Is the country?s civil aviation sector over-regulated? Or managed by a regulator that is shying away from taking tough decisions? A look at some of the rules it came out with recently suggests that the sector needs a far more radical regulator, which looks at more pressing issues than, say, obesity and working hours of the crew.
Take the diktat called ?Obesity and Commercial Aircrew? from Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), which specifies the body mass index and weight of a commercial airplane crew. This circular is symptomatic of the regulator losing focus from the crucial issues.
This document takes pains to describe various scientific methods to decide whether a person is overweight or obese in three pages. ?Methods to measure body fat include BMI, Hip Waist Ratio, skin fold thickness, underwater weighing, bioelectrical impedance, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, and computerised tomography,? it says. DGCA?s distress over obesity seems a little out of place when the sector is still grappling with issues such as making aviation charges more affordable, allowing FDI and flying abroad without the current curbs.
But it is another circular increasing the flying hours of a pilot that has thrown up the debate over which decisions should be left to the commercial interests of an airline.
The Supreme Court in an interim order last Thursday put on hold a Bombay High Court order that reduced working hours of pilots. The apex court asked pilots to comply with a DGCA circular which specifies that they can operate three flights within nine hours instead of the high court order of two flights in nine hours.
This DGCA regulation will put the job prospects of a large number of pilots at risk, as fewer pilots will be needed overall. The aviation industry has pointed out that there are about 1,000 aspiring pilots in the country, with the required training, who are looking for jobs in airlines. Also, it is likely to increase fatigue levels of crews which may compromise safety.
The aviation regulator, in its defence in court, had said that not only the airlines, travellers too are suffering as a result of the airlines incapability to operate their complete fleet due to shortage of pilots to the extent of over 30%.
It seems DGCA is looking for easy solutions. If DGCA is worried about the availability of flights, it should hasten the process of allowing more carriers 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.
bipin.chandran@expressindia.com