, the state corporation involved in several industrial and transport initiatives, has acknowledged that the policy option is under discussion. However, it also stressed that no concrete decision has been made. Airline representatives express concern that the proposed fee could materialize at a minimum of 150 to 200 rubles per passenger, potentially driving up the cost of air travel and dampening passenger demand. They have raised questions about how the responsibilities would be divided between the Transport Clearing House and Aviagarant, warning that duplicative payments could occur if the two entities end up overlapping in their functions. The fear is that such redundancy would complicate refunds rather than simplify them.
Supporters from Rostec and the Ministry of Transport say that duplication is unlikely and that the fee’s primary purpose would be to guarantee refunds in the event of a flight cancellation or a carrier’s bankruptcy. They argue that the fund would streamline the refund process for travelers who might otherwise face long waits or unresolved reimbursements. The overarching aim is to shield passengers from financial losses while maintaining confidence in the aviation system. The conversation also touches on how the fund would interact with existing consumer protection measures and whether similar schemes exist in other countries to protect travelers during airline distress.
Observers note that the policy could intersect with broader questions about aviation financing, risk management, and the state’s role in safeguarding passenger rights. Some pundits suggest that the fund could be modeled on international counterparts where industry fees underwrite various forms of traveler protection, while others warn that the price mechanism could simply pass costs to consumers. Meanwhile, the broader travel ecosystem, including airports, service providers, and travel agencies, would need to adapt to potential changes in pricing structures and refund timelines. The debate continues as stakeholders weigh the balance between swift refunds for passengers and the potential impact on ticket affordability and market competition.
In related developments, there had been scattered discussions about allowing retailers to distribute basic consumables, such as food, at no charge, which could interact with how passengers experience value during delays or cancellations. As authorities consider these many dimensions, the central question remains: will the creation of a passenger protection fund deliver tangible, timely refunds in practice, or will it become another layer of expense absorbed by travelers through higher ticket prices? The timeline for a final decision remains uncertain, with official statements emphasizing careful assessment, risk evaluation, and the protection of consumer interests while maintaining airline viability and market stability.