Indian carrier IndiGo’s chief executive, Pieter Elbers, is claiming that the airline’s operations are “stable” and the carrier is “back on its feet” after days of widespread disruption.
It has returned to all 138 destinations, he says, with flights scheduled to operate on “an adjusted network”.
Elbers says the restoration of IndiGo’s flights was being “done on a war footing”, after it managed to operate just 700 flights on 5 December – far less than half those planned.
This figure increased over the subsequent four days and reached more than 1,800 as of 9 December. Elbers adds that the airline’s on-time performance has also “been normalised”.
He says IndiGo remains “profusely apologetic” and is co-operating with the government, while also turning its internal focus to the cause of the disruption.
Lack of preparation for new flight-duty time limits, as well as weather-related issues, appear to have triggered the meltdown.
The budget model left the airline with little margin to adapt to the limits, and it could face substantial financial damage from the resulting widespread disruption, according to credit rating agency Moody’s.
It states that the “primary driver” for the disruption was the introduction of a second phase of flight-duty regulations, notably for night flights.
The disruption indicates “significant lapses in planning, oversight and resource management”, it adds, given that the regulations have been known to the industry for more than a year.
“The airline’s lean operations, which provide cost efficiencies in stable times, lacked the resilience needed for this change in regulations,” says Moody’s.
IndiGo has been granted and exemption from the Indian regulator, the DGCA, with periodic reviews on utilisation and measures to improve operations and crew availability, and must draw up a 30-day plan to achieve full compliance with the rules on flight-duty limits.
Moody’s says the “fundamentals” of IndiGo’s credit rating “remain intact”, but the airline can expect a negative impact on full-year profitability as well as “some reputational damage”.
