Navigating Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) Opportunity in a Polycentric System

Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) has emerged globally as a socio-technical transition rather than a discrete aviation innovation. Empirical research consistently shows that the viability of AAM depends not only on vehicle performance but on the alignment of regulatory institutions, digital infrastructure, safety assurance systems, and operational coordination mechanisms (Bauranov & Rakas, 2021; Straubinger et al., 2020). India presents a polycentric system, where aviation authorities, telecom regulators, security agencies, airport operators, and state governments each control distinct but interdependent approval pathways. In early-stage AAM markets, failures are more frequently attributed to governance fragmentation, certification delays, and inter-agency misalignment than to technological infeasibility.

This has led scholars to argue that AAM should be evaluated as a system-level innovation embedded in complex institutional environments rather than as an aircraft-centric industry (Geels, 2002; Wiedemann et al., 2024). For investors it implies that capital exposure in AAM is shaped less by individual vehicle performance and more by the system’s ability to align regulation, infrastructure, and operations across multiple public authorities.

AAM Success in India will depend on coordination not technology

India represents a polycentric system involving aviation regulators, telecommunications authorities, security agencies, urban-infrastructure bodies, and state governments with overlapping mandates (Thiel et al., 2019). This fragmentation does not indicate institutional weakness; rather, it creates coordination and sequencing risks. It directly affects the timing, scalability, and bankability of AAM deployments, where delays or misalignment in any single authority can stall otherwise viable projects (Barbano & Costa, 2023; World Economic Forum, 2024). In such environments, there is heightened uncertainty not only about technology readiness but also about which actors are positioned to translate regulatory intent into operational reality. In a polycentric system, salience alone is a weak predictor of delivery. Network position and implementation capacity explain why highly visible actors may underperform while lower-visibility actors become de facto bottleneck-resolvers (Baldwin et al., 2024). In India’s AAM landscape, the most consequential risk is not identifying important stakeholders; it is misreading which stakeholders convert importance into delivery.

By integrating salience, network, and implementation lenses into a structured, rubric-based framework and visualised outcomes, this article responds directly to these gaps. The analysis systematically evaluates how technology providers are positioned within India’s AAM ecosystem in terms of influence, coordination capacity, and execution readiness. Establishing such a multidimensional analytical context enables a clearer distinction between who is visible in India’s AAM discourse and who is structurally positioned to execute.

What Global AAM Roadmaps Reveal About Execution Risk?

Leading nations have crafted roadmaps with clear milestones spanning regulation, infrastructure, technology trials, and public integration. In 2023 the FAA released a detailed roadmap targeting routine AAM operations by 2028 (FAA, 2023). In 2025, it also framed a coordinated “whole-of-government” strategy to guide AAM development through the decade. Initial operations will use current helicopter routes and helipads with piloted control. As demand rises, new corridors and technologies will be introduced to maintain safety amid heavier traffic. This incremental, phase-by-phase approach from piloted trials to corridor-based operations to eventual autonomous flight is emerging as a best practice in AAM project planning (Interagency Working Group, 2025).

In Europe, AAM feasibility efforts center on proactive regulation and community readiness as much as on technology. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has been laying groundwork years in advance. EASA issued the world’s first special airworthiness specifications for eVTOL aircraft in July 2019, creating a tailored certification code for “small VTOL aircraft” (EASA, 2019). It also kicked off work on pilot licensing and operational rules for air taxis and vertiport operators as early as 2019. In parallel, Europe also introduced a unified unmanned traffic management framework: the U-space regulation, adopted in 2021 and effective from early 2023. It provides a digital air traffic system to safely integrate drones and UAM vehicles in urban skies. Europe’s timeline for AAM also leverages numerous pilot projects and public-private demonstrations under EU research programs like AMU-LED and CORUS-XUAM (EASA, n.d.). Europe’s feasibility framework couples early regulatory clarity with pilot trials and community feedback loops.

Asian AAM leaders like Japan provide examples of phased project roadmaps backed by high-level government coordination. Japan has formulated a comprehensive four-phase vision over the next 15+ years (Philip Hayes, 2025). In the initial implementation phase Japan plans to interlink city centers with airports and nearby regions, essentially prototyping an aerial transit network. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT), Japan, also stresses that boosting social acceptance in areas where flying cars will operate is necessary to expand routes in the 2030s. By the late 2030, the Japanese vision reaches a long-term maturity. During this period AAM becomes a daily mode of transport for many with high-density intra-city flights and inter-city connections. At that point, the infrastructure and regulatory system would support routine autonomous operations, and costs are expected to drop enough that it is affordable for daily commuting. Finally, a completion phase in the 2040s foresees full integration connecting entire megaregions (MLIT, n.d.). Japan’s phased methodology from controlled pilot projects to liberalized commercial services offers a clear blueprint of actionable milestones.

However, unlike centralized governance structures, India’s AAM transition must be evaluated through a more fragmented, multi-authority execution lens making stakeholder coordination capacity as critical as technological maturity.

Framing India’s AAM opportunity beyond aircraft certification

Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) in India is often discussed through the narrow lens of aircraft manufacturing or urban congestion relief. By integrating stakeholder salience (Mitchell et al., 1997), network governance (Provan & Kenis, 2008) and implementation capacity (Andrews et al., 2013), the analysis reframes AAM as a system-of-systems investment domain rather than a single-technology bet. Andrews, Pritchett, and Woolcock’s capability-trap argument implies that complex public–private transitions succeed less by importing “best practice” checklists and more by building context-specific implementation capability (Andrews et al., 2013). These framing shifts attention away from certification as the singular gating item. The deeper question that emerges is whether the ecosystem can repeatedly convert intent into operational outcomes across a set of regulatory institutions and infrastructure dependencies.

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA) form the regulatory core; DGCA oversees safety, aircraft certification, and operating standards, while MoCA provides policy vision and infrastructure funding. The first AAM corridors in India were implemented once UTM platforms proved capable in diverse BVLOS trials (Beechener, 2020). The Drone Directorate in DGCA has acted as a nodal point to coordinate among agencies and with the industry. The regulatory mapping shows that aviation regulators also sit alongside telecom/spectrum agencies, security actors, and state-level implementation bodies whose mandates jointly determine whether low-altitude operations, connectivity, and vertiport integration can scale.

In such settings, “certification readiness” is necessary but not sufficient; scaled AAM depends on whether the ecosystem can coordinate, learn, and adapt across agencies, jurisdictions, and technology stacks. Empirically, these coordination challenges manifest at specific institutional coupling points where multiple authorities intersect:

• low-altitude airspace permissions and safety governance,
• spectrum-backed command-and-control and performance assurance,
• security and geofencing protocols,
• vertiport siting and local execution capacity, and
• the operational integration of UTM with ATM and public networks.

Each of these coupling points represents a potential delay vector for investors, as progress depends on synchronized approvals rather than linear execution. For India, AAM deployment will not fail primarily due to a lack of technology ambition. It will stall when coordination, sequencing, and institutional interfaces cannot be executed reliably across different systems boundary.

Technology Providers as Coordination Anchors in a Polycentric System

India’s Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) roadmap hinges not just on policy milestones but on the readiness and influence of its key technology providers. The success of eVTOL air taxi services will depend on robust traffic management (UTM) and communication infrastructure, while UTM firms need the proliferation of eVTOL operations to validate and scale their platforms.

Therefore, technology providers are not peripheral suppliers but central coordination nodes in regulatory, infrastructural, and operational realisation. Actors like Honeywell, Thales, HAL, ANRA, and Asteria exhibit both high salience and high implementation readiness. These firms are institutionally embedded, globally recognised, and strategically positioned for critical path integration. Honeywell and Thales combine high power, legitimacy and urgency, as they already support Indian ATC and avionics programs. This makes them essential for meeting near-term milestones such as pilot licensing, vertiport integration, and corridor-based UTM. ANRA Technologies, Altitude Angel, and Asteria Aerospace exhibit moderate centrality values. They reflect the kind of bridging roles described in Provan & Kenis’ “participant-governed” models where, the overall ecosystem’s health depends on decentralised, yet interlinked, governance. In India’s polycentric system, UTM providers that can bridge compliance workflows, operator needs, and digital authorisation infrastructure, become “execution multipliers.” Other specialist avionics firms appearing in the chart include Collins Aerospace, Garmin, L3Harris, and emerging tech startups such as Daedalean for AI autopilots and SkyGrid for AI-based UTM.

India’s AAM ecosystem offers a dynamic and promising frontier where top eVTOL manufacturers and avionics and UTM suppliers are actively shaping the future of urban mobility. For foreign stakeholders, navigating these intertwined issues will require patience, adaptability, and often the guidance of local intermediaries. Global eVTOL manufacturers such as Joby Aviation and SkyDrive Inc. top the rankings for network centrality. These scores indicate strong connectivity and recognition reflecting their extensive global partnerships and technological clout. Notably, Beta Technologies, a U.S. startup with advanced cargo eVTOL prototypes scores one of the highest on implementation readiness. This is due to the technical maturity of its aircraft and its proximity to regulatory certification. These global OEMs wield disproportionate stakeholder influence given their ability to shape AAM narratives and emerging technical and certification standards.

Alongside the global players, Indian eVTOL startups have also secured noteworthy positions in the stakeholder network. Sarla Aviation’s high centrality stems from cultivated ties within the Indian ecosystem through engagements with government agencies and local industry consortia. The ePlane Company similarly leverages its local R&D base to achieve moderate salience and network scores. The company’s public reporting of DGCA Design Organisation Approval and ongoing type certification process provides concrete evidence of legal authority progression (Vaitheeswaran B, 2025). These firms lack the global market dominance of Joby or Archer, but their legitimacy is bolstered by alignment with national priorities.

From certifying vehicles to bankable operating capability

India stands to benefit immensely from existing international roadmaps, but any AAM roadmap for India must be tailored to its polycentric stakeholder landscape. This makes coordinated mechanisms a top priority for AAM feasibility. A practical and institutionally necessary step, mirroring the U.S. and Japanese approaches, would be to establish a high-level interagency AAM task force or council under MoCA. This will bring together DGCA, AAI, state representatives, telecom regulators, and defense airspace officials. This body could function like Japan’s Public-Private Council or the U.S. interagency working group, creating a single forum to define milestones and resolve jurisdictional overlaps.

Furthermore, certification progress remains important, but it is only one element of a broader capability curve. In this framing, milestones become the mechanism through which India’s AAM opportunity becomes bankable at scale. A plausible milestone is the first limited commercial service by 2030 aligning with the global timeline where many countries aim to have initial services. By this time, it is anticipated that certain intra-city routes in India will be designated as AAM corridors. The Airports Authority (AAI) and private airport operators will play a significant role here, converting underutilized areas of existing airports into vertiports for feeder air taxi services. The infrastructure development in this phase moves from paper to the construction of the first generation of vertiports. The Vertiport Buildout Phase is the most challenging to coordinate, as it sits at the intersection of policy and concrete execution. A key insight from the analysis is that states and local bodies have regular interaction with national agencies but thin. If even one critical stakeholder lags, it could create a domino effect. DGCA’s high centrality will play a key role in ensuring readiness of these stakeholders and remain the hub for any operational decision.

Looking at the long-term India’s AAM roadmap would aim for expansion and integration. This period corresponds to moving from pilot-phase services to mass adoption, akin to Japan’s mid-term growth and long-term maturity phases (Philip Hayes, 2025). During this phase India will need to ensure supporting infrastructure like power supply and maintenance networks. This echoes the FAA’s inclusion of electrical grid support in AAM planning (FAA, 2023). The road ahead, however, will test stakeholders on execution and collaboration. Anticipating bottlenecks in regulation, infrastructure, and market entry will be crucial, especially for foreign investors who must calibrate global best practices to India’s unique context. The central insight is that India’s AAM opportunity is less constrained by technology availability and more by the ecosystem’s ability to coordinate execution across ministries, states, and digital infrastructure platforms. If these challenges are managed through sustained public-private partnership and knowledge exchange, India is poised to leapfrog into AAM with a model that balances innovation with inclusion, and global expertise with indigenous development.

Reference

• Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2013). Escaping Capability Traps Through Problem Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA). World Development , 51 , 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.05.011
• Baldwin, E., Thiel, A., McGinnis, M., & Kellner, E. (2024). Empirical research on polycentric governance: Critical gaps and a framework for studying long-term change. Policy Studies Journal , 52 (2), 319–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12518
• Barbano, M., & Costa, V. (2023). Implementing Urban Air Mobility in a Multi-Level Regulatory Framework: Perspectives from the EU. 2023 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS) , 895–902. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICUAS57906.2023.10156184
• Bauranov, A., & Rakas, J. (2021). Designing airspace for urban air mobility: A review of concepts and approaches. Progress in Aerospace Sciences , 125 , 100726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2021.100726
• FAA. (2023, July). Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) Implementation Plan . https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/AAM-I28-Implementation-Plan.pdf
• Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy , 31 (8), 1257–1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8
• Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. The Academy of Management Review , 22 (4), 853–886. https://doi.org/10.2307/259247
• Philip Hayes. (2025, September 1). Japan sets out four-phase vision for full implementation of flying cars and eVTOLs. Unmanned Airspace . https://www.unmannedairspace.info/latest-news-and-information/japan-sets-out-four-phase-vision-for-full-implementation-of-flying-cars-and-evtols/
• Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 18 (2), 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum015
• Straubinger, A., Rothfeld, R., Shamiyeh, M., Büchter, K.-D., Kaiser, J., & Plötner, K. O. (2020). An overview of current research and developments in urban air mobility – Setting the scene for UAM introduction. Journal of Air Transport Management , 87 , 101852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.101852
• Thiel, A., Garrick, D. E., & Blomquist, W. A. (2019). Governing Complexity: Analyzing and Applying Polycentricity . Cambridge University Press.
• Vaitheeswaran B. (2025, January 20). ePlane company gets DGCA acceptance for type certification. The Times of India . https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/eplane-company-gets-dgca-acceptance-for-type-certification/articleshow/117382263.cms
• Wiedemann, M., Liang, M., Keremane, G., & Quigley, K. (2024). Advanced Air Mobility: A comparative review of policies from around the world—lessons for Australia. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives , 24 , 100988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2023.100988
• World Economic Forum. (2024). Skyways to the Future: Operational Concepts for Advanced Air Mobility in India . World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/publications/skyways-to-the-future-operational-concepts-for-advanced-air-mobility-in-india/