The Descent of Air India (22 page)

In the future, the policy is bound to come back and bite the Indian private carriers too because of the thoughtless manner in which the rights were granted, giving foreign airlines a head start and a stranglehold on the market before the Indian carriers were ready to mount operations. Not surprisingly, even some foreign carriers have begun feeling the heat. On account of the excess allocation of seats, these airlines are currently seeking passengers for destinations beyond the country of origin. If one scans the papers, one can see the advertisements by Singapore Airlines, Malaysia Airlines, Cathay Pacific and several others for destinations in Australia, New Zealand and Japan, while the carriers are advertising destinations in the US and the Gulf carriers are doing the same for destinations in Europe and US. This phenomenon is the result of the reckless allocation of bilateral rights by the government. Interestingly, the fact that the bilateral agreements relating to seat allocation are essentially for traffic between two countries was underscored in April 2013, when India and Singapore signed an enhanced air services agreement to build on the existing 216 weekly flights and meet the growing demand for air connectivity between the two countries. ‘As demand for air services between both countries continue to grow, the bilateral air services agreement was enhanced to include more capacity entitlements,’ said a statement from Singapore’s Transport Ministry. ‘Between the two countries’ is the key phrase, and yet, the number of flights being operated and proposed to be enhanced is far beyond the requirement of traffic originating in India for Singapore and in Singapore for India.

While we may never really know what prompted the government to open up the policy on bilateral rights, we were well aware of the extent of pressure that it was under from foreign airlines. An interesting anecdote narrated by Inder Sethi, the former deputy managing director of Air India, reveals just how persistent some airline representatives could be. Sethi says, ‘Way back in the mid-1970s, Nari Dastur came into my office—he was then the chief of Commercial Department and I was the deputy head of Marketing and Sales. He told me that he had been invited by Ali Gandhour, chairman of ALIA, to visit Amman. Mr Dastur had accepted but was now having second thoughts. He requested that I go in his place. He mentioned that ALIA wanted traffic rights to India and we had to “make the appropriate noises to politely refuse the request”. The meagre traffic between India and Jordan did not justify the grant of even one weekly flight. I left that night for Amman. I met Mr Gandhour and did as requested, leaving a rather unhappy India Manager for ALIA behind in Amman. Fast forward to 1979, and the venue was the IATA AGM in Geneva. Managing Director Appusamy and I were attending and had been invited for lunch by Mr Gandhour. Conversation during lunch veered towards traffic rights and we again made the “appropriate noises” and left. Fast forward to 1981. Mr Appusamy had retired, and I had left the airline. A new chairman-cum-managing director was appointed and guess what—Alia had been granted full traffic rights.’ The local manager of the airline representing ALIA was none other than the current chairman of Jet Airways—Naresh Goyal.

To all those who believe that Air India’s management could have done little to counter the clouded political vision of those days, I would like to say that the most effective way to deal with manipulating and interfering politicians is to make your point forcefully and with all the facts of the case. It has been done in the past with remarkable results. The only trait one needs in such situations is unwavering commitment to the organisation. For instance, Air India had a rule (it still does) that stipulated that the air hostesses would have to wear sarees if they did not meet the physical specifications. One hostess, when she was denied the right to wear the salwar-kameez, approached the ministry, and I received a call from the minister’s office. I suggested that the hostess be asked to contact me, which she did the following morning. Since she had been in the airline for 10 years, I asked if she knew the rules governing the issue of sarees and salwar-kameez. She said she was aware that salwar-kameez was not for hostesses who were overweight. ‘Are you?’ I asked. She was, and asked what she should do. I said that she needed to reduce weight as per the rules. Three months later, she had conformed to the requirements of the airline, and the issue was resolved.

Let us look at another instance of how the minister’s word and the airline’s interests were maintained. When Sharad Yadav was the civil aviation minister and Vijay Mallya, then not in the airline business asked for Kingfisher beer to be included on the flights for on-board service, I politely suggested that a senior functionary of the company be asked to meet me. When the senior executive called me a couple of days later, I explained how Kingfisher would get a decisive edge over other beer brands if we were to offer it on our flights. We were serving Budweiser and Heineken beer to our passengers at that time and if Kingfisher was to be included we should get a concessional deal. I also said that Kingfisher should factor in a marketing fee for Air India pitching the beer to its passengers. The terms were agreed upon, and Kingfisher beer made its way into Air India flights at a rate that helped save the airline a sizeable sum of money. Good times, of course, did not last long for Air India, as soon after my exit and that of the director of Materials Management, the price was raised.

It is important to bear in mind that ministers are often prompted by the people around them to believe that their grandiose ideas, howsoever flawed, are the best. For instance, Shahnawaz Hussain, when he was the Minister for Civil Aviation, was very enthusiastic about the introduction of a Kerala oil massage service on-board Air India flights as a value addition to attract more passengers. He announced his decision to introduce such a service in the media and then asked the Air India management to implement it. Mr Gogoi, the then managing director, asked me to explore the possibility and to interact with the minister on this issue. We played by the rules, informing the minister of the action being taken and also letting him know the problems inherent in such a move. We let him know that we could run into trouble with the passengers, who may object to the smell of oil; the upholstery could be soiled as a result of the use of oil; there would be a lack of privacy for those opting for the service. The minister suggested that we provide a curtained enclosure within the aircraft. We visited the Kottakkal Aryavaidyasalai near Kozhikode, which helped us arm ourselves with their informed view that a massage, while being feasible on the aircraft in a separate enclosure, would warrant a bath. With no such facility available onboard the aircraft, the proposal of an oil massage was finally buried. However, still reluctant to tell the minister that his suggestion was impractical, we considered the possibility of a massage with ayurvedic powder as was being practised by the Kerala Medical College in Thiruvananthapuram. But its application on the flight was again not feasible because the powder could trigger off allergic reactions in passengers since the air was recirculated inside the cabin. Finally, we managed to convince the minister that such an idea was impractical and should not be followed through. We did, however, end up asking a Delhi-based company to introduce Kerala massage facilities in the lounge at the Delhi airport. The service continued while Shahnawaz Hussain was the minister and ended with his term.

What this does demonstrate is that if you are not the ‘
ji hazoor
’ kind of an officer willing to go overboard with all the directions of the minister, you can ignore the diktats that can harm the company and induce the ministers to see reason. One example that comes to mind of how a managing director did not let the minister’s displeasure come in the way of carrying out his duties is the way Mr Gogoi handled a delicate situation involving one minister and his desire to appear on television to comment on Air India’s routine operational issues. It was during the April 2003 strike of the Indian Pilots’ Guild, and the media was reporting on every one of our moves. I was being called to represent the airline’s points of view on every channel, and it was after one such programme that I received a call from this minister, who said, ‘
Aap bahut acchha bolte hain TV par. Ab se aap hi boliye
’ (You speak so well on television that from now on, it is best that only you should speak on its behalf). Intrigued, I called up the managing director, who informed me that the minister had been miffed with my frequent appearances on television because he saw those as missed opportunities for promoting himself and his party! It was to Mr Gogoi’s credit that he had not only withstood the minister’s displeasure on this count but had not even let me know about the problem. The situation is very different today when ministers represent the airline in every forum and there is none from within the airline to speak on its behalf.

However, for every instance of a political direction not heeded or countered with a justifiable argument, there are possibly 99 others that are blindly implemented because most executives believe that favours shown to politicians will help them someday.

There are also instances of bureaucrats, who have held the chairman’s post, not wanting to buckle under political pressure but too weak to say no. Consider this example. A few months before the 2009 general elections, Praful Patel wanted an advertising campaign to highlight the progress made in the field of civil aviation during his tenure of five years. One can’t fault such a strategy since the five years had seen considerable progress. The only problem was that he wanted the campaign to be funded by all the Indian carriers and airports— governmental and private—and not by his party or himself. Mudra Communications Limited, which handled the airline’s advertising at that time, was given the brief to devise the six-part campaign, but the onus for coordination was left to Raghu Menon, as the CMD of Air India, and Arun Mishra, then joint secretary in the Ministry of Civil Aviation (and now the director general of civil aviation (DGCA). Mr Menon was reluctant to be associated with the exercise but was unable to turn down the minister’s request. On the plea that I had the requisite communication background, Mr Menon suggested that I should liaise with Mr Mishra and accomplish what Mr Patel desired. When I met Mr Mishra, he was just as reluctant about the entire exercise, but he, too, could not say no. The meeting of the representatives of all the airlines and airports had been convened for the same afternoon, and I was compelled to chair the meeting. I apprised the representatives of the different airlines and the airport officials about the rationale of the campaign, informed them that the minister had wanted it done and that their respective companies were expected to contribute towards the expenses incurred. I also told them that the minister had already sounded out their bosses. The amount ranged from
2 crore for full service carriers, i.e., Air India, Jet Airways and Kingfisher Airlines, and airport operators, i.e., GMR, GVK and Airports Authority of India, and between
50 lakh and
1 crore for low-cost carriers like SpiceJet, Go Air, Indigo and Pawan Hans. I read out the contribution details as worked out by the minister’s office and handed over to me. Considering that the impact of the economic meltdown and resultant drop in the number of passengers was still being felt by the airlines, they were reluctant to commit before checking with their owners or promoters and CMDs.