FlixBus, frequently described as the Uber of buses, has faced a definitive rejection from the Ministry of Transport and Communications (MTC) regarding its attempts to enter the Peruvian interprovincial transport market. According to official resolutions, the German company’s proposed digital platform model, which relies on local transport partners and co-owned vehicles, fails to comply with current domestic transportation regulations.
MTC Denies Authorization and Appeal for Lima-Ica Route
The entry process began last year when FlixBus sought permission to operate on the Lima–Ica route. According to the MTC, that initial request was declared inadmissible. The ministry subsequently rejected the company’s broader application to operate within the country and later denied an appeal filed by the firm. The MTC resolution states that “la oferta de vehículos en copropiedad solo aplica para el servicio de transporte especial de personas, no al servicio de transporte regular.”
Regulatory Standards Under Supreme Decree N.° 017-2009-MTC
The regulatory hurdle stems from Article 26 of the National Regulation of Transport Administration, approved via Supreme Decree N.° 017-2009-MTC. As outlined in the text, vehicles used for public transport of people or goods must be owned by the transport company itself or operated under financial or operational leasing arrangements permitted by the financial system. Furthermore, the rule specifies that if vehicles are not owned by the carrier, their registration in the administrative transport registry can only remain active for the duration of the contract presented by the transport company. FlixBus maintains that it complies with current legislation, pointing to its 14-year history across 45 countries.
Did You Know? FlixBus operates globally across 45 countries over a 14-year history, maintaining that its international model relies on associations with established local carriers.
Industry Association Raises Liability and Operational Concerns
Martín Ojeda, general manager of the Association of Empresas de Transporte Interprovincial de Pasajeros (Cotrap-Apoip), voiced strong opposition to the company’s entry in an interview with El Comercio. Ojeda argued that FlixBus seeks to implement a “comisionista-afiliador” model that shifts daily operational control and legal responsibility to third-party owners. “El ingreso de FlixBus no es un problema por ser una empresa extranjera, sino porque pretende modificar la normativa peruana para ingresar al negocio del transporte interprovincial,” Ojeda stated. The industry group warns that the scheme could foster unfair competition, tax evasion, and difficulties in monitoring the actual operators.
Legal Analysis on Digital Platforms and Public Transport Standards
Lino De La Barrera Laca, an attorney and specialist in land transport, transit, and road safety, explained to El Comercio that FlixBus would operate similarly to existing taxi platforms in Peru. Comparing the framework to Indecopi’s previous evaluations of ride-hailing apps, De La Barrera noted that such platforms act as intermediaries rather than traditional transport providers. “Aquel que está brindando el servicio de plataforma tecnológica puede lavarse las manos ante cualquier riesgo, como accidentes de tránsito,” De La Barrera stated, emphasizing that public transport must maintain strict standards because hundreds of people die annually in accidents on Peruvian roads.
Expert Insight: Transport regulations in Peru are deliberately stringent due to high accident fatality rates, meaning that introducing intermediary digital models into scheduled bus routes creates significant legal friction over liability assignment.
FlixBus Outlines Operational Association Model
In an official statement sent to El Comercio, FlixBus defended its operational framework. The company explained that its model pairs local, formal transport businesses—which provide their own buses and professional drivers—with the FlixBus digital network. “Dentro de esa asociación, FlixBus participa todos los días en la operación. Planifica la red y las frecuencias, fija los precios y se encarga de la venta de pasajes tanto en la plataforma digital como en puntos de venta en terminales,” the company stated. The firm added that every trip is monitored via GPS and tacographs, with an incident management team ready for emergencies. FlixBus also noted that it requested a formal meeting with Cotrap-Apoip in March of this year, though it has received no response.
When contacted regarding whether the rejection is entirely final or if further legal avenues remain, the MTC stated that it is currently undergoing a management transition. The agency indicated that once the new team evaluates the sector’s issues, an official statement will be provided.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the MTC reject FlixBus?
The MTC rejected the applications because the company’s proposed co-ownership vehicle model does not apply to regular passenger transport services under Peruvian regulations.
What does the National Regulation of Transport Administration require?
According to Article 26 of Supreme Decree N.° 017-2009-MTC, vehicles used for public transport must be owned by the carrier or held under approved financial or operational leasing contracts.
What is the position of Cotrap-Apoip regarding FlixBus?
The interprovincial transport guild argues that FlixBus’s commissioner-affiliator model dilutes accountability, shifts core transport responsibilities to third parties, and fails to meet legal ownership requirements.
¿Qué medidas adicionales deberían implementar las autoridades peruanas para regular las plataformas digitales de transporte?
Related reading