SC: DRT Auction Sale Valid Despite Failure to Serve Order XXI Rule 22 Notice  ||  SC: Legal Representatives Entitled to Motor Accident Compensation without Financial Dependency  ||  SC: Re-Employed Officers May be Classified Differently from Regular Officers  ||  Supreme Court Questions Union's Opposition to Global Food Package Labelling Norms  ||  SC: S.42 NDPS Act Compliance Need Not be Absolute When Immediate Seizure is Required  ||  SC Clarifies Whether Tenancy Ends after Landlord-Tenant Execute Agreement to Sell  ||  SC Levies Rs. 10 Lakh Cost on Reliance Industries for Hindering 20-Year-Old NTPC Suit  ||  P&H HC: Authorities Obligated to Act if Protests Escalate into Violence  ||  Allahabad HC: Allottee Aware of Reduced Lease Area Not Entitled to Full Zero-Period Benefit  ||  Delhi HC: 2015 Commercial Courts Act Applicable to Suits Instituted Before its Enactment    

Air India Limited v. InterGlobe Aviation Limited - (Competition Commission of India) (10 Feb 2016)

Air India complains "predatory" poaching of pilots

MRTP/ Competition Laws

The Competition Commission of India dismissed Air India’s complaint against Indigo’s (InterGlobe Aviation) act of poaching its trained pilots for having not raised competition concerns. The Commission was of the opinion that an airline recruiting another’s pilots would not bring about structural changes in the operations of the market, particularly since an airline recruiting a pilot had to obtain an NOC from the existing employer. Air India had expressed anguish over the expenditure it incurred for training pilots, and upkeep of their recency, for its fleet of Airbus A320 aircraft, only to have them ‘predatorily’ recruited by Indigo. It claimed Indigo to have acquired a monopolistic 52 per cent market share in the non-metro to non-metro flight sector, having poached Air India pilots and saved itself of training costs.

Tags : PREDATORY RECRUITMENT   ANTI-COMPETITIVE   TRAINING COSTS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved