Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
The widespread wave of IndiGo flight cancellations has been widely explained as a natural consequence of the new Flight Duty Time Limit (FDTL) norms coming into force. The airline’s public position is that stricter fatigue rules reduced pilot availability and forced large-scale disruptions.
But this is only the surface-level narrative. The deeper cause, which is less convenient to acknowledge, is that IndiGo’s crisis stems from a strategic misjudgment, not regulatory surprise. For months, the carrier operated on the belief that the government would grant yet another extension on FDTL implementation. When that extension did not come, India’s largest airline was caught operationally exposed, with no contingency plan robust enough to absorb the shock.
A Gamble that backfired
Successive extensions in the past had conditioned airlines into expecting regulatory leniency. IndiGo, with its aggressive fleet utilisation and ambitious schedule design, appears to have assumed that the status quo would continue. This assumption became the foundation of its manpower planning and its undoing.
Instead of preparing for the inevitable enforcement of the norms, the airline gambled on bureaucratic flexibility. When the government held firm, the entire operational rhythm of the airline was disrupted overnight.
An issue of preparedness, not policy
Other airlines that anticipated the change and adapted early did not face disruptions of comparable scale. This alone undermines the claim that FDTL norms were the primary cause of IndiGo’s meltdown.
IndiGo’s vulnerability stemmed from:
- Insufficient staffing buffers
- Over-optimistic block-hour planning
- Rosters built on assumed extensions rather than confirmed rules
- A lack of scenario-based preparedness
This is not a regulatory crisis it is an operations management failure.
When assumptions replaced planning
The moment the government declined to extend the norms, IndiGo was forced into reactive mode. Rosters had to be rewritten, fatigue thresholds could no longer be stretched, and backup pilots were nowhere near adequate.
The cancellations that passengers experienced were merely the aftershocks of a deeper structural oversight.
Recommendations: What IndiGo Should Have Done
As a military veteran and an operations management practitioner who has spent years planning high-stakes missions where failure is not an option, this crisis reflects a lapse in two fundamental principles of operational preparedness.
1. Conduct a hard stock-taking of crew versus commitments
IndiGo should have initiated, months in advance, a no-assumptions assessment of:
- Exactly how many crew hours they had
- How many routes were realistically operable under the new FDTL norms
- Which flights needed trimming or re-sequencing the moment the extension was not granted
This kind of “ground truthing” is standard practice in high stakes operations before you commit forces, you measure capacity with zero reliance on hopeful assumptions. The airline failed to do this.
2. Consolidate the impact instead of letting it spill over
In operations, when capacity falls short, the disciplined choice is to sacrifice one arm decisively rather than let multiple units degrade simultaneously.
IndiGo could have adopted a similar approach:
- Cancel a clearly defined block of flights within a 24-hour window
- Stabilize the remainder of the network immediately after
- Prevent cascading cancellations that spread chaos for days
This can only happen when senior management has clear operational priorities and the courage to make hard, immediate decisions, something that was evidently lacking.
Instead of a controlled, short-duration correction, IndiGo allowed the disruption to bleed across multiple days and routes.
A lesson in operational resilience
IndiGo has built a brand on efficiency, but efficiency without resilience creates fragility. And fragility at the scale of a 60% market share becomes a national aviation risk.
The FDTL norms did not cause this crisis.
IndiGo’s decision to plan on hope, rather than certainty, did.
This episode should serve as a wake-up call: regulations can be negotiated, but preparedness cannot be outsourced to optimism. The airline will recover, but only if it acknowledges that this was not a regulatory ambush it was an avoidable failure of operational foresight.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.