India’s airline industry has opened a new front in its tussle with the aviation regulator, challenging proposed cabin crew duty and rest norms that carriers say are out of step with global practice and risk undermining growth. The draft rules, issued by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) in October 2025, aim to tighten fatigue management for flight attendants. But the country’s largest airlines argue the measures are excessively restrictive, operationally impractical and could ripple through flight networks just as Indian aviation is trying to cement its position as a global hub.
What the DGCA Is Proposing for Cabin Crew
The DGCA’s draft Civil Aviation Requirements on Cabin Crew Flight Duty Time Limitations set out a more stringent framework for how long crew can be on duty, how much rest they must receive and under what conditions that rest should be taken. The cornerstone change is a move to increase minimum weekly rest from 36 hours to 48 hours, effectively granting cabin crew an additional half-day off each week. Regulators argue that longer uninterrupted rest periods are essential for reducing cumulative fatigue, particularly in a market that has seen rapid growth and increasingly complex network patterns.
The proposal also tightens the regime around night operations and long-haul flying. For ultra long routes, the draft rules classify flights exceeding 14 hours as ultra long haul and apply more conservative limits on how many such sectors crew can operate and under what rostering patterns. This contrasts with existing global practice in many jurisdictions, where ultra long haul is typically defined from around 16 hours of flight time. In practice, the lower threshold would bring more flights within the strictest fatigue category, forcing airlines to deploy additional crew or adjust schedules on an array of international routes.
One of the most contentious provisions concerns layover accommodation. The draft rules call for single-occupancy hotel rooms for cabin crew during layovers, with the aim of improving sleep quality and ensuring undisturbed rest. While many international airlines already provide single rooms as a matter of policy, this has not been a consistent requirement across Indian carriers or specified so explicitly in the regulatory framework. Making single rooms mandatory would harden a cost line item that airlines say is already rising in popular hubs where hotel inventory is tight and prices are high.
Why India’s Major Airlines Are Pushing Back
IndiGo, Air India and SpiceJet, acting through the Federation of Indian Airlines (FIA), have registered strong objections, arguing that the DGCA’s draft goes beyond what is necessary to protect safety and well-being. In their communication to the regulator, the carriers describe the package as more restrictive than global norms and say it provides too little operational flexibility for a market where weather disruptions, airspace closures and congested airports are regular challenges. They stress that the core metrics used to manage fatigue must align with both scientific evidence and practical realities on the ground.
A central plank of the industry pushback is the contention that flight duty period, rather than pure flight time, should be the primary control measure for fatigue management. Flight duty period includes pre-flight reporting, turnarounds, delays, ground duties and post-flight tasks, offering a fuller picture of how long crew are actually working. Airlines argue that the draft language leans too heavily on flight time and cumulative caps, while underestimating how rostering flexibility, circadian alignment and adequate rest opportunities can be used to manage fatigue more effectively without unduly constraining operations.
The carriers also warn that the combined effect of longer weekly rest, stricter night limitations and additional conditions around hotel accommodation could complicate crew scheduling and reduce roster predictability. For airlines that operate tight turnaround schedules with high aircraft utilization, even marginal changes in duty limits can cascade into missed connections, reduced frequency or the need for additional standby crew. In a competitive environment where Indian carriers are vying for market share on Europe, Middle East, North America and Southeast Asia routes, management teams argue that any regulatory edge given to foreign rivals could erode the progress made in recent years.
The Cost and Logistics Concerns Behind the Norms
While safety remains the public-facing headline of the debate, cost and logistics sit at the heart of the airlines’ resistance. Mandating single-occupancy hotel rooms for all cabin crew on layovers may be aligned with premium global practice, but Indian carriers argue that hard-coding it into regulation introduces a rigidity that does not reflect the varied nature of their operations. Twin-sharing arrangements, they say, can still deliver high-quality rest when combined with operator-defined guidelines on noise control, scheduling, and appropriate hotel standards.
The airlines also caution that hotel capacity in several domestic and international airports is already stretched at peak times. If every cabin crew member must be housed in a separate room, carriers worry that they may be forced to book accommodation far from airports or in suboptimal locations, lengthening crew transport times and introducing new sources of fatigue. This, they argue, would be a perverse outcome for a regulation intended to enhance rest quality. It would also increase ground logistics complexity, particularly when irregular operations such as weather disruptions or diversions require last-minute hotel arrangements for large numbers of staff.
From a financial standpoint, the airlines insist that the incremental costs are more than marginal. Higher hotel bills, additional crew required to cover stricter duty limits, and potential inefficiencies in scheduling could combine to erode already thin margins in a price-sensitive market. Executives fear that the cost pressure would either need to be passed on to passengers through higher fares or absorbed through reductions elsewhere, such as in product investment or network expansion. For carriers already managing fleet induction, airport charges and intense fare competition, the timing of added regulatory costs is a particular concern.
Safety Imperatives and Recent Crises in Indian Aviation
The DGCA’s move to tighten fatigue rules cannot be divorced from a recent series of safety scares and operational crises in Indian aviation. Fatigue management for pilots has already been a flashpoint, with the full implementation of revised flight duty time limitations facing legal challenges and phased rollouts. In late 2025, IndiGo’s cancellation of thousands of flights due in part to misalignment between new pilot fatigue rules and its rostering plans left passengers stranded and regulators scrutinizing the robustness of airline planning and oversight.
At the same time, the sector has been grappling with the aftermath of a fatal Air India crash that killed hundreds of people and reignited questions about the broader culture of safety. While the cause of that accident is still under investigation, public and political pressure on the regulator to act decisively on any aspect of safety has intensified. For policymakers, erring on the side of caution with respect to fatigue, whether for pilots or cabin crew, is increasingly seen as non-negotiable, even if it invites short-term friction with the industry.
The DGCA and the civil aviation ministry have also signaled a broader effort to strengthen regulatory oversight and risk management across Indian airfields and operators. High growth, crowded airspace and infrastructure bottlenecks combine to make fatigue a more complex variable in India than in many mature markets. Officials argue that uniform, predictable rules on duty and rest are essential to prevent operators from cutting corners, even inadvertently, as they chase aggressive expansion targets. Against this backdrop, the draft cabin crew norms are part of a larger recalibration of how India balances growth and safety.
How India’s Draft Norms Compare With Global Practice
One of the airlines’ core lines of argument is that the DGCA draft pushes India out of step with widely accepted international norms. By classifying ultra long haul flights as those exceeding 14 hours instead of closer to 16, the rules broaden the category of operations subject to the strictest duty time and rest requirements. That could force Indian carriers operating routes in the 14 to 16 hour band to adopt heavier crew complements or more conservative rostering than some foreign competitors, potentially putting them at a cost and network disadvantage.
Airlines also point out that fatigue science has evolved to emphasize total duty period, circadian rhythm alignment and rest opportunity over simple flight-time or landing-count thresholds. They contend that international frameworks increasingly recognize that recovery is driven by adequate rest aligned with local night periods, irrespective of whether crew rest at home base or on layovers. In that context, they argue, the DGCA’s focus on certain cumulative caps and prescriptive hotel arrangements may not fully reflect current best practice in fatigue risk management systems.
However, India’s regulators have their own rationale for tightening the screws. They are operating in a market that is still transitioning from a rules-based to a more risk-based oversight system. While some foreign carriers may adopt more flexible frameworks backed by mature safety management systems, authorities in India may be less willing to rely on operator discretion. By codifying stricter limits and clearer standards, the DGCA appears intent on creating a safety floor that cannot be easily undercut, particularly by weaker or financially stressed carriers.
Potential Impact on Flight Schedules and Passenger Experience
For travelers, the stakes in this regulatory battle are tangible, even if the details remain behind the scenes. If the draft rules are implemented in their current form, airlines caution that they may need to trim frequencies on certain routes, adjust timings to better align with crew duty windows, or build in more buffer to protect against knock-on delays from disruptions. In a best-case scenario, passengers might simply see modest schedule adjustments and a slow but steady rise in fares on some long and night-heavy routes.
In more constrained scenarios, carriers warn of more frequent cancellations or last-minute equipment swaps when crew are unable to operate planned sectors due to hitting new duty or rest limits. This risk is particularly acute in a system where spare crew and aircraft are already tightly managed. For connecting passengers using Indian hubs to link between regions, even small reliability issues can prove disruptive, undermining efforts to position airports such as Delhi and Mumbai as seamless global transit points.
There is also a more positive potential outcome. If implemented with sufficient planning and staffing, stricter fatigue rules could translate into better-rested cabin crew, more consistent service quality and a higher baseline of safety. For an increasingly discerning traveling public, evidence that India is willing to set robust standards for duty and rest might become a differentiator, particularly for international travelers who have their choice of connections through competing hubs in the Gulf, Southeast Asia or Europe.
What Happens Next in the Regulatory Negotiations
The DGCA has not yet set a firm timeline for implementing the cabin crew draft norms, leaving room for continued consultation and possible recalibration. The Federation of Indian Airlines is pressing for changes on multiple fronts, from redefining key thresholds and prioritizing flight duty period as the main control measure, to allowing more flexibility around hotel room arrangements and introducing any new provisions in a phased manner. Industry leaders are hoping to convince the regulator that safety and sustainability need not be in conflict if rules are crafted with more nuance and informed by operational data.
Regulators, in turn, face the challenge of weighing industry concerns against political and public expectations for stronger oversight after recent crises. Accepting all of the airlines’ recommendations risks the perception of capitulation, while pushing ahead unchanged could trigger significant disruption in a sector seen as a bellwether for India’s economic ambition. A likely middle path may involve modest relaxation of some provisions, clearer guidance on how fatigue risk management systems can complement prescriptive limits and a staggered rollout that gives airlines time to adapt rosters and staffing plans.
For now, passengers and industry watchers can expect a period of continued uncertainty as both sides negotiate the contours of a final rule. The outcome will help define how India positions itself on the spectrum between global competitiveness and regulatory conservatism. Whatever balance is eventually struck, the debate over cabin crew duty norms underscores a broader reality for Indian aviation: as the country’s skies grow busier, the margin for error shrinks, and decisions about how to manage fatigue, cost and complexity will shape the traveler experience for years to come.