Tewolde Gebremariam takes charge of Air India at a moment when the airline’s biggest challenge is no longer simply expanding its fleet. The incoming chief executive must address a loss of about Rs 22,238.23 crore, secure fresh shareholder funding, improve maintenance, strengthen operational discipline and manage a series of employee-conduct and passenger-service incidents that have exposed weaknesses across the airline’s system.
That combination makes Air India’s turnaround a test of institutional capacity as much as commercial ambition. The group has hundreds of aircraft on order and wants to become a global aviation powerhouse. But aircraft orders do not automatically create a reliable airline. They require trained staff, engineering capacity, safety systems, airport coordination, working capital and management processes capable of operating at scale.
The central question facing Gebremariam is therefore not whether Air India can grow. It is whether the airline can build the organisational systems needed to support that growth while reducing losses.
The financial problem is the most immediate constraint. Air India recorded a loss of about Rs 22,238.23 crore in the year through March. The airline has sought around $1.5 billion in fresh equity from its owners, Tata Sons and Singapore Airlines. Tata Sons has approved approximately $1.1 billion, representing its share of the proposed infusion, while Singapore Airlines has yet to approve its portion and is seeking tougher terms before committing additional capital.
Tata Sons owns 74.9% of Air India and Singapore Airlines holds the remaining stake. The proposed Tata funding is expected to be released in instalments linked to performance milestones. That structure gives the funding a dual purpose: it provides capital, but also places the turnaround under closer scrutiny. Singapore Senior Minister K Shanmugam has said that the investment decision rests with Singapore Airlines and that shareholders and the wider public have the right to expect a rigorous assessment before more money is committed.
The funding question is significant because Air India’s expansion plans will require continuing expenditure before they generate corresponding returns. New aircraft need crews, maintenance support, training, airport slots and ground-handling systems. The airline must also absorb the costs of integrating operations and maintaining service standards across a large network. A fresh equity infusion can support that process, but it does not resolve the underlying gap between expansion costs and profitability.
One possible response under consideration is a closer integration of Air India and Air India Express. Bloomberg, citing people familiar with the discussions, reported that Gebremariam had questioned the need to operate two airline companies with separate operating permits. Folding Air India Express into the wider group could reduce duplication in regulatory requirements and potentially lower the need for separate management, engineering and administrative structures.
The proposal, as reported, remains part of the incoming chief executive’s cost and operating review. It also illustrates the complexity of the group’s inherited structure. A larger airline group can create scale, but separate companies and operating permits can also lead to duplicated functions and fragmented accountability. Any efficiency gain would depend on how the integration was designed and implemented, matters that are not established in the supplied report.
Financial repair is only one part of the task. A series of recent incidents has placed employee conduct and operational discipline under attention. On September 6, an Air India pilot was removed from a Zurich flight before departure after authorities found him under the influence of alcohol. Subsequent sobriety tests recorded a blood alcohol level above the permissible limit. The Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation said the episode prevented flight AI151 from operating as scheduled and that India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation had been informed.
Air India said the incident was reported by its own staff and presented that as evidence that its safety monitoring mechanisms were functioning. An airline official said, “There will be some bad apples. The expectation is that responsible colleagues will report any dereliction in duty. Safety remains the cornerstone of Air India.” The episode nevertheless showed how a single employee action can affect flight operations, passenger confidence and regulatory attention across jurisdictions.
A separate case involved an Air India A320 flying from Phuket to Delhi in August. The aircraft experienced a sudden altitude drop that injured several passengers and crew members. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau’s preliminary report classified the event as an accident and said recovered data showed that all three hydraulic systems failed before recovering within seconds. The report recommended that the DGCA take appropriate action against the pilot in command, who tested “non-negative for psychoactive substances”. Air India terminated the pilot’s service, while the final AAIB report remains pending.
The preliminary finding does not establish a complete explanation for the incident. It does, however, place several responsibilities in the same frame: aircraft systems, crew fitness, investigation and regulator action. For a growing airline, these functions must work together consistently. Expansion raises the number of operations that have to be monitored, and therefore increases the importance of standardised procedures and internal reporting.
Air India Express has also faced employee-conduct cases. A pilot was removed from official duties after a passenger alleged that the employee physically assaulted him at Delhi airport on December 19. The pilot was off duty and travelling on another airline at the time. The civil aviation ministry ordered the pilot grounded and a formal investigation. Air India Express said it unequivocally condemned such behaviour and that disciplinary action would depend on the inquiry findings.
In another incident, the first officer of an Air India Express flight from Dammam to Delhi came under investigation after a bomb-threat note was found aboard the aircraft, forcing an emergency landing in Ahmedabad on August 31. Police sources said investigators found similarities between the handwriting on the note and samples taken from the first officer. The investigation was later handed to the National Investigation Agency. Air India Express said law-enforcement agencies were investigating and that it was cooperating. The supplied report records no conclusive finding shared with the airline at that stage.
These cases are not interchangeable, and the report does not establish that they share one cause. Their significance lies in the management burden they create. Each requires a separate response involving internal controls, regulator coordination, employee accountability, passenger communication and, in some cases, criminal investigation. A large airline must handle such incidents without allowing fragmented responses to weaken confidence in the wider operating system.
Operational lapses have extended beyond flight crew. On September 4, three Italian passengers travelling from Amritsar to Delhi were allowed to board a Lufthansa flight to Munich without completing the required immigration process in Delhi. They were directed to the international transfer area instead of exiting through arrivals and completing immigration. Air India suspended the personnel involved in escorting them, while the civil aviation ministry issued a show-cause notice to the airline.
The incident demonstrates that airline reliability depends on processes that extend beyond aircraft and cabins. Immigration handling, transfer procedures, airport coordination and ground staff decisions are all part of the passenger journey. A carrier can have a modern fleet and still experience operational failure if the interfaces between airlines, airports, immigration authorities and ground teams are not managed properly.
A Karnataka consumer commission ruling provides a smaller but revealing example of the same problem. Air India Express was directed to pay Rs 27,000 after a passenger who had paid Rs 2,000 for special handling of a racing bicycle found it on the regular baggage carousel at Mangalore airport. The bicycle was not damaged, but the commission found that the airline had failed to provide the special handling service promised to the passenger. It ordered a refund of the fee and Rs 25,000 in compensation and litigation costs.
The bicycle case is minor compared with a safety incident or a multibillion-rupee loss. Yet it illustrates how trust is formed at the level of ordinary transactions. The airline’s turnaround will be judged not only through balance sheets and aircraft deliveries, but also through whether its systems deliver what passengers have paid for.
Maintenance is another critical test. Gebremariam has asked employees to develop a plan to reduce maintenance issues, according to Bloomberg. In June, passengers aboard an Air India Boeing 787 flying from Delhi to Hong Kong reported shaking and hissing noises from a door. Cabin crew used paper napkins around a gap in the decorative door panel to reduce the noise while the aircraft continued to Hong Kong. Air India said there was no safety risk and that engineering checks after landing found all safety parameters in compliance.
The episode does not by itself establish a safety failure. It does show the importance of how technical problems are managed and communicated. As an airline adds aircraft, the maintenance system must expand alongside the fleet. That includes engineering staff, spare parts, inspection routines, documentation and clear escalation procedures. The incoming management’s focus on reducing maintenance issues suggests that this capacity is already a priority in the turnaround plan.
The airline has separately opened an investigation after a video circulated online purportedly showing a former cabin crew member sitting inside an aircraft cockpit during a flight. Air India said it was verifying the video’s authenticity and whether safety protocols had been followed. That response is significant because the central fact had not been established at the time of the report. It also highlights the new operating environment in which internal lapses can quickly become public through digital platforms.
Gebremariam was selected in large part because of his record at Ethiopian Airlines, which grew into Africa’s largest and one of its most profitable carriers under his leadership. Air India, however, presents a different assignment in scale and structure. The airline is not starting with a narrow fleet or a single operational problem. It is managing a major expansion programme while dealing with losses, ownership expectations, possible group restructuring, employee cases, maintenance questions and passenger-service failures.
The evidence supplied in the report confirms the breadth of the challenge but does not yet show whether the proposed remedies will work. Tata Sons has approved its portion of a proposed funding package, while Singapore Airlines’ decision remains pending. The possible integration of Air India Express is under discussion, not confirmed as a completed plan. The final report on the Phuket-Delhi incident is pending, and the investigation into the bomb-threat note had not produced a conclusive finding shared with the airline.
That uncertainty matters because the airline’s next phase depends on execution rather than announcements. Its global ambitions will require more than aircraft orders and fresh capital. They will require reliable coordination between management, crews, engineers, airports, regulators and passengers. The next milestones will be the release and conditions of shareholder funding, any decision on Air India Express integration, the outcome of pending investigations and the maintenance plan requested by the new chief executive.
