Thank you very much. We will now begin with the question-and-answer session. First question comes from the line of Krupashankar NJ with Avendus.

My first question is on the yields, while you have highlighted that the PRASK at least is expected to be high at 25%, what's been the impact you've seen so far with respect to load factors? And is that one of the key reasons why there is a rationalization exercise with respect to capacity, when that the guidance is flattish on a relatively lower base on Y-o-Y?

So, Krupa, the way Q1 panned out for us, we already had at least a 21% increase in the yield. The load factors did not go down significantly. It was just a 1.3% decline on the load factors. As we are looking into Q2, we are seeing that the price discipline is still holding up in the market. And as a result, the yields have been tapering upwards, and that's why the guidance for Q2 is 25% and north of 25%. We are expecting the loads to be flattish or slightly down similar to what it was in Q1, but that's largely driven by the fact that a large part of the capacity has also been reduced, which is typical of this quarter. Even last year, we had tapered down or optimized our capacity given that it's off -season quarter. So, with the decline in the capacity deployment that we've done, we are seeing that the pricing discipline is still holding up. We are able to push up prices, and the loads are also sticking. So that's how we are looking at Q2.

Got it. And second one is on the rational cash flow. So just wanted to get a sense, given the cost escalations, is there a number you want to keep as a bottom number or a spread number, which you would be comfortable with going ahead until which there can be increasing hikes with respect to your pricing? Is that something which is in the bottom of the calculation, which is always under consideration when you take this hike going ahead?

No. The endeavour is always going to be economically viable propositions so that we keep having a healthy spread. But as you're well aware, the kind of environment that we are in right now, the fuel and the currency have been the biggest drag. So given how things have shap ed up in Q1, we managed it well.

We were hoping that this is behind us because large part of the conflict was coming to a close. We've recently started to see some flare-up. But our endeavour is always going to be to make sure that there is a healthy spread. And towards that, we'll keep working. But the external factors are just too significant. The headwinds are too significant. But like we said, we keep testing high levels of yields in order to offset largely the increased levels of cost that we are experiencing. So, there's no kind of a target, but we just want it to be a healthy kind of a spread.

The next question comes from the line of Pulkit Patni with Goldman Sachs.

I have a couple. Firstly, any change to your full year guidance given that your second quarter guidance is flattish one after first quarter also been relatively weak? So how should I look at your full year ASK guidance? That's question number one?

Pulkit, we are holding to the guidance that we gave at the analyst meet. So, it's in single digits. So, it was already tapered down. But post -'27, we had already given a guidance that we'll be back to early double digits. So given the external factors, we are still holding to the single-digit guidance that we will on capacity.

Sure. Sure. That's useful. Gaurav, my second question, it's not typically asked, but would you be able to talk about on a rupee basis, what has been the cost of fuel that you have paid in this particular quarter? And I'll tell you the reason why I'm asking this. Has our fuel consumed per ASK change meaningfully between the last few quarters and this quarter? That number would be helpful for us to just gauge that?

No. So, when you say the two elements of change in the fuel. One is the rate and the consumption. So, there's no change on a per ASK basis as far as the consumption is. Only driver of change has been the rate. And the rates, as you are very well aware, have been going up, and that's been the biggest part of the mitigation that we've been working in Q1.

And for the quarter, what's that rate, if you can talk about? Effective number?

So again, it's going to be, if you look at the reference point, if you look at March because the way the pricing for fuel worked out, March was a reference point went in 1st of April, where the support came in, both from the government and the oil marketing companies, where they said that the increase in the fuel rates is going to be capped at 25% for the domestic space. So that was defined from 1st April. It worked out in April, it worked out in May. And until the 8th of June, this particular methodology worked out. While the international always was at the market rates, which was where the MOPAG was trending. Post the 9th of June, even for the domestic space, we've got the market rate, the MOPAG rate that is kicked in. So , it's kind of the way the quarter played out, 1st April til l 8th of June, there was a defined kind of a formula which was supported by the oil marketing companies for all airlines.

That is going to be referenced to a March pricing that you had, a 25% cap on that. Plus, you've got taxes of VAT and excise duties. Post the 9th, the reference bench shifted, and it was back to the market rates, which way played out for the international space so all domestic had this. International was always at market rates. Additionally, this was just for the public sector kind of oil marketing companies. The private, in effect, had their own rates that were in place, which was, again, linked to the market prices that were applicable in March.

Sure. I'll take this offline because my implied calculation is showing that the effective rate is close to INR150 per litre. I'm not sure if that's the right number. So maybe I'll check with you offline to get a better understanding of this.

Sure.

Your next question comes from the line of Arvind Sharma with Citi.

Continuing the fuel cost part. If you look at the fuel CASK, that is up almost 60% quarter-on-quarter and 80% Y-o-Y. Now I understand that there was a cap in the cost increase. But there have been multiple releases by the OMCs that stated fuel price would not be increased. Even after that, a 63% quarter -on-quarter fuel CASK increase, what would be the key drivers? Because even after 9th June, if it was a free market, but a major part of the quarter, the growth might not have been as much as the numbers kind of reflect. If yo u could throw some more light on how the fuel CASK increase was 63% quarter-on-quarter ties up with the actual fuel that you've paid for?

So, Arvind, if you look at -- since you're doing a quarter -over-quarter comparison, if you look at January, February and March, so there were three kind of reference points. So , the fuel was increasing significantly in March. So , it was in the early 80s from SingJet standpoint. It went to around 82-ish in February, and then there was an increase that happened in March. So, March becomes the baseline when you're doing a quarter -over-quarter comparison because March became the reference point for April and May and the 8 days of June that you have. So, you were already at an elevated level of a base on which then there was this formula that was being applied, which is 25% that was being applied for domestic, plus the VAT and the taxes, the excise duty and VAT that you had to apply. So that played out on the domestic front. International, any which ways was the same philosophy of pricing that applied prior to the war was getting applied. So , the mix of that was the driver of the fuel going up to 63%. Additionally , on that, this was only up to 9th of June. Beyond the 9th of June, it was anyway back to the same methodology of pricing, which was MOPAG-linked. So, a combination of these two factors, plus the fact that we had international, which was anyway that market, which was 2x of the reference point that you had because the market , the fuel prices had gone up by 120% between March and then April, May, June.

International was at 120%. Domestic was being capped at 25% with additional impact of VAT as well as excise. And the private players that we had were anyway pegging their pricing at the market prices. A combination of these three effects is what will give you the 63% that you've kind of seen in the results quarter-over-quarter sequentially. So, your starting base itself, March, was on a higher level compared to January and February. Add to that, the elements that I kind of called out is what is driving the 63% increase in the fuel quarter- over-quarter.

Got it. And second question would be on the fleet part. So, is it fair to assume that damp lease will eventually go to zero? Given that second quarter would be a flattish capacity growth quarter, is there a rethink on the fleet strategy for the year or does it continue as usual and adjusted for the damp lease aircraft being given away?

The fleet strategy is again, the only tapering that we've done is the older technology CEOs have, some have been parked given the environment. The fuel levels are extremely high. It doesn't kind of necessitate that we need to be operating those. The damp leases, yes, we've returned most of the damp leases. So , we'll again assess the situation as we come into Q3 where we'll have to probably look at what is the external environment, especially related to Middle East, has that improved? Has the fuel levels moderated down? And if the demand situation has started to improve and the cost has started to taper downwards, we'll assess that situation to see if we need a surge capacity in the form of damp leases. So outside of that, our own fleet continues to be on plan. Damp lease, we'll assess in Q3.

Right. And if I could just ask your comments on, where are you in terms of Middle East capacity? Is it normalized or how much is the headroom for further normalization, the Middle East via N2?

Yes. End of June, we were actually up to the same close to 90, 95 percentage levels of what capacity we were operating. We were close to 150 prior to the war, departures that we had on a daily basis. It went down to around 20 and 30 at the peak of the crisis. Over the course of June, then we started to ramp back up again. We were close to again 130 -plus. But now we are assessing the situation that's developing over there. Today, probably it's going to be in the north of 90% capacity that we are operating. But we continue to assess the situation because the crisis is again kind of flared up. So that's where we are. But our intention is to keep operating Middle East 'till the point it's safe for us to operate at the maximum amount of capacity that we can go to.

Your next question comes from the line of Sabri with Emkay Global.

No. So, I'll try to address it. Pre the war, the fuel was operating somewhere close to 85, 90 in terms of ATF is concerned. When the war kind of broke out, the fuel prices went up by 120%. So, it was touching more. The SingJet, this is not Brent, SingJet and MOPAG started to touch close to 180 to 200 because of the 120% increase that happened. So, that's why they were operating at. With that base of March that you start taking and you put a kind of a cap at least on the domestic side, it's 125% was the cap that was put. On top of that, there is VAT and excise duty that you need to add on to. International operated at 180-plus at that because there was no release available on the international. So, when you blend these two together, you'll get an average rate. It could be somewhere 140 between the international and the domestic space. Now in this, this is the portion that comes to you from the public sector oil marketing company partners that you had. You also have private players offering you fuel. The private players did not, not all of them, some of them did, but not all of them, moderate their pricing related to fuel. They continue to operate at the market pricing that was applicable to the international kind of pricing. When you blend these two, you will get the 60%, which is closer to 140 kind of ATF price levels or as an average for the month, for the quarter Q1. Now during this period, especially in June, at the fag end of June, the ATF did start to moderate downwards at an aggregate level, but it's again linked to the averages that are there. So, it did come down to 110. On a market level, it was probably tapering from 180, 120, it came down to 140 and then it further tapered downwards. So, there was a period when the ATF did come down, but now it's again climbed back up. So today, if you were to look at ATF, my guess is it's going to be somewhere around $140 to $150 at international MOPAG levels. So, the fuel has moved significantly. But when you add these things together, which kind of are different drivers to it, a combination of support that came from the oil marketing companies, the additional VAT and excise that you have to add on to it, the fact that there were two periods in this April to June 8 and then June 8 to 30 June, plus the private supply that comes from private players. A combination of that will give you the 63% increase, which, from a base of 90, 85 to 90, that was very much. When you add on the 60%, it's somewhere close to 140, 150 what I think Pulkit was also mentioning.

Right. So currently also, the rate is sort of similar $90 of Brent and the $50, $60 of SingJet margins?

That's right.

No. Capacity for Q2, you're talking about or you're talking about Q1?

In Q1 also in Q2 that you have like given flat guidance?

Q1 was largely Middle East driven because, obviously, we had a huge amount of cancellation. Q2 is, again, a prudent call that we typically take, where we taper down our capacity, especially for off-season markets. So , we've already given a communication that six of the destinations on the East side, also, we had moderated down those capacities. We kind of suspended operations, which will restart back again in October. Places like Langkawi, places like Ho Chi Minh City, Hong Kong, Shanghai. So , there are two different kind of periods that we have. Q1 was Middle East driven, Q2 is a little towards the east because of the off -season markets.

But that's sequentially, Y-o-Y would still be having a Middle East impact in Q2, right?

I hope not. Like I said, we are already at 90% right now. I hope the crisis kind of tapers down. As far as capacity is concerned, we'll keep operating as long as safe to operate, the maximum amount of capacity that we can throw into the Middle East.

Your next question comes from the line of Aditya Mongia with Kotak Institutional Equities.

So essentially, I'm just trying to get a sense on the pricing strategy, wherein today, there is an underutilized fleet, but price points are high. Is there something that could sustain even beyond 2Q?

Beyond Q2, it's going to be the big Q3, which is usually the peak season for us. So , we will be bringing back all the capacity that we have. And that was an approach that we had even last year. We had curtailed some of our capacity in Q2 because of the off season. And then we bring back the entire capacity that we have, along with damp leases. That was at least done last year. We'll again assess the demand -supply situation, especially in the context of increased prices that we'll have to kind of play with, given the cost levels are high. So again, something we'll obviously closely monitor. We intend to bring more capacity back into the market because the demand is more likely than not to be very high, given that it's going to be a peak Q3 again.

Understood, sir. The second question that I had in mind was more linked to news flows that are happening on the cross -holding between airports and airlines and that's being taken out as a provision. And then 2 parts for the question. A, how does IndiGo thi nk about the threat of new airlines, let's say, airports competing with airlines with their own setup? And B, from a constructive perspective, is there a case wherein, let's say, IndiGo would want to partner up with airports where it has happened globally and both of them then can end up benefiting?

Aditya, this is Rahul. So , we are reading this news as you are. All I can say is that if the news we may have -- if the news has any merit, one, it has no global precedents because it typically would reflect a massive conflict of interest. And over a period of time, it would actual ly be against the interest of consumers. This said, we should just watch this space and how it develops.

The second part of your question is a moot point right now. Like I said, let's see how this whole thing develops and then we can take a considered view on how to approach things into the future.

The next question comes from the line of Prateek Kumar with Jefferies.

My first question is on cost ex fuel ex forex. Which increased 11% during the quarter. Slight I know it's because of lower utilization. Do you still maintain net to high single -digit increase guided for this number? Also, can you quantify the deferred sala ry increment, which were not kind of accounted during this quarter?

On the cost CASK ex fuel, ex forex, it is going to be on the higher side of the single digit, even to the extent of probably on early double digits because that's what we are experiencing as far as the cost environment and given the lower utilization that has happened. So , for the year, we are still going to be on the higher side of this single digit, possibly even lower end of the early double-digit ranges. The second part of the question, given the scenario in the environment that we are right now in, there was, again, a deferment related to increments that were to be given to senior management employees. So that's what we've been, we'll assess again in 6 months' time where this needs to be , what needs to be looked into, given the environment that we are right now in. So , there was a deferment that we had done for all senior management employees within the company as far as the annual increments were concerned.

But your employee cost is still higher by 11% year-on-year. I mean, still like reasonably higher. So that excludes the management increment and maybe that will be part of the cost in later part of the year, which also accounts for this double-digit guidance that you're talking about?

It factors in. It factors all that into account as well. But year -over increase is a combination of, obviously, increments that have been done to a certain portion of the team. It is also on account of gratuity. If you remember, we have taken some provisions to increase levels of gratuity, head count increases and so on and so forth. So, gratuity has a higher run rate now compared to what it was earlier. So , we've taken an exceptional kind of cost for that in both Q3 as well as Q4. But the run rate has now started to increase because of that.

My other question is on your capacity growth beyond FY27. I think you while doing analyst meet, you gave the capacity number of 300 billion by FY30. That implied words of mid -teens growth from FY27 onwards post FY27. And you said in your opening remarks, i t was like low double digits. Can you discuss this again?

The next question comes from Achal Kumar with HSBC.

So, my first question is on the yield versus the fuel and other cost pressure. So, you mentioned that with such a high increase in the fuel, you were able to cover up with some part of it with the yield. Now you're guiding 20% yield increase. So, until what level of fuel you can still cover up? Do you think you'll be able to cover the whole fuel price or is there any sort of -- that with this increase in the yield, you'll still be able to cover up, say, $120 a barrel or whatever. So , with this increase in costs also. So, if you could give a bit of a color in terms of yield increase versus the cost increase? How should we think about that, please?

If you look at just Q1, Achal, we basically had a yield growth of around more than 20%, 21%, but the cost increase were north of 30%. So that's why the pressure point comes in. When we look at Q2, there's been a moderation as far as capacity is concerned. And we were pushing up the yields north of 25%. As we see this shift that has already started to happen on the fuel side again because the fuel had tapered down significantly. Now we're seeing that the fuel is again, the SingJet has started to and MOPAG has started to taper upwards as far as the cost. We'll again need to keep testing high levels of yields to offset that increased cost because beginning of the quarter when we were sitting, end of June, the war was coming to a close. Then suddenly, the shift that has started to happen between in the Middle East has resulted in increased levels of fuel costs. So, we'll have to keep testing higher levels of yields also just to offset the increased cost. So, this is a very dynamic situation. There's nothing that is what we can state that this is it where we will increase the yields and then we'll have to probably be able to offset the cost. The cost levels themselves have started to increase again. So , we'll have to test more higher levels of yield. We'll see where this kind of settles depending on the development that happened in Middle East.

Okay. Fine. Fair enough. And my second question is around sort of the fuel. You've got some relaxing from the OMCs in April, May in between there was a news that the government is asking airlines to compensate for that in case you don't sign up for the sch eme. If that happens, have you gazed, as in how much extra burden will come to your P&L in case you need to compensate for the losses of OMC made in April, May, please?

No, not really because the way we look at it because when the fuel levels were higher, on the international side, you had to pay market. On the domestic side, the cap that was applied enabled us then to define a fuel charge that was then passed on to the consumer. So, in effect, whatever was the increase, the 25% increase that happened, which was significantly lower than what the market was and it was kind of a good support that came from both the government as well as the oil marketing companies, was then passed on to the consumer also because our fuel charge did not go higher than what was the increased charge that will be passed to us. So, in effect, it was a pass-through that we enabled us to keep the fare levels low and yet operate the scheduled operations that we had.

Is Willie still joining on the 1st of August? Have you got all the approvals in place?

Yes. First week of August is when Willie is going to be joining the team. And also just to answer the earlier question because we've kind of settled the period of April to 8th of June based on the bills that have been also raised by the oil marketing companies on us as per the formula that will define the 25% cap. So, we've kind of settled those bills based on what was the agreed position at that time.

So, you're not expecting any extra burden from April, May?

Like I said, because we ourselves did not put any additional burden on the consumer in order to operate our planned fleet. Had the levels of fuel and the charges on us been to the extent of the market prices, we would have taken a different call. But given that support was coming through, we made sure that we pass it on to the consumer.

The next question comes from Kushagra Bhattar with CWC Advisors.

Just two questions. One short term and one longer term. The short-term, the near-term question is, if you can give us some more sense on the RASK minus CASK or the next splits to call, let's say, for both, let's say, international and the domestic because the environment has been challenging across, but the factors which played out are slightly different in the first quarter. And I'm assuming the competitive intensity is also quite different in both of these, which would have implications on the pricing or on the yield differently between these two markets, right? So , if you can help us understand how the net spread evolved for both international and domestic in this quarter? And then how do you expect it to play out let's say, for the entire year? Is the gap sort of converging between the two markets? Or you're not seeing those trends? That's the first question. I have a second question more on the longer-term perspective?

Honestly, I'll take the second question because we can't give you a guidance on the spread right now. You know how volatile the situation is. When we sat in March before the crisis, we were very optimistic in terms of this year is going to turn out better than the earlier 2 years, given the first year, we had elections. Then the following year, we had the Pahalgam. We were very, very bullish and optimistic related to how the year is going to turn out. Just the very first quarter itself has kind of turned on us, given the external factors, both the combination of the Middle East prices and the currency. So very difficult to give a spread number right now. So, we are not giving any guidance on that.

Okay. No problem. The second question is more like on the industry structure, let's say, apart from the relatively new news, which has come out on the airport operators entering the airline sector. But apart from that, and a related question to that is if the challenges are different again for airlines because a lot of them are at different points of maturity with different balance sheets and different cost structures.

So, are you seeing or expecting a significant or some sort of a decent amount of industry structure, change in industry structure shaping over the next 12 to 15 months weakening of some competition, which is where the motives behind this new news could also be one of the factors? So, if you can share some thoughts there yes, that would be helpful. Because is this more like a better way where Indian airports can become global hubs? Or this is more like how the current structure is, which is where the motives behind these new news is coming up?

Anything we say is going to be in the speculative zone because like what was shared, this is, again, news, which is playing out. We'll see where this goes. The reality is whatever is beneficial for the consumer, there has been certain rules, regulations, w hich have always kept airport and airline separate across the globe also. But we'll keep monitoring the space there. We'll see how we need to act and react whenever this comes as a formal kind of communication, rest is all speculation right now.

All right. And just last one, a small one, if I can squeeze in, which is, given the way, let's say, once the international normalizes, which is already 90% and if you continue to take fresh playing, let's say, from second half onwards, do you expect the international ASK share guidance, which target, which you had shared earlier, kind of prepone and the international ASK share could sort of go much higher than what you had estimated probably by the end of this decade? Yes, that's it.

No, we're still holding to the guidance. We have said 40% that we'll be there by 2030. We were well on track in terms of deliveries of our both the XLRs, which are largely for international markets as well as the wide bodies that will also start coming in. So, we are holding to that 40% guidance. And yes, the international side is going to grow faster because it has a lower base. And we had touched close to 33% of our capacity which had gone to international. And by 2030, it's more likely than not, will be somewhere around 40% that we had guided earlier.

Your next question comes from the line of Jinesh Joshi with Prabhudas Lilladher Capital.

Sure. Sir, my question is on the extent of FX loss cash we have seen in this quarter, which is to the tune of about INR82 crores and given the extent of rupee depreciation, this number appears to be slightly lower in the context of guidance that we had giv en earlier with respect to the kind of unit cost hit that we have from rupee depreciation that we see versus dollar. So , any reason for this number to be low? Has our expansion with respect to hedge cover increase or what is it?

No. So, you're probably referring to the mark-to-market. So, the mark-to-market, the shift was only 10 paisa quarter end March to June end. So , it was good because at one time, it was trending significantly higher. So that 10 paisa translates into the 8 billion, 9 billion that we typically have called out, which is our currency exposure that we have on a U.S. dollar basis. That translates into this INR80 crores. So , it's largely because where the currency closed that at a quarter point in June, which actually came out to be favourable because it was at one point, very adverse, but strengthened during the quarter point of June. And as a result, it translates into an INR80 crores, much lower than what we had experienced in the earlier quarters.

Sure. And secondly, on the supplementary rental side, we have seen that cost increase to about 0.8 on a per ASK basis. Some bit of it could be due to rupee depreciation. But is there anything specific that you would want to call out over here, because the cost is up by about 11%. And this is one area where we have seen the surge be quite higher when I compare with the other cost hits?

Yes. When you look at it from a sequential basis also, yes, there is because in quarter 4, we had some releases because as part of the supplementary rentals, we make provisions for redeliveries. When you redeliver, there is some leftover in terms of you do n't spend as much. And as a result, those releases come through. So that's what happened in Q4. As a result, what you get in Q1 is a more normalized kind of arrangement, which will play itself out every quarter. The increase in supplementary rentals, as you rightly mentioned, has been because of currency. These are all dollar -denominated as well as t he annual escalation that kicks in. But what you have in Q1 is a normalized kind of a setup, which you'll see quarter -over-quarter now.

The next question comes from Jainam Shah with Equirus Securities Private Limited.

Sir, just one question. What we've seen between FY22 and '23, while our yield has increased around 13% and 21% during that point in time due to various reasons, and then we have hold it up to those yields till now. And recently, the yields are now upwards of INR6. So, can we expect that post the normalization of the fuel prices maybe after a quarter or 2 or so, can we be able to hold on this thing? What your assessment is or will it be back to the normal given that the competition will be eventually playing out? What's your initial assessments is?

Jainam, it's a good observation because pre -COVID to post -COVID, there was a significant shift that happened on the yield levels. There was a 45% - 40% increase that happened. So , post the crisis, there was obviously revenge travel, there was lower capacity that was available in the market, that pushed up the prices. Subsequent to that, the growth has been largely volume driven. S o, a lot of capacity is what we were pumping in and pushing in while keeping the yields relatively at those levels, which was then being absorbed by the market. We are again experiencing a similar kind of shift where we are in a crisis in terms of the fuels elevated, the currency depreciation. These have elevated the cost levels. We are testing new levels of pricing. As things moderate, because this is going to be a price-led kind of a growth. As things moderate, we will look towards again, bringing more volume. That's why the mid -teen kind of growth post '27, and we'll look to holding the prices because the cost basis themselves have also kind of increased, barring the fuel, the normal cost levels have also increased because of their natural inflation. That is very much prevalent. And the currency, which typically does depreciate every year on an average should depreciate. So, the cost base continues to increase. It's an opportunity right now for us to push prices to offset those cost bases. But even after the crisis over and the fuel moderates, we're hopeful that we'll be

able to then start driving volume -driven growth where we are able to push more volumes so that more consumers can avail the services related to this.

The next question comes from Amyn Pirani with JPMorgan.

Just one more question on fuel. Because the oil marketing companies, the ATF prices that we used to track has become distorted because of the changes which have happened. Just from a simple calculation point of view, given whatever fuel price you have seen in the June quarter, which was made up of the fuel cap and then the removal of the fuel cap and international being at market from the very beginning. And assuming that in 2Q, you are moving or you are continuing to be on market prices entirely, how should we think about the 2Q number versus the 1Q number based on whatever you can see in the market right now? Obviously, we still have 2 more months. But will it be higher? Will 2Q be higher than 1Q or will it be similar to 1Q? If you can give some broad directional sense?

I wish I could do that. The forward curves related to fuel continue to keep changing. So obviously, Q1 was significantly high where the Brent also went up. If you look at Brent today, I'm using Brent, it's not the right reference point. But if you look at Brent, it's already north of 90 again. But what happened in Q1 was that the crack went up significantly higher. So, while the Brent went up 50%, the cracks were going up even higher. We'll have to see whether demand supply equation works for turbine fuel, so aviation turbine fuel, because that demand supply then defines what the crack levels and the pricing for MOPAG is going to be. So, if you look at the forwards and we keep tracking the forwards on the regulators, we've seen an uptick because no one can kind of crystal gaze in terms of where it's going to be. The best reference point is going to be where the forwards related to MOPAG is or SingJet is moving. We've started to see an uptick. We were hoping when we started Q2, they were all moderating downwards. And that's one of the reasons why no one signed up to the scheme because the levels had come down lower than the thresholds. But now we have again started to see an uptick. So, it’s anyone's guess honestly, because the best reference point is going to be the forward that is available. So far, the forwards were lower than what Q1 were. And as a result, Q2 was supposed to be lower than Q1. But if the war kind of starts and whatever turn this particular thing takes and the Hormuz canal, etcetera, is kind of blocked, we may see similar levels of Q1. Going in, we had anticipated Q2 is going to be better than Q1.

Okay, okay. But you are assuming Q2 to be better than Q1 because I understand that the forwards are coming down. But in Q1, for a large part of the quarter for the domestic business, you also had a cap. Then shouldn't Q2 still have been higher than Q1 beca use the cap gets removed? I'm just trying to get that calculation correctly?

No, the levels had come down below the cap levels is what I'm saying. Even the levels were coming down even below the cap levels.

That would be our last question for today. Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of IndiGo, that concludes today's conference. Thank you all for joining us, and you may now disconnect your lines.

This transcript has been edited for readability and is not a verbatim record of the call. The financial information presented in this transcript is reported on a consolidated basis