Airlines resist Adani’s Navi Mumbai push over slots, costs and readiness

• Airlines have challenged MIAL’s plan to shift international services to Navi Mumbai, raising concerns about infrastructure, costs and protection of existing slots

• The operator cites safety concerns at Mumbai’s ageing Terminal 1, but its deadlines and warnings of service suspension have put the consultation process under scrutiny

• Passengers face higher airport charges and possible transfers between airports, while Bengaluru offers a useful comparison on building dependable surface connectivity

The proposed transfer of international flights from Mumbai to Navi Mumbai has become a dispute over who controls airline schedules — and who bears the cost of redevelopment — as the Adani-operated airport seeks to move services despite objections from foreign carriers.

Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) says rebuilding the ageing Terminal 1 is essential for safety and requires a temporary reduction in passenger-handling capacity. Airlines, however, have questioned the capacity calculations, consultation process and operational readiness of Navi Mumbai International Airport (NMIA).

The disagreement has now acquired immediate consequences. According to a Times of India report, 12 of the 50 international airlines operating at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA) have not received slots there for Summer 2027. Their affected operations collectively cover about 16 daily flights to 14 international destinations. timesofindia.indiatimes.com

That development sharpens the central question: how voluntary is a transition if retaining an existing service at Mumbai is no longer an available option?

Foreign airlines, including Air France and Emirates, have approached the Ministry of Civil Aviation over the proposal. The Airport Operators’ Committee in Mumbai has described the capacity reduction as unilateral and sought protection of airlines’ historical slots.

Carriers have also challenged the assessment of Terminal 1’s existing capacity and the justification for the proposed reduction. These are significant questions because the operator’s capacity declaration determines how much flying must be displaced.

MIAL initially sought to move 265 of Mumbai’s 770 weekly international operations from late October. Government intervention pushed the proposed transition to the summer schedule beginning in late March 2027.

The operator subsequently set a 3 November deadline for airlines to submit transition plans. Its stated alternatives — move services to Navi Mumbai or temporarily suspend them — have left carriers negotiating under the threat of losing access to an established gateway.

MIAL disputes the suggestion that the exercise is abrupt or unilateral. Reporting on its communication to the government also indicates that some foreign airlines suggested a destination-based approach to relocation. Such discussions, however, do not establish agreement among all affected carriers on the final allocation of services. special.ndtv.com

The operator’s safety case is substantial. According to AAHL, the roughly 60-year-old Terminal 1B has structural problems, with an IIT Bombay audit identifying corrosion, concrete deterioration and cracks. A fire in April added urgency to the redevelopment.

Work is scheduled to begin in January 2027, with the northern section of Terminal 1B demolished first. The redevelopment is expected to increase Terminal 1’s annual capacity from 15 million to 20 million passengers.

AAHL chief executive Arun Bansal has said approximately five million passengers, or nine per cent of CSMIA’s annual capacity, would be affected temporarily. He maintains that Navi Mumbai makes phased reconstruction possible and that consultations on Terminal 1’s future have continued since 2020.

Yet consultation on rebuilding a terminal is not necessarily consent to relocating international flights. Airlines’ objections concern which services must move, how the choices are made and whether the receiving airport can support them.

Emirates has questioned the availability of catering, cargo warehousing and other facilities needed for a complete international operation. IATA has sought an independent assessment covering ground handling, cargo, crew accommodation and connectivity.

For established carriers, splitting operations means potentially duplicating staff, equipment and support arrangements while disrupting connections built around Mumbai’s existing domestic and international network.

Indian carriers have begun accepting phased changes. Official announcements envisage Air India Express services expanding from Navi Mumbai from December, with West Asia operations following in January. IndiGo plans to begin international operations there from February 2027. These commitments provide a transition framework, but do not resolve foreign airlines’ concerns.

Passengers face a separate financial burden. The international departure user development fee cited for Navi Mumbai is Rs 1,225, compared with Rs 615 for an economy passenger departing from CSMIA—almost twice as much.

Landing-fee waivers may encourage airlines, while proposed cash vouchers could offset some passenger charges. Neither measure by itself addresses the continuing expense of reaching the airport or transferring between two airports roughly 40 kilometres apart.

Authorities have announced complimentary hourly inter-airport shuttles and bus connections. MSRTC’s e-Shivai services link Navi Mumbai airport with Dadar, Borivali and Pune, with fares of Rs 170, Rs 210 and Rs 450 respectively. These are useful beginnings, but passengers need frequencies and operating hours that match flight schedules, particularly for early departures and late arrivals.

Bengaluru offers a relevant comparison. Kempegowda International Airport is also around 40 kilometres from the city, yet passengers have an established Vayu Vajra airport-bus network alongside intercity buses, taxis and app-based cabs. BMTC provides a dedicated platform for airport timetables, fares, journey planning and live-route tracking.

The lesson is about dependable access rather than distance alone. Mumbai’s proposed redistribution also creates an additional complication: passengers may need to connect between airports, rather than simply travel from the city to one departure terminal.

Safety provides a compelling reason to rebuild Terminal 1. It also places a responsibility on the operator and the ministry to demonstrate that the resulting disruption is proportionate and fairly managed.

A credible transition requires published capacity assumptions, transparent slot decisions, independently assessed operational readiness and clear arrangements for passengers whose journeys cross both airports. Without those safeguards, the promise of a complementary airport system risks becoming a relocation imposed through control over slots.

With agency inputs