UL312,
1. Think in the longer term. There is no benefit whatsoever by leasing in some 345s, as these birds have a very fast declining value. A 332 could have been far better. I am not saying UL should buy 77L, it's a waste without any Ultra Long Haul routes.
2. I agree on this, hands down.
3. Not at all. It has a MTOW of around 335 against around 368 for 345. Which is not a big difference given the 21% fuel burn. However, in any case, unless CMB's runway is not extended both of these types will have a hard time taking off with full load.
4. UL Chairman did, to a popular aviation magazine. Is he a mole ? I've got no idea.
5. That is up to UL management and I do not think the current guys will do it.
There's no point of arguing on this here. All of above numbers are true facts and it is a popular fact that the 77L is far better than the 345 on any mission. My point is that, even at very low rates, a dry lease of these aircraft will be a waste of money, as they will have a very low resale value. It does not appear that UL has a roadmap for future fleet, otherwise they'd have at least signed a MoU for the A350 by now. If you wet lease the aircraft for a year or two, that's a nice thing. But I know for sure that our UL pilot friends are gonna oppose it.
However, if UL is gonna REALLY get them - I may say, go for it as something new is better than the 343s.