The recent crisis involving IndiGo has exposed deep structural problems in India’s aviation sector. When the airline cancelled thousands of flights in early December, it was not merely an operational lapse or a temporary disruption, but a reflection of the power imbalance in a high demand aviation market with two dominant players.

Sixty percent of India’s domestic market share is held by IndiGo; out of nearly 900 domestic routes, IndiGo is the only carrier on 514 routes. Together with Air India, the two carriers control a staggering 86 percent of the market.

By itself, high market concentration is not proof of monopoly. But it does create grounds for business practices that may fall under the Abuse of Dominant Position clause in India’s Competition Act, 2002.

For instance, in the recent crisis, it created a situation where the airline made decisions that severely inconvenienced passengers and compromised their welfare – flight cancellations and subsequent charging of exorbitant prices – without worrying that it would lose customers.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has decided to investigate IndiGo under this clause.

The immediate reason for the crisis lay in the airline’s non-adherence to the Flight Duty Time Limit (FDTL) regulations, announced early January 2025. These guidelines were designed to ensure safety by preventing pilot fatigue, a critical concern in aviation worldwide.

Airlines such as IndiGo had enough time to prepare for the transition, adjust crew schedules, hire appropriately, and strengthen operations. Yet, they delayed implementation, creating a situation where operational capacity was strained to the breaking point.

By failing to prepare for a well-anticipated regulatory change, IndiGo and other carriers left regulators with no option but to put FTDL regulations in abeyance.

Trouble in the Skies

If found guilty by the CCI, under Section 4 of the Competition Act, IndiGo can be penalized for up to 10 percent of its total revenues, and depending on the findings, the CCI can also order structural remedies, including changes to business practices or removal of certain routes from its network.

Here, one might be reminded of IndiGo’s past encounters with the CCI, where no anti-competitive intent could be........

© The Diplomat