Foreign airlines grouping urges for alternatives to flight cuts at Mumbai airport

Foreign airlines grouping urges for alternatives to flight cuts at Mumbai airport

A logo of the International Air Transport Association (IATA)
| Photo Credit: Reuters

The International Air Transport Association (IATA), the global airline industry body, has called for a consultative approach between Adani-owned Mumbai International Airport Ltd. (MIAL) and airlines to ensure that the redevelopment of Terminal 1 does not undermine international connectivity to the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR).

IATA also urged stakeholders to explore alternatives to flight cuts and other capacity reductions.

Welcoming the Ministry of Civil Aviation’s (MoCA) intervention asking MIAL to defer its proposed 33% reduction in flight operations from October 26, IATA said the decision to re-engage with stakeholders offered an opportunity to develop a collaborative transition plan.

“The discussion now provides an opportunity for stakeholders using the airport to review the underlying capacity requirements, understand the basis of any proposed capacity reduction, examine alternatives that may mitigate such reductions, and work collaboratively on a transition plan that protects passenger interests, airline operations and the international connectivity of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region,” IATA said in a statement.

IATA said any significant reduction in airport capacity should be backed by a transparent demand-capacity assessment, meaningful consultation with affected airlines and adequate time to put workable transition arrangements in place.

MIAL had proposed reducing international flight operations at Mumbai airport’s Terminal 2 by 33% while Terminal 1 undergoes redevelopment. The affected flights were to be shifted to Navi Mumbai International Airport, which is also operated by the Adani group. Domestic flights currently operating from T1 would subsequently be moved to T2.

International airlines have raised concerns over the impact on flight schedules and connectivity, as well as the operational challenges and additional costs of splitting their operations between two airports serving the same metropolitan region.

Scroll to Top