Airport operators, AAI flag concerns over proposed service quality norms

There’s much action on the ground for matters related to the sky. It stems from the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India’s (Aera’s) intent to enforce uniform service quality standards — a move airport operators are raising strong concerns over.

 

It started with Aera issuing a draft consultation paper on August 18, seeking to create a national framework for quality, continuity, and reliability of services across Indian airports. Airport operators fear if the norm comes into play, it would cause signi­ficant disruption. The proposed framework, they argued, has impractical provisions, disproportionate penalties, the potential for financial and contractual disputes, and could have “significant revenue impact”.

 

There are concerns over various requirements such as uploading passenger complaints; baggage-handling timelines; wheelchair assistance; reliance on peak-hour performance metrics; penalty and incentive mechanism; rules for greenfield airports; and the accountability of third-party providers such as caterers and ground handlers. Among other things, the draft consultation paper proposes a system of rebates through reduced user development fees (UDF) if service deficiencies are found, and modest incentives for exceeding standards.

 

The framework identifies 32 measurable and 18 qualitative parameters, including baggage delivery timelines; speed of security and immigration clearance; passenger arrival time from aircraft door to terminal; and the quality and availability of lifts, escalators, travellators, medical facilities, wheelchairs, baby care rooms, aerobridges, and WiFi. Performance would be monitored through monthly surveys, making the standards both enforceable and verifiable.

 

At a stakeholder meeting on September 10 attended by airlines, airport operators, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), and the Quality Council of India, Aera Chairperson SKG Rahate defended the initiative. Since passengers fund airport development through UDF, the goal is to ensure “continuous improvement” in facilities and service delivery, he said.

 

Business Standard has reviewed the minutes of the September 10 meeting.

 

AAI flags operational hurdles

 

The government-run Airports Authority of India (AAI) pointed out that a uniform service standards model might not work across the diverse portfolio of airports. AAI operates over 100 airports.

 

Khurram Naseem, an AAI official, said requiring 100 per cent of passenger complaints to be uploaded to the Air Sewa portal within 24 hours was unrealistic since complaints must be registered by passengers themselves. Also, buggy services, mandated in the draft, were unnecessary at smaller airports, and Wi-Fi was less critical for domestic passengers already relying on mobile data, he added.

 

Vikram Singh, another AAI official, sought infrastructure-based standards, such as mandating a fixed number of check-in counters per aircraft type, rather than relying solely on strict time-bound processes. He also flagged location-specific challenges, such as Chennai Airport’s remote stands, which make 15-minute timelines for baggage and passenger transfer unachievable.

 

He questioned the aerobridge allocation rules, stressing that usage depends on airline requests and that limited aerobridge availab­ility during night operations must be factored in. On medical facilities, he urged Aera to align with norms of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the United Nations aviation body, which require only first aid and referral services, not full medical support.

 

S S Raju, executive director (Operations), AAI, added that expecting compensation for lapses by government agencies such as CISF or immigration was impractical given outstanding dues and the absence of service-level agreements. He also raised concerns about handling 75-80 wheelchair requests on wide-body flights, the reliability of surveys during emergencies, and the feasibility of feedback from all passengers on facilities like washrooms or lounges.

 

Private airport operators miffed

 

Private operators managing India’s largest airports — including Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, and Hyderabad — aren’t happy.

 

Adani Airports, which runs seven airports in India, said the rebate-incentive structure was unbalanced. Its representative, Ashu Madan, said while penalties could amount to 5 per cent of UDF collections, incentives were capped at 1.25 per cent. Incentives, he proposed, be provided in cash to ensure effectiveness.

 

Madan said the framework should be rolled out in phases, over 2-3 years, since an immediate shift could disrupt operations. He added that higher service benchmarks often require capital and operational expenditure, and that such investments be automatically recognised in the Multi-Year Tariff Proposal. He sought clarity on how the norms would apply to Delhi and Mumbai airports, which predate Aera’s regulatory framework. These airports follow the service standards laid out in the concession agreements signed between the private player and AAI at the time of airport privatisation. Madan urged that the deadline for submissions be extended. Adani Airports manages the Mumbai airport and the soon-to-be-operational Navi Mumbai one.

 

Harsh Gulati, a representative of GMR Group-led Delhi International Airport Ltd (DIAL), which manages Delhi airport, pointed to a potential clash between Aera’s framework and existing concession agreements that define its compensation and service obligations. Criticising the proposed performance measurement during absolute peak hours, he said it would skew results by capturing outlier conditions and could lead to overbuilding and “unnecessary capital expenditure”.

 

He joined others in requesting for a 30-45-day extension for submissions.

 

Bangalore International Airport Ltd (BIAL), which manages Bengaluru airport, echoed DIAL’s concerns, and cautioned that measuring only festive or holiday peaks could penalise airports unfairly and inflate infrastructure spending.

Shobhit Agarwal, a BIAL representative, also pointed to the financial risks of a 5 per cent rebate, saying it could have a “significant revenue impact” on airport operators.

 

He, too, urged for a phased implementation and a 30-45-day extension to submit his comments. 

 

GMR Group’s K Narayana Rao called the penalty-incentive ratio inequitable and sought clarity on the role of third-party assessors. He suggested that if third-party agencies conduct surveys independently, there may be discrepancies in data such as passenger numbers or operational metrics, which could “potentially lead to disputes or litigation”. He requested that any third-party assessments be validated or clarified with the airport operator to “maintain accuracy and transparency”.

 

Noida International Airport, a greenfield project expected to start operations soon, asked for a moratorium period before performance monitoring begins. Its representative, Trisha Bedi, said new airports require time to stabilise infrastructure and systems before being held accountable under uniform standards. She, too, sought an extension for feedback submissions.

 

Aera’s response

 

Chairperson Rahate maintained the framework was designed to put passengers first. He said airport operators, as the coordinating entity for service delivery, must take responsibility even when multiple third-party agencies (caterers, ground handlers, etc) are involved.

 

“However, the suggestions for allowing airport operators to seek reimbursement or compensation for the penalty applicable to airport operators for service deficiencies primarily falling under the responsibility of airline/third-party service providers, deserves merit and would be examined for suitably incorporating in the overall framework,” he added.

 

He said segregating standards based on “individual airlines or aircraft types is neither feasible nor practical, especially at large airports, and would complicate implementation”.

 

He also said that phased implementation and moratoriums for greenfield airports could be considered, and invited operators to submit detailed written justifications on issues such as peak-hour sampling, aerobridge allocation, and

financial implications.

 

It might be a while before the runway to the framework becomes clear.