 | « Back to article | Print this article |
After granting flying license to AirAsia India, aviation regulator DGCA has now issued a public notice seeking objections, if any, to the grant of a similar permit to the proposed full-service carrier promoted by Tata Sons and Singapore Airlines (SIA).
A similar notice was issued under the Aircraft Rules of 1937 before the license was granted to AirAsia India. DGCA had rejected the objections and granted the license to AirAsia India on Wednesday.
In the latest notice, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation said the Tata-SIA Airlines has applied for the grant of the Air Operators Permit (AOP or flying license) to provide scheduled air transport services in the country.
It asked those having any objections or wanting to make suggestions to submit their viewpoints to DGCA within 20 days.
Tata-SIA, a 51:49 joint venture of Tata Sons and SIA, submitted its application for the grant of AOP almost two weeks ago. In its application, the airline proposes to start operations by September and plans to operate from Delhi as its hub to Mumbai, Goa, Patna, Chandigarh, Srinagar, Hyderabad and Bengaluru in its first year of operations.
Initially, the carrier plans to operates two flights a day to Mumbai, with one of them going further to Goa. The initial phase would also see two flights a day each to Bengaluru, Ahmedabad and Hyderabad.
Besides the major metros, the proposed airline would also connect Srinagar, Patna, Chandigarh and Jammu.
Under its aggressive expansion plans, the Tata-SIA Airlines proposes to add destinations like Chennai, Pune, Lucknow, Varanasi, Jaipur, Kolkata, Amritsar, Bagdogra, Indore and Cochin within the first four years of operations.
Earlier, a few of those who had raised objections to granting of AOP to AirAsia India, including the Federation of Indian Airlines (FIA) and BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, had later moved the courts where the matter is still pending.
The Delhi High Court today refused to stay the DGCA's grant of flying licence to AirAsia India, saying there was no urgency as the permit would be subject to the outcome of the petition challenging the approvals. The matter is slated to come up for hearing on July 11.