Shiv Sena (UBT) MLA Aaditya Thackeray raised questions over the proposed redevelopment of Terminal 1 (T1) at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport in Mumbai, urging the Union Civil Aviation Ministry to intervene in the matter.
The former Maharashtra Minister, in a post on X, called on the Union Minister for Civil Aviation to “step in and speak up” on the issue.
Aaditya also opposed any move that would require airlines and passengers to shift operations from Mumbai Airport’s T1 to DB Patil International Airport in Navi Mumbai during the redevelopment process.
Aaditya Thackeray wrote, “Our demand is simple: Repair/refurbish/rebuild the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport-T1 without forcing airlines and passengers to move to DB Patil International Airport-Navi Mumbai.”
The Union Regime’s Minister for Civil Aviation must step in and speak up on the Mumbai Airport T1 issue now! Our demand is simple: Repair/ refurbish/ rebuild the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport- T1 without forcing airlines and passengers to move to DB Patil International Airport- Navi Mumbai. The current T1 was built not too long ago, and whatever upgrade is needed, can and must happen without the aim of hassling and fleecing Mumbaikars and those transiting through Mumbai. After the management was made to change hands, one anyway sees chaos in crowd management, and commercialisation of almost every little thing at the airport now- even parking charges per hour are astronomical! Fleecing is on anyway! And now the forced shift to Navi Mumbai, with or without any ground connectivity, is still only a way to shut down T1 for 4 years as first claimed by the owner, and then possibly totally shift things to navi mumbai and finish off Mumbai’s connect and ease of connect with the world. The current chaos is only leading to disrepute of our city and its airport, globally. Navi Mumbai is an additional airport, not a makeshift airport! The question arises again- who is it being done for?
— Aaditya Thackeray (@AUThackeray) October 7, 2026
Thackeray questions need for prolonged shutdown
Raising questions about the shutdown of T1, the Shiv Sena (UBT) leader questioned the need to shut down the existing T1 for an extended period. He also argued that the terminal was built relatively recently and that necessary upgrades should be carried out without causing inconvenience to passengers travelling through Mumbai.
He alleged that the proposed shift could “hassle and fleece” Mumbaikars and passengers transiting through the city.
The Shiv Sena (UBT) leader also criticised what he described as increasing commercialisation and crowd-management problems at Mumbai Airport following a change in management.
“After the management was made to change hands, one anyway sees chaos in crowd management and commercialisation of almost every little thing at the airport now,” he said, while also alleging that parking charges had become “astronomical”.
Aaditya Thackeray highlights public inconvenience
Thackeray further questioned the proposal to move airport operations to Navi Mumbai, particularly in the absence of adequate ground connectivity.
He claimed that the proposed shift could effectively result in T1 being shut for four years and raised concerns that the temporary arrangement could eventually lead to a larger shift of operations to Navi Mumbai.
According to Thackeray, such a development could affect Mumbai’s connectivity with the rest of the world and create further inconvenience for passengers.
He also criticised the current situation at Mumbai Airport, saying that the ongoing chaos was bringing disrepute to both the city and its airport internationally.
Thackeray says, ‘Navi Mumbai is an additional airport, not a makeshift airport’
Thackeray stressed that Navi Mumbai Airport should function as an additional airport for the Mumbai Metropolitan Region rather than being treated as a makeshift replacement for Mumbai Airport during the T1 redevelopment.
“Navi Mumbai is an additional airport, not a makeshift airport!” he wrote on X.
Aaditya Thackeray also questioned the rationale behind the proposed arrangements, asking,
“The question arises again- who is it being done for?”
