The Indigo crisis led to over 1000 flight cancellations across multiple airports in the country resulting in chaotic scenes at airports, stranded passengers, and some resorting to protest.¹ Indigo has attributed the crisis to a pilot shortage, which has been exacerbated by pressures from the winter schedule and the implementation of the new Flight Duty Time Limitations (FDTL) rules.²

Policy Concerns

Indigo has admitted that the new FDTL rules are adding strain to its operations. These rules aim to reduce fatigue, limit the number of flying hours, and enforce mandatory rest periods.³ They were introduced to improve safety, reduce exhaustion, and safeguard crew well-being.⁴ Although the DGCA has temporarily eased⁵ FDTL norms-particularly weekly rest requirements-amid operational disruptions, the entire fiasco has exposed several serious policy concerns.

Yes, Indigo has issued an apology and promised full refunds and rebooking assistance. But the deeper policy issue now is the extent of airline liability in such situations. Liability cannot end at refunds or rebooking support; it must include compensation. Given the chaos witnessed at airports across the country—disrupted plans, missed meetings, and widespread inconvenience—it is long overdue that large aviation players are held accountable for the disorder their operational lapses create.

Another concern this situation highlights is the gap between regulatory design and practical implementation capacity. A key question emerges: Why was Indigo operating with staffing so tight that nationwide cancellations unfolded within days?

There is also a policy concern in the rollback and relaxation⁶ of the FDTL norms. Questions must be asked about why Indigo was not prepared for the implementation of Phase II of the FDTL rules, despite it being long anticipated. Why was there no enforcement or monitoring to ensure airlines were compliant before the norms came into effect? This raises the possibility that Indigo deliberately avoided complying with the imminent rules—allegedly freezing hiring, keeping pilot pay stagnant, and failing to build a reserve crew buffer⁷

Commercial airlines must be held responsible and liable, and the dangerous precedent set by this episode must not become the norm. The disruptions caused by a single airline and their nationwide ripple effects underline the need for the Competition Commission to intervene and prevent the emergence of monopolistic dominance in the aviation sector. At the same time, consumer rights—especially the right to timely communication about delays and cancellations—must be strengthened to protect air travellers.