SriLankan Airlines was established in 1979 by then-President J.R. Jayewardene with a vision to make the country a regional powerhouse, on the model of Singapore. However, this vision for a top-tier carrier was built on a foundation of hubris, and it would soon become clear that acting on this pipe dream was not remotely justified.
Now, they say SriLankan Airlines cannot be sold because that’s the law of the land. A potentate had stated this on behalf of certain powers that be.
If it’s the law of the land, why can’t the law of the land be changed? That’s what parliaments — legislatures — are there for, right?
The country would wind up its liability of airline if there is a real problem that requires drastic measures in terms of restructuring the country’s debt portfolio, and its basic approach to finances.
But they say since the law prohibits it, Sri Lankan would seek a collaborator that’s willing to take on the airline on 49 percent ownership basis.
Why this keenness on keeping an airline aloft, when it was essentially built on and sustained on hubris?
In the early 1970s, the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, had a vision. He wanted to build a new city in the desert, a city that would be a symbol of Iran’s modernity and its place in the world.
The city would be called Persepolis, and it would be the most modern and luxurious metropolis in the Middle East. He would re-enact the old Persepolis of the ancient Iranian empire, and throw the largest party the world has ever been seen, in his new city.
NOTION
The Shah spared no expense in his pursuit of this vision. He hired the best architects and planners in the world, and he poured billions of dollars into the project. Persepolis — though some of it was a tent city — was built with the finest materials, and it was equipped with the most advanced technology.
But there was one problem: Persepolis was a white elephant. It was a city that was built for the sake of prestige, to host a massive party for royalty and Heads of State, and wasn’t meant for the needs of the people.
The city was too expensive to maintain, and was too far from the rest of the country to be adopted later as a viable economic centre. The party that was held there cost so much, that eventually it led to the Shah’s downfall.
In many ways Sri Lankan airlines was the slow-mo version of Persepolis and it’s still carrying on in the same old way.
Nobody needs to go into a tizzy over this article because it’s purely this writer’s opinion. It’s not the opinion of the State, it doesn’t represent the opinion of any potentate, or any person in any position of power.
It’s purely my view. If it’s one person’s view there is no reason for any individual to lose their shirt about what this article states. If anyone has a contrary view, it’s a certainty that they would voice it.
If SriLankan Airlines is shut down, there would certainly be jobs lost. This would be from the ranks of pilots, cabin crew, maintenance engineers and the lot.
These job losses would be compensated by the billions that would be saved for the Sri Lankan State if finally they say, let’s quit this hubris-laden project of an ailing national airline. But nobody seems to want to hear about it.
This aspect should have some resonance with those who theorise that the economic meltdown of last year was after all not all that it was made out to be. Was it fake?
If it was, shouldn’t everybody in civil society and those with any notion of being conscientious objectors raise their hands up and say, first thing is that hubris-based airline should go?
But it seems the hubris goes on. What’s stopping us? That even Nepal and Bhutan have national airlines and that it wouldn’t do for us not to have one?
The closure of the airline would signal a national commitment to seriously come out of the financial mire we are in. Deciding to keep the serial loss making airline on the other hand may only show that old habits die hard.
For those who say that the airline should seek a collaborator, well, if there is one as good as Emirates used to be, it’s a different story. It is doubtful that Emirates would come in again, and that type of collaboration is now just pie in the sky.
Maybe the hope is that some maverick billionaire such as Musk or Branson would step in and carry the can for previous mismanagement, but don’t count on it, because it’s precisely these billionaires that are the world’s biggest tightwads.
MISPLACED
There is a great deal of false pride attached to this national carrier and its continued existence. But is it merely false pride? Is this an airline or, historically at least, wasn’t it a gigantic slush fund?
At various times in its existence, it has been close to a slush fund. This is not an essential service such as a public utility company or even say a train service.
At the current conjuncture, when electricity tariffs have reached for the roof and ordinary people are being squeezed dry due to utility bill payments and taxes, this particular iteration of the national airline should have no right to exist.
Perhaps, in a more benign era, when we had a national carrier called Air Ceylon which was more in the nature of a domestic carrier, we could have said, ‘that’s our national airline so don’t touch it.”
Now, we have to point to the sky whenever SriLankan Airlines flies and say, this is our national liability. These days we are convinced we need a collaborator to bail the airline out. What if we find a collaborator and that entity also decides suddenly after a testy partnership, to call it quits?
We would once more have a massively loss making carrier on our hands entirely, for which the long suffering and currently barely making ends meet taxpayer would have to carry the can.
No whiz-kid has been able to turn this airline around. A foreign infusion of capital would do the trick it is said. In the past, when a previous foreign collaborator figured in a brief spell of profit for the airline, did the people of this country consider the airline the ‘national airline’?
There must be a reason for all of this misplaced nationalism in the air. Hubris is one of them, and whatever the reasons may be now, at least at certain times in the airline’s history, it was nothing but a gigantic slush fund for corrupt elements. If there is an international collaborator taking over Management, granted that this other party would not allow that type of corruption.
SYMBOLIC
But there is a moral dimension to the matter. There is far more than national pride involved. There are so many other loss making institutions, but this one is the most symbolic, and currently the most shambolic.
Each time we the people are told we are going to keep the airline there are solemn promises made that it will be turned around and made into a profit-making institution. It has never happened and only a collaborator can make it happen, it is now said.
If that’s the case why bother at all? Why glorify a collaborator? It’s somehow thought that we will save our prestige along with our hubris-soaked national airline. Well, good luck with that.
The least that can be said is that there is hardly a national consensus that this is the time for it. We need to pocket our pride if we have a real economic crisis on our hands. About that economic crisis, people may have different theories.
But the people who pay for everything through their noses and don’t have any spare change, have an economic crisis and a kitchen department crisis on their hands that is never imaginary.
This is supposed to be their airline. Enough said. What benefit do they derive from this hubris-ridden brand? None, whatsoever. More than enough said.
