Why are we going against our own domestic airline players? Why do we need foreign players? Won’t the new 0/20 rule derail the already fragile domestic airlines industry? Doesn’t Make in India principles apply to civil aviation?
Frankly, a lot of misperception seems to be in the air. In recent times, the Centre has been giving clear indications of continuing liberalisation agenda in the aviation sector. Though the National Civil Aviation Policy, 2016, took a long time to be finalised and took perhaps more time and inputs from stakeholders than was expected, at least it has brought to a good close many important–and for long controversial–aspects, such as the 5/20 rule for international operations.
In fact, many people questioned the somewhat open-ended approach the government had taken on this at the draft stage and there was a feeling that the policy on this aspect may even be put off for the future. Thankfully, the government has taken a clear and correct position of moving ahead with further liberalisation by bringing in the 0/20 rule and thus giving more choices to those flying overseas.
When we study the key objectives of the policy, such as significant growth in the civil aviation sector, or contributing to increased tourism, or enhanced ease of doing business, and which all are the right objectives, and then apply the test to see if we are moving towards achievement of these objectives, it is quite apparent that the changed position of the government – 0/20 rule for international operations – is more aligned to achievement of its stated objectives than the existing position of 5/20.
Any liberalisation is good for the consumer and therefore, we must pursue it. Having said that, any liberalisation that is brought in an ad hoc or rushed manner, or with no consideration for the evolving domestic players, may have pitfalls that need to be carefully considered. The so-called level-playing field demanded by some of the existing players did not really merit postponement of liberalisation as they had more than adequate time to gain their own advantages, they definitely should not have expected a permanently restrictive policy. And frankly, not taking full advantage of the time they had is not an issue that the government should worry about seriously.
03/07/16 Amrit Pandurangi/Deccan Herald
To Read the News in full at Source, Click the Headline
Frankly, a lot of misperception seems to be in the air. In recent times, the Centre has been giving clear indications of continuing liberalisation agenda in the aviation sector. Though the National Civil Aviation Policy, 2016, took a long time to be finalised and took perhaps more time and inputs from stakeholders than was expected, at least it has brought to a good close many important–and for long controversial–aspects, such as the 5/20 rule for international operations.
In fact, many people questioned the somewhat open-ended approach the government had taken on this at the draft stage and there was a feeling that the policy on this aspect may even be put off for the future. Thankfully, the government has taken a clear and correct position of moving ahead with further liberalisation by bringing in the 0/20 rule and thus giving more choices to those flying overseas.
When we study the key objectives of the policy, such as significant growth in the civil aviation sector, or contributing to increased tourism, or enhanced ease of doing business, and which all are the right objectives, and then apply the test to see if we are moving towards achievement of these objectives, it is quite apparent that the changed position of the government – 0/20 rule for international operations – is more aligned to achievement of its stated objectives than the existing position of 5/20.
Any liberalisation is good for the consumer and therefore, we must pursue it. Having said that, any liberalisation that is brought in an ad hoc or rushed manner, or with no consideration for the evolving domestic players, may have pitfalls that need to be carefully considered. The so-called level-playing field demanded by some of the existing players did not really merit postponement of liberalisation as they had more than adequate time to gain their own advantages, they definitely should not have expected a permanently restrictive policy. And frankly, not taking full advantage of the time they had is not an issue that the government should worry about seriously.
03/07/16 Amrit Pandurangi/Deccan Herald
