Sri Lanka Aviation

Cancelling all loss making European routes sans LHR makes sense. They tried to do this even during MR's time but external influences kept them from axing these prestige routes (Eg: Malcolm Ranjit getting FCO re-started).

If UL does not have these routes, then there is no need for them to have the long legs of A350. All their regional and East Asian routes can be sufficiently covered by A332 and A333. For LHR, they could upgrade two of the upcoming A333s to the 242 tonne MTOW with extra fuel tanks.

This will also free up some metal to have a go at MEL and SYD on experimental basis.

UL does not need A350-900XWB. Current route and business profile does not justify it. Yes UL should continue to operate to Europe. A333 and A332 can do the job. LHR is definite. Italy SL has a large migrant community. Hi AirCeylon, what is your view on FCO and MXP.

well.. as i worked in MXP I can say that we had more pax and more cargo than FCO. UL571 was given to the italian market as srilankans requested it to the president. When I started working we had the CMB-CDG-MXP-CMB*and then it was CMB-FRA-MXP-CMB. Then CMB-ZRH-MXP-CMB*and finally CMB-MXP-FCO-CMB*as UL571. I must say that we had serveral issues with B767 operated by Luz Air. On board no ptv's and the Luz Air crew were very rude and unpolite. Just only 4 UL crew members to serve the whole flight and they were doing an excellent service. However station staff had many and many complaints at the airport due to the all white aircraft and about on board service. As a new route UL could operate with their AC but they sent for several months B767.... I had situatiosn like Srilankan passengers refusing to baord the AC due to no UL logo... night mare situations....In febb 2012 at BIT fair in Milan UL said that they are thinking to cxl FCO due to poor pax and cargo loads. MXP we had full cleaning, catering and transit CMB-FCO pax and our MXP-CMB pax as well more than 20 tonnes of cargo per flight. After few months the situation changed and even the loads were poor in FCO UL said that they decided to cxl MXP!!!*""*in 3 years MXP exs baggage raised to 30.000 EUR more or less, and the UL target is 9.000 US $!! And now I hear that somone says that the whole flight was a failed flight..... its not the time to point fingers... Let's work to save UL! As the biggest srilankan comunnity is in northern Italy they should operate to MXP with a direct flight an they were thinking to do like CMB-MXP-MLE-CMBor just CMB-MXP-CMB!!! I just wanna know the real reason of cxling MXP!! I dnt think that mxp is not profitable... or I should think that they cxld MXP to satisfy somone to reach FCO!!!!????

My info is that the Management Pilot in charge of the A350 project has resigned. I guess that makes sense if they aren't coming.

well articulated. It is good to hear first hand comments from someone working in an European Station. There are two broad issues you raise. The easy one to answer, is using Luz Air B767. Of course it is evident there would be complaints. Someone buying UL ticket would not want to fly Luz Air a comparison equivalent to chalk and cheese. Pax get annoyed at times flying a codeshare partner's metal ones ticket is bought on a particular airline. The second being the closure of MXP when it was more profitable than FCO. Well I guess simple answer is someone wanted FCO over MXP eventhough MXP was a better cash cow. It really is/was an appalling decision. I agree with you if is blatantly evident that MXP is a good yielding market in terms of both pax and cargo it should be brought back. UL needs cash generating and profitable stations. The more it is delayed the more the finances will head south.

On the same note
shutting down and not operating stations that drain cash and profits is a must. UL have had many examples in past and the same mistakes should not reoccur if revival is to be taken serious. Stations that UL operated for reasons not justified (atleast profit not justified) included Fukuoka, Johannesburg

Former President, Mahinda Rajapaksa, spent more than Rs. 785 million within three years to charter SriLankan Airlines aircraft for his visits abroad,

@AirCeylon

I feel your pain - UL should be a profitable Airline. Instead we have a total clusterf*ck

I also watched things turn to sh*t after the GOSL took over the Airline. I know it's frustrating watching a good company being destroyed by a bunch of Jokers and Clowns.

The only thing that made working at UL worthwhile was the large group of dedicated staff who did the best they could under impossible conditions. I'm proud to have worked with such dedicated, honest and honourable people. I'm even prouder to call some of them my friends.

At the end of the day - all I was able to do was to make sure that my flights were operated in a safe and efficient manner. My record at the Airline speaks for itself.

AirCeylon - Take pride in the knowledge you did your job to the best of your abilities.

Just ran the numbers - they seem to be on the low side. I think UL absorbed some of the costs associated with these flights. I think some costs must have been paid by other parties.

200+ 5* hotel rooms @400/night already comes to $80,000/night.

A340 operating cost is between $12,000 - $15,000 for every flight hour.

The article misses the flight to the British Virgin Islands to try and get the Commonwealth Games for Hambantota.

My info is that this flight included a dance troupe and a toddy stand (WTF?).

My info is that the entire Lisbon/Cuba/Rio/Jo'Berg flight was flown with a UL aircraft. It was gone for almost 2 weeks. Complete crews had to be positioned to Lisbon and Johannesberg. This comes from one of the people who flew a part of this trip.

While it's good this is being exposed - it's just another in a long list of corruption and abuse of power. Nothing is done with the information.

When is there going to be a full investigation and some accountability

(Apologies for the language - you may have noticed this is a subject I feel strongly about!)

Thanks a lot for your words bro... appraciate it a lot! Yes i did my job well and I'm happy about it.... but the bad thing is when who was not here to see all those issues now blaming that the UL571 was a completly failed flight ect..... It should say to who was there in city offices in commercial side.... We applied the rules given from commercial offices...

Due to missing aircrafts we had to operated some flights also with Blue Panorama Airlines.... the situation was the same like Luz air....Srilankans wants to fly with Srilankan Airlines... even the flight is old or no ptv's....

I can remember the first AOG flight in MXP due to F/O seat... we had to delay the AC to 2.30 am local time of the next day waiting the spare part from Airbus with LH flight from MUC. So as per UL regulations imemdiatly we sent transit CMB-FCO pax to LIN from MXP. All other MXP-CMB pax were given Hotac. Other pax were repro with OAL.... During the second boarding I was slapped by a Srilankan pax and the Others were there to film and making photos saying bad words and mentioning my mother...... I had to wear an orthopedic collar for two weeks and no one was there to ask me "are you ok?" and no actions were taken againt the pax...!!!! I lost more than 300 Eur for an advocate as per italian privacy policy.....Even the pax was on-board my flight I'm not able to get pax informations... I had just informations in our Mars system....

Regarding the second article about ex president's flights they missed the FCO-MXP leg...4R-ADE was parked here in MXP for one or two days until he departed....

Rajapaksa’s sky jack of Sri Lankan flights : Rs 785M for three years

Former President, Mahinda Rajapaksa, spent more than Rs. 785 million within three years to charter SriLankan Airlines aircraft for his visits abroad, documents obtained by the Sunday Times show. The airbuses would often remain idle in various airports until Mr Rajapaksa finished his tours. SriLankan has billed his office a total of Rs 785,079,185 for 90 aircraft movements in 2012, 2013 and 2014. This figure does not reflect other multiple costs such as crew accommodation. These expenses were often met by Sri Lanka’s diplomatic missions abroad.


Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa being welcomed in Tokyo after he arrived there on a SriLankan Airlines flight

Mr Rajapaksa usually flew on one of two Airbus A340s owned by SriLankan. Their registration numbers are 4R-ADG(a 243-seater) and 4R-ADE (a 299-seater). These long-haul aircraft are the largest the company operates. The respective airbus would be unavailable to other paying passengers whenever Mr. Rajapaksa hired it. This could mean several days.

Full read http://www.sundaytimes.lk/150719/new...rs-157392.html

On the other hand, countries who have much bigger bank balance have seen their Head of State / PM flying commercial, on their own national carrier, example - Singapore, even though Singapore Air force has a F-50 kitted for quick conversion to VIP Travel, rarely they use it, unless it is for defense related meetings.

Heck, the Singapore Ministers fly LCC to regional meetings, as long as it is Tiger Air or 3K (SIN)

I wonder why they couldn't do with a leased 320 or 737, like how the British PM has been seen on occasions.

Then again, when the national carrier UL is their private taxi, why miss the chance to fly the flag ?

And maybe they can harp on the security needs for such a large group - you never know how they morally justified stuff like that.

Yes I agree with you, but UL will have to pay significant penalties to Airbus in order to cancel the 350 order, or even modify the order to other Airbus aircraft types. As such UL could be better off financially to maintain the order as is. I could be wrong though.

To make matters worse they went on a gigantic propaganda campaign against all the privatizations done during the previous governments calling it "selling them" "treachery" etc. Fooling the population and legitimatizing their actions and eventually whitewashing corruption ,mismanagement as well.
Some Nationalist self-proclaimed patriots are still against any kind of privatization


Thanks to them the current PM or the president will be hesitant to attempt something like that again and MR is also returning, getting rid of him is impossible

He has already started the Mattala lie again.

"They called me a thief for protecting the country from the most powerful and cruelest terrorists and constructing airports and for giving employment to 1.5 million in the public sector. They branded me as a fraudster for launching hundreds of development projects round the country," he said.
- See more at: http://www.dailymirror.lk/80061/mr-p....sFVMRSIx.dpuf

After all, isnt' SLFP about socialism - state owns everything

Anyway, about the EK venture, they had a bit of truth, EK was milking UL, but EK was also maximising profit, so they can take out profit (that's twisting the truth anyway .. )

Now EK won't be able to milk if they ran UL at a loss right ?

Unfortunately, the above can be seen as good, in terns of profitable (so the partners get to make money) - as as robbery of state assets - alas, most naive believe that EK was robbing - so they rid the robbers, but they forgot the part where EK was making UL profitable -

And that EK was stealing pilots, yep, that too works fine to convince common man that it was robbery of talent - but in reality, UL was being flown by qualified and experienced pilots, without whom, EK too stood to lose their credibility if something bad was to happen !

Just a correction...there was a moratorium...i.e. when EK was managing UL...UL staff cannot apply or recruited by EK...This moratorium was put in place by EK...Soon after EK announce that they are not interested in continue UL managment; after acrimonious divorce...EK lift the moratorium and cancelled all code share flights

This is correct. As soon as the moratorium was lifted the talent left UL en-mass, mostly to join EK.

There were also allegations that EK actively poached some of the best talent.