After Latest Crash, Spotlight on Air India's History of Ignoring Whistleblowers
Tarushi Aswani
a minute ago
At least three former staffers have said their concerns around safety procedures, training protocols and more were ignored – and they were eventually fired from the airline.
Wreckage of the crashed Air India plane being lifted through a crane, in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, Saturday, June 14, 2025. Photo: PTI/Kunal Patil
New Delhi: On June 12, the tragic crash of Air India flight AI 171, headed from Ahmedabad's Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport to London's Gatwick, left the world in shock. More than 250 people died – those who were on the flight and those in the building the plane crashed into.
Since the crash, it appears as though Air India just can't stay out of the news. Multiple of the airline's flights have been cancelled or had to return without reaching their destination owing to technical snags and crew-duty delays.
On June 16, for instance, a Delhi-bound Air India flight from Hong Kong returned to its airport of origin, after the pilot in command suspected a technical issue, more specifically a noise in the door of the aircraft. On June 23, an Air India Express flight from Delhi to Srinagar via Jammu returned to Delhi after suspected 'GPS interference'. Air India Express is a wholly owned subsidiary of Air India.
Air India under DGCA scanner
In his first public statement since the crash AI 171 crash, Tata Sons and Air India chairman N. Chandrasekaran voiced deep sorrow and concern for the loss of lives. 'It is an extremely difficult situation where I have no words to express to console any of the families of those who died,' he said.
While Tata Sons and Air India maintain that there was no history of issues with the said aircraft, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) comes out strongly against the very recently privatised Air India. The DGCA has ordered Air India to remove three of its staffers from crucial operational duties and issued a stern warning for 'repeated and serious violations' related to pilot duty scheduling and oversight, with the regulator stating it could suspend the airline's licence in case of future breaches.
Also read: Quality Concerns in Dreamliners That Boeing Sold to Air India Had Given a Manager Nightmares
This move by the DGCA was mandated by what it said were 'systemic failures in crew scheduling, compliance monitoring, and internal accountability' — raising serious questions about the airline's attitude to passenger safety.
The DGCA has also said that 'any future violation of crew scheduling norms, licensing, or flight time limitations detected in any post-audit or inspection, will attract strict enforcement action, including but not limited to penalties, license suspension, or withdrawal of operator permissions as applicable'.
Silencing whistleblowers
In 2021, when a former Air India pilot raised faults within the firm he had been working with for almost two decades, he noticed unusual behaviour on the part of the company.
The pilot began writing to his higher ups about crucial issues within the organisation – ranging from a lackadaisical approach towards training protocols to a relaxed adherence to safety norms, even before the company was taken over by Tata Sons in January 2022. He alleged that some pilots were cheating during their training, and that because of an AI training module, the courses for co-pilots to become captains were extremely basic.
In one of his emails, all of which The Wire has access to, the former pilot wrote to Campbell Wilson, chairman, Air India to bring to his 'attention to the violations and deviations committed by Air India in the process of selecting trainers who are entrusted with the enormous responsibility of training and checking all the flight crew of Air India'. The email was sent in 2022.
In another email, the former pilot wrote, 'there have been a number of instances of 'Fume Events' or cabin air contamination in the Airbus fleet. Many cases have not been reported as pilots themselves are not aware of the seriousness of the issue and even when pilots/cabin crew report it, the engineers too brush it away, sometimes even blaming it on the sanitisers used to clean the cabin.' This was also penned in 2022.
Again highlighting safety issues with aircraft, the employee emailed his higher ups about a GPWS warning on the morning flight AI650 from Amritsar to Mumbai on September 8, 2022. 'The crew could not configure the aircraft and inspite of a GPWS warning elected to go ahead and land, whereas it is required to execute a Go-Around (sic),' he wrote.
In a letter written in 2023 to Tata Group chairman Chandrasekaran, where the pilot has stated how during his service, he consistently highlighted unsafe flight operations in Air India in several emails to Chandrasekaran as well as Wilson. He also included the letters he had earlier sent his superiors.
'When I was in Air India, I raised a lot of concerns about safety issues, training protocols and even cost cutting. Ultimately it is these issues which come together to cause an accident. In aviation, it is not just one thing that causes the loss of lives, it is when too many factors come together to cause a crash,' the pilot said.
'Few of us pointed out concerns, but they sidelined these very pressing issues,' said the former Air India pilot who had reached out to the Tata CEO. He also added that there were deficiencies and corruption in training of pilots and suppression of serious slight safety violations.
'They didn't consider that people would actually suffer because of these concerns insiders raised. People who found faults within the system were just fired,' he added.
'If they continue like this, more people will die. My intention is not to serve any motive. I don't want more accidents to happen, or people to die,' said the former pilot, who was let go after he raised several complaints to flag discrepancies within Air India. His firing reportedly took place one day after he wrote to Chandrasekaran and Wilson, and he never received a response from either of them. While letting him go, the company told the pilot that he had violated the Tata code of conduct.
After the recent crash, two senior Air India flight attendants wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi claiming they were terminated from service by the airline after they refused to change their statement about a technical problem with a Boeing 787 in May 2024. They have demanded a CBI probe into the issue.
They said they were fired after they refused to alter their statements about a technical snag in a Boeing 787 Dreamliner door in May 2024. They alleged the Dreamliner's door had malfunctioned as the slide raft deployed, though the door was opened in the "manual mode". This incident concerns the Mumbai-London B787 (VT-ANQ) opera flight AI-129, after it docked at Heathrow and the passengers disembarked. 'We refused to change our statements despite considerable pressure exerted on us by higher authorities,' the letter said, naming three senior officials.
In March this year, Air India terminated the services of a trainer pilot following a whistleblower complaint regarding lapses during simulator training and grounded 10 of his under trainees.
Answers and anxieties
Since the crash, Air India and Tata Sons seem to be sinking in a quicksand box of questions.
Bookings too have taken a hit, as Air India flights have declined by around 20% on domestic as well as international routes while the average fares have dropped by 8-15% in the aftermath of the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner crash.
The Wire reached out to Air India for their comments on the allegations made by the pilot as well as the administrative culture in question.
The Air India spokesperson responded by saying, "We have no record of any employment termination resulting from an employee reporting operational irregularities. Air India, like all Tata group companies, strictly adheres to the Tata Code of Conduct, which – on the contrary – encourages employees to report potential violations of the Code, policies, laws, or misconduct."
The spokesperson added, 'Co-pilots upgrade to Captains as per the eligibility criteria defined in our manuals, which is amongst the most stringent in the Indian aviation industry. The syllabus for these training is defined by the DGCA in the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR), and the same is followed by all airlines in India.'
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Train fare for Konkan surges due to demand
Mumbai: The recent 25% cap on waitlisted (WL) train tickets for all classes has pushed up dynamic pricing in long-distance trains to Konkan from Mumbai. The demand for Konkan-bound trains usually shoots up before the Ganpati festival. (PTI) According to sources, a few trains departing from LTT, Panvel, Kalyan and Vasai just before the festival have provided an option of surge fares ranging from 120% to a whopping 260% of the actual fare against a confirmed ticket (see box). This has also given a thrust to the need to extend the cap on WL tickets from the recent flat 25% to 30-60% depending on the coach class. An internal communication issued by the Railway Board to the zonal railways on June 28, stated, 'It has been decided that the maximum current waiting list limits will be revised to 60% and 30% of the redefined capacity of each class available at originating as well as roadside stations for air-conditioned and non-air-conditioned classes respectively.' However, senior railway officials told HT on June 30 that this revision had not been implemented and was still being mulled upon. According to Central Railway officials, there are a few trains on which dynamic pricing is in place. Under this form of pricing, also known as surge pricing or flexi-fare, train ticket prices fluctuate based on demand. Flexi-fares are not for popular trains such as the Tutari Express, Konkan Kanya, Netravati Express or Matsyagandha Express but for the AC class of less popular trains. 'The average surge price for a confirmed ticket is anywhere from 120% to 260% of the original ticket price or even higher, depending on the date and period of travel,' said a senior rail official. 'We understand that fares are touching ₹ 5,000 in select trains for 1AC but there are clients who are ready to pay.' Given this high demand, the railways are seeking a cap on WL tickets at anywhere between 30% to 60% depending on the class (sleeper, 3AC, 2AC, 1AC). Starting June 16, the Railway Board had implemented a flat cap of 25% for WL tickets for all classes. By doing this, they wanted to restrict the number of people coming to railway stations with WL tickets. Sources said that over the fortnight, the inspection of many long-distance mail and express trains to gauge booking trends brought to light that first AC and second AC coaches were running emptier than usual. 'As it is, the allotment of seats through roadside stations is less than at the main terminal stations, and the 25% cap has been further reducing the chances of seats being occupied,' explained another rail official. 'For instance, 1AC has 12 seats and only three of these can be waitlisted. If there is a cancellation, the seat goes empty.' Meanwhile, starting July 1, Indian Railways will implement a nationwide passenger fare hike for long-distance travel, marking the first such revision in five years. The fare increase will impact second class, sleeper and AC passengers, with rates adjusted according to distance and class of travel. For second-class passengers, fares will remain unchanged for journeys up to 500 km. The sleeper and first-class fares will increase by 0.5 paise per kilometre on long-distance trains, and by 1 paisa per kilometre on mail/express services. For AC classes, including chair car, AC 3-tier/3-economy, AC 2-tier and first/executive class, fares will increase by two paise per kilometre. The revised fare structure will also apply to premium and special trains such as Rajdhani, Shatabdi, Duronto, Vande Bharat, Tejas, Humsafar and others.
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
Why 125+ CFOs have resigned in Q1. Hint: it's personal
Mumbai: More than 125 chief financial officers (CFOs) have exited listed companies in the first three months of FY26 — a sharp 25% jump from a year earlier — as per disclosures made to the BSE. Some of them walked out overnight, citing a cryptic phrase, 'personal reasons'. The sudden resignation last Monday of Mastek Ltd's CFO Raghavendra Jha, barely a month into the job, is the latest in a string of such departures. In a one-line email addressed to the company's chief executive, Jha said he was putting in his papers due to personal reasons, without providing any other detail. Such exits have cast doubts about corporate governance and regulatory compliance. When a listed company's key managerial personnel, including CFOs, resign, they are required to provide a detailed reason for their departure, as per the listing obligations and disclosure requirements of market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi). Experts said the KMPs are merely ticking the box in terms of complying with this requirement by citing vague reasons when resigning. 'The abrupt resignation of key managerial personnel, especially CFOs, often signals deeper issues within a company," said V. Balakrishnan, a former CFO at IT services major Infosys Ltd and founder of Exfinity Ventures, a venture capital fund. 'While regulators require disclosure of resignation reasons, the frequent use of vague terms like 'personal reasons' has become a convenient cover." Balakrishnan pointed out that in several instances, irregularities at companies have surfaced shortly after such exits. For example, Ankit Jain, the former CFO of Gensol Engineering, resigned in early March citing personal reasons and pursuit of other professional avenues as the reason for his departure. A month later, Sebi released its interim order against the company and its promoters, disclosing severe lapses in governance and diversion of funds. Similarly, IndusInd Bank's former CFO Gobind Jain's resignation this January was followed in March by the bank disclosing that it had financial discrepancies of over ₹2,000 crore in its derivatives portfolio. Jain had cited personal travel to the US and pursuit of other career opportunities as the reason for his exit. 'This raises serious concerns and strengthens the case for Sebi to broaden the disclosure mandate," said Balakrishnan. 'The onus must be on the board to reconcile these stated reasons with any financial lapses discovered later, and to be held accountable for any oversight or complicity." Currently, Ankit Jain is the CFO of SB-Constantia Flexibles, a joint venture between Constantia, an Austrian firm, and SB Packagings, a Delhi-based packaging firm. To be sure, in most cases when executives resign citing personal reasons, they end up joining a different firm. The pursuit of another career is the second most-cited reason for exits. However, experts say that the ambiguity created by this term allows even cases where there are serious issues at the firm to pass under the radar. Shriram Subramanian, a corporate governance expert and managing director of proxy advisory firm InGovern, said boards need to be cognizant that they are working in the interest of shareholders. 'If there is any other reason for the resignation like fraud or disciplinary action, they should disclose as much to the exchanges instead of letting it slide as 'personal reason'," he said. Meanwhile, Mumbai-headquartered IT services company Mastek, which ended FY25 with $408.4 million in revenue and is valued at $890 million, said there were no governance concerns behind CFO Jha's resignation in just over a month of joining. Jha did not respond toMint's messages requesting comment. 'We are not happy with having two CFOs in the last six months; it creates a wrong impression," said Ashank Desai, the company's chairman. Last December, Arun Agarwal had resigned as CFO after serving in the role for just over four years. 'Mastek stands for the highest corporate governance. I can vouch for it," said Desai, who co-founded the company in 1982.
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
Law firms weigh taking Air India to court in US, UK
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Mumbai: Two international law firms are in discussions with families of victims of the June 12 Air India plane crash for filing potential lawsuits in the US or the UK against the airline to claim legal rights under existing international laws. These lawsuits would be independent of additional steps Tata Sons may be taking to compensate these families including attorney group comprises UK-based Keystone Law and US-domiciled Wisner Law Firm."Our international legal group has been discussing this for the past week with the families of the UK crash victims; it is an important part of the aftermath of AI 171," said James Healy-Pratt, partner at Keystone Law and part of the firm's investigation group. "We are looking carefully at the evidence, as well as considering whether to file legal proceedings in the US courts against Boeing, together with similar proceedings against Air India in the High Court in London."He said Article 33 of the Montreal Convention allows families to pursue claims in jurisdictions like the US or UK if the airline has operations there or if the victims have ties to those Articles 17 and 21 of the Montreal Convention provide for unlimited liability in case of passenger death or injury, according to the law firm."The team is also reviewing Air India's insurer Tata AIG's early settlement offers (to the families of victims) and the airline's obligation under international law to make advance payments to next of kin," Healy-Pratt group is conducting a technical probe of the crash of Air India's Boeing 787 Dreamliner plane in Ahmedabad and will file lawsuits at a suitable time on behalf of the affected legal efforts are being led by aviation specialists James Healy-Pratt and Owen Hanna, working in association with Chicago-based Wisner Law Firm. The US firm, an aviation litigation specialist, is also advising clients in the Air India Express crash of August India and Boeing together have about $4 billion in aviation insurance coverage, including a $1.5 billion policy of Air India for such tragedies. This coverage may be used to settle court-ordered payments in the UK or some families, this could mean suing Air India in the London High Court for unlimited liability and full compensation under English law. Others may file cases in the US federal court in Virginia against Boeing, based on evidence gathered, also seeking full compensation and unlimited liability under US Khatalawala, managing partner at Little & Co, said the key advantage of any litigation in the US or UK lies in the broader compensation scope and legal processes. "These jurisdictions offer extensive discovery, expert testimonies, and, in the US, jury trials-which can lead to higher damages," he in these countries are also seen as more plaintiff-friendly, especially in cases involving manufacturer fault or gross negligence. However, experts caution that jurisdictional issues could delay proceedings, particularly when multiple defendants or cross-border elements are involved. "If any deceased passengers were permanent US residents, the likelihood of a successful US jurisdiction claim increases," said Satyendra Shrivastava, co-founding partner at Consortia Legal. "It's unclear, though, if UK and Canadian nationals on the flight had such status."Indian courts may resolve jurisdictional matters faster when an airline has operations in the country or the passengers were Indian nationals, although overall case disposal is Tata Sons is setting up a '500 crore trust to support families of the 241 people killed on board the aircraft and 34 on the ground due to the accident.
