The government has addressed parliamentary concerns about the International Air Transport Association code 'GAY' assigned to Gaya International Airport in Bihar, explaining why such identifiers cannot be easily modified despite cultural sensitivities.

Minister of State for Civil Aviation Murlidhar Mohol provided a detailed response in the Rajya Sabha after BJP member Bhim Singh questioned whether the airport code was socially and culturally inappropriate, causing discomfort among travelers and local communities.

According to the minister's written statement, three-letter airport codes designated by the International Air Transport Association serve as permanent identifiers for aviation facilities worldwide. These codes are typically derived from the first three letters of the location where the airport operates, making 'GAY' a logical designation for Gaya.

Mohol emphasized that these internationally recognized identifiers are integral to global aviation operations, facilitating airport identification across multiple travel-related systems and commercial processes. The codes are issued specifically at the request of airline operators and become embedded in worldwide aviation infrastructure.

The minister revealed that previous attempts have been made to modify the Gaya airport code, with both the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Airports Authority of India receiving formal requests for changes. Air India had previously approached the International Air Transport Association seeking an alternative designation for the Bihar facility.

However, international aviation authorities rejected the modification request, citing established protocols that treat assigned codes as permanent fixtures. Under IATA Resolution 763, three-letter airport identifiers can only be altered in exceptional circumstances, typically involving direct air safety concerns that pose risks to aviation operations.

The government's response clarifies that while cultural sensitivities are understood, international aviation standards prioritize operational consistency and safety protocols over local preferences. The standardized system ensures global aviation networks can function efficiently without confusion or operational disruptions caused by frequent code changes.

The parliamentary exchange highlights the tension between local cultural considerations and international operational requirements in aviation management. Despite ongoing concerns from some quarters about the appropriateness of the current designation, the government's hands appear tied by international aviation regulations and established protocols.

This situation reflects broader challenges faced by countries when local sensitivities conflict with internationally standardized systems that require consistency across global operations. The permanent nature of these codes underscores the complexity of international aviation coordination and the difficulty of accommodating regional preferences within established global frameworks.