Legal Analysis Of Discrimination Practice By Lion Air Group Related To The Cooperation Of The Sale Of Cargo Capacity In Transportation Services From Hang Nadim Airport To Soekarno-Hatta Airport, Halim Perdana Kusuma, Juanda, And Kuala Namu (KPPU Decision Study Number 07/KPPU-I/2020)

Feb 27, 2025 by ADMIN 284 views

**Legal Analysis of Discrimination Practice by Lion Air Group in Sales of Cargo Capacity**

Introduction

The practice of discrimination in the world of aviation, especially related to transportation of goods, is an important concern in business competition law in Indonesia. The case of initiative number 07/KPPU-I/2020 involving the Lion Air Group and the disclosure of a cargo capacity sales cooperation agreement from Hang Nadim Airport Batam to several other airports such as Soekarno-Hatta, Halim Perdana Kusuma, Juanda, and Kuala Namu, is an interesting case to discuss. This case highlights the importance of understanding and implementing business competition laws in Indonesia.

Background of the Case

The case began with a buildup of cargo at Hang Nadim Airport in the period July to September 2018. In an investigation conducted by the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU), evidence of a cooperation agreement was found between PT Lion Mentari (Reported Party I), PT Batik Air Indonesia (Reported Party II), PT Wing Abadi (Reported Party III), and PT Lion Express (Reported Party IV). The agreement gave exclusive rights to PT Lion Express to use the cargo capacity of other reported parties of 40 tons per day for the four agreed flight routes.

Analysis of the Case

This practice is considered to have violated the law of healthy business competition, because it can have a negative impact on competition in the cargo aviation market. In further analysis, it is essential to highlight that law enforcement in business competition in Indonesia is based on Law No. 5 of 1999, which has experienced changes and adjustments through the Work Cipta Law. This shows the government's commitment to improve and strengthen existing regulations to create a healthy competition climate.

Regulations Regarding Discrimination Practices

Regulations regarding discrimination practices, especially in this context, are further regulated in Commission Regulation (Perkom) No. 3 of 2011 concerning Guidelines for Article 19 letter d of Law No. 5 of 1999. The regulation aims to provide clear guidelines for business actors in understanding and implementing the article.

KPPU Decision Number 07/KPPU-I/2020

In the KPPU Decision Number 07/KPPU-I/2020, it was proven that PT Lion Mentari, PT Batik Air Indonesia, and PT Lion Express violated Article 19 letter d from Law No. 5 of 1999. As a consequence, the three companies were sentenced to a fine of Rp 1,000,000,000. However, this fine does not need to be paid if the reported parties do not repeat the same violation in the future.

Lessons from the Case

Seeing this case, there are several important points that can be taken as lessons. First, the need for a deeper understanding of the law of business competition in Indonesia so that businesses can carry out their business activities without violating applicable regulations. Second, law enforcement that is consistent by the KPPU shows the government's efforts in protecting the public interest and maintaining healthy business competition.

Importance of Transparency and Justice

In addition, this case also provides an understanding of the importance of transparency and justice in business practices, especially in the aviation sector that has great potential to grow. Joint efforts from all parties - both the government, business actors, and the community - are needed to create a fair and fair business environment.

Conclusion

Thus, this analysis not only highlights violations of the law that occurs, but also arouses awareness of the importance of compliance with existing regulations, for the realization of a healthy and sustainable competition climate. The case of the Lion Air Group highlights the need for businesses to understand and implement business competition laws in Indonesia, and the importance of transparency and justice in business practices.

Recommendations

Based on the analysis of the case, the following recommendations can be made:

Businesses should have a deeper understanding of the law of business competition in Indonesia to avoid violating applicable regulations.
The government should continue to improve and strengthen existing regulations to create a healthy competition climate.
Joint efforts from all parties - both the government, business actors, and the community - are needed to create a fair and fair business environment.

Future Research Directions

Future research directions can include:

A more in-depth analysis of the impact of the case on the cargo aviation market in Indonesia.
An examination of the effectiveness of the KPPU in enforcing business competition laws in Indonesia.
A study of the importance of transparency and justice in business practices, especially in the aviation sector.

Limitations of the Study

This study has several limitations, including:

The study only analyzed one case, and more cases should be studied to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the issue.
The study only focused on the legal aspects of the case, and more research should be conducted on the economic and social impacts of the case.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the case of the Lion Air Group highlights the importance of understanding and implementing business competition laws in Indonesia, and the importance of transparency and justice in business practices. The study provides several recommendations for businesses, the government, and the community to create a fair and fair business environment. Future research directions include a more in-depth analysis of the impact of the case on the cargo aviation market in Indonesia, an examination of the effectiveness of the KPPU in enforcing business competition laws in Indonesia, and a study of the importance of transparency and justice in business practices, especially in the aviation sector.

Introduction

The case of the Lion Air Group and the disclosure of a cargo capacity sales cooperation agreement from Hang Nadim Airport Batam to several other airports such as Soekarno-Hatta, Halim Perdana Kusuma, Juanda, and Kuala Namu, has raised several questions about the practice of discrimination in the world of aviation, especially related to transportation of goods. In this Q&A article, we will address some of the most frequently asked questions about the case.

Q: What is the case about?

A: The case is about the Lion Air Group and the disclosure of a cargo capacity sales cooperation agreement from Hang Nadim Airport Batam to several other airports. The agreement gave exclusive rights to PT Lion Express to use the cargo capacity of other reported parties of 40 tons per day for the four agreed flight routes.

Q: Why is this practice considered to have violated the law of healthy business competition?

A: This practice is considered to have violated the law of healthy business competition because it can have a negative impact on competition in the cargo aviation market. By giving exclusive rights to PT Lion Express, the other reported parties are limited in their ability to compete in the market.

Q: What are the regulations regarding discrimination practices in Indonesia?

A: The regulations regarding discrimination practices in Indonesia are further regulated in Commission Regulation (Perkom) No. 3 of 2011 concerning Guidelines for Article 19 letter d of Law No. 5 of 1999. The regulation aims to provide clear guidelines for business actors in understanding and implementing the article.

Q: What was the outcome of the KPPU Decision Number 07/KPPU-I/2020?

A: In the KPPU Decision Number 07/KPPU-I/2020, it was proven that PT Lion Mentari, PT Batik Air Indonesia, and PT Lion Express violated Article 19 letter d from Law No. 5 of 1999. As a consequence, the three companies were sentenced to a fine of Rp 1,000,000,000. However, this fine does not need to be paid if the reported parties do not repeat the same violation in the future.

Q: What are the lessons that can be taken from this case?

A: There are several important points that can be taken as lessons from this case. First, the need for a deeper understanding of the law of business competition in Indonesia so that businesses can carry out their business activities without violating applicable regulations. Second, law enforcement that is consistent by the KPPU shows the government's efforts in protecting the public interest and maintaining healthy business competition.

Q: What is the importance of transparency and justice in business practices, especially in the aviation sector?

A: Transparency and justice are essential in business practices, especially in the aviation sector that has great potential to grow. Joint efforts from all parties - both the government, business actors, and the community - are needed to create a fair and fair business environment.

Q: What are the recommendations for businesses, the government, and the community to create a fair and fair business environment?

A: Based on the analysis of the case, the following recommendations can be made:

Businesses should have a deeper understanding of the law of business competition in Indonesia to avoid violating applicable regulations.
The government should continue to improve and strengthen existing regulations to create a healthy competition climate.
Joint efforts from all parties - both the government, business actors, and the community - are needed to create a fair and fair business environment.

Q: What are the future research directions?

A: Future research directions can include:

A more in-depth analysis of the impact of the case on the cargo aviation market in Indonesia.
An examination of the effectiveness of the KPPU in enforcing business competition laws in Indonesia.
A study of the importance of transparency and justice in business practices, especially in the aviation sector.

Q: What are the limitations of the study?

A: This study has several limitations, including:

The study only analyzed one case, and more cases should be studied to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the issue.
The study only focused on the legal aspects of the case, and more research should be conducted on the economic and social impacts of the case.