Airliners-India.com Flickr Group & Facebook    FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  Flying abroad -- New norms for private carriers soon?          Airliners-India.com Forum Index -> Civil Aviation View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message karatecatman Guest Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 4:57 pm    Post subject: Flying abroad -- New norms for private carriers soon? http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=158751 New norms for private carriers soon? ATREYEE DEV ROY & BIPIN CHANDRAN Posted online: Friday, March 23, 2007 at 0009 hours IST Quotes: NEW DELHI, MAR 22: The government is toying with the idea of introducing a minimum paid-up capital norm of Rs 200 crore for domestic airlines to be eligible to fly international routes. However, sources said the minimum fleet requirement of 20 aircraft is likely to stay. Under the current equity structure of major airlines, only Indian Airlines and Kingfisher would be eligible to fly under the Rs 200-crore norm. Spicejet (Rs 179.3 crore), Jet Airways (Rs 86.3 crore) and Air Deccan (Rs 100.14 crore) would have to increase their paid-up capital to Rs 200 crore. Equity capital details of others like IndiGo and Go Air were unavailable since they are not yet listed. Back to top Nimish Member Joined: 16 Dec 2006 Posts: 9757 Location: Bangalore, India Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:01 pm    Post subject: Re: Flying abroad -- New norms for private carriers soon? karatecatman wrote: The government is toying with the idea of introducing a minimum paid-up capital norm of Rs 200 crore for domestic airlines to be eligible to fly international routes. However, sources said the minimum fleet requirement of 20 aircraft is likely to stay. Quit toying and start making this the law! This sounds far more reasonable than the current rules on 5 years domestic before intl. Back to top the_380 Member Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 2329 Location: Mumbai, India Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:33 pm    Post subject: Re: Flying abroad -- New norms for private carriers soon? 9 Nimish wrote: Quit toying and start making this the law! This sounds far more reasonable than the current rules on 5 years domestic before intl. Sorry to say this Nimish...not personal but im quite surprised to see that most people haven't understood the real reason as to why the rule was implemented. Atleast every airline should fly deomestic throughly and only then should be given intl routes. Everyone knows there's more money in intl and airlines like IT and 9W will operate on msotly intl routes and reduce their domestic routes while thats not fair atleast without the GoI not opening more intl routes for IC also ... after all they've been flying domestic for decades altogether. (yea people get to talk about gulf...what about those years from 1950s when they've been flying till date) Airlines like DN would look forward to Intl LCC rather than domestic...fare war would be high on intl side...what about domestic travel? It wouldn't be fair play if new carriers flying just 10-15 domestic profitable routes are handed over routes like SIN, KUL etc! They should have a certain 'experience' in the indian market too _________________ http://www.myspace.com/avsatsworld A Walt Disney and 20th Century Fox Audio Producer!!! Back to top Nimish Member Joined: 16 Dec 2006 Posts: 9757 Location: Bangalore, India Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:32 pm    Post subject: Re: Flying abroad -- New norms for private carriers soon? the_380 wrote: Sorry to say this Nimish...not personal but im quite surprised to see that most people haven't understood the real reason as to why the rule was implemented. Oof - I think we should as a nation get out of our "public sector is the best" philosophy. Let me just present a few points based on my understanding of the proposal: 1. This policy is only for airlines with 20 a/c and capital of 200M. Not for the non-serious operators! 2. Even Indigo (with their 12 a/c year) or any other startup, has spaced the arrival of a/c, and would take approx 1-2 years before they have the needed fleet size. So there's no question of operating intl without "experience" 3. While the fleet is arriving, it will have to be used on the domestic routes. 4. When Air Arabia/RAK air can start with 1-2 a/c and international flights, why can't we give some flexibility to Indian operators? So why do you want to kill the Indian aviation industry and force fliers to pay expensive fares and not benefit from competition? Back to top the_380 Member Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 2329 Location: Mumbai, India Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:42 am    Post subject: Nimish wrote: 4. When Air Arabia/RAK air can start with 1-2 a/c and international flights, why can't we give some flexibility to Indian operators? Lol...Nimish that example wasn't good....do Arabia and RAK have domestic sectors? _________________ http://www.myspace.com/avsatsworld A Walt Disney and 20th Century Fox Audio Producer!!! Back to top Nimish Member Joined: 16 Dec 2006 Posts: 9757 Location: Bangalore, India Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:08 am    Post subject: the_380 wrote: Lol...Nimish that example wasn't good....do Arabia and RAK have domestic sectors? How about focussing on the big picture for a change ? Anyway - checking on AirArabia flights, they have services from Sharjah to: * Bahrain * Dammam (Saudi Arabia) * Doha (Qatar) * Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) * Kuwait * Muscat (Oman) * Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) While these may not be "domestic" flights, they're not exactly "long haul intl" either. They're probably within the GCC (or whatever that's called) and within an hours flying time. Back to top maut3000 Member Joined: 14 Mar 2007 Posts: 160 Location: Mumbai Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 1:45 pm    Post subject: Nimish wrote: the_380 wrote: Lol...Nimish that example wasn't good....do Arabia and RAK have domestic sectors? How about focussing on the big picture for a change ? Anyway - checking on AirArabia flights, they have services from Sharjah to: * Bahrain * Dammam (Saudi Arabia) * Doha (Qatar) * Jeddah (Saudi Arabia)........ Sorry to say, again not a good example. However, I do agree with you that serrious private operators need to be given international rights. That will be a clear win for the consumer. Back to top Nimish Member Joined: 16 Dec 2006 Posts: 9757 Location: Bangalore, India Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 2:31 pm    Post subject: maut3000 wrote: However, I do agree with you that serrious private operators need to be given international rights. That will be a clear win for the consumer. Glad that someone sees the big picture at last! Question on the topic at hand - what is your opinion - are the terms (20 fleet + 200M paid up capital) sufficient to differentiate serious vs. non-serious operators? Back to top stealthpilot Member Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 2325 Location: BLR, DXB Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:36 am    Post subject: Re: Flying abroad -- New norms for private carriers soon? Domestic carriers should be allowed to fly international, even to the Gulf. 20 aircrafts and 200 crores is a lot. Only serious players will/should foot the 200 crore paid up capital. Why protect AI/IC from domestic carriers and let other low cost small carriers fly into India? the_380 wrote: im quite surprised to see that most people haven't understood the real reason as to why the rule was implemented. And what is the real reason? the_380 wrote: Everyone knows there's more money in intl and airlines like IT and 9W will operate on msotly intl routes and reduce their domestic routes while thats not fair atleast without the GoI not opening more intl routes for IC also ... after all they've been flying domestic for decades altogether. (yea people get to talk about gulf...what about those years from 1950s when they've been flying till date) And for you to compare this to IC is an even worse example. If private carriers were given the opportunity to fly around 'for decades altogether' im sure they would. You make it sound like poor IC were the only ones willing to serve the hapless Indian travelers and that’s why they should be ‘rewarded’ with international routes. It's time the government stops babying and protecting AI and IC. Besides, no carrier will solely focus on international ops while ignoring the domestic sector. The domestic sector is too important for airlines- they know that. _________________ eP007 Back to top VABBy Member Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 823 Location: DEL Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:07 pm    Post subject: I still feel their is some rational behind the 5 year rule.. _________________ Expeditors- You'd be surprised how far we will go for you www.expeditors.com Back to top blrsea Member Joined: 25 Mar 2007 Posts: 182 Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:43 pm    Post subject: VABBy wrote: I still feel their is some rational behind the 5 year rule.. The only rationale expressed by the ministry when they forumlated the 5-year rule was that if the airlines folds up and leaves passengers stranded in foreign countries, it will create problems for passengers !! What a stupid argument. Even established carriers fold up all the time if they can't sustain their business. The GOI follows foolish system where in they allow new startups like Air Arabia to operate to india, but don't want Indian carriers to fly abroad. And Indian carriers have distinguished themselves in their service which is much much better than other international operators. World over, governments try to give preference to their home-grown airlines, but the mandarins in India do the opposite! While the Indian private carriers are forced to operate only domestically, international carriers like SQ/MH/LH/BA/QR/EK etc are making a killing and establishing themselves. If Indian carriers made more money, more of it would be spent in India, and more employment too would be created which would improve the local economy as well. But try explaining that to the babus!! Back to top karatecatman Guest Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 1:41 pm    Post subject: Its also quite well known that many governments don;t want Indian private operators. They are quite happy to let in just Air India and Indian. Back to top Nimish Member Joined: 16 Dec 2006 Posts: 9757 Location: Bangalore, India Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:31 pm    Post subject: karatecatman wrote: Its also quite well known that many governments don;t want Indian private operators. They are quite happy to let in just Air India and Indian. Oh - I did not know that. Which are these countries and how have they tried to block Indian pvt. operators? Back to top karatecatman Guest Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:56 pm    Post subject: Pakistan is one fine example. Has openly said so. And the very region in question .... some of the emirates' governments!! Back to top HAWK21M Member Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 8132 Location: Mumbai, INDIA Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:43 pm    Post subject: I find 20 Aircraft/200 crore to make sense.It provdes entry to serious players with Financial backing.Although Calender period of 3 yrs should be a requirement to prove ones capability in domestic sector prior. regds MEL _________________ Think of the Brighter side !!! Back to top BigTom Member Joined: 21 Mar 2007 Posts: 271 Location: Dubai, UAE Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:23 pm    Post subject: As far as flying to the Gulf goes, no private airline has got a look in so far only because GoI doesn't allow them on these routes as yet. DXB I'm sure will not bar 9w or IT for that matter from flying there and the same holds for Qatar and to a lesser extent MCT provided India gives their carriers more access to Indian destinations. The regulations as others have said in this forum are good as they allow only serious contenders into the fray. Otherwise it can lead to sometimes embarassing results as has happened with some small Pak carriers who now don't fly to DXB anymore after much heralded starts. Cheers Back to top Nimish Member Joined: 16 Dec 2006 Posts: 9757 Location: Bangalore, India Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:35 pm    Post subject: HAWK21M wrote: Although Calender period of 3 yrs should be a requirement to prove ones capability in domestic sector prior. I'm sorry Mel, but I disagree. As an example are/were Indigo or Kingfisher not doing very well (logistically) in their first year? I think they've more than proved their capability well within their first year. And why "prove" capability on the domestic sector? Aren't those domestic passengers humans paying fares? So why have only the domestic pax pay the price for any airline's failure? I think we should do away with all these "year based" limitation, given we already have a very high entry barrier (20 a/c and 200crores). And I think we should let all-international airlines also start and grow from India - there's enough demand on the intl as well as domestic sectors, let each airline decides whether it wants to go intl or domestic. Open up the aviation industry and focus on creating infrastructure - or enabling the private sector to create the infrastructure. If a new BLR or new HYD can become a reality, why not a new airport in a DEL or BOM suburb and a new airport near MAA or CCU? Back to top HAWK21M Member Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 8132 Location: Mumbai, INDIA Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:31 pm    Post subject: Nimish. I still don't agree with you on the Calender period requirement.Mx is a very Important part of a sucessfull Airline & its not tuned within a year.For Wide body Aircraft to be well maintained require certain Infrastructure & Stores Inventory cannot be achieved in the 1st year & takes time. The B737 & A320 were proven Aircraft with trained Mx personnell available.Not so for Wide bodies. Initially starting out with outsourcing to a Mx organisation & recruiting Foreign players is only temp solution.They have to clear Indian CARs. When an Airline starts Domestic.The Airline gets more settled & can gradually move outwards.Its nothing to do with Domestic v/s International Pax. Thats my personal view. regds MEL _________________ Think of the Brighter side !!! Back to top Nimish Member Joined: 16 Dec 2006 Posts: 9757 Location: Bangalore, India Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:39 pm    Post subject: HAWK21M wrote: Mx is a very Important part of a sucessfull Airline & its not tuned within a year.For Wide body Aircraft to be well maintained require certain Infrastructure & Stores Inventory cannot be achieved in the 1st year & takes time. The B737 & A320 were proven Aircraft with trained Mx personnell available.Not so for Wide bodies. So taking this theory further, when IT or 9W get their wide bodies, they will be just starting the MX on that type, and should wait 2-3 years flying those wide bodies domestic (so that the MX gets tuned, and certain infrastructure and stores inventory be achieved) before flying the wide bodies intl? If that is the case, how did 9W launch the 343 (totally new type in the country) with intl flights from day one? Surely the fact that 9W had a MX/inventory for 737s is of NO relevance to 343s? Similarly - how did AI or S2 manage the 767 from day 1? And how are the gulf LCCs (like Air Arabia, RAK air) launching intl services from day one? Back to top HAWK21M Member Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 8132 Location: Mumbai, INDIA Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:56 pm    Post subject: Nimish wrote: HAWK21M wrote: Mx is a very Important part of a sucessfull Airline & its not tuned within a year.For Wide body Aircraft to be well maintained require certain Infrastructure & Stores Inventory cannot be achieved in the 1st year & takes time. The B737 & A320 were proven Aircraft with trained Mx personnell available.Not so for Wide bodies. If that is the case, how did 9W launch the 343 (totally new type in the country) with intl flights from day one? Surely the fact that 9W had a MX/inventory for 737s is of NO relevance to 343s? Similarly - how did AI or S2 manage the 767 from day 1? ? Nimish..... The calender period was gaining Ecxperince on Narrow bodies before going on to wide. Are you saying "Flyington Freighters" should operate with B777s from day 1 Do you know who certifies the 9W A330/340s for Major.The 9W AMEs are only Authorised not Licenced The B773s has no 9W AMEs yet.Are you aware.Authorisation is granted first. Same with AI on ther B767s.Remember UA AMEs were maintaining the AI B772s when they arrived. As for S2 record on their B767s I don't want to comment. regds MEL _________________ Think of the Brighter side !!! Back to top stealthpilot Member Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 2325 Location: BLR, DXB Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:11 am    Post subject: karatecatman wrote: Its also quite well known that many governments don;t want Indian private operators. They are quite happy to let in just Air India and Indian. If this is the case, the only reason would be that they don’t want competition. Those airlines are probably happy dealing with AI, and don’t want the headaches of dealing with real competition. ...And not wanting competition is hardly an excuse. The government assigns designated carriers when they make bilateral/trilateral/whatever deals with other countries and another country cant (in all fairness) throw their hands up and say 'we only want AI' _________________ eP007 Back to top HAWK21M Member Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 8132 Location: Mumbai, INDIA Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:44 pm    Post subject: Competition is always good & Private operators like 9W & IT will def pose a better threat to Foreign Airlines than AI & IC can. regds MEL _________________ Think of the Brighter side !!! Back to top purushotham.B Member Joined: 31 Mar 2007 Posts: 1 Location: bangalore Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:51 am    Post subject: request info regarding flying under part141 and part61 Dear aviators, I would like to know wheather flying under part141 is better or flying under part61 in U.S.A.will I have any problem in doing there. Back to top Karan69 Member Joined: 22 Dec 2006 Posts: 1334 Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:26 pm    Post subject: First of all i would like to say that I prefer this new norm to the current existing one of 5 years, but i think they should keep both----it may sound stupid but look at it this way, eg---IT etc..have the paid up capital and aircraft requirements so they can start immediately, but what if a carrier like DN even after several years of operations is not able to meet the requirements, then they should be able to operate internationally after 5 [3]years of domestic operations. Nimish wrote: If that is the case, how did 9W launch the 343 (totally new type in the country) with intl flights from day one? Surely the fact that 9W had a MX/inventory for 737s is of NO relevance to 343s? Similarly - how did AI or S2 manage the 767 from day 1? And how are the gulf LCCs (like Air Arabia, RAK air) launching intl services from day one? Nimish , in 9Ws case with the A340s--i cant reveal much of what i know, but let me tell you that the price they paid for each 340 aircraft, is close to thrice than what the market lease rates were at the time, and even today are around twice the rates of the aircraft. [Somebody send This to ROY since he keeps asking how AI were not able to get their hands on 343s when 9W did a few mths later] The contract was so good that SAA were ready to send MX staff to train and initially upkeep the 340s something similar to the UA/AI/Bristol Leasing company deal. With regards to AI--the 767 is on a wet lease deal so it means that the MX is technically speaking accounted for, but it also operates to the carries home base in London, where the necessary major MX works can be taken of, whereas as far as the engines are concerned they are the same P&W ones used on the 744s, so the MX department will have full know how about the workings of the engine atleast. No idea about S2 With regards to the GCC , if a carrier is given national carrier designation by its country or from its respective aviation authorites than subject to the agreements in the ASA between India and that country the carrier can apply for unused route authority and if it meets the safety and technical approvals set by the DGCA then there is no stopping that carrier. In the sad case of India carriers like DN/IT etc... have not got their Nationa Carrier Designation which is necessary for them to have when they apply for flights abroard from their national country. [If they dont have that designation--they simply cant apply for international flights] Karan Back to top Nimish Member Joined: 16 Dec 2006 Posts: 9757 Location: Bangalore, India Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:40 pm    Post subject: Re: request info regarding flying under part141 and part61 purushotham.B wrote: Dear aviators, I would like to know wheather flying under part141 is better or flying under part61 in U.S.A.will I have any problem in doing there. Hi Purushotham, Firstly - welcome to AI.net. Secondly - this message you posted is not related to the topic at hand, so request you to post this as a new thread in the Aviation Hobby or Civil Aviation forum. Back to top stealthpilot Member Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 2325 Location: BLR, DXB Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:16 am    Post subject: Hi Purushotham, I sent you a short PM ... hope it helps. _________________ eP007 Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         Airliners-India.com Forum Index -> Civil Aviation All times are GMT + 5.5 Hours Page 1 of 1   Jump to: Select a forum New Members----------------Sign-up Guidelines Airliners-India----------------Civil AviationNon AviationTrip ReportsMilitary Aviation & SpaceInternationalAviation Polls & PreferenceTech/OpsAviation PhotographyEditorial/Analysis/ArticlesAviation HobbyAviation LawAviation Questions & CareersSite Related Flickr Group----------------Photo of the Month My Message Board----------------Pin Up  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group. Hosted by phpBB.BizHat.com