IndiGo and Mumbai Airport Fined Over Apron Dining Violations

IndiGo and Mumbai airport got in trouble and had to pay fines – Rs 1.2 crore for IndiGo and Rs 90 lakh for the airport. This happened because passengers were caught sitting on the ground and eating.

This happened because passengers were sitting on the ground and eating while waiting for a delayed flight. The penalties came from aviation authorities, with IndiGo facing the highest amount it has ever had to pay. The Bureau of Civil Aviation Security fined IndiGo Rs 1.2 crore and Mumbai airport Rs 60 lakh, while the Directorate General of Civil Aviation asked the airport to pay Rs 30 lakh.

The aviation authorities (DGCA) said it was not okay for passengers to stay on the active apron for a long time as it could be risky for people and planes. This incident involved frustrated passengers of IndiGo flight 6E 2195 from Goa to Delhi. Their flight was delayed, and when it diverted to Mumbai due to fog, passengers went onto the tarmac.

Additionally, Air India and SpiceJet were fined by DGCA for not following rules about scheduling pilots trained for low visibility (CAT III trained). Both airlines were asked to pay Rs 30 lakh.

The BCAS mentioned that IndiGo allowed passengers to get off on the tarmac, where they ate and mixed with others, moving to and from the adjacent apron control building.

IndiGo Faces Criticism: 

Passengers Allowed on Tarmac for Apron Dining, BCAS Highlights Safety Concerns.

“IndiGo and Mumbai Airport Under Scrutiny: Ministry Flags Safety Lapses Over Unscreened Passengers and Lack of Discipline on Tarmac”

The Ministry of Civil Aviation issued warnings to IndiGo and Mumbai Airport after an incident on January 15. IndiGo faced criticism for allowing passengers from flight 6E 2195 to disembark and board another flight without screening. The Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) noted IndiGo’s delayed reporting and lack of consideration for passenger frustration. The DGCA criticized Mumbai Airport for lax discipline on the tarmac, labeling their response to the incident as a “casual approach towards safety.”