[Arun_S]

Originally Posted by v1p3r

IC, on the other hand, was set up as a sarkari unit, and absorbed private airlines in the 50s. It was as much of a joke in terms of customer experience and service as any other Licence Raj enterprise.

Sir, I am not pretty knowledgeable but my understanding was an IAS officer turned around Indian Airlines Operation in 2002 brought it to profitability, they told the merger actually killed IA which was doing good, infact it was AI which was doing bad due to mountain of debt.

https://www.business-standard.com/ar...2700499_1.html

[Aravind_M92]

Originally Posted by Arun_S

Sir, I am not pretty knowledgeable but my understanding was an IAS officer turned around Indian Airlines Operation in 2002 brought it to profitability, they told the merger actually killed IA which was doing good, infact it was AI which was doing bad due to mountain of debt.

Yes sir. Indian Airlines was holding the second largest domestic market. At that time Jet Airways was the domestic market leader. But downfall of Indian Airlines was also imminent. With introduction of Low Cost Carriers, Indian Airlines was bound to bleed out badly. Instead of shutting down in 2007, it would've happened in 2019 like Jet. The route was clear, either to run the airline as a no frill carrier or become a connecting service carrier for long haul flights. IC went on to buy A321s and the brand refreshed as Indian. Also Indian Airlines did try and get all economy seating aircrafts in its A319 and A320 aircrafts. Maybe if Indian was to go on as it was, it would've been at the spot Air India Express is holding. And the subsidiary Alliance Air doing regional routes.

Air India did a blunder by acquiring B777s without proper planning or slots and did try and set up overseas hubs but no one to fly the airline as middle Eastern and western carriers did provide better services. Neither does our government provide subsidy nor the airline was enthusiastic enough to cater for tourism needs. Maybe proper route selection and limited aircraft purchase would've saved the airline from acquiring huge losses. Also Air India would've had to revamp it's services to stay in the competition. In the end, it's a service provider, and people tend to look for best service for their money.

[fhdowntheline]

Originally Posted by Aravind_M92

Also Air India would've had to revamp it's services to stay in the competition. In the end, it's a service provider, and people tend to look for best service for their money.

Some would argue that opening up the Gulf market to Indian Airlines, which was hitherto the preserve of Air India only, led to much of the balance sheet bleeding. Previous to that, Indian Airlines international ops were limited to SAARC countries.

[whitewing]

The TATA group, being the most trusted brand in India is the best corporate to take over the mantle of the national carrier!
With this sale atleast tax payer money would not be burnt periodically.

I hope that this acquisition (whenever that is formalized) doesn't drag down the TATA group's financials. We have seen that happen with TISCO's Corus acquisition, they are still trying to get rid of it.

[dragracer567]

An interesting interview with the colorful CEO of Emirates airlines - Tim Clark. He seems to be of the view that a revitalized Air India has endless scope and scale given the size & growth of the market. Quite fascinating to read his remarks.

I used to travel on Air India in 1958. It was the first Boeing 707 I ever flew on in January 1960. I was amazed that I as a kid of 10 getting on to a jet first time in my life and it was being operated by a carrier which was not BOAC but Air India.

In those days they had fantastic plans for what India was going to do. Do not forget it was only 10 years after Independence and their thinking was expansive, it was global. And after that well you know the rest is history.

When we started Emirates, Air India had 23 aircraft with a population size of 1.2 billion. They had an aero political network which was huge. And progressively over the years they have been unable to exercise the value of that aero political network by growing AI.

So they watched Emirates growing from 2 aircraft to 270 aircraft and then, of course, you see the likes of Qatar Airways and Etihad and all the others and the sort of morphing of the global economy go into whoop speed since 1995 and onwards and yet AI remained. And you saw the Indian economy explode.

Look at the value India brought to the global economy. The notion that you will have an airline of that size going basically… I am not being disingenuous to them …. They could have done a lot better.

If the privatisation of AI takes place and they are able to develop a business model that is meaningful and brings value to the new shareholders and to India, the scope and scale of that airline is endless.

And that is what they need to do.

Will it affect us? Of course it will affect us. But you know times change, you adapt and adjust. But this one is a bit of an outlier. They should have had a national carrier the size of Singapore Airlines or look at Emirates. Look at some of the big carriers like Lufthansa, Air France, KLM. But to do that you have to be liberal in your thinking. I accept competition.

Link

[fhdowntheline]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

An interesting interview with the colorful CEO of Emirates airlines - Tim Clark. He seems to be of the view that a revitalized Air India has endless scope and scale given the size & growth of the market. Quite fascinating to read his remarks.

Looks like someone wants a new challenge ? After all there is only so much that the Gulf carriers can do. Try as they might, they can never become equal to carriers based out of larger nations and economies.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

Looks like someone wants a new challenge ? After all there is only so much that the Gulf carriers can do. Try as they might, they can never become equal to carriers based out of larger nations and economies.

IMHO opinion, their biggest challenge will be the advent of long-haul low cost airlines due to newer models like the Airbus A321 XLR and Boeing 797. Gulf carriers depend on connecting traffic from larger markets like India, SE Asia and Europe but if you can operate a low-cost airline between say Kochi and Paris for example for which the demand would be too low for wide-body aircraft, the convenience of a cheap non-stop flight will always trump the burden of connecting in Dubai/Doha.

[Aravind_M92]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

IMHO opinion, their biggest challenge will be the advent of long-haul low cost airlines due to newer models like the Airbus A321 XLR and Boeing 797. Gulf carriers depend on connecting traffic from larger markets like India, SE Asia and Europe but if you can operate a low-cost airline between say Kochi and Paris for example for which the demand would be too low for wide-body aircraft, the convenience of a cheap non-stop flight will always trump the burden of connecting in Dubai/Doha.

A321 XLR and Boeing's NMA sure are game changers in narrow bodies doing long hauls. But travelling 9-10 hours in a narrow body with barely any space to wiggle around is tough. The 321 LR would be a hit in my opinion and would be a direct replacement for the B757 rather than the XLR. Trans continental flights, central American and trans Atlantic flights would be the market.
Also the middle eastern countries are located almost at the center between Europe and Asia. Most flights within 6 hours of travel, which would be a comfortable spot in a narrow body.
The Boeing NMA was proposed to be a shortened 787 or a reengined 757. But plans for both are currently under hold due to the Max issues. Point to point travel is the future, but narrow body long haul would be very cruel and tiresome for the crew and the passengers
The gulf have a higher advantage in its location and the oil prices, and government policies lowering their operating costs. India may have infrastructure, but all other factors are a huge down votes. With rapid privatisation of almost everything, costs are bound to go uphill.

[AirbusCapt]

Originally Posted by Aravind_M92

A321 XLR and Boeing's NMA sure are game changers in narrow bodies doing long hauls. But travelling 9-10 hours in a narrow body with barely any space to wiggle around is tough. The 321 LR would be a hit in my opinion and would be a direct replacement for the B757 rather than the XLR. Trans continental flights, central American and trans Atlantic flights would be the market.
Also the middle eastern countries are located almost at the center between Europe and Asia. Most flights within 6 hours of travel, which would be a comfortable spot in a narrow body.
The Boeing NMA was proposed to be a shortened 787 or a reengined 757. But plans for both are currently under hold due to the Max issues. Point to point travel is the future, but narrow body long haul would be very cruel and tiresome for the crew and the passengers
The gulf have a higher advantage in its location and the oil prices, and government policies lowering their operating costs. India may have infrastructure, but all other factors are a huge down votes. With rapid privatisation of almost everything, costs are bound to go uphill.

The short answer to this? The earlier aviation minister/ the corrupt politician (who made airindia buy unnecessary aircraft) was instrumental in doling out huge flying rights to almost all Indian cities to Emirates and Etihad at the expense of Indian carriers especially AirIndia. These gulf carriers came and picked up loads from small cities like Jaipur, Lucknow and took them to Dubai, Sharjah and then connected them onwards.
Today the government has put out an almost full stop to free for all flying rights to the middle East carriers. Today if Emirates wants a slot, it needs to give a slot in Dubai to an indian air carrier.
What indigo will do with the A321 xlr is burying Dubai airport. They will directly connect all indian cities to Europe, far east Asia and Africa. The cheaper cost of tickets will destroy the widebody medium haul which exists currently.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by AirbusCapt

The short answer to this? The earlier aviation minister/ the corrupt politician (who made airindia buy unnecessary aircraft) was instrumental in doling out huge flying rights to almost all Indian cities to Emirates and Etihad at the expense of Indian carriers especially AirIndia. These gulf carriers came and picked up loads from small cities like Jaipur, Lucknow and took them to Dubai, Sharjah and then connected them onwards.
Today the government has put out an almost full stop to free for all flying rights to the middle East carriers. Today if Emirates wants a slot, it needs to give a slot in Dubai to an indian air carrier.

Well, that just means Air India just couldn't compete in a free market without the market being artificially protected by the government. Canada still does that, preventing Emirates from operating direct flights to Vancouver or Montreal, so someone flying from say Chennai or Pune which aren't exactly tier 2 cities would have to connect twice to reach Vancouver or Montreal. By protecting your national airline, you are just making the experience worse and more expensive for passengers.

Also, if I recall correctly, the seats were still controlled, which was the reason why Emirates couldn't fly their A380s into Mumbai and Delhi even after the dubious A380 ban was lifted.

Offcourse, the Gulf carriers have been criticized by European & US carriers for receiving unfair subsidies, but consider this, Emirates flies to 11 destinations in the US and 4 destinations in Germany but US and European airlines are still able to operate their Asian routes despite their complaints. Lufthansa and British Airways have huge networks in India considering the distance and Lufthansa only stopped their Pune service because Pune can't handle wide-bodies while Lufthansa doesn't have narrow-bodies anymore that can fly that far.

Anyone who has flown in Qatar Airways/Emirates or even Lufthansa/BA would know which product is superior, and those who want to fly from small cities like Lucknow to Europe by Air India would've to connect via Delhi or Mumbai anyway.

Today if Emirates wants a slot, it needs to give a slot in Dubai to an indian air carrier.

Well, this only affects direct flights between India and UAE which I must admit is much cheaper by Indigo/AIX as compared to Emirates though the latter as a better product and flies 777s into even small airports like Thiruvananthapuram. I guess the same will be replicated for further routes to Europe with A321 XLRs.

[m8002?]

https://www.rediff.com/business/colu...t/20211007.htm

The article mentions that Tatas are the only serious bidder and Ajay Singh was just a facade to satisfy the two bidders rule.

Only the Tatas have done a serious due diligence of the airline.

For months at Airlines House in the capital, the AirAsia India team led by Sunil Bhaskaran was scouring through data, cases, records, archives with a fine-tooth comb.

The team visited many regional offices and had several meetings with almost all departments.

Singh and his consortium -- whoever it comprises -- were not spotted even once at the airline's headquarters; neither did they meet the employees at any level.

[AirbusCapt]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Well, that just means Air India just couldn't compete in a free market without the market being artificially protected by the government. Canada still does that, preventing Emirates from operating direct flights to Vancouver or Montreal, so someone flying from say Chennai or Pune which aren't exactly tier 2 cities would have to connect twice to reach Vancouver or Montreal. By protecting your national airline, you are just making the experience worse and more expensive for passengers.

Also, if I recall correctly, the seats were still controlled, which was the reason why Emirates couldn't fly their A380s into Mumbai and Delhi even after the dubious A380 ban was lifted.

Offcourse, the Gulf carriers have been criticized by European & US carriers for receiving unfair subsidies, but consider this, Emirates flies to 11 destinations in the US and 4 destinations in Germany but US and European airlines are still able to operate their Asian routes despite their complaints. Lufthansa and British Airways have huge networks in India considering the distance and Lufthansa only stopped their Pune service because Pune can't handle wide-bodies while Lufthansa doesn't have narrow-bodies anymore that can fly that far.

Anyone who has flown in Qatar Airways/Emirates or even Lufthansa/BA would know which product is superior, and those who want to fly from small cities like Lucknow to Europe by Air India would've to connect via Delhi or Mumbai anyway.



Well, this only affects direct flights between India and UAE which I must admit is much cheaper by Indigo/AIX as compared to Emirates though the latter as a better product and flies 777s into even small airports like Thiruvananthapuram. I guess the same will be replicated for further routes to Europe with A321 XLRs.

The first point; similar to putting import duties on direct imported cars. The idea is to protect the manufacturing base in case of automobiles and the service job base in case of airlines. As a pilot I will get a good job with any gulf carrier, however if we allow these guys to have a free run of the market what happens to indian aviation infrastructure? Who pays for the airports, the connectivity, the lakhs of jobs from a cab driver to a tug operator? Airports build infrastructure, they prop up the local and national economy. Instead of baying for cheaper tickets and thereby prop up Dubai we must allow indian airports to take away business from the middle East.
And it is unfair practices truly. We pay 40% tax on ATF, they pay zero. We are fighting with one hand tied, so it's fair that we don't allow them to come and pick up our passengers. The sheiks keep pumping in money to sustain air traffic, we don't do it in India, not even during covid.
Regarding unfair practices, sometime in early 2015, dubai invited Indigo to take up the old terminal fully, albeit setup a local base and operate further to Europe. Since indigo didn't takeup this offer, their flying routes to middle East were drastically reduced by UAE, until the Indian government started cutting Emirates slots.

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Well, that just means Air India just couldn't compete in a free market without the market being artificially protected by the government.

I think the point was that a corrupt minister and mismanagement led to their current plight. How does one expect a firm to compete in a free market when you tie it down with incompetent and corrupt leadership?

By protecting your national airline, you are just making the experience worse and more expensive for passengers.

Perhaps you should ask the passengers who were airlifted from Kabul or Middle East whether they had the worst possible experience and if they felt the price was too expensive?

One has to understand that the same Air India provides VIP flights to its leaders, and conducts evacuation flights on humanitarian grounds. Who bears the cost for this? Is this free market economics?

Easy to lampoon the airline, but harder to set things right. Probably best that its being sold and hopefully to the Tata's. Just don't expect the airline to be available for free humanitarian operations henceforth.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by AirbusCapt

what happens to indian aviation infrastructure? Who pays for the airports, the connectivity, the lakhs of jobs from a cab driver to a tug operator? Airports build infrastructure, they prop up the local and national economy. Instead of baying for cheaper tickets and thereby prop up Dubai we must allow indian airports to take away business from the middle East.
And it is unfair practices truly. We pay 40% tax on ATF, they pay zero. We are fighting with one hand tied, so it's fair that we don't allow them to come and pick up our passengers. The sheiks keep pumping in money to sustain air traffic, we don't do it in India, not even during covid.

Well, the aviation infrastructure will be maintained and upgraded no matter which airline operates to the Airport - whether Air India, Emirates or Lufthansa. Your example about the car market is a great analogy, high taxes is one of the major factors that has been holding the Indian car market back. Similarly, the Indian aviation international market wouldn't have been able grow the way it did if it was even more heavily regulated and foreign airlines were prevented from entering, which means we wouldn't have been able to build the Indian Aviation Infrastructure with the connectivity and capacity that foreign airlines bring which just cannot be built using only Indian carriers. We tried regulation for 45 years till liberalization, it didn't work.

The problem with the taxes is something that the Indian government must solve, artificially protecting local airlines will only make them less competitive.

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

Perhaps you should ask the passengers who were airlifted from Kabul or Middle East whether they had the worst possible experience and if they felt the price was too expensive?

One has to understand that the same Air India provides VIP flights to its leaders, and conducts evacuation flights on humanitarian grounds. Who bears the cost for this? Is this free market economics?

Easy to lampoon the airline, but harder to set things right. Probably best that its being sold and hopefully to the Tata's. Just don't expect the airline to be available for free humanitarian operations henceforth.

Private airlines also have obligations. The US for example which doesn't have a flag carrier activated the 'civil reserve air fleet' program to force private airliners to assist with the Kabul evacuations. Even in India, private airlines were ordered in 2011 to assist in the evacuations from Libya for which Jet Airways & Kingfisher ran flights. So, running an airline just for the rare humanitarian operation with $8 billion debt is a travesty when our entire education budget is around $13 billion.

VIP flights are now handled solely by the Indian Air Force and evacuations from sensitive areas like Kabul was done using only IAF C17s and C130Js.

So, yes, even if the airline is privatized, it will have to operate humanitarian operations as would any other private player.

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Private airlines also have obligations. The US for example which doesn't have a flag carrier activated the 'civil reserve air fleet' program to force private airliners to assist with the Kabul evacuations. Even in India, private airlines were ordered in 2011 to assist in the evacuations from Libya for which Jet Airways & Kingfisher ran flights. So, running an airline just for the rare humanitarian operation with $8 billion debt is a travesty when our entire education budget is around $13 billion.

VIP flights are now handled solely by the Indian Air Force and evacuations from sensitive areas like Kabul was done using only IAF C17s and C130Js.

So, yes, even if the airline is privatized, it will have to operate humanitarian operations as would any other private player.

Hmm yeah, In Operation Homecoming in 2011, Kingfisher flew 1 flight, and Jet flew 2 flights. The total number of people evacuated were 18000, and they were largely evacuated using the Indian Navy, and Air India.

Also, Vande Bharat, Haj flights etc... Too many examples of Air India playing a role which no private player had to....