Volkswagen Group plans to invest €160 billion ($186 billion) through 2030, a scaled-down outlay that reflects tightening capital allocation as Europe’s largest automaker grapples with mounting pressure in its two biggest markets — China and the United States, Reuters reported.The investment figure, announced by Volkswagen CEO Oliver Blume, is part of the company’s rolling five-year capital expenditure plan, which is updated annually. The latest commitment compares with €165 billion earmarked for 2025–2029 and €180 billion for 2024–2028, with 2024 marking the peak year for spending.Since that peak, the group — which houses brands such as Porsche and Audi — has been squeezed by higher costs and weaker margins, hit by US tariffs on imported vehicles and intensifying competition in China. The strain has been felt most acutely at Porsche, which derives nearly half of its sales from the US and China combined.Porsche recently unveiled a significant rollback of its electric vehicle strategy as profits came under pressure. Speaking to Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, Blume said the focus of the latest investment plan was firmly “on Germany and Europe,” particularly in products, technology and infrastructure.Blume added that discussions on an extended savings programme at Porsche are expected to continue into 2026. He also said he does not expect Porsche to grow in China, though localising production across the wider Volkswagen group remains an option. A China-specific Porsche model could make sense at some point, he said.On Audi, Blume noted that any decision on building a manufacturing plant in the United States would depend on whether Washington offers substantial financial support.Blume, who will step down as Porsche CEO in January to concentrate fully on running Volkswagen Group, said his recent contract extension as Volkswagen chief executive until 2030 signalled continued backing from the Porsche and Piëch families as well as the German state of Lower Saxony, the company’s largest shareholders.“But it is true, of course, that shareholders have suffered losses since Porsche went public three years ago. I, too, must face up to this criticism,” he said.

At a time when most Indian airlines are posting losses, IndiGo stands out as the only profitable carrier. Yet, while loss-making airlines managed to comply with DGCA directives within the allotted 18-month period, the one airline turning a profit failed to do so. The DGCA had provided ample time for compliance and workforce planning. But while others focused on meeting regulatory requirements, IndiGo appeared to pursue a different strategy—creating disruption to pressure the government. Incredibly, this approach worked: instead of imposing penalties, the government chose to relax the norms.

Aviation expert Harsh Vardhan squarely called this entire crisis a failure of IndiGo’s management. He said this is an extremely unprecedented situation. Passengers have been suffering for three days, and this is the peak tourist, wedding, and business season. IndiGo’s claim that the new FDTL policy suddenly created problems is nothing but a management failure. The policy wasn’t introduced overnight—it was formulated over years of deliberation and was finalised a year ago.

Harsh Vardhan reminded that the soft launch of the FDTL took place on July 1, 2025, and it was fully implemented from November 1, 2025. Other operators like Air India and SpiceJet made timely adjustments, which is why no major crisis emerged there. What surprises him most is the timing—if the policy was effective from November 1, why did this sudden “rampage” begin only a month later, at the start of December?

“The Government of India has decided to institute a high-level inquiry into this disruption. The inquiry will examine what went wrong at Indigo, determine accountability wherever required for appropriate actions, and recommend measures to prevent similar disruptions in the future, ensuring that passengers do not face such hardships again,” said the Ministry of Civil Aviation in a statement.

No one knows what will come out of the inquiry but, interestingly, IndiGo got rewarded for its blackmailing,  instead of getting punished as the government relaxed norms. 

Due to the IndiGo induced turbulence, the airfare on key routes touched Rs 80,000 to Rs 90,000. IndiGo didn’t merely cancel flights—it brought the system to a standstill, grounding aircraft, showcasing its clout, and effectively challenging the government to respond. Instead of asserting its authority, the NDA government backed down and rolled back its own directive. Through deliberate mismanagement, the airline pushed the system toward chaos. The suspension of over a thousand IndiGo flights severely disrupted the economy, sending hotel prices and ticket fares on other airlines soaring.

“The central government has ordered a probe and refunds—but the question is: when the monopoly of private companies and the government’s silence come together, who will protect the common people? Who are you working for? The public or the interests of big corporate houses?” Former Delhi Dy CM Manish Sisodia rightly questioned the government.

Shockingly, a country of 1.4 billion people relies primarily on just two major domestic carriers—IndiGo and Air India. IndiGo’s dominance is so significant that even Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi publicly criticised the government for its oversight failures. “IndiGo fiasco is the cost of this Govt’s monopoly model. Once again, it’s ordinary Indians who pay the price – in delays, cancellations and helplessness. India deserves fair competition in every sector, not match-fixing monopolies,” said Gandhi. 

For two decades, successive governments have allowed major airlines to collapse instead of restructuring them under new ownership. Jet Airways and Kingfisher Airlines are prime examples: both could have been revived by removing problematic promoters, yet no institutional mechanism was activated. The pattern repeated itself with Go First. When three airlines vanish in a decade, it signals not merely corporate failures but a systemic unwillingness to safeguard competition and consumer interest, wrote Prashant Tewari, public policy expert, mentioned in a recent report in The Pioneer.

Today, IndiGo controls over half of India’s domestic aviation market, with the Air India group holding most of the remainder. Smaller airlines operate on the margins, too weak to influence pricing or service standards.

Tewari wrote that disappearance of three airlines within years show government’s failure of protecting competition and consumer interest. 

This duopoly-like environment has suffocated passengers: airfares on busy domestic routes routinely exceed those for comparable distances in Europe, Southeast Asia, or even the United States. A two-hour flight within India can cost more than a four-hour international journey elsewhere.

“IndiGo airline fiasco shows that Modi govt is either incompetent or in collusion. In either case, India deserves better. People have never suffered so much,” said Former Delhi CM and AAP convener Arvind Kejriwal.

For years, India’s aviation sector has needed at least eight to ten robust operators to foster true competition, stabilise fares, and minimise disruptions. Instead, new entrants face steep barriers, licensing moves painfully slowly, and foreign carriers seeking expansion are hindered by outdated protectionist policies disguised as national security concerns. This refusal to liberalise the skies has turned India into one of the world’s most expensive domestic aviation markets.

According to Tewari, the duoploy ecosystem suits certain entrenched interests. With opaque decision-making, India’s aviation sector functions with minimal accountability, he opined.

Though the government’s UDAN scheme was launched to make air travel accessible to the common citizen, soaring fares have made flying increasingly unaffordable.

Besides opening new airports, the government must urgently liberalise the sector, encourage new domestic players, revive grounded airlines under competent management, and allow credible foreign carriers to compete under regulated conditions. Until then, Indian travellers will continue to pay excessively, learning the same harsh lessons again and again.