Aircraft Management in India: The Opportunity Is Real, the Readiness Is Not

• DGCA’s proposed aircraft management framework could allow corporates to own aircraft on their books while contracting operations to an NSOP, removing the need for subsidiary structures driven by tax considerations.
• Managing third-party aircraft requires transparent reporting, disciplined maintenance planning and a defined safety framework, capabilities that remain limited across much of India’s current NSOP base.
• Financial projections, cost assumptions and contract terms will be critical, as unrealistic return expectations and weak agreements could destabilise the model in its early phase.

For most Indian corporates that own a business jet or helicopter, operating one has never been straightforward. Between a punishing tax structure, the obligation to set up a separate aviation company and the absence of any formal framework to outsource operations to a third party, owning a private aircraft in India has been far more complicated and far more expensive than it needs to be. That is about to change. 

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has been working on aircraft management regulations that, once notified, will fundamentally alter how business aircraft are owned and operated in the country. 

But these changes also come with risks that, if not addressed early, could erode confidence in the sector before it has had a chance to mature. Before the sector can build on that opening, it needs to understand what aircraft management in established markets has demanded.

In business aviation, owning an aircraft and running one under a management structure are two entirely different endeavours. Markets that recognised this early built an industry around the distinction, placing the asset with the owner and the responsibility for operating it with a certificated professional under contract. 

The operational adherence this model requires has been tested, refined, and, in some cases, broken over decades of practice in North America, Europe and the Gulf. India has not had to deal with any of that experience yet. With the DGCA’s aircraft management regulations in advanced stages of development, that phase is now approaching.

Professional aircraft management, in which a corporate or private owner places their aircraft in the hands of a certificated operator who assumes full responsibility for operating it, has been a foundation of business aviation in North America, Europe and the Gulf for decades.

The owner holds title to the asset. The operator manages everything the asset demands: crew, maintenance, scheduling, regulatory compliance, insurance, and charter when the owner so chooses. 

What makes this arrangement function well in mature markets is not the legal architecture alone.

It is the quality of operating culture, reporting discipline, and commercial integrity that operators have built over years of sustained practice. The obligation now is to approach that opening with an honest assessment of what it will actually entail.

“Dedicated aircraft management companies—Jet Aviation, DC Aviation, Empire Aviation, Titan Aviation, among them—have built entire businesses around managing aircraft on behalf of owners who want operations without running a flight department themselves. That model raises the standard of ownership across the board. India now has the opportunity to build the same,” said Rohit Kapur, Managing Partner, The Jet Company.

A Framework Overdue, and What It Changes

A deeply skewed GST regime has long shaped Indian corporate aircraft ownership in ways that have nothing to do with operational logic. The 5 per cent rate available under an NSOP permit, compared with 40 per cent under the private category, has pushed virtually every corporate buyer toward the NSOP route, not out of any intent to run an aviation business, but purely to access a viable tax structure. 

Holding a permit at the parent company level, however, carries obligations and regulatory exposure that non-aviation enterprises are unwilling to absorb directly. The result has been a widely practised workaround: subsidiary entities incorporated solely to hold permits, aircraft parked outside parent company books with depreciation benefits foregone, and businesses with no aviation background obliged to manage a single asset as though aviation were their primary activity.

The proposed framework addresses this directly. A corporate owner would be able to hold the aircraft in the parent company, access depreciation benefits, and formally contract all aviation operations to a management company holding a valid NSOP.

The owner is the principal. The management company is the accountable operator. The roles are legally separated, contractually defined, and the owner need not enter aviation as a business at any level.

“Companies can now buy the aircraft directly, get depreciation benefits, finance the aircraft on their own balance sheet, and outsource aviation operations completely. They do not have to get into the aviation business at all,” says Sudhir Rajeshirke, President, Jubilant Enpro and Board Member, BAOA.

This will also change how transactions around business aircraft are structured.

“Pre-owned aircraft buyers in India will increasingly look for an integrated solution where acquisition, financing, ownership structuring and aircraft management are addressed together rather than separately. The traditional broker’s role will evolve into that of a transaction advisor—one who understands not just the deal, but the compliance and operational requirements that follow it,” added Sanjeev Choudhary, Vice President of Sales, JetHQ Asia.

What Managing an Aircraft Actually Requires

The standard of an aircraft management operation is not defined by how smoothly it flies. It is determined by what happens between flights: the reporting, the maintenance oversight, the safety culture, and the commercial integrity with which the operator manages the owner’s interests.

On financial reporting, established management companies set a clear standard. Monthly statements that serious operators routinely publish include:

• A clean split between owner-utilised and charter-utilised flight hours
• Fixed and variable cost lines itemised and reconciled against the budget
• Maintenance expenditure tracked against reserves, with variance explained
• Charter revenue earned, applied and credited against owner costs

Many operators additionally provide dedicated owner portals through which clients can monitor scheduling, expenditure and charter income as it accrues. An owner who cannot see what their aircraft costs them, or how charter revenue is being generated and applied, is an owner who will eventually become a dissatisfied one. Transparency is not a feature; it is the condition on which the relationship either holds or collapses.

On maintenance, effective management necessitates a forward-looking, methodical approach that goes well beyond airworthiness compliance. Digital tracking systems that manage inspection schedules, monitor compliance with Airworthiness Directives, track component life cycles, and produce continuous maintenance forecasts are standard tools for established operators. 

The value of this approach is not only operational—it prevents reactive, expensive maintenance events that occur when oversight is informal, and scheduling is ad hoc. Owners benefit from cost predictability; the aircraft benefits from consistent care; and the management company builds the technical credibility that justifies a long-term relationship.

On safety governance, the International Standard for Business Aircraft Operations (IS-BAO), developed by the International Business Aviation Council, is the recognised benchmark for structured flight operations in business aviation globally. Its framework is built around a functioning Safety Management System that progresses through three stages, with Stage 3 representing full integration of safety culture across every function of the organisation—operations, maintenance, and administration. 

Gama Aviation’s Sharjah operation holds IS-BAO accreditation, alongside long-standing IS-BAH Stage 3 certification in ground handling, reflecting sustained investment in safety systems across both flight and ground operations.

NetJets publishes an annual Safety Insights report, a voluntary act of transparency that few operators anywhere attempt, because safety culture, to mean anything, must be visible and accountable beyond the organisation itself. 

Executive Jet Management (EJM), part of the NetJets group, manages over 200 aircraft, with pilots averaging around 9,000 flight hours. They are the outcome of hiring disciplines, training investment and retention practices that an operator either prioritises consistently or does not. 

Very few Indian NSOPs are positioned to meet this standard today. Most have built their systems to manage assets they own, on terms they control. Third-party management reverses that relationship entirely; the operator serves the owner’s interests and must demonstrate that accountability through data and transparency rather than assurance. 

The challenge is not regulatory alone. It is operational.

“An aircraft management framework in India is about institutionalising safety, compliance and asset performance while delivering consistent, world-class service. It demands experienced leadership, rigorous processes and the discipline to align global best practices with India’s regulatory environment. Execution will ultimately hinge on operator commitment—to the owner, to the aircraft, and to the standards the industry must now hold itself to,” said Rajan Mehra, Chief Executive Officer, Club One Air.

Closing this divide requires investment in systems, processes and people, and the institutional commitment to build a reporting and safety culture that does not yet exist across most of the domestic sector.

IS-BAO’s own history carries a lesson directly relevant to India. Launched in 2002, the standard was created specifically because the business aviation community had recognised that many flight departments and operators had safety documentation on paper but no functioning safety culture in practice. The difference between having a manual and implementing a system—between compliance as paperwork and compliance as behaviour—was the issue IS-BAO aimed to address.

Its three-stage progression was specifically designed to prevent operators from achieving registration as a one-time exercise: 

• Stage 1 establishes that the infrastructure exists, 
• Stage 2 verifies that risks are being actively managed, 
• And Stage 3 confirms that safety culture has been genuinely integrated and sustained over time.

India’s civil aviation authorities have acknowledged IS-BAO’s relevance—BAOA constituted a Standards Committee to review and recommend changes to safety standards affecting business aviation operators, and the Civil Aviation Ministry has discussed IS-BAO adoption as one possible approach to meeting ICAO SMS requirements, which is under consideration.

The standard exists. The question for Indian management companies entering this market is whether they treat it as a genuine operating commitment or a registration exercise.

What Every Owner Must Know Before Signing

The arrival of an aircraft management in India will attract two kinds of participants. The first are operators who understand what this model demands and are willing to invest in building the capability to deliver it. The second are those who see a new market and move quickly to capture it before standards are defined. Both will be present. Owners will need to distinguish between the two, and the contract negotiation is where that distinction becomes visible.

The most foreseeable commercial risk in this market is the collision between investor expectations and aviation economics. A business aircraft carries substantial fixed costs regardless of utilisation—crew, maintenance reserves, insurance, hangar, and finance charges. On a single asset, standalone basis, after all costs are accounted for, the economics do not support double-digit annual returns. They never have in any mature market. 

“The biggest risk is investors sitting on cash who see this as an opportunity to invest in an aircraft and gain returns. It is impossible to generate high returns on a single aircraft after taking all fixed costs, interest costs and finance costs into account,” says Rajeshirke.

The risk is not that owners will dismiss the economics when presented clearly. It is that they will be presented with proposals in which costs have been understated and charter revenue assumptions overstated to the point where the financial case appears to work, and they will not have the aviation economics literacy to identify the difference between the projection and what the market will actually bear. 

This pattern has played out in other markets as well, where aircraft management services opened up without sufficient owner education in place. It ends the same way: contracts unravel, owners feel misled, and the industry’s credibility in a segment it has barely entered takes reputational harm it cannot absorb.

Owners approaching this market should treat financial projections as they would any unfamiliar asset proposition, with scrutiny rather than acceptance. Charter revenue is a function of aircraft type, base location, regional demand and the management company’s actual sales record, not a number that can be set at the optimistic end of what the market might theoretically support. Fixed cost estimates that appear meaningfully lower than other operators’ quotes deserve explanation. 

The most reliable indicator of a management company’s seriousness is its willingness to contractually commit to those projections, with defined consequences for non-delivery. An operator whose numbers are grounded in reality will sign that clause. Someone whose proposal is designed to secure the mandate rather than to fulfil it will not do so, and that refusal reveals more to an owner than the original proposal ever did.

Beyond the financial discipline, what separates operators who manage aircraft well from those who merely operate them comes down to a set of core practices:

• Independent selection of maintenance vendors, with no referral arrangement or undisclosed commercial tie to any MRO provider. Where such conflicts exist, the owner invariably pays more than they should, and rarely knows it.

• Adherence to structured crew training schedules must be maintained regardless of operational pressure or cost considerations. Unaddressed crew deficiencies, allowed to persist under the weight of utilisation demands, are a documented factor in avoidable incidents. NBAA’s accident analysis has identified this pattern repeatedly across business aviation operations.

• The willingness to turn away a mandate where an owner’s expectations cannot be honestly met. An operator with genuine experience of where commercial reality ends will say so early and directly. One without that experience will continue the conversation until a contract is signed, leaving the owner to deal with the outcome.

No regulation, however well-designed, delivers the operational rigour, reporting culture and commercial honesty that aircraft management depends on. Those qualities are earned through difficult client relationships, through the rigour of building systems before revenue arrives to justify them, and through the kind of institutional honesty that tells a prospective client their expectations are unrealistic rather than accepting a mandate that cannot be fulfilled. 

The jurisdictions that got this right did not do so quickly or by accident.

India’s industry has the advantage of entering this space with two decades of documented global experience to draw on.

The aircraft management model now under development deserves an industry that takes that advantage seriously.

The ecosystem taking shape around India’s aircraft management has genuine potential.

General aviation in India is growing, the ownership base is broadening, and the structural barriers that made ownership unnecessarily complicated for non-aviation businesses are being addressed. But potential and readiness are not the same thing. 

The framework, when it arrives, will find an industry that is operationally capable in a narrow sense and commercially underprepared in a broader one. The gap between those two conditions is where the real work of building a credible, sustainable aircraft management sector in India will happen—or will not.

Also Read: Repositioning Aircraft Leasing: GIFT City’s Emerging Role