Cofundador de IndiGo: la propiedad conjunta de aeropuertos y aerolíneas supone un «enorme conflicto de intereses»

Key Points

• IndiGo's Rahul Bhatia opposes a reported Indian policy shift that would let airport operators own larger airline stakes, citing conflict of interest and consumer harm through potential preferential slot and infrastructure allocation.
• The proposal could open the door for Adani (Mumbai and seven other airports) and GMR (Delhi and four others) to launch or acquire carriers, though it still requires law ministry and federal Cabinet approval, and Adani has previously ruled out entering the thin-margin airline business.
• India's aviation market is now more concentrated than at any point in two decades, with IndiGo and Air India holding ~90% of domestic capacity, even as traffic grows sharply; internationally, airport-airline joint ownership is barred in the U.S. and effectively blocked by antitrust rules in the EU.

Summary

IndiGo Co-Founder and Interim CEO Rahul Bhatia has publicly opposed a reported Indian government proposal to relax rules that currently cap Delhi and Mumbai airport operators from holding more than a 10% stake in an airline, warning that airport-airline cross-ownership creates a "massive conflict of interest" that would ultimately harm consumers—for instance, by letting operators steer prime slots and infrastructure to their own carriers. The debate arrives amid reports that Adani Group (which runs eight airports, including Mumbai) is weighing launching or buying into an airline, and that GMR (operator of Delhi) could do the same, though Adani has previously dismissed the airline business as a poor fit for its high-margin, capital-discipline model. The stakes are heightened by India's highly concentrated market, where IndiGo and Air India together control nearly 90% of domestic capacity even as passenger traffic climbs toward an additional 425 million fliers by 2044. Bhatia stayed noncommittal on whether IndiGo might itself partner with an airport operator, calling the question premature. Globally, such joint ownership has gained little traction, being effectively barred in the U.S. and rendered largely unworkable by antitrust enforcement in the EU.