I think there are few misleading facts here
1. A380 are flying over Sri Lanka not because of Mattala but the Katunayake got its international license for A380 emergency handling about 2 or 3 yrs back (if I can remember correct) - As far as I know Mattala has not got such a license/approval from the international and any emergency case of an A380 would directed to Katunayake - Not to Mattala
2. Radar handling of Sri Lankan air space is done by Ratmalana ATC not by Katunayake nor Mattala - As far as what I know Katunayake and Mattala ATC handle only flights which approach those or leave those - not ones flying over SL air space
3. Amount of carrying less fuel is indeed a true fact which let many airlines to cut/reduce some of its expenses like insurance surcharges, plus less fuel load leads to high flight fuel economy (This is applicable for flights come SL only)
4. The issue of birds' strike and wild animals is indeed a stupid argument - which is not limited to Mattala but it happens everywhere even in airports like JFK...
Mattala needed to be marketed correctly I guess if they want to earn money - Personally I do not think its a bad idea to have a second int airport but management/leaders need to take bold decisions to improve its outcome.
Correct me if I am wrong!
This is most balanced comment so far, I appreciate your ideas totally. thank you very much




