Column Grounded by regulation

Font Size

Print

Feedback

Email

Discuss

: to operate.

There are concerns about burdening airlines with the cost of hiring more pilots in these difficult times. However, if the aviation regulator is anxious over the financial health of the country’s aviation sector, there are several archaic regulations it can strike down to make it easy for the carriers.

For example, the country’s carriers have to fly certain hours on non-profitable routes to be eligible to fly metro routes. This rule results in most of the carriers flying half empty on these routes, burning huge amounts of jet fuel, and deploying airplanes that can be best used on other busy routes.

Though DGCA claims social obligation as the reason for continuing with this regulation, it stands in the way of attempts by the government to replace the present system with a model of subsidy. Under this model, airlines operating in these routes would be provided a subsidy on a variety of charges. It is pointed out by most of the carriers that if this rule is scrapped, airlines can save as much as 20% of their operational cost. In the current scenario, where the country’s aviation sector is staring at a cumulative loss of over $2 billion, this would come as a big boost.

Is it the role of a regulator to frame rules for quick-fix solutions or to resolve the basic issues plaguing the sector? DGCA needs to leave commercial aspects of the aviation sector to market forces and get busy pushing tough policy decisions. Concerns about obesity may be healthy, but concerns about the real issues regarding the sector should be of more importance.