Air India’s incoming chief executive Tewolde Gebremariam is taking charge of an airline whose most visible ambition is expansion, but whose immediate challenge is control. The carrier has hundreds of aircraft on order and global aspirations, yet it is also carrying a reported loss of Rs 22,238.23 crore, seeking fresh shareholder funding and dealing with a series of incidents involving safety monitoring, employee conduct, maintenance and passenger handling.
That combination makes the Air India turnaround more than a conventional airline growth plan. It is a test of whether a large aviation group can build the financial, engineering, staffing and administrative systems needed to operate a rapidly expanding fleet. The central question is not only how many aircraft Air India can add, but whether the organisation can reliably fund, staff, maintain and regulate the operation those aircraft will create.
The new CEO inherits a business where the expansion story and the control problem are developing at the same time. Tewolde was selected in part because of his record at Ethiopian Airlines, which grew into Africa’s largest and one of its most profitable carriers under his leadership. At Air India, however, the task is described in the supplied report as different in scale and complexity. The airline must pursue growth while addressing weaknesses that have surfaced across several layers of its operation.
The financial constraint is the clearest structural challenge. Air India reported a loss of about Rs 22,238.23 crore for the year ended March and has sought approximately $1.5 billion in fresh equity from its owners, Tata Sons and Singapore Airlines. Tata Sons, which owns 74.9% of Air India, has approved about $1.1 billion as its share of the proposed infusion. Singapore Airlines owns the remaining 25.1% and has not yet approved its portion, while seeking tougher terms before committing additional capital.
The proposed Tata Sons funding is expected to be released in instalments linked to performance milestones. That arrangement would connect the airline’s access to capital with measurable progress in its turnaround. Singapore’s Senior Minister Shanmugam has also said that the decision on further investment rests with Singapore Airlines and that its shareholders and the wider public could expect a rigorous assessment before money is committed. The funding question therefore sits alongside, rather than outside, the operational reform agenda.
One possible route to lower costs is the reported consideration of folding Air India Express into the wider Air India group. According to the report, Tewolde has questioned the need to operate two airline companies with separate operating permits. A single airline group could reduce the need for separate regulatory structures, managers, engineers and administrative teams, although the supplied material does not establish that such a merger has been approved or provide a timeline for implementation.
The proposal illustrates the trade-off facing the group. Air India needs scale to compete internationally and support its aircraft orders, but scale can also multiply coordination problems. Separate operating structures can create duplication, while consolidation can make accountability and safety oversight more complex if responsibilities are not clearly defined. The reported discussions indicate that management is examining the organisation itself as part of the cost problem, not only routes, fares or fleet utilisation.
Operational discipline is the second major part of the challenge. 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 blood alcohol content above the permissible limit, according to the report. The Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation informed India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation after the incident affected the scheduled operation of flight AI151.
Air India said the episode was reported by its own staff and argued that this demonstrated the functioning of its safety monitoring mechanisms. An airline official said there would be “some bad apples” and that responsible colleagues were expected to report dereliction of duty, while describing safety as the cornerstone of the airline. The incident therefore raised two linked issues: individual compliance with aviation rules and the strength of internal systems for detecting and reporting violations before they become larger operational risks.
A separate case involved an Air India A320 flying from Phuket to Delhi in August. The aircraft experienced a sudden altitude drop that injured passengers and crew members. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau’s preliminary report classified the episode as an accident and said 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 remained pending.
Air India Express has faced its own conduct and security-related cases. A pilot was removed from official duties after a passenger alleged that he had been physically assaulted at Delhi airport on December 19. The pilot was off duty and travelling on another airline at the time, and the civil aviation ministry ordered that he be grounded while the matter was investigated. Air India Express said it condemned such behaviour and that disciplinary action would depend on the inquiry’s findings.
In another episode, the first officer of an Air India Express flight from Dammam to Delhi came under investigation after a bomb threat note was found on board, forcing an emergency landing in Ahmedabad on August 31. Police sources said investigators found similarities between the note’s handwriting and samples taken from the first officer. The National Investigation Agency later took over the investigation. Air India Express said law-enforcement agencies were investigating and that it was cooperating; no conclusive finding had been shared with the airline at the time covered by the report.
These incidents do not establish a single cause behind Air India’s difficulties. They do, however, show how a turnaround can be weakened by failures spread across different operational interfaces: cockpit conduct, crew screening, incident reporting, passenger security, immigration compliance and baggage handling. Each matter has a different authority and evidentiary status, which makes disciplined investigation important. A financial turnaround cannot be separated from the reliability of the systems that protect passengers and preserve the airline’s licence to operate.
The immigration lapse involving three Italian passengers showed how an apparently local procedural failure can involve multiple institutions. The passengers travelled from Amritsar to Delhi and were subsequently 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 personnel involved in escorting them, while the civil aviation ministry issued a show-cause notice to the airline.
The bicycle dispute points to a different but related dimension of airline performance: the gap between a service promise and delivery at the airport. A Karnataka consumer commission directed Air India Express to pay Rs 27,000 after a passenger who 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 ordered a refund of the special-handling fee and Rs 25,000 in compensation and litigation costs.
Maintenance is another pressure point. Tewolde has reportedly asked employees to prepare a plan to reduce maintenance issues. In June, passengers on 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 a decorative door panel while the aircraft continued to Hong Kong. Air India said there was no safety risk and that post-landing engineering checks found all safety parameters compliant.
The distinction between a confirmed safety failure and a poor passenger experience matters, but both affect confidence in the airline. Air India has also opened an investigation into a video purportedly showing a former cabin crew member inside an aircraft cockpit during a flight. The airline said it was verifying the video’s authenticity and whether safety protocols had been followed. This case remained unresolved in the supplied material, underlining the need to separate allegations, investigations and established findings.
For the Tata group, the policy and governance problem is therefore broader than injecting capital. Tata Sons and Singapore Airlines must decide how much funding the airline requires and what performance conditions should accompany it. Air India’s management must translate that capital into dependable operations, while the DGCA, AAIB, the civil aviation ministry, law-enforcement agencies and consumer forums continue to exercise different forms of oversight.
The reported aircraft orders make the timing significant. Fleet growth can expand route options and create economies of scale, but it also increases the demand for pilots, engineers, cabin crew, maintenance capacity, training, airport handling and administrative coordination. The supplied report does not provide the number of aircraft on order, the delivery schedule or a detailed staffing plan. What it does establish is that the incoming CEO must address the ability to support that growth before expansion can become a durable path to profitability.
The evidence currently points to a turnaround with three connected tests. The first is financial: whether the airline can secure and deploy fresh equity while reducing losses. The second is operational: whether management can strengthen maintenance, staffing and internal controls. The third is institutional: whether the group can coordinate two airline businesses and multiple regulators without creating gaps in accountability.
Air India’s next phase will be judged not only by new aircraft, routes or international ambition. It will also be judged by the completion of investigations, the handling of pending funding decisions, the response to maintenance concerns and the consistency of everyday passenger operations. The final AAIB report on the Phuket-Delhi incident, the outcomes of ongoing investigations and any formal decision on Air India Express’s future within the group are the next milestones that will clarify whether the airline’s expansion plan is being matched by stronger organisational discipline.
