These read suspiciously like "too big to fail" complaints. Are we seriously using the Air India argument to justify HAL's continued (non-)performance?
HAL is inefficient and overstaffed. This is a fact. At appx 31,000 employees, ca. $2.4bn revenue, and 40 aircraft TOTAL production per year, it is a JOKE. That is a revenue per employee of $77,420, and a staggering 775 employees per aircraft built.
Compare with Boeing. Approx $93.3 bn revenue, and 933 aircraft delivered last year. Even at ~141,400 employees, that is a mere 152 workers per aircraft, and nearly $660,000 in revenue per employee -- nearly an order of magnitude higher on revenue, and 5x leaner on workforce.
"But Boeing benefits from commercial!" I hear you cry. Fine. BDS. $21.1bn, 170 deliveries last year, 50k employees (approx, probably fewer). That's revenue per employee of $422,000, and 294 employees per aircraft delivered. Half the workforce, and nearly six times more revenue.
And BDS is actually not the greatest comparison, because this doesn't even account for their productivity in the satellite/space launch sector and munitions/weapon systems, where HAL is barely a player.
If HAL is held to account, whatever the motivations -- unsavoury or otherwise -- it can ONLY be a good thing for Indian aerospace manufacturing and national security.
