Lebogang M

Air Botswana penalised me for responsibly reporting a contagious illness before travel

I recently had a very disappointing experience with Air Botswana regarding a flight booking for myself and my two minor children. Shortly before our scheduled flight, both of my children developed symptoms of a suspected contagious illness (chickenpox). Acting responsibly and in the interest of public health, we contacted the airline in advance to notify them and to seek guidance rather than risk travelling with potentially contagious children. Instead of assisting with reasonable alternatives, we were informed that the only option available was to pay a change fee plus fare difference. When we requested consideration under the airline’s published refund policy, which refers to refunds in cases of medical emergencies, the request was declined. During the engagement, the airline agent explained that medical waivers are granted only in cases of death of a passenger or an immediate family member, and that illness does not qualify. However, this explanation appears inconsistent with the refund policy available in the public domain, which contains wording referring more broadly to medical emergencies. This raises concerns about possible inconsistencies between the publicly published policy and the way it is being app**** in practice. For reference, the refund policy re**** upon can be found here: https://airbotswana.co.bw/sites/defaultfiles2025-04AIR%20BOTSWANA%20REFUND%20POLICY%202025.pdf Another concern is that three tickets were booked, yet Air Botswana has indicated that they will refund BWP 662 in airport taxes relating to only two tickets, while the tax component for the third unused ticket has not been refunded. I have requested clarification on this but have not received a satisfactory explanation. In addition, an internal communication was circulated by the airline suggesting that I intended to travel with contagious children. This is inaccurate. The entire reason we contacted the airline in advance was precisely to avoid exposing other passengers and to act responsibly. It is disappointing that a passenger who acted in good faith to protect public health appears to have been penalised financially for doing so. I hope the airline will reconsider this matter and review how such situations involving families and medical circumstances are handled in the future.