Air India’s Real Turbulence: where is the passenger-first intent?

Air India

This piece is not about air safety—aviation experts and regulators are far more qualified on that front, nor is it about crisis communication, even though the Ahmedabad incident should rightly have sparked a masterclass in it. Much has already been said—some critical, some constrained and not seen light—on how that was handled.

What makes this regression more striking is that, under government ownership, Air India had maintained respectable communication protocols. It had dealt with air accidents and incidents before, demonstrating clarity, and a sense of accountability.

That such standards collapsed under private ownership is a signal. A signal about failure of urgency. Of leadership design. And, most worryingly, of institutional purpose. Is it a signal of distracted leadership, and perhaps even a lack of business hunger? It reminds us of memories of the emotional aloofness and detachment once shown by some of India’s pre-liberalisation industrialists—where the customer was incidental. For a Group that prides itself on institutional values, this should be an unacceptable failing.

Media and public seemed momentarily comforted when it was reported that the group chairman had taken charge, in response to the incident. If that were true, then one must understand the spirit of business governance - such a gesture would signal the very opposite of reassurance.

If—the big if, since we don’t know what’s factual and what’s speculation floating in the public domain—if the chairman of the parent conglomerate did step in personally to lead operational response, it should be seen as a red flag of prior inaction.

Surely, no one understands this governance nuance better than the Tata Group. The role of a non-executive chairman is to ensure the right operational leadership is in place. Not to run a business, the airline in this instance, hands-on. Such a news narrative might be misperceived as substitution narrative for genuine leadership.

This raises a question to general public, many of us probably even minority retail investors in the group companies—what exactly is Air India to the Tatas? One must also ask, with due respect, whether this business is simply an act of legacy indulgence or emotional continuity—as gestures of tribute to former chairpersons. A business reclaimed from its past? Or a fully capitalised, professionally governed business with ambition to be world-class?

But to be fair, it is a private company with no public shareholders. So only the actual shareholders, all financiers to the business and the Board of Directors have the right to question if the business is upto their diligence and investment expectation.

But to regular travellers, for all the slick new liveries and aircraft orders, Air India still does not feel like a passenger-first airline. Three years into private ownership, passengers still routinely encounter indifferent staff, outdated inflight entertainment and inconsistent passenger experience, delayed flights and poor service recovery. One must simply look at social media comments from passengers.

But let’s start with the basics: What is the vision for passenger experience? Where is the articulation of Air India’s role in the global aviation landscape? Despite capital infusion and aircraft orders, is the airline a loose collection of departments rather than a unified enterprise? In many ways, it echoes a deeper structural question that had long lingered over the Tata Group.

When the former chairperson late Shri Ratan Tata took over the chairmanship decades ago, he had to wrestle with powerful satraps within individual companies—each operating with their own fiefdoms, cultures and priorities. His mission was to bring cohesion, to align disparate parts into a modern, integrated group with shared purpose. Four decades later, one must ask—has anything truly changed? Well, we won’t know. Only insiders would.

But as external public, what we can opine and wonder is just this: that a respected and storied conglomerate will not use legacy as a shield for operational incoherence. Not if the stated ambition is to build globally competitive businesses.

Tatas already have a front-row seat to what good looks like. Singapore Airlines—among the world’s most respected carriers—is a shareholder in the Tata aviation venture.

Then, an obvious question - why is it a struggle to scale a business where capital and capability are both available, especially in a duopolistic domestic market? For all its prestige and goodwill, how many other companies in the group are genuine global leaders in their sectors or markets?

Passengers are the living proof of an airline’s purpose. When an organisation fails to treat its customers with empathy, urgency and clarity, it is purposeless. An airline must orbit around one unshakeable axis: the passenger. Air India cannot afford to remain in this purpose-dilemma. The passenger must be at the centre of everything—from crew training to digital experience to the design of a seat.

From its prior aviation experience, the group knows this more than most other conglomerates. A global airline is not built by repainting aircraft and issuing press releases. It is built by making every consumer touchpoint frictionless, predictable and human. The product must be relentless in design. And the culture must be intolerant of mediocrity.

If the Tata Group is to make Air India a success, it must function like the passenger is the only reason the airline exists. And if it cannot run this airline with consistency and excellence, it must not run it at all. After all, Consumer-centricity as core purpose was the lived-experience immemorialised by all Tata-surnamed Chairpersons.