A proposed redistribution of international flights between Mumbai’s two airports has triggered fresh objections from overseas airlines, prompting them to seek clarification from the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA). At the centre of the dispute are plans to withdraw services to 14 international destinations from Mumbai’s existing airport and the denial of historical operating slots to 11 Gulf-based carriers.
The Airline Operators Committee (AOC)-Mumbai has written to MoCA secretary, Sameer Sinha, urging the government to intervene and reconsider the slot allocations. The committee has called for greater transparency, stakeholder consultation and compliance with aviation regulations, the Indian Express reported on Saturday.
Why does Adani want flights shifted?
Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) plans to redevelop Terminal 1B at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA), with construction expected to continue until 2029-30.
To accommodate displaced passengers, MIAL initially proposed reducing 265 of approximately 770 weekly international departures, or 33 per cent, at Terminal 2.
The proposed capacity reduction involves five million passengers annually, with affected airlines asked to shift services to Navi Mumbai International Airport (NMIA) or temporarily suspend them.
In an October 30 email to MoCA, MIAL argued that consolidating services to 14 destinations at one airport would minimise passenger inconvenience and facilitate onward connections. It also cited structural deterioration at Terminal 1, identified in an IIT Bombay assessment.
Why are international airlines resisting?
Emirates, which operates 28 weekly Mumbai flights, has questioned NMIA’s readiness, particularly its cargo warehousing, catering and ground-handling facilities.
Air France-KLM considers splitting operations between the two airports inefficient, citing complications involving aircraft scheduling, crew deployment and passenger connections.
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has also sought an independent assessment of NMIA’s readiness, covering cargo facilities, ground handling, crew accommodation and connectivity.
What is the dispute over historical slots?
Historical slots allow airlines meeting prescribed conditions to retain established take-off and landing timings across comparable scheduling seasons.
The AOC says MIAL denied slots to 11 Gulf-based carriers, including Qatar Airways, Oman Air, Gulf Air, Saudia, Kuwait Airways, Air Arabia and Flynas.
While supporting Terminal 1B’s redevelopment, the committee insisted that capacity reductions require consultation, transparency and compliance with the 2013 MoCA slot guidelines and IATA’s worldwide Airport slot guidelines.
The AOC had earlier opposed what it called MIAL’s unilateral capacity reduction.
MoCA previously intervened, deferring the proposed October reductions until the northern summer 2027 schedule, beginning in late March. Airlines are now seeking clarification on whether the revised proposal has government approval.
How could passengers be affected?
The 14 destinations include Riyadh, Jeddah, Muscat, Doha, Kuwait, Bahrain, Sharjah, Dammam, Madinah, Dhaka, Kathmandu, Jakarta, Fujairah and Ras Al Khaimah.
Indian carriers, including IndiGo, Air India Express and Akasa Air, have proposed transfers covering approximately three million annual passengers, leaving a two-million gap against MIAL’s target.
Passengers could face longer connections, additional transport costs and uncertainty over departure airports, nearly 40 kilometres apart.
NMIA’s domestic departure user development fee is ₹620 for June 2026-March 2027, higher than CSMIA’s corresponding charge. Airport authorities have proposed shuttle services, passenger vouchers and landing-fee incentives.
Ultimately, the dispute concerns more than relocating flights. Mumbai’s two-airport strategy must balance infrastructure expansion with regulatory compliance, operational continuity and passenger convenience.
