Rising Umrah Ticket Prices: Delayed Refunds Entitle Pilgrims to Switch to More Affordable Airlines
By: Dodi Sudrajat (Umroh Haji Asita & Himpuh Jabar) and Wagiman (Lawyer and Researcher on Hajj and Umrah)
REPUBLIKA.CO.ID, BANDUNG – A dogmatic legal analysis of the phenomenon of uncertainty regarding aircraft ticket refunds reveals a fundamental conflict between the principle of pacta sunt servanda and the reality of airlines’ failure to fulfill their obligations, where delays in refunding are not merely administrative obstacles but constitute an absolute breach of contract.
Based on the normative structure in Article 34E of Minister of Transportation Regulation No. 2 of 2025 and PM 185 of 2015, the legal position of travel agents and pilgrims is clarified through obligation of result, which stipulates that airlines are legally obliged to provide legal certainty and transparency regarding the refund mechanism within a maximum period of 7 calendar days.
The airline’s failure to comply with this timeline creates a systematic violation of consumer rights, so that the funds held no longer have a valid legal basis (rechtmatige titel) and become uncertain funds, giving travel agents the right to pursue legal action or administrative complaints to the Directorate General of Air Transportation in order to uphold the integrity of accountable air transportation services.
From a dogmatic legal perspective, the integration of norms between Minister of Transportation Regulation No. 2 of 2025, PM 185 of 2015, and PM 89 of 2015 creates an imperative obligation that is self-executing, where airlines no longer have discretion to delay the restitution of financial rights of service users.
A critical analysis of the synchronization of these regulations shows that delays or uncertainty in refunds constitute a violation of minimum service standards (SPM) which have been codified as preventive legal protection for consumers and travel agents.
With the enactment of Minister of Transportation Regulation No. 2 of 2025 as a progressive supplementary regulation, the refund scheme shifts from mere contractual responsibility to rigid administrative compliance, where any failure in delay management and ticket refunds triggers sectoral sanctions while strengthening the legal position of travel agents in demanding immediate recovery of rights, in order to prevent legal loopholes regarding consumer funds held within the airline’s operational system.
Absolute Obligation of Airlines Based on Article 34E of Minister of Transportation Regulation No. 2 of 2025
A dogmatic legal analysis of Article 34E of Minister of Transportation Regulation No. 2 of 2025 shows a transformation of norms from mere administrative appeals to imperative and limitative legal obligations, which effectively closes the “gray area” for airlines to delay their obligations.
Through the instrument in paragraph (2), the law establishes rigid transparency standards where airlines are obliged to provide information on cancellations and refund mechanisms within a preclusive period of 7 calendar days.
Legally, this provision serves as an instrument of protection of the right to information for travel agents and consumers, so that delays in information are no longer considered technical obstacles but violations of legal procedures that can cause airlines to lose operational legitimacy in handling cancellation disputes.
Technically legally, paragraph (3) establishes a codified deadline for refund processing (timeline refund) which distinguishes between cash transactions with a maximum limit of 7 days and non-cash transactions which must be carried out with full transparency.
The emphasis on this deadline in dogmatic law is a form of legal certainty aimed at preventing airlines from possessing funds belonging to consumers or travel agents without justification.
Therefore, any deviation from this refund timeline confirms the existence of an element of unlawful act or actual breach of contract, which provides a strong basis for travel agents to use Article 34E as a “litigation weapon” to force fulfillment of financial rights without being trapped in internal airline bureaucracy that is often unaccountable.
Points of Legal Protection for Travel Agents
From a dogmatic legal perspective, the position of travel agents as official intermediaries gives strong legal legitimacy to demand certainty regarding consumer funds, which from the perspective of property law does not belong to airlines but are transitory deposit funds.
Holding refunds without rational reason is a violation of the principle of good faith and reasonableness in contracts, which technically changes the status of these funds from mere administrative objects into “pending funds” without legal basis (rechtstitel).
Therefore, the bargaining position of travel agents is automatically strengthened by the imperative nature of aviation regulations, which positions airlines not as owners of funds but as debtors who are obliged to fulfill their obligations immediately when the refund requirements are met.
In facing obstacles in the refund process, travel agents can activate a dual legal protection mechanism through administrative and mediation channels.
Reporting to the Directorate General of Air Transportation is an administrative repressive measure against violations of Minimum Service Standards (SPM), where airlines can be subject to sectoral sanctions for failing to maintain service accountability.
Simultaneously, the use of mediation institutions or airport authorities functions as an effective non-litigation dispute resolution forum to quickly restore financial rights, while also emphasizing that a lack of transparency by airlines is a form of industrial malpractice that cannot be tolerated in the national air transportation ecosystem.
More sharply, in civil litigation, travel agents have a solid basis for breach of contract claims because airlines have failed to fulfill their obligations.