Iran-Israel war: Iran airspace shut, international flights from India to take longer
Representative image
NEW DELHI: Flights between the West and India, mainly Delhi and Mumbai, will get even longer following the Iranian airspace closure on Friday after Israel attacked the country's nuclear sites.
Sixteen Air India (AI) flights were impacted Friday, with the majority diverting and the others returning to origin.
AI had resumed overflying Iran shortly after Pakistan had closed its airspace to Indian carriers on April 24 to partially mitigate the longer route its flights had to take since then. While AI will have to take longer routes to and from the West, IndiGo between Delhi and Tbilisi and Delhi and Baku will become one-stop flights now.
With both Pakistan and Iran no-go areas, Indian carriers will have to take really longer routes to reach Central Asia.
"We are studying the situation and some AI flights may become one-stop after closure of Iran airspace," said sources.
Also, if and when Iran retaliates, the airspace of countries near Israel, like Jordan and Lebanon, also be impacted. This has in the past forced airlines to take longer detours in that area whenever conflict escalates.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025
Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List
"Due to the emerging situation in Iran, subsequent closure of its airspace, and in view of safety of our passengers, (some) Air India flights are either being diverted or returning to their origin. We regret the inconvenience caused to our passengers due to this unforeseen disruption and are making every effort to minimise it, including providing accommodation for passengers," Air India said Friday. "Refund on cancellation or complimentary rescheduling is also being offered to guests who opt for it.
Alternative arrangements are being made to fly passengers to their destinations. We advise passengers to check their flight status," AI added.
Air India flights impacted Friday were AI-130 (London Heathrow-Mumbai), diverted to Vienna; AI-102 (New York-Delhi), diverted to Sharjah; AI-116 (New York-Mumbai), diverted to Jeddah; AI-2018 (London Heathrow-Delhi), diverted to Mumbai; AI-129 (Mumbai-London Heathrow), returned to Mumbai; AI-119 (Mumbai-New York), returned to Mumbai; AI-103 (Delhi-Washington), returned to Delhi; AI-106 (Newark-Delhi), diverted to Vienna; AI-188 (Vancouver-Delhi), diverted to Jeddah; AI-101 (Delhi-New York), diverted to Frankfurt/Milan; and AI-126 (Chicago-Delhi), diverted to Jeddah.
Also impacted were AI-132 (London Heathrow-Bengaluru), diverted to Sharjah; AI-2016 (London Heathrow-Delhi), diverted to Vienna; AI-104 (Washington-Delhi), diverted to Vienna; AI-190 (Toronto-Delhi), diverted to Frankfurt; and AI-189 (Delhi-Toronto), returned to Delhi.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
No longer Canadian: Wayne Gretzky's Canadian identity questioned after Donald Trump friendship sparks controversy
Wayne Gretzky's association with Donald Trump has sparked controversy in Canada (Getty Images) Wayne Gretzky, one of Canada's most beloved sports figures, has found himself at the center of a firestorm — not for anything he did on the ice, but because of who he's standing beside politically. The hockey legend's long-standing relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump has fueled nationalistic backlash, especially as Trump continues to make inflammatory remarks about Canada. Canadian fans claim Wayne Gretzky has 'lost' his Canadian identity The controversy reached a boiling point earlier this year after Donald Trump proposed a 25% tariff on Canadian goods and even joked about Canada becoming the 51st U.S. state. During this tension, Trump publicly referred to Wayne Gretzky as a 'free agent' when it comes to choosing between the U.S. and Canada. That comment didn't sit well with many Canadians, who viewed it as both divisive and disrespectful. — daveryder (@daveryder) Matthew Iwanyk, Chief Operating Officer and host at Edmonton Sports Talk, voiced what many Canadians were feeling. 'You were a great Canadian, but now you are not,' he said in March, according to the New York Times. 'That is the majority sentiment you will get from Edmontonians. ... As much as we love hockey, we love our country more." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng CFDs với sàn môi giới tin cậy IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo This emotional reaction underscores how deep Gretzky's influence runs in Canadian culture — and how serious the fallout can be when that identity is questioned. Wayne Gretzky responds with diplomacy, but critics remain unswayed Despite the uproar, Gretzky has made it clear he wants no part in political warfare. Speaking with Ben Mulroney on Toronto's AM-640, he said, 'I don't worry about those kind of things because you can't make everybody happy... But, trust me, I have no political power with the prime minister or the president.' Still, images of Gretzky in a MAGA hat and attending Trump events with FBI Director Kash Patel haven't helped his case in the eyes of critics. His wife, Janet Gretzky, even posted — and later deleted — a heartfelt thank-you to fellow hockey icon Bobby Orr for defending Wayne: 'It has broken his heart to read and see the mean comments.' Also Read: Throwback to when Wayne Gretzky, Michael Jordan, and Bo Jackson became animated crime-fighters in 90s cult cartoon ProStars In the end, Gretzky's silence on Trump's policies may not be enough to protect his legacy from political fallout — especially in the country he once so proudly represented.
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
Eight yrs after inception, 7,310 plaints in MahaRERA backlog
Eight years after its formation in 2017,the state's real estate regulator, MahaRera, is still grappling with a significant backlog of unresolved complaints. Of 29,374 complaints filed so far, 7,310 remain pending, prompting calls from homebuyers, legal experts, and activists for faster redressal and stricter enforcement of orders. Although MahaRera has resolved 21,888 cases and holds online and offline hearings, the increasing number of unresolved cases has alarmed consumer groups. They stressed the need for appointment of more adjudicating officers and setting up of regional benches to manage the growing caseload. MahaRera has registered over 50,000 real estate projects — the highest among state regulators — with nearly 50% of them located in Mumbai Metropolitan Region and Pune. However, stakeholders argued that this operational scale has not been matched by adequate capacity to address consumer grievances. Currently, MahaRera has one chairperson, two members, and three adjudicating officers. Activist Godfrey Pimenta of the Watchdog Foundation pointed out that this limited setup cannot cope with the volume of complaints. "Some complaints take two to three years, and in exceptional cases, up to five years to be resolved — despite the law requiring them to be addressed within six months. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trade Bitcoin & Ethereum – No Wallet Needed! IC Markets Start Now Undo To effectively clear the growing backlog, there is an urgent need to increase the number of MahaRera members," he said. Shirish Deshpande, chairman of Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, added that section 20 of Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act gives the state full freedom to appoint more MahaRera chairpersons and establish additional benches. "It's been eight years since MahaRera was established, and yet we are witnessing an alarming backlog of cases, which is deeply disappointing for those who once supported its creation," he said. He explained that complaints typically fall into two categories: "First, is when homebuyers are seeking exit from the project and demanding refund with interest due to delay in getting possession. Second, is when homebuyers want to continue with the project despite delays but want interest on the amount they have paid as per section 18 of the Act. In both these cases, it should not take long for the authority to pass orders, since the interest rate is already prescribed in the Rera rules. Such matters can be disposed of expeditiously..." Follow more information on Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad here . Get real-time live updates on rescue operations and check full list of passengers onboard AI 171 .
Time of India
43 minutes ago
- Time of India
In battle of the delegations, real story lies in what went unsaid
In the aftermath of their recent military clash, rival delegations from Delhi and Islamabad converged on various global capitals, each aiming to shape elite opinion, win sympathy, and control the post-crisis narrative. Having witnessed some of the exchanges in London firsthand, the diplomatic duel across briefing rooms, think tanks, and diaspora events was as revealing for what was unsaid as for what was spoken. Messaging starts with messengers The difference in delegation profiles was notable. India's all-party parliamentary mission carried symbolic weight and cross-party legitimacy, including senior figures like Ravi Shankar Prasad and Pankaj Saran. Pakistan's team leaned more on technocrats and veteran advocates of global engagement, such as Sherry Rehman and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. India's group projected cohesion and resolve; Pakistan's aimed to influence narratives and broaden appeal. India's cautious case India's delegation framed Operation Sindoor as part of a broader shift: limited cross-border retaliation to terrorist acts as policy, not aberration. They emphasized terrorism as a global threat whose response merits international understanding—not moral equivalence. The delegation linked India's counterterrorism struggle to challenges faced by Western democracies, with Pakistan as a common denominator. In my observation, Indian representatives appeared quietly frustrated that while many countries expressed sympathy after Pahalgam and tacitly accepted India's right to act, few explicitly condemned Pakistan. Though confident in their message, their delivery often felt restrained. In think tanks, the tone was formal, even stiff; diaspora engagements were reportedly more fiery. Though most accepted the delegation's basic premise, some observers noted the irony in Delhi resisting calls to frame Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a shared threat but now seeking solidarity on Pakistani-based terrorism. Crucially, the delegation faltered when pressed on domestic radicalization. Two of the Pahalgam suspects were reportedly Indian nationals. Asked how New Delhi planned to prevent disillusionment turning to violence, the only response was that 'things today are better than in the 1990s.' This was a missed chance to demonstrate nuanced understanding of the challenge. Other inconsistencies emerged. India's representatives rejected 're-hyphenation' with Pakistan, yet much of their messaging focused on Islamabad. While stressing the quarrel was with Pakistan's military, not its people, questions about suspending the Indus Waters Treaty complicated that briefings took place inside the High Commission, with diaspora members complaining to me that they thought too much political outreach was aimed at UK politicians of Indian heritage. Playing it safe has a certain logic, but may have limited engagement with new or skeptical audiences. Pak's polished—but problematic—pitch If India played it safe, Pakistan opted for smooth. Their delegation turned up at major think tanks eager to engage and keen to appear misunderstood. With assistance from lobbying professionals, their narrative was tightly crafted for European audiences: Pakistan sought peace through dialogue, emphasising Kashmir as the 'unfinished legacy of Partition,' terrorism, and water. Pakistan said it wanted talks, a neutral investigation into Pahalgam, and accused India of refusing cooperation or prove culpability. This narrative of peace sat uneasily beside claims of military success and personal attacks on Indian leaders. Critique of Indian media spin might have bolstered believability had it not been accompanied by other factual distortions: legal sleight-of-hand over Kashmir, misreadings of UN resolutions, and claims that India admitted culpability for terrorism in most convincing moment came on the Indus Waters Treaty, where the stark picture painted of the consequences struck a chord, even if significant action has yet to follow. A key question remains: what was the objective? If persuasion abroad was the objective, the reliance on longstanding misrepresentations made it a difficult sell to informed audiences. If the goal was domestic signaling, that focus likely came at the expense of deeper foreign engagement. Simpler sell, harder ask Ultimately, the Indian delegation framed all terrorism as emanating from Pakistan; Pakistan framed it as emerging from Kashmir. The narratives didn't just clash—they barely shared the same terms of reference. As performative exercises providing content for domestic media, both probably succeeded on their own terms. In the battle to move international opinion, outcomes were uneven. India may have achieved more, but it also had the easier task — framing terrorism as a universal threat aligns with European security narratives. Pakistan, by contrast, asked outside actors to invest political capital in corralling New Delhi back to the negotiating table — a much harder sell. Yet neither side escaped contradiction. India's claim to strategic clarity was weakened by deflection on domestic aspects of terrorism in Kashmir. Pakistan's message of peace was blunted by triumphalism and tired tropes. In diplomacy, silence often speaks louder than words. In London last week, the most telling signals were what each side omitted, ignored, or performed for the audience they believed mattered most. Ladwig III is a senior lecturer at the department of War Studies, King's College London
