Tata Sons holds first board meeting after Air India plane crash
Tata Sons convened its first board meeting on Thursday following the Air India flight AI-171 crash in Ahmedabad, which claimed the lives of 241 passengers and crew members.
The Tata Sons meeting, attended by the nine-member board that oversees the operations of over 100 companies within the vast Tata conglomerate, saw chairman N Chandrasekaran provide a detailed update on the relief efforts and ongoing support for the victims' families.
People in the know of the proceedings revealed to PTI that Chandrasekaran apprised the board of the immediate steps taken by the Tata group since the Air India plane crash, which occurred on 12 June shortly after take-off from Ahmedabad en route to London Gatwick.
The Boeing Dreamliner disaster claimed the lives of at least 270 people, including 241 passengers and crew members, with only one survivor. The board collectively expressed their deepest condolences to the families of the deceased during the meeting.
Tata Sons emphasised its commitment to working closely with its majority shareholder, Tata Trusts, to extend and strengthen relief measures for those affected by the calamity.
The Tata group has announced a compensation package of ₹ 1 crore (approximately £100,000) to be provided to the next of kin of every victim. This gesture underscores the conglomerate's resolve to offer tangible support in the aftermath of the tragedy.
In addition to overseeing the group's broader response, Chandrasekaran has reportedly assumed direct control of Air India's day-to-day operations to ensure focused management during this critical period.
Tata Sons and Singapore Airlines invested ₹ 9,558 crore in loss-making Air India in 2024-25, with the promoters pumping in ₹ 4,306 crore alone in March this year, PTI reported.
The airline, being piloted by Tatas since January 2022, has embarked on an ambitious five-year transformation plan. In November 2024, Vistara -- a joint venture between Tatas and Singapore Airlines -- was merged with Air India, following which the Singaporean carrier acquired a 25.1 per cent stake in Air India.
Tata Sons invested ₹ 3,224.82 crore, and Singapore Airlines put in ₹ 6,333.18 crore in Air India, taking the total fund infusion to ₹ 9,558 crore in the financial year ended March 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
'If AI is the reason...': Viral post asks why companies are still asking for H-1Bs
A viral post claimed companies which are laying off are still looking for H-1Bs to hire. Amid a major layoff being announced by US companies, a post has gone viral which shows that Microsoft, one of the 10 companies employing foreign labor, sought 14,181 H-1Bs. The post shared the H-1B requirements of other companies, including Amazon, NVIDIA, Cisco, Goldman Sachs, Oracle, Apple etc. The post by investigative journalist Amanda Louise noted that despite tech layoffs, H-1B demand hasn't slowed down. "Microsoft just cut thousands of American they've already requested 14,181 more H-1B workers this year, and it's only Q2," the post noted. "If AI is the reason Americans are being let go, why are companies still asking for hundreds of thousands of foreign tech workers? Something doesn't add up." the post added. Social media users reacted to the post, starting the ongoing debate over H-1Bs eating up American jobs at a lower price. "AI: Another Indian," one comment read. "The obvious answer is the H1B system has ALWAYS only been about importing workers to drive down the wages of tech workers. This is why both parties, all the billionaires, and all the CEO's agree on this issue, they don't care about America - they only care about cheap workers!" one user wrote. "Any company that is firing people shouldn't be allowed to apply for H1B visas. There should be some kind of freeze period. This is just ridiculous," another wrote. "Not gonna say where I work but another big tech company. Our bosses frequently go to India on hiring sprees, while laying off thousands here. I need to learn how to farm and get a quiet place on the coast," one shared personal experience. In May, Microsoft announced cut of 6,000 roles targeting sales, management and non-coding roles. Intel plans to eliminate roughly 20 per cent of its workforce, which will come to around 21000 jobs. According to the latest data of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Trump administration selected 120, 141 H-1B visa applications for 2026.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 hours ago
- Business Standard
Meta in talks to acquire AI voice startup PlayAI for talent push
Meta Platforms Inc. is in advanced talks to acquire PlayAI, a small startup using artificial intelligence to replicate voices, part of the social media company's push to nab top talent and catch up in the AI race. Meta is expected to acquire the Palo Alto, California-based startup's technology and some of its employees, according to people familiar with the matter, who asked not to be named sharing private information. The deal is not yet finalized and could still change, the people said. Financial terms under discussion could not be learned. A Meta spokesperson declined to comment. A representative for PlayAI did not respond to request for comment. Meta Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg has made AI the company's top priority this year as it competes with rivals like Alphabet Inc.'s Google and OpenAI to build AI features. Meta invested $14.3 billion in data-labeling startup Scale AI earlier this month and recruited the firm's CEO to join a new 'superintelligence' team that Zuckerberg is building. Zuckerberg has also poached AI researchers from Google, Sesame AI Inc. and OpenAI for Meta's new 'superintelligence' team. Meta recently hired three OpenAI researchers from the ChatGPT maker's Zurich office, according to a person familiar with the hires. OpenAI confirmed their departure but declined to comment beyond that. The Wall Street Journal earlier reported Meta's latest hires. With the PlayAI deal, Meta could get added expertise to bring more voice features to its AI assistant and hands-free devices like smartglasses, a key area of focus for Zuckerberg. Other companies, including OpenAI and Google, have also added voice capabilities into their AI systems to build more compelling digital assistants. PlayAI creates AI-powered voice features with the goal of being as 'responsive as a conversation between two people,' according to a company blog post. The startup announced a $21 million funding round in late 2024 from several investors, including Kindred Ventures, Y Combinator and 500 Global. Zuckerberg has been actively hunting for AI deals. Meta held acquisition talks with Perplexity AI Inc. before finalizing its ScaleAI investment, Bloomberg News reported earlier this month. Meta also discussed a possible takeover of AI video startup Runway AI Inc., but it never reached a formal offer level, Bloomberg reported.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Fathoming America's plan to manage AI proliferation
The announcement by the United States of the rescission of its Framework for AI Diffusion, a set of export controls for Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology announced earlier this year, has been viewed as a good thing. The Framework was considered counterproductive to AI technology development and diplomatic relations. However, recent developments suggest that controls on AI are likely to persist, albeit in different forms. A flawed blueprint Earlier this year, during the final week of its tenure, the Joe Biden administration announced the AI Diffusion Framework. Combining export controls and export licences for AI chips and model weights, it effectively viewed AI like nuclear weapons. Under the proposed framework, countries such as China and Russia were embargoed, trusted allies were favoured, and others restricted in their access to advanced AI technology. The rationale for these rules was that computational power dictates AI capabilities: the greater the compute, the better the AI. In the last decade, the compute used in advanced AI models has nearly doubled every 10 months. Following this logic, for the U.S. to preserve its lead, it needed to prevent adversaries from acquiring powerful compute while ensuring that AI development stays within the U.S. and its close allies. While export controls on AI hardware predated the framework, they were not sweeping. The Framework aimed to tighten these controls and establish a predictable system to streamline regulatory processes and standardise conditions. However, imposing such sweeping restrictions, affecting adversaries and partners alike, brought many unintended effects, proving counterproductive. The framework set a concerning precedent for technology cooperation with the U.S., especially for its allies. It signalled U.S. willingness to dictate how other nations conducted their affairs, incentivising them to hedge against U.S. actions. Consequently, U.S. allies had reasons to invest in alternatives to the U.S. ecosystem, pursuing their own strategic autonomy and technological sovereignty. Additionally, the framework would treat AI, a civilian technology with military applications, as if it were a military technology with civilian uses. Unlike nuclear technology, AI innovation is inherently civilian in its origins and international in scope. Confining the development geographically within the U.S. could prove counterproductive. Finally, the system created an enduring incentive for the global scientific ecosystem to develop pathways to circumvent the need for powerful compute to make powerful AI, thereby undermining the very lever that the U.S. sought to employ. China's DeepSeek R1 exemplifies this. Years of export controls spurred algorithmic and architectural breakthroughs, enabling DeepSeek to rival the best AI models from the U.S. with a fraction of the compute. Such trends can make export controls on AI chips an ineffective policy instrument. It is for these reasons that the Trump administration revoked the AI Diffusion Framework. This is welcome news for India, which was not favourably placed under the framework. However, the underlying U.S. thinking and approach towards AI diffusion will likely persist, manifesting in other forms. The AI technology race is still on, and the U.S. intent to restrict Chinese access to AI chips still endures. The possible replacement Notwithstanding the rescinded Framework, the current U.S. administration has taken firm steps toward further preventing Chinese access to AI chips. For instance, in March 2025, the administration expanded the scope of the existing export controls and added several companies to its entity list (blacklist). It has also released several new guidelines to strengthen the enforcement of these controls. New provisions are reportedly under consideration, such as on-chip features to monitor and restrict the usage of AI chips. These could include rules at the hardware level limiting chip functionality or restricting certain use cases. Recently, U.S. lawmakers introduced new legislation mandating built-in location tracking for AI chips to prevent their illicit diversion into China, Russia and other countries of concern. In effect, these measures seek to enforce the goals of the AI diffusion framework technologically rather than through trade restrictions. The related concerns Such measures are problematic in their own way. New concerns related to ownership, privacy and surveillance will proliferate. While malicious actors might be sufficiently motivated to circumvent these controls, legitimate and beneficial use by others could be inadvertently discouraged. Such developments undermine user autonomy and lead to trust deficits. Just like the old framework, this will lead to concerns about losing strategic autonomy for any nation buying AI chips. Yet again, both adversaries and allies will feel compelled to hedge against their reliance on the U.S. AI ecosystem and invest in alternatives. The rescission of the AI Diffusion Framework represents a notable policy reversal. Yet, it appears to be more a change in tactics than a fundamental shift in the U.S. strategy to manage AI proliferation. Should these technologically-driven control measures gain traction in U.S. policy discourse and be implemented, they risk replicating the negative consequences of the original AI Diffusion Framework. Ultimately, should this path be pursued, it would indicate that the crucial lessons from the Framework and its eventual withdrawal have not been fully assimilated, potentially jeopardising the very U.S. leadership in AI it ostensibly seeks to protect. Rijesh Panicker is a Fellow at the Takshashila Institution. Bharath Reddy is an Associate Fellow at the Takshashila Institution. Ashwin Prasad is a Research Analyst at the Takshashila Institution
