English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Russian
Spanish
Urdu
Each time the Kashmir Valley or the Northeast experiences a landslide, heavy snowfall, or flood that isolates the area with no road access, the same tale is retold. Air transport, which is supposed to be a lifeline during times of crisis, instantly becomes prohibitive for the majority. Overnight, prices for tickets skyrocket, and families in dire need of travel for healthcare, education, or employment are rendered helpless. What should be a lifeline in hard times becomes a burden. This cyclical pattern begs the question: should airlines be allowed to charge fares unilaterally at will during crisis, or does the government have a responsibility to control?
Airlines typically explain increased fares by referring to demand-supply economics. When roads are impassable, more rely on flying, and seats get booked rapidly. But in reality, this rationale turns into an alibi for profiteering. A ticket that normally costs ₹4,000 suddenly stands at ₹15,000 or more in a day. For the average family in Kashmir, Ladakh, or the Northeast, these prices are literally out of reach. What must be a public good starts to resemble profiteering from calamity.
The aviation industry can be privately operated, but air connectivity to areas such as Jammu and Kashmir or the Northeast is not a luxury but a necessity. Just as there are regulatory rules for pricing essential goods during scarcity, there have to be rules for air prices when natural disasters or road blockages happen.
India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has wide-ranging powers over the airlines, but hitherto has refrained from direct intervention in fare levels. The official position has been that competition among carriers would keep fares reasonable. In practice, where there are hardly any flights on susceptible routes, competition vanishes, and monopolistic tendencies set in.
What is required is a regulatory system which automatically kicks in when there is disruption in road connectivity. That could include fare caps during emergencies on key routes, clear disclosure of prices by airlines, government-regulated booking platforms that ensure sudden artificial inflation cannot take place, and punitive clauses on airlines taking advantage of crises. All this would not disrupt normal market operations but establish guardrails against taking advantage of distress.
The case against accountability is not just economic but ethical. Airlines enjoy subsidies from the government, tax exemptions, and infrastructure funding. Airports, air traffic management, and security are all administered by the state. As a quid pro quo, airlines must take on responsibility towards citizens, particularly in areas with no other connection to the rest of the world.
When the Srinagar-Jammu highway is shut for weeks during winter, or when a landslide closes the Siliguri corridor, thousands of households are severed. They shouldn’t have to beg and borrow to get on a plane. Responsibility in airfares is as much about dignity as it is about price.
Other nations have demonstrated that it is feasible to regulate. In the US, the Department of Transportation keeps a close eye on “unreasonable” fares during times of emergency, and airlines can be investigated for taking advantage of catastrophes. In the European Union, the rights of passengers are vigorously defended under EU legislation, with automatic refunds, alternative travel arrangements, and price transparency.
India also can develop its own model, striking a balance between free market economics and protecting the public. Regional connectivity programs like UDAN (Ude Desh Ka Aam Nagrik) already subsidize routes to remote regions. Applying that principle to emergency fare regulation would not be an extreme measure but a necessary policy extension.
Technology can also promote accountability. The government might compel airlines to report price adjustments in real time, enabling regulators to spot instant surges. Internet reservation sites might be made to highlight unusually high prices, alerting travelers and leaving regulators with a paper trail. With technology at hand, there is no reason for secrecy.
The citizens of Kashmir, the Northeast, Ladakh, and other vulnerable areas have for years been victimized by being isolated when roads are closed. Air transport should soften that isolation, not exacerbate it through exploitative fares. A just regulatory process, framed with transparency and accountability, would make airlines partners in connectivity, not profiteers of disruption.
The problem is not a matter of punishing airlines but one of building trust. If customers are sure that prices will be reasonable even during crisis situations, trust in the aviation industry will increase. And if airlines are aware that their actions are being monitored, they will be motivated to act responsibly.
It is time the government intervened. Equitable skies ought to be accompanied by equitable fares. Anything else would be doing a disservice to those who depend most on the skies.
ADVERTISEMENT
