The Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) finds itself in an unseemly controversy of its own making over the redevelopment of the ageing Terminal 1 of the international airport, which is no doubt overdue for an overhaul. However, the Adani Group-owned MIAL, which operates the airport, appears to have bungled the process by adopting an approach and rhetoric that are unhelpful. In particular, the “my way or the highway” approach of Adani Airports Holdings CEO Arun Bansal has exacerbated the situation. He asked foreign airlines to either accept the relocation proposal or suspend operations from April 2027. Such haughty rhetoric is counterproductive and goes against the spirit and norms of international business negotiations, wherein success depends on balancing assertion with professionalism that reckons with the industry’s hierarchies and power dynamics.

To begin with, MIAL had a strong and valid case for redeveloping the terminal, as audits by independent consultants flagged serious structural and safety concerns. The crux of the issue is its latest proposal to ask 12 foreign airlines operating flights to 14 international destinations to move to Navi Mumbai International Airport. The revised proposal is a huge improvement over an earlier complicated and operationally unwieldy plan of shifting over 250 international departure slots of 40 international airlines. By flexing its muscle and adopting a tough-guy persona, the Adani Group, which enjoys proximity with the establishment, appears to have needlessly further complicated an already complex problem. The affected airlines have rightly pushed back. With the support of international aviation organisations, they have now formally asked the Union Civil Aviation Ministry whether it has given clearance to this relocation plan.

There are serious concerns relating to the Navi Mumbai airport, which is being offered as a temporary alternative. This airport has commenced domestic operations only in December 2025, and therefore a question mark would hang over the readiness of its international terminals and last-mile transport connectivity. The Gulf carriers, in particular, rely heavily on domestic passengers connecting onward to the Middle East, Europe or North America, and therefore forcing travellers to undertake an arduous 50-kilometre commute between airports will be a logistical nightmare. Moreover, the airlines will have to do a lot of paperwork relating to air service agreements, regulatory clearances, and establishing new ground handling, catering, cargo and maintenance ecosystems. Another legitimate concern of foreign airlines relates to their historic rights to the exact same take-off and landing time slots at a congested airport, rights that cannot be stripped away in an arbitrary manner even if the airport operator promises restoration later.

Meanwhile, Maharashtra’s Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis stepped into the fray by writing to the Civil Aviation Ministry suggesting an alternative of simultaneous development; that is, the existing facility would remain operational until its replacement is ready. The proposal will enable the airport to undertake the redevelopment in phases instead of shutting down the entire existing terminal before construction of its replacement begins.
Modernising Mumbai’s aviation infrastructure is undoubtedly vital, but it cannot be achieved by foisting transition plans on unwilling global aviation partners and by undermining passenger convenience. Keeping in mind the larger interests, the government needs to play a facilitating role in evolving a fair and pragmatic transition plan that will be a win-win solution acceptable to all stakeholders.