Aviation Cost Cutting Concerns in India
Air safety in India didn’t deteriorate overnight. It’s the cumulative result of brazen cost-cutting by airline managements, enabled by a compliant regulator whose silence could be bought—with political donations, quid pro quos, and institutional apathy.
Pilot training, maintenance, and fatigue management (FDTL) standards were slowly hollowed out. And when the two tragic Air India Express crashes occurred, the industry learned a dangerous lesson: that insurance would cover the financial losses, and that low-cost Indian passengers rarely had the legal or political power to seek accountability.
This toxic equation—cheap operations + weak oversight + pliant passengers—became the business model.
The Tatas, in their rush to grow market share and cut costs, assumed they could inherit and continue this cozy arrangement. They were wrong.
AI 171 changed everything.
This time, many victims came from affluent, influential British families. And they’ve hired some of the best lawyers in the UK and the US—where courts take aviation negligence very seriously.
Under the Montreal Convention, compensation is capped at about USD 200,000—only if the airline is not found responsible. But if the airline or manufacturer is shown to have been negligent, there is no cap on liability.
Unlike the families of the previous Air India Express victims—many of whom were coerced into accepting meagre settlements—these families will not be silenced. And this time, the world is watching.
Aviation safety isn’t optional. It isn’t a line item you trim to boost margins.
Ignore basic ethics, ignore internal whistleblowers, ignore seasoned professionals—and eventually, reality catches up. AI 171 may just be that reckoning.
To Tata Sons: Legacy Air India employees flagged these issues. But your leadership, drawn mostly from TCS, Tata Motors, Tata Steel and budget carriers, focused on logos, uniforms, and optics. You hired low-cost employees for a supposedly premium airline, ignored fatigue reports, overlooked poor training standards, and sidelined engineering concerns.
It takes just one fatal crash to erase all the “savings” and destroy a fancy new branding strategy.
The lesson is simple: You cannot run a full-service international airline with low-cost ethics. Not anymore. And definitely not when your passengers are powerful enough to demand justice. more
Pilot training, maintenance, and fatigue management (FDTL) standards were slowly hollowed out. And when the two tragic Air India Express crashes occurred, the industry learned a dangerous lesson: that insurance would cover the financial losses, and that low-cost Indian passengers rarely had the legal or political power to seek accountability.
This toxic equation—cheap operations + weak oversight + pliant passengers—became the business model.
The Tatas, in their rush to grow market share and cut costs, assumed they could inherit and continue this cozy arrangement. They were wrong.
AI 171 changed everything.
This time, many victims came from affluent, influential British families. And they’ve hired some of the best lawyers in the UK and the US—where courts take aviation negligence very seriously.
Under the Montreal Convention, compensation is capped at about USD 200,000—only if the airline is not found responsible. But if the airline or manufacturer is shown to have been negligent, there is no cap on liability.
Unlike the families of the previous Air India Express victims—many of whom were coerced into accepting meagre settlements—these families will not be silenced. And this time, the world is watching.
Aviation safety isn’t optional. It isn’t a line item you trim to boost margins.
Ignore basic ethics, ignore internal whistleblowers, ignore seasoned professionals—and eventually, reality catches up. AI 171 may just be that reckoning.
To Tata Sons: Legacy Air India employees flagged these issues. But your leadership, drawn mostly from TCS, Tata Motors, Tata Steel and budget carriers, focused on logos, uniforms, and optics. You hired low-cost employees for a supposedly premium airline, ignored fatigue reports, overlooked poor training standards, and sidelined engineering concerns.
It takes just one fatal crash to erase all the “savings” and destroy a fancy new branding strategy.
The lesson is simple: You cannot run a full-service international airline with low-cost ethics. Not anymore. And definitely not when your passengers are powerful enough to demand justice. more
Viewed by 4554
View all 9 comments Below 9 comments
our aviation ministry and dgca need to be more proactive in implementing the safety standards without compromise since safety cannot be compromised and the sooner we implement all the global safety protocols without compromise it will be good for nation and companies more
Jul 08
Everyone talks about cost-cutting, but very few focus on cost optimisation. Cost optimisation is to ensure better value for money, while cost-cutting means delaying or deferring some measures to cut down spending. Both are extremely different measures and can result in results that are radically different. In a country like ours, we are obsessed with cost-cutting, so poor quality or sub-standard work or material is used to temporarily shore up cash flows. However, in life, what works best is cost optimisation. Taking proactive steps to add value and keeping things credible and reliable. This not only ensures better reliability but lowers downtime, enhances the asset life, adds value to the business and optimises the resources. For this, a long-term vision is important, and the measures that are taken have to demonstrate that. On one hand, cutting wastage, substituting something with better value and value engineering in general are good practices. However, if any measures reduce the customer experience, cause discomfort, reduce quality or lower safety, such measures are counterproductive. Many airlines are getting into that trap. Mature business houses like the Tatas are expected to have the leadership insight and focus not to cut corners where it can hit really hard. Airlines are a service, and the quality and value of service should never be compromised. more
Jul 07
The worst policy made by Prafull Patel by closing /selling IndianAirliness , and taking bribe from Jet Airways and other carriers and not allowing TATA /SIA. joint venture on time , rather asking for 1000 crores , are the primary reason for Air India to go to dogs . more
Jul 07
Any company has to show year on year growth in profits and several other parameters. Cost cutting is the easiest option when market is tough. This applies not only to Aviation company but also to other industries. more
Jul 07
Partly it is our fault screaming if airline fares go up. For proper maintenance, costs will go up and so will the fares. more
Jul 07
This is a fallacy. Today, which group of customers controls airline fares? Airlines price them as per their whims and fancies. Look at surge prices and last-minute fares, which could be several times more than the regular fare. We are in a demand-driven economy and not a supply-driven economy. more
Jul 07
