Mismanagement at Dhaka Airport: Action beyond Promises

An international airport is a country’s front door. Its efficiency reflects administrative competence, while the treatment of passengers reveals how seriously the state values human dignity. At Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport in Dhaka, persistent complaints about delayed baggage, missing or damaged luggage, confusing procedures, traffic congestion, rude behaviour of staff and inadequate assistance have weakened public confidence.

These problems deserve urgent government attention. Passengers purchase tickets, pay applicable airport charges and comply with security requirements. They are entitled to competent service, clear information and respectful treatment. Receiving luggage safely, obtaining the required form and finding an authorised vehicle should be routine.

The scale of operations makes reform increasingly urgent. According to airport data reported by sources, Dhaka airport handled approximately 12.72 million passengers in 2025, compared with 12.5 million in 2024 and 11.7 million in 2023. The same reports put existing passenger-handling capacity at around eight million annually. This gap indicates substantial pressure on facilities and staff. However, overcrowding cannot excuse discourtesy, unexplained delays or failure to provide basic assistance. Those shortcomings require management action even before additional capacity becomes available. On 6 September, the civil aviation minister made an unannounced inspection and again instructed officials to shorten baggage waiting times. It would nevertheless be inaccurate to say that absolutely nothing has changed. Baggage delivery remains a particularly visible failure. A bag may be delayed, misrouted, damaged, mistakenly collected or subjected to theft. Every case requires documentation and investigation. Automatically describing every missing bag as theft can obscure the actual cause; while dismissing every allegation can conceal wrongdoing. Besides, public references to an airport “mafia” express a serious loss of trust. So, the government should investigate specific allegations of collusion, unauthorised payments, procurement manipulation, privileged access and protection of offenders. It must determine whether failures arise from inadequate resources, poor supervision, deliberate obstruction or criminal conduct. And honest employees deserve protection from collective suspicion.

The arrival and departure experience extends beyond the baggage belt. Reports of some dailies described entry-gate bottlenecks, construction-related disruption and confusing directional signs. Such conditions can cause anxiety before passengers even enter the terminal. Inside and outside the building, unclear vehicle routes, poorly managed waiting areas and weak communication compound the pressure. Security checks are necessary, but their location, staffing and procedures should be designed to avoid queues. The complaint about unavailable embarkation forms also requires clarification. Discourtesy is another problem that cannot be solved by infrastructure alone. Security, immigration and customs officers sometimes must question passengers firmly. But they should explain what is required and why. Migrant workers, inexperienced travellers and people with limited literacy require patient guidance. Their unfamiliarity with airport procedures must never become an opportunity for exploitation.

The government should therefore order an immediate, publicly monitored 90-day improvement programme. During the first seven days, airport management should identify failures by flight, location and shift. The review should cover staff deployment, serviceable baggage equipment, belt allocation, immigration queues, trolley availability, forms, toilets, help desks and vehicle access. Each problem should be a named responsible official, a remedy and a deadline. Shortages of forms, pens, signs and basic assistance should be corrected immediately. A senior duty manager should coordinate passenger operations around the clock, supported by designated representatives from every relevant agency. This arrangement should preserve each agency’s statutory powers while preventing responsibility from disappearing between organisations. When queues grow or baggage delivery stalls, the duty manager must be able to mobilise assistance and provide passengers with an explanation.

Within 30 days, the government should introduce measurable service standards. As proposed initial targets, rather than existing guarantees, the airport could aim to deliver the first bag within 20 minutes and the last within 45 minutes of an aircraft reaching its stand under normal conditions. These targets should be validated against aircraft types, passenger loads and operating constraints. Exceptions should be recorded with reasons. Performance must measure the last bag as well as the first; otherwise, an early delivery of a few bags can conceal a long wait for everyone else. Baggage handling should be traceable through electronic scans at key transfer points, supported by controlled access and appropriate camera coverage.

Passengers whose checked baggage is missing should receive a written report, a reference number and clear contact details before leaving the airport. The airline and handler should provide updates and arrange delivery when the bag is recovered. Information about applicable reimbursement and compensation procedures should be accessible without requiring passengers to obtain influential assistance. Most of all, every complaint should receive a tracking number, an assigned owner and a response deadline. Cases should close after the outcome is communicated to the passenger, with a means to challenge an inadequate response. Receiving complaints is useful; resolving them is the measure of success. 

Traffic improvements should begin concurrently. Arrival pickup, departure drop-off, taxis, buses and waiting vehicles need clearly marked spaces. Vehicles collecting passengers should wait away from the immediate terminal frontage until those passengers are ready. Covered pedestrian routes, visible signs, published transport charges and accessible pickup arrangements would reduce confusion.

Ground-handling reform must address incentives. CAAB’s reported plan for a second passenger ground handler at the third terminal offers an opportunity for competition; the June report indicated that cargo handling would remain with Biman. However, selection should be transparent, technically rigorous and protected from favouritism. Contracts must specify staffing, equipment, safety, baggage performance, complaint resolution and consequences for repeated failures. International reputation alone is insufficient, and public ownership alone should not shield poor performance. 

Within 90 days, government should publish an independent assessment of results. A public dashboard should report baggage delivery times, queue lengths, complaints resolved, equipment availability and passenger satisfaction. Managers should be rewarded for sustained improvement and held accountable for preventable failures. Allegations of theft or corruption should be referred to by competent investigators, with evidence preserved and whistleblowers protected.

Bangladesh should judge airport reform by the experience of ordinary passengers. Can an elderly traveller obtain help promptly? Can a returning worker collect luggage safely and leave without harassment? Can a foreign visitor understand the procedures? Can a passenger complain and receive a meaningful answer?

The earliest improvements do not require waiting for another terminal. They require supervisors who supervise, staff who are prepared, procedures that are clear and consequences that are credible. The government must make these basic obligations enforceable. Dhaka airport should become a place where every passenger encounters the competence, courtesy and dignity that Bangladesh expects at its national gateway.