0
LAGOS – Nearly every week, somewhere in Nigerian airspace, an aircraft on approach or shortly after take-off strikes a flock of birds. In most cases, the flight lands safely, sparing passengers from injury.
For the airline, however, that is where the real ordeal begins.
The aircraft is immediately withdrawn from service for mandatory inspections and, where necessary, expensive repairs. Flights are delayed or cancelled, passengers are stranded, schedules are disrupted and airlines are left to absorb maintenance costs that often run into millions of naira.
Many industry stakeholders argue that this financial burden should not rest solely on the carriers. They contend that the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN), as the operator responsible for managing airport environments, has a duty under international wildlife hazard management standards to minimise bird strike risks and adequately insure airport operations.
Where failures in wildlife control and airport risk management contribute to these incidents, they argue, airlines should not be left to shoulder the enormous financial consequences alone.
A Pattern Too Frequent To Ignore
The scale of the problem, once whispered about in aviation circles, is now openly disclosed by the operators themselves. Air Peace, West Africa’s largest carrier by fleet size, disclosed that it recorded 52 bird strikes in 2025 alone.
Chairman of Air Peace, Dr. Allen Onyema, had earlier revealed, in a December 2025 interview, that the airline logged 49 such incidents between January and September of that year, describing the trend as a serious operational burden.
By his account, the industry- wide toll is staggering: Nigerian airlines lose at least N20 billion annually to bird strikes, a figure that translates to roughly $15 million a year haemorrhaging from carriers already contending with currency volatility, the high cost of jet fuel and multiple layers of taxation.
United Nigeria Airlines (UNA) has not been spared. Within a 48- hour span in April 2026, the airline suffered three bird strikes, including an Embraer 190 on flight UN0561 from Benin to Abuja, which struck birds shortly after take-off and sustained damage to its nose landing gear, and an Airbus A320 on flight UN0515 from Port Harcourt to Abuja, damaged in the nose section while landing in Abuja. In December 2025, a bird strike involving a UNA aircraft in Abuja left more than 100 passengers stranded, prompting the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority to intervene.
Earlier in the year, a UNA Airbus A320 departing Asaba for Lagos had two birds ingested during its descent into Murtala Muhammed Airport, forcing the aircraft’s immediate withdrawal from service. The airline has recorded seven bird strikes since the start of 2026 alone.
Air Peace’s roster of incidents reads just as long: a Lagos–Port Harcourt flight struck a bird on arrival in January; two separate strikes in February on flights to Asaba and Kano; an aircraft grounded at Kano airport after another strike, forcing the airline to deploy a replacement to avoid inconveniencing passengers and, more recently, a flight disrupted at Port Harcourt.
In one particularly costly case involving an Embraer 195-E2, Air Peace was reported to have spent about $3.2 million replacing engine components damaged in a single strike. Across the sector, no fewer than eleven bird strikes were recorded by Nigerian airlines in the first months of 2026 alone, according to industry tallies, with Air Peace and UNA disproportionately affected given the size of their fleets and route networks.
Who Should Really Hold The Bill?
For all the safety-first language deployed by airlines whenever an incident occurs, the financial reality is blunt: it is the airlines, not the airports that absorb almost the entire cost.
UNA Chairman, Professor Obiora Okonkwo, addressing the crisis, was candid about the toll it takes and about who ultimately settles the bill. Reflecting on Air Peace’s experience alongside his own airline’s, he noted that when a bird strike happens, “you ground the aircraft, it disrupts your schedule. And then it costs you maintenance money.”
Crucially, he added that despite the disruption, carriers still have to meet every other obligations tied to the flight: “At the end of the day, we still pay what is due to all the agents that are responsible for that.”
In other words, the airline absorbs the direct damage to the aircraft, the cost of unscheduled maintenance and inspection, the expense of leasing or repositioning replacement aircraft, compensation and rebooking for stranded passengers, and lost revenue from cancelled sectors, while continuing to pay landing charges, handling fees and other airport levies as though nothing had gone wrong.
Dr. Onyema has been equally forthright about the burden bird strikes place on Air Peace’s books, repeatedly linking the airline’s 49 to 52 annual incidents to direct maintenance costs and the wider N20 billion industry-wide loss.
Each strike, he has explained, effectively removes an aircraft from active service, a costly proposition for airlines already operating on thin margins in a market shaped by naira depreciation and infrastructural deficit.
Passengers, for their part, bear a secondary cost: cancelled trips, missed connections and, in some documented cases, the additional expense of purchasing last-minute tickets on other carriers while awaiting refunds.
The Unreliable Airport Insurance Gap
At the heart of the dispute is a simple but unresolved question: should airport operators, not airlines, be liable for damage caused by wildlife hazards that occur squarely within their jurisdiction, given that runways, aprons and their surrounding environments fall under the airport authority’s direct control?
Industry voices have argued for years that Nigerian airports operate without adequate insurance cover to address such liabilities. Captain Edward Boyo, founder and chief executive of Overland Airways, raised the alarm at the 5th CHINET Aviacargo Conference, arguing that the non-insurance of airports has had a detrimental impact on domestic airline operations, and pointing out that a considerable number of incidents at airports are the direct responsibility of the airports themselves.
Former Murtala Muhammed Airport commandant, Group Captain John Ojikutu (rtd.), has separately faulted the Federal Government for removing the provision from Nigeria’s civil aviation regulations that once compelled the FAAN to insure the country’s airports.
FAAN’s Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Mrs. Olubunmi Kuku, has firmly rejected these claims. Responding directly to the allegations, she said: “All Federal Government airports managed by FAAN are insured with the insurance up to date. Derubberisation and runway hygiene has been intact, records are available.”
She has repeated the assurance on several occasions, insisting that “this issue was brought to my attention, but I am clarifying that all FGN airports managed by FAAN are insured with the insurance up to date.”
Yet, in the very same breath, Mrs. Kuku has conceded ground on the underlying cause of the crisis. “The only area that I will agree on is the habitation and community issues that have impacted the wildlife/bird strikes, and we have been working closely with relevant stakeholders to control,” she acknowledged, describing bird strikes as one of the most pressing challenges inherited by the current FAAN administration.
She has pointed to remedial measures under way, including altering grass-cutting schedules to reduce insect exposure that attracts birds, and plans to deploy modern bird-dispersal equipment sourced from Canada.
The Ministry of Aviation and Aerospace Development’s 2026 budget also earmarked N7 million for additional Phoenix Airport Wailer Mk IV bird deterrent systems at Kano, Benin and Kaduna airports.
The contradiction is telling. If airports are indeed comprehensively insured, as Mrs. Kuku maintains, it remains unclear why Nigerian airlines continue to absorb the full financial burden of incidents that occur on airport property, involving hazards that airport authorities are internationally mandated to control.
When the National Insurance Commission (NAICOM) was asked directly about the matter, its representative at a Lagos insurance forum stated plainly that Nigeria’s airports lacked insurance cover, though the commission expressed willingness to engage government authorities on the issue – a position that sits uneasily alongside FAAN’s repeated assurances.
Out Of Step With Global Standards
Under global aviation norms set out by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the primary responsibility for wildlife hazard management rests squarely with the aerodrome operator, not the airline.
ICAO’s Airport Services Manual states that “the primary responsibility of the aerodrome operator is to maintain aerodrome safety and ensure that action is taken to reduce the risk of wildlife strikes,” requiring every aerodrome to develop, implement and demonstrate an effective Wildlife Hazard Management Plan.
Aviation safety analysts note that airport operators are generally held liable in most jurisdictions internationally, given that they control the land, collect landing fees, and are best placed to manage the habitats, waste sites and vegetation that attract birds in the first place.
Nigerian airports, several of which sit close to poorly managed vegetation, open waste dumps and water bodies, present textbook conditions for elevated bird strike risk, according to aviation experts and the Airline Operators of Nigeria (AON), which has repeatedly petitioned regulators for stronger wildlife management programmes and more structured reporting mechanisms. Progress, by the association’s own admission, has been slow.
Time For Clarity
Bird strikes may be an unavoidable reality in aviation, but many industry stakeholders believe the financial consequences should not fall almost entirely on airlines.
With indigenous carriers already battling high operating costs, foreign exchange pressures and limited access to aircraft, every additional maintenance bill chips away at already thin margins.
The recent investments by FAAN in bird-control equipment are welcome, but they address only part of the problem.
What airlines are increasingly demanding is a transparent framework that clearly defines responsibility, establishes compensation where appropriate and aligns Nigeria’s practices with international standards.
Until that happens, bird strikes will remain more than just a safety concern. They will continue to drain billions of naira from Nigerian airlines and raise a difficult question: when wildlife hazards occur within airport boundaries, who should really be paying the price?
