Sri Lankan To Join Oneworld

seansasLCY · Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:13 am

I couldn't see anything on this.

Sri Lankan Airlines is to join OneWorld in 2013.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-airlines-to-join-oneworld-372814/

mhkansan · Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:32 am

Exciting! Oneworld has been growing smartly recently after the loss of Mexicana, Malev, and Kingfisher. Happy to have Sri Lankan onboard!

qf002 · Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:53 am

Interesting development. Especially interesting is CX's involvement, though it makes sense given the trouble all the alliances are having getting directly into India.

YLWbased · Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:46 am

Welcome aboard SriLankan!

Now I know where to spend my 120,000 Asia Miles.

YLWbased

Independence76 · Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:40 am

Wow, I was honestly expecting TN to join OneWorld before hearing about the entry of UL!

Congrats!

kiwiandrew · Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:53 am

Wow, I didn't see this coming. Good to see that OW in recent years has come to the realisation that they cannot adequately serve Asia from only two hubs.

TruemanQLD · Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:11 am

Exciting, hopefully we will see greater cooperation between QF and UL, would form an interesting partnership, and a great gateway to India

EK413 · Mon Jun 11, 2012 4:26 am

Exciting times ahead at OW...

I was shocked when I read "Oneworld now has 11 active members"...

Congratulations UL and OW...

EK413

gardermoen · Mon Jun 11, 2012 4:37 am

Wow, didn't see this one coming at all.
UL is a great airline, although small, it has the potential to be so much more.
Their growth rate since the war in Sri Lanka ended has been impressive, let's hope this latest news can only add to it.
In the longer term, I wonder if it would mean only one operator flying CMB-KUL and CMB-HKG
And leads to the interesting question about China, with CX the main sponsor, will UL give up its important China routes (SHA, PEK, CAN) and hand over pax to CX?

IndianicWorld · Mon Jun 11, 2012 5:59 am

^^ I doubt it, but it will likely provide further options for pax. It will all depend on just how well thise routes are really doing though, and if the resources can be allocated elsewhere.

I would expect to see UL in Australia again soon on the back of this news. They have been mentioning starting MEL for a while and this will give them a stronger position to work from.

TruemanQLD · Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:50 am

Quoting gardermoen (Reply 8):
CMB-HKG

Well, CX would never give up its HKG-Oz routes, so I would imagine UL would have to give it up, if it were to happen

Quoting gardermoen (Reply 8):
will UL give up its important China routes (SHA, PEK, CAN) and hand over pax to CX?

No, not if they are profitable. CX will act as a hub for those passengers going elsewhere in China.

NZ107 · Mon Jun 11, 2012 7:20 am

Quoting gardermoen (Reply 8):
In the longer term, I wonder if it would mean only one operator flying CMB-KUL and CMB-HKG

Seeing that neither CX nor UL fly direct CMB-HKG, one of them probably will start (I mean if that isn't put through, I really don't know why CX would sponsor UL into Oneworld and leave a one stop flight between the hubs), leaving the other with the CMB-BKK-HKG flight.

RWA380 · Mon Jun 11, 2012 7:32 am

Quoting YLWbased (Reply 3):
Welcome aboard SriLankan!

Now I know where to spend my 120,000 Asia Miles.

This is what will happen to TN too once in an alliance, it will be a great place for mileage members to use up earned points, but will the alliance also be a good deal for UL? Will UL really attract more passengers because of this alliance?

IndianicWorld · Mon Jun 11, 2012 7:37 am

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 12):
This is what will happen to TN too once in an alliance, it will be a great place for mileage members to use up earned points, but will the alliance also be a good deal for UL? Will UL really attract more passengers because of this alliance?

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Airlines seems to have a very love/hate relationship with alliances, depending on their experiences. Theres certainly no guarantee that joining an alliance will be a great benefit.

RWA380 · Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:08 am

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 13):
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't

A sentence spoken in every airline boardroom at one time or another for sure.

YLWbased · Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:17 am

CX have daily HKG-BKK-CMB | CX700
UL have 4x weekly CMB-BKK-HKG | UL422

YLWbased

[Edited 2012-06-11 01:20:01]

Byrdluvs747 · Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:42 am

This isn't that surprising. UL has previously mentioned their interest in joining OW. It's too bad IT is dead. A combination for IT and UL would have given OW a great position.

What I would really like to see next is PG and or PR sign up with OW.

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 12):
This is what will happen to TN too once in an alliance, it will be a great place for mileage members to use up earned points, but will the alliance also be a good deal for UL?

What's wrong with that. TN or UL will receive cash for premium seats most likely not sold otherwise. Alliance members looking to burn miles would be a benefit for these small carriers.

SCL767 · Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:44 am

Quoting YLWbased (Reply 15):
CX have daily HKG-BKK-CMB | CX700

CX operates into CMB via either BKK or SIN:
CX711 HKG-SIN-CMB 4x weekly
CX710 CMB-SIN-HKG 4x weekly
CX703 HKG-BKK-CMB 3x weekly
CX700 CMB-BKK-HKG 3x weekly

usflyer msp · Mon Jun 11, 2012 9:09 am

Good for UL but I am really not seeing what value they add to the alliance. Sri Lanka is a small, relatively low-yield market (known for having some of the lowest premium class airfares in the world). Their Indian network is relatively small and focused on the southernmost tip of India. It seems like everything else they do can just as easily be done over AMM on RJ or KUL on MH if not nonstop from LHR on BA or HKG on CX.

SCL767 · Mon Jun 11, 2012 9:15 am

SriLankan currently code-shares with Malaysia Airlines and initially plans to code-share not only with CX, but also with RJ and S7:

Quote:
SriLankan already code-shares with oneworld member designate Malaysia Airlines – and today announced agreement in principle to code-share also with oneworld partners Royal Jordanian and S7 Airlines.

SriLankan Airlines to join oneworld alliance

RJ currently operates AMM-CMB 3x weekly
UL currently operates CMB-DME 2x weekly

flythere · Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:09 am

That's really an interesting move for OneWorld, so unexpected!

LIPZ · Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:26 pm

Meanwhile, UL will drop MXP eff from Sep 15.

They will fly to FCO only in Italy.

ORDJOE · Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:58 pm

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 18):
Good for UL but I am really not seeing what value they add to the alliance

While I would agree with you in that UL is a small airline with a small network, and there are other airlines I would much rather see added, HU, 9W. etc (not that they will, only my wish for them). I am under the mindset though that adding members to an alliance really can not hurt anything, it gives more options. I have heard ULs J class while not at SQs level is still fairly nice and cheap.

IrishAyes · Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:19 pm

Sri Lankan used to play an interesting role back when market access to India was more restricted; people would fly from various countries to India via Sri Lanka since the Sri Lanka-India corridor was fairly open. Ever since those restrictions have been lifted, UL passenger numbers have definitely taken a hit. The Civil War situation did not help, either.

While UL has a fairly respectable long-haul network, I think overall the synergy can be summarized more along the lines of UL needs OW more than OneWorld needs UL. Nevertheless, congratulations to both of them.

FURUREFA · Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:23 pm

I apologize in advance for being obtuse, but does EK still own much of Sri Lankan? If so, what could this indicate on EK's part?

KFlyer · Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:39 pm

Quoting FURUREFA (Reply 24):

EK does not own UL anymore. The gov't of SL bought back all of EK's shares back in 2010. Given below are some pics of UL's new J product

The IFE is IMS RAVE, IIRC.

airmale · Mon Jun 11, 2012 4:57 pm

Lets just hope they manage their finances well until they enter OW in 2013:

http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2012/0...irlines-gears-for-a-crash-landing/

Their service withdrawl from Zurich was a total mess. First it was announced that UL will stop the ZRH route. Booked passengers were rerouted through other european UL gateways. Few weeks later, the government intervened and UL announced that they would keep flying to Zurich. Passengers were again booked back on the original Zurich flight....... Shortly afterwards, UL announced that they will definately stop service to Zurich..... and passengers who still wanted to fly UL were rebooked again.....

Good luck with UL in oneworld!

JAL · Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:46 pm

Wow!

Didn't see this coming at all!

Great news for OneWorld and UL!

minmaguire · Mon Jun 11, 2012 7:09 pm

Flew dxb-cmb-kul in march/april in J with UL. Wasn't in same product as above but three legs in ex yemenia A330 leased with angled lie flat seats all sectors were full in both Y and J service was good and fare was ridiculouslycheap at about €550 return in J. Would definitely fly them again and wish them the best of luck!

LJ · Mon Jun 11, 2012 7:43 pm

Quoting AirMale (Reply 26):
Lets just hope they manage their finances well until they enter OW in 2013:

However, UL seems to have the Sri Lankan government behind them which ensures that they won't go bankrupt (unlike MX, MA and possiblt IT).

SSPhoenix · Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:22 pm

Quoting LJ (Reply 29):
However, UL seems to have the Sri Lankan government behind them which ensures that they won't go bankrupt (unlike MX, MA and possiblt IT).

Well, let's just hope they have a team of professionals who are managing the airline ... people who are in touch with the delivery of service "at the front line" ... basicallt let's hope there is not the level of interference like in AI.

Personally, I am very happy indeed OW is expanding - they seemed to have into a temporary hiatus in terms of expansion for a long time .... now they are - confidently - adding Malaysia Airlines & Air Berlin .... Kingfisher would have been a great opportunity if their existence (and service) was more stable.

C'mon OW!!! Time to take Aim at Africa!!!

MHG · Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:31 pm

Quoting LJ (Reply 29):
However, UL seems to have the Sri Lankan government behind them which ensures that they won't go bankrupt (unlike MX, MA and possiblt IT).

That´s right - but at the same time the government influences route planning and makes UL fly routes that are not making money. So, UL is not as free/independend as it should be ...

realsim · Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:51 pm

Good news for OneWorld, although I see they tend to recruit the smallest players of some markets/regions rather than the biggest: example, S7 in Russia, or IT and now UL in India/Sri Lanka. However, it's always good to see the alliance growing.

In my opinion, if JJ finally joins OneWorld, the alliance should use all their strengths on three big targets: China, India, and Africa (Sub-Saharan). If they can manage to get three more carriers, OneWorld would dramatically improve.

Independence76 · Mon Jun 11, 2012 9:10 pm

Quoting realsim (Reply 32):
S7 in Russia

They are far from one of the "smallest players." They are the fastest growing airline in Russia.

mogandoCI · Mon Jun 11, 2012 9:58 pm

Quoting realsim (Reply 32):
In my opinion, if JJ finally joins OneWorld, the alliance should use all their strengths on three big targets: China, India, and Africa (Sub-Saharan)

China - all Big 3 are gone. Only one left with Hainan Airlines.

India - IT is toast, AI is in peril, and 9W is leaning 60% StarAlliance 40% SkyTeam.

Sub-saharan : the only big name i could think of is Arik - and even then they're not much help in terms of network connectivity

flythere · Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:40 am

Quoting gardermoen (Reply 8):
In the longer term, I wonder if it would mean only one operator flying CMB-KUL and CMB-HKG
And leads to the interesting question about China, with CX the main sponsor, will UL give up its important China routes (SHA, PEK, CAN) and hand over pax to CX?

Not likely, more cooperation between UL and CX would be expected.

Quoting Truemanqld (Reply 10):
No, not if they are profitable. CX will act as a hub for those passengers going elsewhere in China.

Also to North East Asia and North America. While for CX, a better penetration into southern India via CMB could be quite likely.

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 12):
will the alliance also be a good deal for UL? Will UL really attract more passengers because of this alliance?

With the strong presence of likes of EK and several other allianced carriers, UL sees it a lucrative move to be part of an alliance and secure pax loyalty.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 16):
PG and or PR sign up with OW.

PR provides not much extra value to oneworld while South East Asia would be well covered by CX and MH and so PG would be redundant IMO.

qfvhoqa · Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:48 am

Quoting realsim (Reply 32):
Good news for OneWorld, although I see they tend to recruit the smallest players of some markets/regions rather than the biggest: example, S7 in Russia, or IT and now UL in India/Sri Lanka. However, it's always good to see the alliance growing.

I think choosing a smaller player has some merit. It helps to grow the carrier into one that fits with the rest of alliance, instead of having a ragtag alliance of carriers (SkyTeam anyone?). Maybe oneworld will make UL into a stronger carrier than it would have been had it stayed alone? S7 seems to be doing well now.

Quoting flythere (Reply 35):
PR provides not much extra value to oneworld while South East Asia would be well covered by CX and MH and so PG would be redundant IMO.

I agree that both PR & PG don't bring much to oneworld, neither does TN IMHO.

TruemanQLD · Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:31 am

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 36):
TN

TN brings one destination, and a small one at that. As much as I would love to see it added, it makes no sense, it will mean next to nothing IMHO

NZ107 · Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:36 am

Quoting Truemanqld (Reply 37):
TN brings one destination, and a small one at that. As much as I would love to see it added, it makes no sense, it will mean next to nothing IMHO

It also brings a shorter route from Asia through to South America, a route that has demand but isn't so well co-ordinated. LA and CX do have some sort of connection but TN flies to NRT and AFAIK, the Japan-Brazil connection is strong.

RWA380 · Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:06 pm

Quoting Truemanqld (Reply 37):

TN brings one destination, and a small one at that. As much as I would love to see it added, it makes no sense, it will mean next to nothing IMHO

Is UL a much bigger prize? I see Sri Lanka as a destination about as small as Tahiti from an Intl standpoint. I am really not well versed in Sri Lankas offerings, but I was expecting a warm sunny, nice place to visit but thats about it, am I wrong to point out the similarities of TN and or UL in OneWorld?

aeroblogger · Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:12 pm

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 39):
Is UL a much bigger prize? I see Sri Lanka as a destination about as small as Tahiti from an Intl standpoint. I am really not well versed in Sri Lankas offerings, but I was expecting a warm sunny, nice place to visit but thats about it, am I wrong to point out the similarities of TN and or UL in OneWorld?

UL brings a lot of connectivity to India, a major market which is a hole for oneworld.

KFlyer · Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:45 pm

For Sri Lanka vs Tahiti, SL has a lot of cultural heritage, great wildlife, and many other nature's beauties and bio-diversity that you will probably not find in any other single country. I'm sure Tahiti too has its own attractions. But I think what matters more here is the connectivity not only UL but also CMB can offer. CMB is so strategically positioned, that you will find that it is almost a straight line for China/HK - Africa or LON-SYD via CMB. Although the airport is now getting increasingly crowded with almost no slots during some hours

golfradio · Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:09 pm

Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 40):
UL brings a lot of connectivity to India, a major market which is a hole for oneworld.

It would be a significant backtrack though except if you are flying from down south.

TruemanQLD · Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:02 pm

Quoting golfradio (Reply 42):
It would be a significant backtrack though except if you are flying from down south.

Well, right now, its better than nothing :-P

PezySPU · Wed Jun 13, 2012 2:31 pm

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 18):
Good for UL but I am really not seeing what value they add to the alliance. Sri Lanka is a small, relatively low-yield market (known for having some of the lowest premium class airfares in the world). Their Indian network is relatively small and focused on the southernmost tip of India. It seems like everything else they do can just as easily be done over AMM on RJ or KUL on MH if not nonstop from LHR on BA or HKG on CX.

Quoting flythere (Reply 35):
PR provides not much extra value to oneworld while South East Asia would be well covered by CX and MH and so PG would be redundant IMO.

I dislike these arguments coming up every time a small airline is joining an alliance. Airline alliances are about diversity and customers. If UL is joining oneworld, that does not have to mean that the carrier is, or will be in future, incredibly important for AA, BA or any other member for that matter. In fact, it does not have to be important to or cooperate with any of the alliance members at all. oneworld is now getting new customers, Sri Lankan people. Does it cost them anything? Not at all, in fact, it costs UL. Is UL right now an important player? Not at all, not for any alliance. And it doesn't have to be. But keep in mind that Sri Lanka had a war going on just 3 years ago. UL might have an opportunity to develop into something more than it is today.

Generally speaking, if none of the current alliance members have anything against a new member, and if there are no other potential future members that are more important than the new member in the same or similar market, than there is absolutely no reason why the new member shouldn't or wouldn't be allowed to join the alliance. There is no such a thing as "redundancy" in airline alliances, member is either a good fit or it doesn't fit at all. So:

Quoting ordjoe (Reply 22):
I am under the mindset though that adding members to an alliance really can not hurt anything, it gives more options.

Quoting LJ (Reply 29):
However, UL seems to have the Sri Lankan government behind them which ensures that they won't go bankrupt (unlike MX, MA and possiblt IT).

Does it really "ensure"? Loss-making airlines, doesn't matter if a state or private investors are behind them, are pretty much status quo. It works only as long as investors are willing to inject cash. And given that huge losses in the industry are very easy to achieve, any loss-maker can easily go belly-up the next day without much warning. Profits must rank high on the priority list of any airline.

But I don't disagree with you, I think UL isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net