An airport operator may manage terminals, runways and other facilities. It does not own the city’s connectivity and town planning for the future. This distinction seems obscured by Adani Airports Holdings chief executive when he told international airlines they could move operations to Navi Mumbai or temporarily stop flying to Mumbai.

His comparison, as quoted in the media, is telling: “My landlord says vacate the house. He can tell me to vacate the house; after that, what I do is my choice. Similarly, we are telling airlines, from April you have to vacate [the slots at Mumbai airport], after that where you go is your choice.”

There is an arrogance in this proposition that deserves public scrutiny.

When a corporate group controls both airports serving a city of Mumbai’s economic importance, the power to determine where airlines may operate begins to resemble control over the city’s access to the world.

What gives a private concessionaire the authority to issue what sounds like an eviction notice to international airlines? And who holds the operator accountable when such decisions affect millions of passengers, businesses and the city’s economic interests?

Also Read:
The Mumbai Airport Shuffle: MIAL vs the Airlines, or a Question of Authority?

The larger concern is the concentration of strategic infrastructure in private hands, accompanied by an extraordinary asymmetry of voice. Corporate interests have access to the negotiating table, government has the authority to decide, but the citizen who bears the consequences has no seat at either. When public infrastructure is governed through this imbalance, the question of whose interests are being served cannot be avoided.

A (real estate) landlord may exercise discretion over her / his property. A strategic infrastructure operator like a highway, airport, or port carries obligations beyond those of a landlord. 

Mumbai’s airport is an essential public gateway for commerce, tourism, employment, investment and international mobility. Its capacity decisions affect passengers, exporters, businesses and the metropolitan economy. A private concession cannot turn these consequences into private convenience.

There is a legitimate case for rebuilding Terminal 1. 

The operator cites its age and structural concerns. The project is expected to raise annual passenger-handling capacity from 15 million to 20 million. Mumbai airport handles around 55 million passengers annually, and the operator says capacity must temporarily fall by five million during the works. Safety-related redevelopment cannot be postponed simply because airlines find transition difficult.

But the manner of transition matters. MIAL’s original proposal envisaged reducing 265 of 770 weekly international departures from Terminal 2, a cut of roughly one-third. Its subsequent proposal identifies 14 international destinations and seeks to move all flights serving those destinations to Navi Mumbai.

The operator argues that this would avoid splitting services to the same destinations between two airports and reduce passenger confusion. Airlines, however, have questioned the basis for the capacity reduction, the consultation process, Navi Mumbai’s readiness and the treatment of historical slots. IATA has raised concerns about ground handling, cargo, catering and maintenance. These objections require substantive answers, not dismissal as resistance to change.

The distinction between offering an alternative and compelling a choice is fundamental. Navi Mumbai is a valuable addition to regional aviation capacity. But airlines have built networks, crew arrangements, cargo relationships, ground-handling contracts and passenger connections around Mumbai over decades. 

Splitting operations between distant airports imposes costs. Passengers connecting between domestic and international flights may face more travel time, expense and uncertainty. A choice becomes less voluntary when the alternative is losing access to a major metropolitan market.

The larger question is whether Navi Mumbai is being developed as an additional airport or positioned as an alternative for traffic that Mumbai cannot accommodate during redevelopment. The stated purpose of a second airport was to complement the existing one, meet growing demand and expand capacity across the Mumbai Metropolitan Region. If the airports are treated principally as substitutes, has the original planning ambition been diluted?

Airports and the City
The dispute exposes a metropolitan planning deficit. Airport strategy cannot be separated from land use, public transport, road capacity, cargo corridors and commercial geography. The proposed Metro Line 8 linking the airports recognises the need for integration, but a future connection cannot answer how passengers will travel between them now. Who accounts for additional journey time and cost? What connectivity and service standards must be in place before traffic shifts? A global city needs authorities capable of planning airports and transport as one system.

The concern is sharper because the same corporate group operates both airports. Common ownership may aid coordination. But the usual competitive discipline between independent operators is absent. The proposed alternative belongs to the same group as the established gateway. Could control over scarce capacity at one airport influence traffic allocation to another asset in the same portfolio? What safeguards ensure decisions serve passengers and the public?

This raises market-power questions, though legal findings belong to competent authorities. Airports are capital-intensive, geographically fixed infrastructure with limited substitutes. Their market power is shaped by location, capacity, connectivity and slot rules. An airline cannot relocate an established network at a tenant’s notice, and passengers cannot regard airports serving a major city as interchangeable. Where infrastructure power is concentrated, procedural fairness and regulatory scrutiny become especially important.

Private vs Public Purpose
The government’s role cannot be confined to mediating between a concessionaire and its airline customers. The Ministry of Civil Aviation must require transparent capacity assessments, independent technical scrutiny and a credible transition schedule. Slot allocation must follow published rules, with due regard to historical slots, subject to applicable guidelines, safety and genuine capacity constraints. The regulator should examine whether the reduction is proportionate, alternatives were assessed, and decisions advantage the operator’s other airport. The public deserves evidence behind the proposed removal of five million passengers’ annual capacity and an account of how the burden will be distributed.

There is also a question of accountability. If redevelopment serves the public interest, why should its consequences be negotiated as a commercial inconvenience for airlines? What will protect passengers, connecting traffic, cargo movement and the city’s international links? Who bears the additional cost when journeys become longer or more expensive? These questions need answers before transition, not after disruption becomes visible.

India needs private capital to build infrastructure. It also needs operators who understand that a public-purpose concession is a compact with the state and society. Commercial returns carry obligations. The more indispensable the infrastructure, the greater the duty to exercise power with restraint, transparency and regard for those who depend on it.

Navi Mumbai airport should succeed because it offers airlines and passengers an efficient, reliable option. Its growth should be earned through readiness, service quality and genuine choice. It should complement Mumbai, expand regional capacity and create economic opportunity, not depend on weakening access to the established airport. The state must ensure infrastructure concessions do not become instruments through which private operators decide who gets to connect with a city.

 A country aspiring to become a global aviation and economic hub cannot have its gateways governed by a landlord’s sense of entitlement. Strategic infrastructure may be privately operated. Its obligations remain public.