Comments on: Lost in Time : SriLankan Airlines

By: Nominate AIR for a Webbie Award | Airline Industry Review

Nominate AIR for a Webbie Award | Airline Industry Review — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:22:43 +0000

[...] Lost in Time : SriLankan Airlines [...]

By: Final Chance for SriLankan Airlines to Succeed : A Business Turnaround Plan | Airline Industry Review

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:38:48 +0000

[...] more detailed take on how SriLankan’s network should be shaped could be found here [...]

By: SriLankan Airlines Winter Update | Airline Industry Review

SriLankan Airlines Winter Update | Airline Industry Review — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 07:50:24 +0000

[...] using A330-200s or a thrice weekly CMB-FRA-MXP-CMB flight aboard A330-200s. Like I have always been pushing, they should have built a sizeable presence on the Europe – South Asia/ Australia traffic by [...]

By: Miyuru ( K FLYER )

Miyuru ( K FLYER ) — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:27:43 +0000

I fully agree with you that UL seriously needs investment. EK wanted to invest, but the GoSL rejected it, and now the GoSL doesn’t have money for investment and EK does not want to invest too.
If UL thinks it can stay afloat by avoiding expansion, they soon will be limited to an airline of the level of Indian Airlines. Like I’ve often said, UL has a much bigger potential market that they can achieve. I personally believe that it is the only way to avoid the undercutting of some subsidied Middle Eastern carriers.
However, it should be noticed that UL does not need ANY new aircraft to increase frequencies to regional destinations – the current A320 utilization is at a very low level.

By: greenecheese

greenecheese — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:40:21 +0000

A good article, but where on earth would UL find the money to finance fleet expansion and business class refurbishments? I’m willing to bet any manager at UL would jump at the opportunity to do even one of the two, if it were financially possible. UL has three shareholders all of whom are quite happy to reap dividends, but not invest in the future.

I personally feel GOSL should try to get the EK shares and sell them to another airline that could be a strategic partner in the trans-atlantic routes. This would give the airline a cash injection to invest in the fleet, as well as provide a better network.

Expanding the network is required but going into a new destination, the airline would incur a loss for the first 12 months until the route is well and truly built. So the expansion isn’t as simple as adding fleet and then capacity.

Additionally, having lived in Africa, I can tell you that there IS a market to hub through to both India and China, provided it is marketed properly. Dubain and Johannesburg failed due to not building the Air Lanka brand in South Africa.

All in all, good article. I enjoyed the read.

By: Miyuru ( K FLYER )

Miyuru ( K FLYER ) — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:22:03 +0000

Yes, but for a serious LCC, it shouldn’t be an issue. MJ is behaving more as a legacy carrier than a LCC. They have to realise the difference. Have they at least now removed the Business class ? If I were the CEO, I however will never use it for sectors longer than 4h. I don’t think there yield justifies the cost for the KWI sector. They should have focused on India and other regionals. Why eat up to UL’s share ? Btw, which position are you holding at UL ? Feel free to contact me via email.

By: proud flyer

proud flyer — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:55:12 +0000

the kuwait- dubai sector is one of the most profitable sectors for sri lankan. mihin has realised this is where the money is and basically wants to join in. its intresting to note that the mihin and ul dubai flights leave within alomst 30 min of each other.
im sure they will carry more passengers than ul since their fares are much lower.
unfortunately they should realise that either way we are both on the same side and there should be some understanding. its no use undercutting each other.
mihin has further plans of operating to bkk and maybe singapore.
as for the turn aroud time i agree with you that the time an acft spends on the ground is a waste. but sometimes even an one hour turnaround isnt enough. i remeber with EK a delay was a serious matter. how ever now it really a blame game. blame it on atc, immigration etc. i dont think the company cares much abt delays and punctuality. also it depends on the efficiency of the ground staff. lot of the senior guys gave left to greener pastures and the new guys arent really upto the task.

By: Miyuru ( K FLYER )

Miyuru ( K FLYER ) — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:16:40 +0000

Thanks. Of course I’d have liked more to see UL expand instead of Mihin. But why would Mihin want to fly to KWI, up to 7h ? And why can’t they turnaround by at least 45mins instead of 1h ?

By: proud flyer

proud flyer — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:13:07 +0000

a splendid article…
the problem with the 320 operation is that they are short of captains but excess of first officers.
dont forget that these same pilots are also used to operate for the mihin lanka operation. mihin has started expanding and now operate to four destinations including bodhgaya and varnasi.
with the shortage of captains and the temporary freezing of upgrades it will take some time for the 320 operation to expandand.
however this cannot be said for the wide body operation as the pilots are in excess.
its funny how at sri lankan we end uo being severly over staffed and in a matter of months severly understaffed.
once again an amazing article. keep it up.

By: Miyuru ( K FLYER )

Miyuru ( K FLYER ) — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 09:21:27 +0000

You shouldn’t be suprised. 787-9 seats around 300 in a 2 class configuration with a MTOW of 245000kg, while 777-300ER will seat around 410 in a 2 class config with a MTOW of 352000kg.