26 April, 2018

Blog

SriLankan Airlines – Total Privatization Or Liquidation?

By Rajeewa Jayaweera

Rajeewa Jayaweera

As customary since April 2008, national carrier SriLankan Airlines received its regular cash transfusion by way of a government negotiated loan package of USD 200 million from Credit Suisse, USD 150 million on long-term and USD 50 million on a short-term basis.

The company’s accumulated loss since September 1979 amounts to Rs 169.755 million (USD 1.095 million). The cumulative loss of USD 3.2 billion announced by Prime Minister Wickramasinghe in April 2016 probably includes the yet unpaid total cost of Airbus purchases. 

According to State Minister Lakshman Yapa Abeywardana, the loan was expected to strengthen the Government’s guarantee for the ongoing discussions with several investors to run as SriLankan a Public-Private Partnership PPP). He has further stated;the government did not intend to liquidate the national carrier under any circumstances.”

The carrier operated without Treasury handouts during the period 1989-93 when it owned most of the aging fleet and charges for three leased aircraft were low and during 1998-2008 when Emirates managed the airline. Several recent claims speak of profits of Rs 4.4 billion earned in 2007/8, the last year of Emirates management. Note 17.1 of annual accounts state; “Profit on disposal of Property, Plant & Equipment included the gain on sale and leased back of three Airbus A340-300 aircraft amounting to Rs 5.4 billion in the financial year of 2007/8.” If not for the sale of three aircraft, the company’s loss for the year would have amounted to Rs 1 billion.

The most critical and fundamental issue requiring attention is; ‘does Sri Lanka need an airline.’ It need be a rational business decision rather than an emotional decision based on archaic concepts of ‘national / flag carrier.’ Nor should it be in the context of the welfare of its 7,000+ employees. More important is that every citizen carries a debt burden of more than of Rs 8,000 on behalf of the national carrier and it is still growing.

Archaic concept of a national (flag) carrier

Except for USA who operated a CIA funded airline (Air America 1950-76) primarily for non-commercial purposes, most other western nations owned and operated national carriers. BOAC, Air France, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Lufthansa, Sabena, Swiss Air, and Iberia were some of the better-known carriers. Pan American, TWA (both American) and UTA French Airlines were privately owned airlines with a global reach.

Ceylon, along with many nations gaining independence in the post-WWII period, ‘aped’ the west by launching their national carriers. It was a matter of national pride for emerging independent countries. Air travel was limited to the elite and affluent. Airlines were small.  Managing airlines was not complex. High airfares ensured profitability.

The 1973 Arab Israeli war followed by the OPEC oil embargo changed the world of aviation.  Ballooning costs and resulting losses swamped airlines. Western governments met the challenge by privatizing national carriers and diluting government ownership by assuming the role of minority shareholders. Professional and competent non-governmental directors replaced government directors.

Freed of the burden of loss-making state-owned airlines, western governments deregulated the industry and encouraged private airlines. It helped to cater to the increasing demand for air travel albeit at cut-rate ticket prices. Deregulation resulted in the liberalization of traffic rights and the concept of ‘open skies,’ broadly considered healthy for competition, was born. 

Sri Lanka, along with its neighbors Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Pakistan and several African countries stubbornly stuck to the ‘national / flag carrier’ concept. Misplaced national pride prevented governments from visualizing the negative impact of diminishing airfares, increase in the cost of fuel, aircraft and manpower, the resulting losses and burden on their economies. Almost all such airlines became politically rather than commercially driven.  Suffice to state, besides SriLankan Airlines, Biman Bangladesh, Air India, Nepal Airlines, PIA, Kenya Airways and South African Airways are all loss-making concerns today and a severe burden to their respective national treasuries. Nigerian Airways ceased operations in 2003.

Our leaders in the early 1990s failed to envisage and develop a politically bi-partisan national aviation policy to prepare the country to meet challenges of deregulation. Instead, Sri Lanka continued with the dying concept of a ‘national carrier’ and kept underwriting the carrier’s losses it could ill afford. Simultaneously, traffic rights were granted liberally without any consideration of its impact on the national carrier. The policies contradicted each other and was self-defeating.

Privately owned and operated airlines without government involvement are found in some South Asian and African countries, notably in India. It is a fact ignored by governments in countries such as Sri Lanka. Its ministers continue to make nonsensical statements such as “not liquidating the national carrier under any circumstances.”   

In search of a Strategic Partner

Since January 2015, the buzz word in town has been Public Private Partnership, commonly known as PPP. The first attempt by way of an Expression of Interest (EoI) went awry. Selected bidder US equity firm TPG, after completing a due diligence process informed, “allocating the human and financial resources to make the airline profitable will not realize sufficient returns, compared to the many other investment opportunities that are available in India.”

Qatar Airways CEO Akbar Al Baker and Emirates Managing Director Tim Clark visited the country, met the Prime Minister but nothing materialized.

Accenture PLC, a Dublin based global management consulting and professional services company was hired to advise on how best to disengage from the Airbus aircraft deal. Four of eight purchased aircraft are still in Airbus order books. London based Nyras, an independent, international aviation consultancy firm, was tasked with the preparation of a restructuring plan to turn around the airline. A preliminary report has been supposedly handed over to the Prime Minister a few days before Christmas.    

Meanwhile, statements from government ministers send all the wrong signals. A Deputy Minister during a media briefing stated; “the government will keep the ‘right to administer’ the national carrier even though a stake of it will be given to the private sector. The government will continuously control SriLankan Airlines despite the conversion of it into a private-public partnership”. Another Deputy Minister is on record stating; “the government is not looking at retrenching existing staff of SriLankan Airlines.” He has given an assurance “the privileges enjoyed by the 6,700 employees would not be changed.”

It is time, the government took stock of the present situation and seriously contemplate of reasons for its failure to attract a foreign investor/partner despite the efforts made during last three years. An Einstein is not required to explain, clearing the decks with statements of government absorption of past debts alone, as announced by PM Wickramasinghe on April 26, 2016, will not suffice.

The need for a new approach is obvious. In addition to wiping out past debts, GoSL willingness to divest 80% or more equity to an investor/s might help in its search for a partner.

Lack of will and commitment

After depredations of the Rajapaksa administration and its loyalists, hopes were high after January 09, 2015 of the new government turning around the airline. 

A Board of Inquiry headed by a President’s Counsel carried out a superficial and limited investigation of malpractices during the tenure of the previous Board and CEO. Once the report was submitted, the new Board and the government did nothing with the findings. 

The Prime Minister promised a Singapore Airlines styled management and an organization similar to Temasek, the holding company of Singapore Airlines, to manage State Owned Enterprises (SoE) in Sri Lanka which turned out to be a damp squib. 

Before long, government interference, as in the past, returned to normal. The recruitment of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Commercial Officer was not merit based but by Royal command. Despite the airline’s retirement age being 60 years, a mid-level General Manager reaching retirement age received a two-year extension based on a directive from powers that be. The government has exhibited a penchant to be involved in day to day operational issues, regularly overruling Board decisions.

The current Board was appointed in February 2015 and new CEO named in October 2015. In a comical development, a Board member appointed acting CEO, was directed to prepare a Recovery Plan rather than expediting the recruitment of the CEO and COO and tasking them with the development of such a plan. During the Emergency General Meeting of Shareholders held on June 16, 2015, the Chairman spoke of awaiting government approval for the submitted Recovery Plan. When requested for details of the plan after seven months during the Shareholder’s Meeting held on January 19, 2016, the Chairman declined to provide details as only 80% of the plan had been approved but remaining 20% was pending. He did state, the approved 80% was being implemented but declined to respond if the carrier would withdraw from its loss-making routes to Europe and London. It was a tragicomedy. How is a Recovery Plan implemented piecemeal and that too without the approved route network which is key to the decision of the number of aircraft required in the fleet?

Eventually, the government approved the discontinuation of flights to Paris, Frankfurt, and Rome but directed the retention of London flights. Sources claim London flights were retained for prestige purposes aka Vanity Route. The route is currently covering its operating costs but indicates an overall negative. The fleet needs to maintain two Airbus A330-300 aircraft to operate the daily London route.

More importantly, it is an indication; after three years in office, no decision has been made on the fundamental issue if the airline need be a global or a regional carrier as well if it should be a full service or low-cost carrier. Meanwhile, the carrier’s losses continue to mount amidst such indecisiveness.

The number of employees in 2015 amounted to 7,000 which has not changed in 2017 despite the reduction in Production (Passenger and Overall Capacity). The management has made no efforts to reduce manpower. Besides the decrease in payroll and related staff costs, such an exercise would be a plus in the eyes of prospective investors. It is doubtful if any investor would take on the burden of an airline with a Staff to Plane ratio of 292 staff.

Even the mention of liquidation results in howls of protests from unions. An unstable government with multiple elections in the offing will not make sensible business decisions required at this critical point. Under the guidance and instructions of the previous incompetent Chairman, the airline concluded multiple Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) with several Unions. Some of the perks and facilities granted are unheard of elsewhere. No efforts have been made to renegotiate such CBAs possibly for fear of industrial action. Both GoSL and Unions need appreciate the fact, renegotiation at this stage is preferable to meeting demands of investors or worse, liquidation. GoSL is bound to face massive retrenchments which will follow if and when an investor is found, and management of the airline handed over. 

According to media reports, State Enterprise Development Minister on Thursday has announced his decision to appoint a new Chairman and Board. He has further stated; “We are making a determined effort to turn it around. That is no easy task, but we have decided to face the challenge and take the bull by the horn.” Boards need to be allowed to function independently without political interference. The government’s report card at the end of three years indicates, the ‘bull’ has not been taken by the ‘horns’ or for that matter, from any other part of its anatomy!       

Considering the track record of governments, both present, and past, its inability to perform the role of a responsible majority shareholder is abundantly clear. Furthermore, it is also abundantly clear; the best option would be the model adopted by developed (western) countries a few decades ago of governments in the role of a minority shareholder or not being a shareholder at all. 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 6
    0

    I say again: about nine years ago, the giant General Motors, regarded to be the most wealthy enterprise in the world was forced to go into what is called “Chapter 11”. No funds were available for the loosing company to pay humongous salaries to their managers and allow the unions and the workers every manner of ridiculous demand. No banks lent as the U.S Government refused to underwrite any loans. So, the company was compelled to re-structure and do so on reasonable levels, so that the Managers got lesser salaries and the Unions had to agree to viable terms. Today, G.M cars are better than Japanese vehicles and operate at profits.

    Basically, this is what happened. You can study the details from their web pages.

    • 5
      0

      After Mahinda Jarapassa family had run Sri Lankan Air lines into the ground, it was further “asset stripped” by Ranil WIckramasinghe ‘s UNP cronies network who then planned to then sell Sri Lanka Airlines to the dodgy Texas Pacific Group (TPG) Hedge Fund,.
      Just like the Central Bank Bond Scam network, Ranil and Malik set up the Sri Lankan Airlines scam corruption network to milk the company for funds and strip its assets.
      Thus, Eran Wickramanaiyake fiddled with Sri Lankan Airlines for 3 years of Jarapalanaya Govt. when the Airlines was fully destroyed with its corrupt board.
      Only TPG got into trouble with the Australian Govt. which filed court case against the company and TPG pulled out of the Sri Lanka privatization deal..
      Eran should be asked what he did for the past 3 years when he was supposed to restructure Sri Lankan AIrlines. He should tell the truth and GET OUT!

    • 3
      0

      K. Soysa
      General Motors and other such companies are privately owned. Therefore, when making losses, shareholders are motivated to take remedial action. Regrettably, SriLankan Airlines is state-owned and priorities of majority shareholder are different. Hence the recommendation for GoSL to assume the role of a minority shareholder or not be a shareholder at all.

      • 4
        0

        Mr. Jayaweera, the principle is the same. IF the State stopped funding and underwriting institutions and corporations owned by the government or the private sector, the employees, whether they are unionized or top management, realize that they have either to sink or swim.

        But I agree with you that it is better to sell-off, for the best price this “enterprise” which we know as Srilankan Airlines. The State must not seek to hold on to anything more than a nominal share and let the private sector take over and even go public.

        Anyway, good luck to us all!!

      • 3
        0

        Dear Jayaweera, Government can follow the same thing what it did in 1979. When Air Ceylon was running a terrible debt, government declared it bankrupt and started Air Lanka. Same way government can declare Srilankan airlines bankrupt and start a new airline. Problem here is the loan underwritten by government which it has to pay even if Srilankan airlines declare bankruptcy. Do you know that Tamil diaspora whose GDP is higher than that of Srilanka could be interested in buying Srilankan airlines with its assets and liabilities for just £1. In which case the loan taken will be transferred to the new buyers, which will relieve the burden on the state.

  • 7
    0

    SL airlines should be privatized because politicians try to make it their private properties. It is not only the prime minister, everybody. Country needs an airline but it should not be owned by the State.

  • 4
    0

    The govt should not be involved in any commercial activities and the result is what has hapenned to Sti Lankan!!

    Company Board members and Ministers are not held responsible and this is the result.

    Don’t blame the Rs 2 million per month pilots or the Rs 500,000 per month flight attendants since they will always want higher wages and allowances irrespective of company performance.

    • 1
      2

      Quite honestly Sri Lanka does not need an airline. No Sri lankan aircraft professional nor a businessman has shown capability to manage the airline as a profitable business venture, so the best thing for it is to be dissolved as a bankrupt entity. Let some other foreign country/company take over the routes and provide a service. MS went overseas as an economy passenger on his first appointment, did n’t he? So everyone else could follow that example.

      • 1
        2

        Thrishu,
        Absolutely true. Why do we need a “national airline”? All we need is a company to provide ground services to other airlines that will fly here when they find it profitable. Sri Lankan Catering is the only really profitable unit.
        We must sell most of the planes and dump the overpaid staff. Surely they can find jobs with other airlines if they are really that good? At least we the public won’t have to pay their salaries.
        Perhaps we could keep a few small planes to run a small regional operation to India, where nearby Kerala alone has 4 internatinal airports.
        Sri Lankan Airlines lost TWENTY-NINE BILLION in 2015. This is the issue we should be talking about, not some piffling “Bond scam”

        • 2
          0

          Dear Thrishu and Codger,

          Ridding ourselves of a national carrier is NOT the answer! In that case, best we get rid of our corrupted politicians and managers!! I recall as a student the C.G.R served beer and spirits in their restaurant car. Because there were instances of drunkenness the Railways did away with this service. Thats O.K. Then the kerosene stove that heated water for tea and coffee in the restaurant car toppled and caused some damage. The railways did what you suggest: stopped serving hot tea and coffee. !! That is NEVER the answer. This airline CAN and MUST be rehabilitated and the right manager/s can do it.

  • 1
    0

    The remedy lies in finding corruption-free management. Finding one person is difficult, two very difficult and more than two is impossible.
    A humane solution is euthanize.

  • 1
    0

    I make these comments with the best interest of Srilankan Airlines, which is my favoured carrier. It is my great delight to be greeted by well-dressed young ladies in their blue livery and be “spoiled” all the way from London to Katunayake. But my greater interest is the great debt that we all, as tax payers are burdened with. It is after all, no use casting the blame on anyone except ourselves for allowing these things to go on unchecked. But I think that all, including our President and the Prime Minister as well as all in the GOSL has come to the sad realization that the “cash cow” is dying. Lets consider this possibility, as done in the United States and perhaps in other places in the past.

    Do a web search under http://www.restructuring of general motors. All the details of that is clear there and if the GOSL is really keen, they can get all the information from highly qualified men and women in Sri Lanka. It was on 30th November 2009 that the newly elected President Barak Obama declined to fund G.M. That left the managers of this largest company in the world as well as the unions, employees, share-holders etc to desperately look for a way out, or face catastrophic events. Necessity is the mother of invention, I was told as a student and sure enough, all who were concerned came up with a suitable remedy. Today, G.M is profitable and their cars are as good if not better than the Japanese equivalents.

  • 1
    0

    There is a fantastic CEO Allan Joyce ( Qantas Airlines AUSTRALIA) who turned a struggling and debt ridden airline to a $A1.3 billion profit in two years. Yes he made some very drastic and not particularly popular decisions, but this is a business. Business is about profit…..or get out.
    Perhaps it’s time to reach out????

    • 2
      0

      Alan Joyces’s salary was Aus. $ 26 million!! Obvously he must be worth every penny.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 300 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically shut off on articles after 10 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.