For years, Bangladesh’s civil aviation sector has been dogged by structural weaknesses and chronic mismanagement. There are also allegations of  severe political interference. 

But recent decisions and legal maneuvers suggest the problem has moved beyond routine governance failures. Taken together, a series of actions now point to a consolidated pattern of control—one that links aircraft procurement, airport land, third terminal operations, ground handling, airport leasing, travel agency businesses, and private airline ventures to a single center of influence.

At the heart of this expanding web is Sheikh Bashiruddin, a businessman who currently serves as Adviser to the Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism.

The trajectory begins with the controversial Boeing aircraft purchase agreement. While in the United States, Sheikh Bashiruddin concluded a large-scale aircraft deal with Boeing—without approval from Biman Bangladesh Airlines’ board, without fleet planning clearance, and without any documented institutional decision-making process. 

Yet the operational, financial as well as the technical burden of this agreement will rest entirely on the state-owned flag carrier.

This raises a fundamental governance question: how could an individual, acting outside Biman’s statutory mechanisms, commit the airline to a multi-billion-dollar obligation without confirming its operational readiness or financial capacity?

More critically, aircraft procurement of this scale typically requires state or sovereign guarantees. In practical terms, this transfers the financial risk to the government—and ultimately to taxpayers—while bypassing the safeguards designed to protect public interest.

Globally, aircraft acquisition is never impulsive. It is the end result of years of fleet planning, route analysis, demand forecasting, cash-flow modeling, maintenance preparation, crew training, and risk assessment. 

In Bangladesh’s case, the process appears to have been reversed. First came the Boeing agreement. Then came Sheikh Bashiruddin’s return to Dhaka as Adviser to the Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism. 

This was followed by his appointment as Chairman of Biman—while retaining his advisory role—and finally, the pressure on Biman to operationalize the previously signed deal.

This sequence represents a direct inversion of institutional governance norms. Instead of policy guiding procurement, procurement appears to have dictated policy. Instead of institutions making decisions, institutions were compelled to endorse a pre-existing commitment.

The central question, therefore, is unavoidable: was this aircraft purchase driven by national aviation needs and strategic planning—or by personal influence and unchecked ambition embedded within the state apparatus?

A closer look

These concerns deepen when the sequence of events is examined more closely. While it was officially claimed that the Boeing purchase had no link to fare or tariff policy, that assertion clashes with developments on the ground. 

At precisely the same time the aircraft deal was being pursued, sweeping administrative interventions were introduced to control airline ticket prices. The contradiction became stark when the International Air Transport Association (IATA) issued a formal warning to the Bangladesh government, cautioning that state-imposed fare controls undermine market competition, discourage investment, and distort the aviation ecosystem. 

Against this backdrop, two unresolved questions stand out: why was such a large aircraft order deemed urgent, and why was it finalized in haste on the eve of a national election?

The controversy did not end with the Boeing deal. It soon expanded to the leadership structure of Biman Bangladesh Airlines itself. Upon returning to the country, Sheikh Bashiruddin reportedly assumed the chairmanship of Biman while still serving as Adviser to the Ministry. 

In the final phase of the outgoing government, individuals described as close associates were appointed to the airline’s board. The result was a consolidation of authority that effectively placed Biman’s strategic decision-making within a single circle of influence. 

This has inevitably raised doubts about the independence of past and future decisions—particularly those involving high-stakes commitments such as fleet expansion.

The issue became even more contentious with the handling of the Third Terminal at Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport. Ground handling for the new terminal was originally intended to remain under Biman’s control, as it is the only licensed operator in the country. 

The airline has already invested hundreds of crores of taka in ground handling equipment and continues to operate successfully at Terminals 1 and 2. Despite this, shortly after the new chairmanship began, Biman’s role in providing ground handling services at the Third Terminal—a major revenue stream—was abruptly withdrawn.

The most serious allegations center on the intent behind that decision. Plans reportedly emerged to involve a foreign or third-party operator in the Third Terminal’s ground handling—an entity with which Sheikh Bashiruddin is alleged to have direct or indirect interests. 

This is where the question of conflict of interest becomes unavoidable. At the heart of the debate is whether it aligns with the ethical and legal standards of public governance for a serving Adviser to also act as Chairman of a state-owned airline, and from that position dismantle one of its most profitable operations to potentially benefit an external party.

Raising several flags

Suspicions deepened further with the collapse of negotiations with Japan over the operation of the Third Terminal. The terminal was constructed with funding from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), yet attempts were reportedly made to scale back Japan’s operational role in order to accommodate an alternative operator. 

During these discussions, Sheikh Bashiruddin occupied a dual and highly contentious position—representing the government in official negotiations while allegedly maintaining links to private interests seeking entry into the same space. 

This overlap has raised serious questions about the integrity of the decision-making process.

From there, the allegations widen into the realm of private airline ventures. Multiple media reports indicate that while serving as an Adviser, Sheikh Bashiruddin personally obtained a trade license to enter the airline business, acquired aircraft, and exercised influence over the Civil Aviation Authority during the licensing process. 

When a senior policy adviser simultaneously operates a commercial enterprise within the same regulated sector, the issue moves beyond ethical ambiguity into the territory of regulatory capture and abuse of authority.

Attention then shifts to airport leasing and the much-debated “open tender” system, now one of the most contentious developments in Bangladesh’s aviation sector. Sources describe Sheikh Bashiruddin as playing an unusually assertive role in pushing for open tenders for leasing airport land and commercial facilities. 

The initial strategy involved introducing a new policy framework to implement this model. That effort stalled, however, after it was found to be inconsistent with existing laws and lacking adequate legal grounding.

Once the policy route failed, the focus reportedly turned to altering the law itself. Through a series of legal amendments, authority over airport leasing and property management was effectively centralized within the Ministry. 

In the process, critical considerations—such as ICAO compliance, aviation security, operational oversight, and regulatory independence—were largely sidelined. Instead, the amendments inserted provisions that appear tailored to accommodate specific business arrangements, reinforcing concerns that regulatory reform was driven less by public interest than by targeted commercial advantage.

With legal authority now consolidated, moves are reportedly underway to fast-track implementation of the open tender system through rapid regulatory changes. This urgency is striking. 

A similar open tender framework existed before 2010 but was ultimately abandoned by the Civil Aviation Authority and the Ministry due to serious security risks. 

Yet now, with barely ten days remaining before national elections, attempts are being made to finalize sweeping airport property regulations within days—bypassing the Rules of Business, established administrative norms, and the constitutional requirement for public consultation. 

Senior policy-level sources familiar with the documents and decision flow say the pace reflects personal urgency rather than any demonstrable institutional necessity.

Monopolizing or what?

Further disclosures suggest the proposed framework is open in name only. Multiple sources indicate the model is designed around a pre-selected “single company,” reportedly foreign-owned, whose name is already circulating within policy and industry circles. 

Sheikh Bashiruddin’s close association with this entity has become a subject of sustained discussion. Under the proposed structure, the moment an open tender is announced, the selected company would be positioned to secure commercial leases across all major airports simultaneously by offering a large upfront payment. 

The result would be a de facto monopoly over airport commercial operations—one sustained by influence at both the regulatory and execution levels.

The potential consequences of such a transformation have alarmed officials beyond the aviation sector. Policy analysts and security sources warn that this model could enable large volumes of undisclosed funds to be legitimized, expand vulnerabilities to smuggling networks within airport premises, and open pathways for foreign intelligence or interest groups to gain operational footholds. 

At the same time, it could provide a protective economic shelter for financial networks linked to the former authoritarian regime and banned political actors. 

Against this backdrop, the prospect of rushing through open-tender-based leasing regulations in the final days before an election has generated deep unease among policymakers and security agencies alike.

Serious questions have also been raised about the manner in which the Civil Aviation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026, was enacted. Multiple sources allege that the gazette was issued while disregarding institutional objections and bypassing public consultation, with key legal language reportedly altered at the final stage—effectively overnight. 

Comparable concerns surround the amendment to the Travel Agency Act. As a result of these changes, nearly five thousand licensed travel agencies were rendered commercially nonviable in one stroke, paving the way for market control by a narrow syndicate. 

Although the measures were publicly framed as efforts to lower ticket prices, industry insiders say the real beneficiaries were select private interests.

When viewed in isolation, each of these actions might be explained away as policy misjudgment. Viewed together, however, a far more troubling architecture becomes visible. 

The Boeing procurement, the consolidation of authority within Biman’s board and chairmanship, the removal of Biman from Third Terminal ground handling, the entry into private airline ventures, pressure exerted on the Civil Aviation Authority, and the rapid restructuring of airport leasing and travel agency laws form a continuous and coordinated chain. 

This is not a series of disconnected decisions, but a systematic realignment of the aviation sector around concentrated private advantage, enabled through state power.

The implications extend well beyond administrative misconduct. At stake are national security, Bangladesh’s credibility with international partners and investors, and the long-term integrity of its aviation infrastructure. 

The seriousness of these concerns leaves little room for delay. What is now required is a swift, independent, and evidence-based investigation to establish the facts and safeguard the public interest before irreversible damage is done.

—