ecurelix,
Thanks for your comments.
But, the 345 has a 21% high fuel burn than the 77L and more the same for 772ER. There must be quite a few 772ERs available at SQ ( derated to 772A ) at considerably low prices.
As per your points, if they wet lease ( unlikely ) it will come with F - which UL will have a hard time selling.
3. Not really. More or less the same. It cannot seat 50 more. May be 20 or 30 ? And in any case, 50 more will mean the aircraft will make money only on a couple of routes as LHR and MAA etc.
5. Not the slots, but will never be profitable. Not at all with the 345.
6. Even with the ETOPS maintaining, the 777 will still save you some $7 million per year than the 345.
In any case, the 332 can easily do the SYD flight.
In my opinion, the 345 will be be a waste of money for UL.
1. Higher costs
2. Lease rates would still be higher than the 343
3. Given the current trend, you only will be able to sell it for scrap in the future.
The competing 777 and 330 both will provide excellent costs that will offset the lower 345 lease rental. However the 330 is too small for a flight such as LHR and 777 will need crew training - but I believe the 777 will still give an advantage in longer term. In any case, use of 345 on the a route like CMB-CDG-MXP-CMB would only further increase its costs.