Our Bureau

Mumbai , May 11

EVEN while taking strong exceptions to charges made directly and indirectly by Airbus Industrie over its decision to go in for a 50-aircraft purchase deal with Boeing, Air India has allayed the European aircraft manufacturer's "possible apprehensions" that there will be no Airbus aircraft in its fleet in the future.

"We understand Airbus' disappointment and apprehensions after our board's decision (to go in for Boeing aircraft). But these are misplaced. AI will continue to consider Airbus' offerings in its future acquisition plans. In fact, given the growth that the air travel in India is experiencing, we may also consider going in for larger aircraft, like Airbus' A-380s, in the future," said Mr V. Thulasidas, Chairman and Managing Director, Air India.

In his first press conference after Airbus sought to raise questions about AI board's decision to go in for Boeing aircraft, Mr Thulasidas defended the decision, stating that it was based on purely commercial grounds.

He made it clear that "no political, geo-political or non-commercial factors" had influenced its decision.

He indicated that AI would not consider slapping a legal notice on Airbus as of now.

"AI has nothing against Airbus. In fact, 19 of our aircraft in our present fleet, which is about 50 per cent, are Airbus products. We are probably the largest operator of A-310s in the world," he pointed out.

Stating that AI understood the disappointment of Airbus in losing the 68-aircraft deal with Boeing (including 18 for its subsidiary, Air India Express), he said giving expression to this disappointment legitimately was one thing, but it should not go beyond good business practices.

"We take strong exceptions to the reported charge that our evaluation process was wrong and that factors other than merits were considered. We cannot accept this (charge). We have adequate experience in evaluating aircraft. Besides, it is our prerogative to decide what we need," Mr Thulasidas said.

Referring to the demand that the AI board's decision be referred to the CVC and CAG, he said the board meeting had recommended to the Ministry of Civil Aviation to refer the evaluation reports to both the CVC and CAG, as was done during its last acquisition exercise.

"I believe the Ministry has already done it (referred to CVC and CAG). We did not need Airbus' suggestion to do this," he added.

Regarding charges on the aircraft specifications being altered after the RFQ (Request for Qualification) stage, the AI chairman said this was wrong. "In fact, both the parties had asked us to make some changes apparently to give them some advantage over their rival, but we did not accept any changes," he said.

Regarding seating arrangement, AI had specified only the seat width, pitch or aisle width, as is a common practice. "In fact, it was for the parties to give us their offerings in terms of price, discounts, fuel efficiency, payload factor and maintenance cost. We just had to compare the two offerings and chose which was the best," he said.

On the charge that Boeing's delivery schedule was not in accordance with the tender specifications, Mr Thulasidas said that the delivery schedule of both the manufacturers was not in accordance with the tender norms.

"Even three of Airbus' A340-500s and one A 340-600 were not in accordance with the RFQ delivery schedules. But, as delivery comes after the Government actually clears the proposal, we felt this variance could be ignored," he argued.

In response to another question, he hoped that the final clearance from the Government came within the next three months, so that the Boeing deliveries could start after 15 to 18 months from then.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu Business Line