Air transport plays an essential role in the economic and social development of any country, as it connects people, boosts tourism, promotes business and facilitates access to countless opportunities.
However, this sector lives immersed in a reality marked by extremely high operating costs, volatile profit margins and frequent external fluctuations, such as exchange rate variations, fuel prices, climate issues or even health and political crises.
Furthermore, airlines face strict regulatory legislation and are monitored by bodies that, although essential for safety, generate complexity and additional compliance costs.
Even in light of this scenario, such companies have historically been treated by the Judiciary and the legislator as being almost entirely responsible for any discomfort suffered by engers, receiving significant financial sentences in cases where, often, the plaintiff is not even required to provide reasonable evidence of their loss.
This hyper-protection of consumers, when analyzed in isolation, may seem like a social achievement. After all, who has never had a flight canceled or delayed and felt harmed?
The crux of the problem, however, lies in the exaggerated way in which civil liability is applied in Brazil. The excess of convictions and disproportionate compensations, combined with the rigid imposition of objective liability, means that companies end up bearing not only the risks inherent to their activity, but also the consequences of situations beyond their control.
Although it is fair that consumers are compensated in genuinely harmful situations, it cannot be ignored that, without any evidentiary filter, there is room for opportunistic litigation or the trivialization of compensation claims, encouraging mass litigation.
In this scenario, companies and startups have emerged that specialize in buying credits resulting from disputes against airlines and in encouraging legal action, even in cases with little factual or evidentiary basis. For engers seduced by these promises of easy money, this is yet another advantage: they do not have to bear any costs, and the risk of the lawsuit is transferred to the intermediary company.
But what many consumers don't realize is that, in the end, all of these costs — from legal fees to potentially excessive compensation — are ed on to the price of airline tickets. Thus, what in the short term appears to be an apparent benefit to the individual consumer ends up penalizing the community in a lasting way.
It is in this context that the well-known “Brazil cost” comes into play: the greater the legal uncertainty and the more onerous and unbridled the imposed sentences, the more unfeasible it becomes for companies to offer tickets at competitive prices, as they need to compensate for losses in the tariff composition.
Data from the Brazilian Airlines Association (ABEAR) reveals that, since 2020, the number of lawsuits against Brazilian airlines has increased by an average of 60% per year. Surprisingly, 98,5% of lawsuits against airlines worldwide are filed in Brazil. To get an idea of the disparity, while in the United States there is one lawsuit for every 2.585 flights, in Brazil there is one lawsuit for every 0,52 flights, that is, practically one lawsuit for every two flights performed.
This scenario is aggravated by the actions of a small group of lawyers: just 20 professionals or firms are responsible for 10% of the lawsuits filed against airlines in the country, indicating a possible practice of predatory litigation.
The financial consequences are significant. It is estimated that airlines spend around R$1 billion annually on legal costs, including compensation that, on average, reaches R$6.700 per enger who the courts understand to have suffered moral damages.
In this logic, the one who pays the bill is precisely the consumer who intended to be protected. While the official discourse celebrates the defense of enger rights, in practice a side effect is created that weakens competition, reduces the possibility of promotions and, in the end, makes access to air travel elitist.
If companies, especially smaller ones or even those that might be interested in operating regional routes, fear the incalculable costs of an implacable judicial stance, they will tend to back away from new investments, restricting the number of flights and increasing the price of tickets by reducing the supply. The consequence is a reduction in the flight network, which, once again, harms the very engers who depend most on affordable prices and greater route coverage.
In view of this, it is urgent to reassess the application of the current regulatory framework, seeking to make consumer protection in air transport more balanced. Measures that condition the liability of companies to effectively proven situations, as well as the granting of compensation proportional to the damage and the analysis of the circumstances of each case, would have the effect of reestablishing common sense.
Likewise, the Judiciary, by requiring a minimum of concrete evidence before holding companies liable, would preserve the broader scope of consumer protection and, at the same time, recognize that there are a number of factors that are beyond the control of carriers. Far from representing a setback in consumer protection, this stance would imply greater legal certainty and, in the long term, greater benefits for all, as there would be a decrease in artificial judicialization and, therefore, a reduction in costs that would inevitably be reflected in the final price of tickets.
The balance between responsibility and evidentiary reasonableness, as well as a systemic view of the economic consequences of judicial decisions, represent the safest way to avoid distortions that, in practice, harm precisely those it seeks to protect.
If there is a genuine intention to favor the consumer, the best path is not to encourage ostensive and automatic protection, but rather to build solid , without unbalancing the game in such a way that everyone ends up losing.
A new stance by society as a whole would therefore not only protect the airline industry from excessive costs, but would also reduce the risk of these costs being ed on to the end . Ultimately, the lower this -on, the cheaper tickets will become, the greater people's access to air travel will be, and the greater the competitiveness between companies will be, promoting healthy development for the economy and the country.
All of this will allow civil aviation to finally emerge from turbulence, take sustainable flights and offer truly affordable tickets to all citizens.
