Although it is true that the sector is mired in losses (the Centre for Asia-Pacific Aviation reckons the industry will report a combined loss of $1.2 billion in 2013-14), this is a purely commercial decision - ultimately, it is for the company's shareholders to decide whether it is unwise or not. True, SpiceJet's profit of Rs 51 crore in the first quarter of 2013-14 turned into losses of Rs 559 crore in the second quarter and Rs 173 crore in the third quarter, but no regulator can take away from a company its right to take business risks. And if other carriers felt this was predatory pricing, the matter could have always been investigated by the Competition Commission of India. SpiceJet has also maintained that with a 20 per cent share of the market, it is not in a position to be predatory.
The DGCA's case would have been strong if the offer lacked transparency, and there was the likelihood of buyers getting duped. The DGCA, while justifying its action, said SpiceJet had earmarked just two per cent of its seat inventory for the offer but had created a (disproportionate) hype in the market. This, the DGCA felt, amounted to misleading the customers. However, the press release put out by the airline clearly mentioned that only limited seats were put on offer. It also mentioned that the discounted fares did not include statutory taxes and fees and were dependent on the route and date of travel. Moreover, if it was a small offer, it would be unreasonable to say that it would distort the market and bleed the entire industry.
Such promotional schemes are a regular feature of low-cost aviation all over the world. Through discounted fares, airlines are able to get passengers for seats that would have otherwise gone empty. While the DGCA's recent moves to make private aircraft more accountable and stepping up checks and inspections are welcome, the organisation needs to ensure that it doesn't fall into the trap of regulatory overreach.