Carriers question the proposed 33% cut in international operations and seek clarity on airport capacity and consultations The standoff between Mumbai airport operator Adani Airports and airlines over the proposed reduction in international operations is escalating, with the Civil Aviation Ministry now stepping in to try to find a way forward.

Sources told CNBC-TV18 that the Ministry has called a meeting with the airport operator and airlines on October 6 to discuss concerns around the proposed transition. Airline bodies, including IATA and the Federation of Indian Airlines, are expected to be represented at the meeting.

The timing is significant, as October 6 is also the deadline given by Mumbai airport operator MIAL to airlines to identify the international slots they want to temporarily discontinue.

Airlines challenge Adani’s consultation claim The latest escalation comes after Adani Airports issued a statement defending its plan for the phased redevelopment of Terminal 1 at Mumbai airport.

Adani Airports said it had held “extensive consultations with airlines on the future of Terminal 1” since 2020. The airport operator also said the proposed redevelopment had been presented to AERA and subsequently incorporated into the approved tariff framework. Airlines, however, are now challenging that claim.

Airline sources told CNBC-TV18 that they want Adani Airports to provide the minutes of meetings, consultation records and documented outcomes of meetings since 2020 to substantiate its claim of “extensive consultations”.

The airlines are also questioning the relevance of the 2020 timeline, pointing out that it was during the Covid period and that Adani took over operations of Mumbai’s Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport in 2021. The consultation issue is likely to be one of the key points discussed at the October 6 meeting with the Civil Aviation Ministry. What does the 33% reduction actually mean? Another major point of contention is the proposed 33% reduction in international operations at Mumbai T2.

MIAL has informed airlines that 265 of the 770 weekly international departure slots at T2 will be temporarily discontinued from October 25. Airlines have been asked to identify the slots they want to discontinue by October 6. In the absence of a response, MIAL has said it will determine the slots based on operational, capacity and implementation considerations. Airlines are now asking what exactly the 33% figure represents.

Sources said carriers want clarity on whether the figure refers to flights, slots, passenger traffic or terminal capacity, and what methodology and capacity assessment were used to arrive at the proposed reduction.

They are also seeking month-wise actual capacity utilisation of T1 and T2 for 2026, along with the available and declared capacity.

One of the key questions being raised by airlines is why flights need to be reduced or relocated if, according to their assessment, T1 is currently operating at around 10 million passengers per annum against a stated capacity of 15 million passengers per annum. Airlines also want clarity on the additional 5 million passenger capacity at T2 that had previously been envisaged.

Their position is that any reduction or relocation of existing operations should be backed by an objective capacity assessment and discussed transparently with affected stakeholders. Why does MIAL want to free up T2 capacity? Adani Airports says the proposed transition is linked to the phased redevelopment of Terminal 1.

The airport operator has said only the North Section of T1B will be taken up in the first phase, with redevelopment beginning in January 2027. It says this will allow the airport to continue operations while the ageing terminal is progressively redeveloped.

According to Adani Airports, Mumbai airport handles around 55 million passengers annually, but only around 5 million passengers, or 9% of total traffic, will be temporarily impacted by the redevelopment. The airport operator says 91% of passenger traffic will remain unaffected.

Adani Airports has also said the capacity freed up at T2 is required to accommodate domestic operations that will move out of T1 during the redevelopment.

The airport operator has stressed that the transition to Navi Mumbai is temporary and that the objective is to ensure continuity while T1 is redeveloped.

Navi Mumbai incentives fail to address airline concerns Adani Airports has also highlighted the infrastructure and capacity available at Navi Mumbai International Airport as an alternative for airlines.

The airport operator says airlines can temporarily relocate operations to Navi Mumbai at their discretion and that it will support them through the transition. It has described Navi Mumbai as a modern, fully equipped airport capable of handling additional passenger traffic.

To encourage new international operations, Navi Mumbai is offering a 100% discount on landing fees for new international flights. Adani Airports has also said it plans to offer cash vouchers to international passengers to offset the difference in User Development Fee between Mumbai and Navi Mumbai airports. But airlines say these incentives do not address their immediate concerns.

Their focus, sources said, is on the T1 redevelopment plan, capacity assessment, timelines and the operational transition framework.

Airlines want these questions addressed before any unilateral reduction, cancellation or relocation of existing operations or slots.

Safety remains central to Adani Airports’ argument Adani Airports has said the redevelopment is being driven by safety concerns around the ageing Terminal 1.

In its statement, the airport operator said T1 had “long been identified as a safety-related concern” and that its closure and phased demolition could no longer be deferred. It also said the April fire incident had made the risk more pronounced. Airlines, however, have challenged the reference to the April incident.

Airline sources say the incident cited by the airport operator did not take place in T1B. They say it occurred at Bay A5, in the basement near the aerobridge, and argue that the incident should not be presented in a manner that creates a misleading impression about the safety of T1B.

At the same time, airlines have reiterated that safety remains their priority and that they support the safe and timely refurbishment and redevelopment of T1.

Airport says redevelopment has been in the works for years Adani Airports maintains that the T1 redevelopment is not a new proposal.

The airport operator says consultations with airlines on the future of T1 have been ongoing since 2020 and that the redevelopment proposal was presented to AERA and subsequently incorporated into the approved tariff framework.

The airport operator has also argued that the redevelopment cannot be deferred now that Navi Mumbai is operational and provides an alternative for airlines.

Once redevelopment is completed, Adani Airports says T1’s capacity will increase from 15 million passengers per annum to 20 million passengers per annum, a 33% increase. It has also said historical slots will be restored, along with additional slots.

Airlines want no unilateral action The airlines’ position is that supporting T1 redevelopment does not amount to consent for the proposed reduction or relocation of their existing international operations.

They are seeking transparency on the data underpinning the transition and want comprehensive stakeholder consultation before changes are implemented.

The proposed reduction is particularly significant because airlines have already planned their winter schedules, including aircraft deployment, crew, routes and passenger bookings.

The dispute, therefore, is no longer simply about whether T1 should be redeveloped. Both sides agree that redevelopment is necessary. The disagreement is over how the capacity transition should be managed, whether the proposed 33% reduction is operationally necessary, and whether the airlines have been adequately consulted before the changes are implemented.

With the Civil Aviation Ministry now convening both sides, the October 6 meeting could be critical in determining whether the airport operator and airlines can bridge their differences and arrive at a mutually workable transition plan.