Baggage Held for 57 Days, Payment Forced — Avoid Batik Air Malaysia
We experienced a serious and well-documented issue with Batik Air involving baggage handling and payment transparency that lasted nearly two months and caused significant inconvenience. My husband and I were travelling together on the same booking. His primary payment card linked to Apple Pay had been blocked due to a scam incident related to a flower purchase in Kuala Lumpur (a police report was filed). On 21 July 2025, he checked in an 11 kg box on flight OD171 from Kuala Lumpur to Denpasar. At that time, Batik Air had removed the option to purchase baggage during online check-in — a feature still available on all other airlines operating the same route, including AirAsia, Malaysia Airlines, and TransNusa. Because his Indonesian OCBC virtual card could not be used at the counter and Apple Pay was not supported, the check-in manager in Kuala Lumpur agreed that the baggage fee could be paid upon arrival in Bali. When my husband twice asked for written confirmation of this arrangement, the manager refused and simply replied, “I don’t know.” Upon arrival in Denpasar, he was presented with a handwritten note demanding IDR 2,035,000, without any invoice, receipt, or official documentation. Despite multiple requests, the Lost & Found staff refused to release the baggage until payment was made. We have an audio recording confirming this refusal. The airline later claimed the baggage was “uncollected,” whereas in reality, it had been unlawfully retained as collateral. Even if a fee is outstanding, an airline has no legal right to seize a passenger’s property; the correct procedure is to release the baggage and pursue the debt separately through civil channels. Baggage tracing staff in Denpasar also stated — on record — that the box would be returned to Kuala Lumpur free of charge. This commitment was never fulfilled. When my husband eventually booked another Batik Air flight to retrieve the baggage, the same problem occurred: online baggage purchase was still unavailable, and he was charged MYR 165 per 10 kg at the airport. That lower rate applied only because payment was made upon arrival in Kuala Lumpur; had he paid at the counter before the flight, the cost would have been MYR 480 per 10 kg (MYR 48 per kg). In practice, Batik Air applies three different baggage prices depending on when and where payment is made. None of these variations are disclosed to passengers, raising serious concerns about pricing transparency and consumer fairness under CAAM and ASEAN standards. For 57 days, my husband tried to recover his property — including prescription medication — but the airline continued to withhold it. He was ultimately forced to pay IDR 2,035,000 simply to retrieve his belongings. This payment was made under duress and cannot be considered voluntary; therefore, a chargeback claim was filed to address the coercive circumstances under which the payment was extracted. Throughout the entire process, both in Kuala Lumpur and Denpasar, no employee issued a Property Irregularity Report (PIR) or provided an official receipt, despite repeated requests. The only paper ever provided was an informal handwritten note with no legal legitimacy. This illustrates a broader lack of transparency, procedural compliance, and proper record-keeping in Batik Air’s ground operations.