SriLankan Airlines
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: in the middle of nowhere
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BigJetJumbo 
That's funny mate! HEHE
First thing I notice whenever coming back to Lanka is how rude the customs officers are. They are soo busy gossiping to each other they dont have the common decency to look at you or greet you.
But in all fairness, in regards to your ordeal with the baggage, there are certain limitations on how much kg's the luggage can carry. It's 32.5kg from the top of my head due to work cover safety for baggage handlers ->i.e. stress on the back etc.
Anyway guys, any news on the cadetship??
That's funny mate! HEHE
First thing I notice whenever coming back to Lanka is how rude the customs officers are. They are soo busy gossiping to each other they dont have the common decency to look at you or greet you.
But in all fairness, in regards to your ordeal with the baggage, there are certain limitations on how much kg's the luggage can carry. It's 32.5kg from the top of my head due to work cover safety for baggage handlers ->i.e. stress on the back etc.
Anyway guys, any news on the cadetship??
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Asia based
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BigJetJumbo, UL460 operates on CMB-NRT-MLE-CMB. However it used to run CMB-MLE-NRT.
Edit: You mean UL454 ? The Friday one ? In that case, it never has had any via stops anytime in the history.
Edit: You mean UL454 ? The Friday one ? In that case, it never has had any via stops anytime in the history.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Asia based
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alright, just realised it's been written by someone else. Anyway, why are they looking at leasing 345s ? I thought there was no considerable cost achievement over the 343s, or is there ? In any case, you can find some used 777s at a far lower rate with a lower fuel burn. Or given the training advantage, you guys could have ordered the 350 and leased 332s/333s as an interim measure.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 1°21'10.20"N - 103°56'36.21"E
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kflyer2:
I am not with UL, or a proponent of their plans.
As for your questions re: A345 ..
1) There are a few A345 available, at rock bottom lease rates
2) A345 (especially the HGW version) are already kitted out in excellent interior, and are available for wet lease, as most available on the market were kitted out for 3 class layout.
3) Can seat 50 odd passengers more than A343
4) Can fly non-stop, for longer range, and faster than 343
5) Gives the chance to open up SL-US (subject to the slots still being available)
6) There is a higher fuel burn, compared to A332/333, but with the current low JetAv prices, does not matter much
As for your suggestion for opting for A332/333, A332/333 requires ETOPS rating, especially if it is non stop CMB-SYD or so for a smaller airline, A340 series works out better.
777 ? Those available on the market are non-er models, and would again negate the cost benefit with ETOPS issues.
And to book the A350 .. ?? haha
We can all dream .. right ???
I am not with UL, or a proponent of their plans.
As for your questions re: A345 ..
1) There are a few A345 available, at rock bottom lease rates
2) A345 (especially the HGW version) are already kitted out in excellent interior, and are available for wet lease, as most available on the market were kitted out for 3 class layout.
3) Can seat 50 odd passengers more than A343
4) Can fly non-stop, for longer range, and faster than 343
5) Gives the chance to open up SL-US (subject to the slots still being available)
6) There is a higher fuel burn, compared to A332/333, but with the current low JetAv prices, does not matter much
As for your suggestion for opting for A332/333, A332/333 requires ETOPS rating, especially if it is non stop CMB-SYD or so for a smaller airline, A340 series works out better.
777 ? Those available on the market are non-er models, and would again negate the cost benefit with ETOPS issues.
And to book the A350 .. ?? haha
We can all dream .. right ???
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Misleading terminology
BJJ
It's confusing, I know, but in Airline parlance a 'Direct' flight is one where you get on an aircraft at Point A and get off at your destination Point B, not having changed aircraft. That aircraft could make intermediate stops at Point X and Point Y. To fly from Point A to Point B without an intermediate stop is a 'Non-Stop' flight. It is a bit of spin, just like the real estate agent's 'ocean glimpses.'
It's confusing, I know, but in Airline parlance a 'Direct' flight is one where you get on an aircraft at Point A and get off at your destination Point B, not having changed aircraft. That aircraft could make intermediate stops at Point X and Point Y. To fly from Point A to Point B without an intermediate stop is a 'Non-Stop' flight. It is a bit of spin, just like the real estate agent's 'ocean glimpses.'
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Asia based
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Asia based
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 a route like CMB-CDG-MXP-CMB would only further increase its costs.
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 a route like CMB-CDG-MXP-CMB would only further increase its costs.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 1°21'10.20"N - 103°56'36.21"E
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kflyer2:
Not to get into any argument about twin-vs-quad, but ..
Somebody somewhere has done the mathematics, to find the 345 not exhorbitantly bad as painted .. it may be a gas guzzler, but, not so bad enough to make every flight a loss ..
Statistics are statistics, but, it is beyond comprehension that EK continues to fly their A345 on DUB/SYD sectors, as well as EY, and SQ find some money to be made, and that money is still profit, compared to parking the plane in VCV or elsewhere .. And SQ, at 65% load factor in the ULH flights are still smiling enough to incur the high cost of extended crew and extended night stop for the crew (as dead heading ULH crew is still not acceptable, and the crew rotate back after approx 3 days of rest) ...
And, coming back to 330/343/772, well, there aren't many in the market anyway, and, compared to the relatively young 345s, most of the 332/343/772 in the market are old hacked birds, due for the C check ..
Oh, I did forget something about not going the "Boeing Way" - crew training. Airbus wide-bodies have a common cockpit rating .. Introduction to service will be much faster. And, who knows, our good neighbor would have brokered a deal to off-load their 345s are more than preferential terms ..
And, as for profitability, though common sense says you dont fly ULH aircraft on short sectors, SQ was rotating their 345s to CGK - flying time around 1 hour, and I once flew a 747 SIN-KUL - flying time less than 45 mins ..
Not to get into any argument about twin-vs-quad, but ..
Somebody somewhere has done the mathematics, to find the 345 not exhorbitantly bad as painted .. it may be a gas guzzler, but, not so bad enough to make every flight a loss ..
Statistics are statistics, but, it is beyond comprehension that EK continues to fly their A345 on DUB/SYD sectors, as well as EY, and SQ find some money to be made, and that money is still profit, compared to parking the plane in VCV or elsewhere .. And SQ, at 65% load factor in the ULH flights are still smiling enough to incur the high cost of extended crew and extended night stop for the crew (as dead heading ULH crew is still not acceptable, and the crew rotate back after approx 3 days of rest) ...
And, coming back to 330/343/772, well, there aren't many in the market anyway, and, compared to the relatively young 345s, most of the 332/343/772 in the market are old hacked birds, due for the C check ..
Oh, I did forget something about not going the "Boeing Way" - crew training. Airbus wide-bodies have a common cockpit rating .. Introduction to service will be much faster. And, who knows, our good neighbor would have brokered a deal to off-load their 345s are more than preferential terms ..
And, as for profitability, though common sense says you dont fly ULH aircraft on short sectors, SQ was rotating their 345s to CGK - flying time around 1 hour, and I once flew a 747 SIN-KUL - flying time less than 45 mins ..
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 1°21'10.20"N - 103°56'36.21"E
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kflyer: do a search on PK's 772LRs. While they were built to fly ULH, they ended up flying the more humble shorter routes, primarily because, at high altitude, the fuel being uplifted severely weight restricted the load even on hops from Karachi to Europe.
And, while everybody talks of the cost savings of Twins, especially when it comes to 773ER/772LR, nobody mentions the cost of maintenance, and, even a replacement engine needs a AN124, compared to a regular freighter for most other aircraft ..
And, while everybody talks of the cost savings of Twins, especially when it comes to 773ER/772LR, nobody mentions the cost of maintenance, and, even a replacement engine needs a AN124, compared to a regular freighter for most other aircraft ..
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Asia based
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ecurelix,
I appreciate your valuable comments. However, unfortunately the 345 and 77L are two totally different animals.
SQ is using it on shorter legs in order to get a higher utilization. Each and every airline that had 345s are replacing them with 77Ls, except for SQ. EK had wanted to get rid of them for sometime, in favor of replacing them with 77Ls.
The 77L burns 0.032 L per seat/km as opposed to 345's 0.038 L.
PIA flies them on longer-hauls largely because they cannot make money on ULHs.
The 777 clearly has a direct advantage, in maintenance as well. Given it is far more reliable than the competing 345s. The GE90, even with ETOPS, is one of the most reliable. And keep in mind, the quad vs twin doesn't make costs much different. 772ERs available are old - I agree. However I believe they will still have a higher resale value than the fast-decreasing in value 345s.
As per the engine delivering, well you know, you rarely need to change one in service.
I appreciate your valuable comments. However, unfortunately the 345 and 77L are two totally different animals.
SQ is using it on shorter legs in order to get a higher utilization. Each and every airline that had 345s are replacing them with 77Ls, except for SQ. EK had wanted to get rid of them for sometime, in favor of replacing them with 77Ls.
The 77L burns 0.032 L per seat/km as opposed to 345's 0.038 L.
PIA flies them on longer-hauls largely because they cannot make money on ULHs.
The 777 clearly has a direct advantage, in maintenance as well. Given it is far more reliable than the competing 345s. The GE90, even with ETOPS, is one of the most reliable. And keep in mind, the quad vs twin doesn't make costs much different. 772ERs available are old - I agree. However I believe they will still have a higher resale value than the fast-decreasing in value 345s.
As per the engine delivering, well you know, you rarely need to change one in service.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Up North
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KFlyer my friend you always come up with weired theories with no or very little facts.
1. UL is not equipped for Boeing and there is a significant cost of introducing a new aircraft type. The 343/345/332 can be flown by the same crew member with minimum training. And UL is already certified for airbus maintenance.
2. I Agree 100% on the rock bottom lease prices for the 345s which will save a hell of a lot more then 7mil for the airline if they can fly good loads.
3. 777L although it has the range it is very heavily weight restricted ( do a bit of reading and you will find the answers) when flying longer routes.
4. I really don't think UL will get the 345s. So stop blaming and spreading rumors and ask your mole in the company to give you good and valid facts.
5. Filling up first and business class. Well if you offer a good product people will come.
Just a note about the two trip reports. The first one was spot on he covered everything (good and bad) and I think he did give a very clear picture of how things are. The second person just wanted to bash UL. UL asks the pax to come three hours early, if he/she was late its not ULs problem.His/Her weight was high so it was not ULs fault again (32kilo bag limit is a safety regulation). He wanted to goto NRT direct and he did (regardless of what the sign boards said). AKA he got what he paid for.Immigration has nothing to do with UL. Usually Sunday leader articles are better than this. This was just a lame attempt.
1. UL is not equipped for Boeing and there is a significant cost of introducing a new aircraft type. The 343/345/332 can be flown by the same crew member with minimum training. And UL is already certified for airbus maintenance.
2. I Agree 100% on the rock bottom lease prices for the 345s which will save a hell of a lot more then 7mil for the airline if they can fly good loads.
3. 777L although it has the range it is very heavily weight restricted ( do a bit of reading and you will find the answers) when flying longer routes.
4. I really don't think UL will get the 345s. So stop blaming and spreading rumors and ask your mole in the company to give you good and valid facts.
5. Filling up first and business class. Well if you offer a good product people will come.
Just a note about the two trip reports. The first one was spot on he covered everything (good and bad) and I think he did give a very clear picture of how things are. The second person just wanted to bash UL. UL asks the pax to come three hours early, if he/she was late its not ULs problem.His/Her weight was high so it was not ULs fault again (32kilo bag limit is a safety regulation). He wanted to goto NRT direct and he did (regardless of what the sign boards said). AKA he got what he paid for.Immigration has nothing to do with UL. Usually Sunday leader articles are better than this. This was just a lame attempt.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Asia based
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 1°21'10.20"N - 103°56'36.21"E
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kflyer2:
As for the 773ER/772L not needing an engine change .. Don't ever believe what you read on the net. Not every airline wants to go around bleating about their AOG, and the cost of chartering an AN124 to fly in a new fully assembled engine is not something everybody wants to boast about, never mind the cost of getting a half disassembled engine using an Il-76 or 747, and re-assembling it back. AOG-> Money Lost-> Bad for business. Let's say .. only the popular IFSDs get reported, and while the GE-90 is reliable, with a twin, one engine missing is half your power missing, while on a quad, an engine missing is only 25% missing, and the rest can spool up to get your behind-side to terra firma. And if you have many copies of the same aircraft, nobody notices you replaced plane A with another copy of plane A, and when you have fewer of the identical planes, then it not only becomes a mess, it is costly, bad for PR, and more than often, passengers become vile and blood-thirsty.
And only the cargo boys know which carrier is running helter skelter to ship in a new power-plant, or borrow from their 'partners' .. And again, for the engine being rarely in need of a change .. unless there is a 100% reliable engine, does not matter .. even one engine failure is good to ruin your pleasant day ..
For the long term stuff .. let me say, another semi-private non-Indian Asian Airline with close to 30 plus air-craft, and backed by enough liquid cash, could not find enough money for even placing a financial commitment for fleet of 773ERs, though they were more than interested in the so-called statistics, and instead are fully using their quads and adding more quads. Life is not so rosy as everybody would like it to be .. and considering UL's cash reserves, we got to live with what we can afford, and dream of a Rolls Royce .. but in the meantime, get around in a fairly decent Japanese car ..
Now where does that place UL, and what kind of Line of Credit do we have ? And in today's world, how many financial institutions are going to back a 'national' carrier ? Even AI has more than enough problem trying to find financing .. now don't tell Sri Lanka is much bigger than India, though that is what we like to believe, but, with 1 billion people, and more than enough cash, if AI struggles .. If you have been to India, and watched the number of aircraft flying in and out of airline like BLR, you will know what I mean ..
1) When leasing, it does not matter what the declining value of the aircraft it. The bird belongs to the lessor .. And, more than enough carriers have had the pleasure of flying gas-guzzling aircraft, to fill in capacity, and never regret about it.
3) As for the 'statistics' driven by arm-chair critics, well 772Ls brawn has .... let's not digress .... And numbers are numbers, and for the near future, CMB's sole runway will not be extended, atleast for the next few years, and unless somebody can perform a minor miracle and get a 'fly in runway - fully assembled and ready to use .. ', if such a thing exists ..
And again, as for migrating to a newer type, well, it is not a open and shut case. Best case, it will be painful, and with zero experience in maintaining, I will easily guess atleast a 2 to 3 year gestation period, if we are still making money .. And, if we still get through that, well, it would be a miracle. Large airlines have taken almost one year plus to introduce newer types, even with their experience and funding. Where does UL sit in this equation ?
PS: As for the trip report .. I didn't get to read it fully, but the UL bashing guy needs to get his head examined. Airlines are to make money, and while most passengers never make noise about having to pay for more than 10-15 kg on LCCs, and the nett fare becoming more than a regular carrier, they will whine like nobody, when a regular carrier checks on weights, after the generous allowance.. There have been more than a few incidents of aircraft departing a south asian country, where lot of things went wrong to the extent of near tail strikes, because, 300 pax X 15 KG of hand luggage = equates to a lot of drama for the flight crew up in the pointy end of the pressurised flying canisters .. Those guys who 'sneak' in a more than few extra kilos are not only endangering the lives of themselves, they are also trying to murder the fellow passengers ..
As for the 773ER/772L not needing an engine change .. Don't ever believe what you read on the net. Not every airline wants to go around bleating about their AOG, and the cost of chartering an AN124 to fly in a new fully assembled engine is not something everybody wants to boast about, never mind the cost of getting a half disassembled engine using an Il-76 or 747, and re-assembling it back. AOG-> Money Lost-> Bad for business. Let's say .. only the popular IFSDs get reported, and while the GE-90 is reliable, with a twin, one engine missing is half your power missing, while on a quad, an engine missing is only 25% missing, and the rest can spool up to get your behind-side to terra firma. And if you have many copies of the same aircraft, nobody notices you replaced plane A with another copy of plane A, and when you have fewer of the identical planes, then it not only becomes a mess, it is costly, bad for PR, and more than often, passengers become vile and blood-thirsty.
And only the cargo boys know which carrier is running helter skelter to ship in a new power-plant, or borrow from their 'partners' .. And again, for the engine being rarely in need of a change .. unless there is a 100% reliable engine, does not matter .. even one engine failure is good to ruin your pleasant day ..
For the long term stuff .. let me say, another semi-private non-Indian Asian Airline with close to 30 plus air-craft, and backed by enough liquid cash, could not find enough money for even placing a financial commitment for fleet of 773ERs, though they were more than interested in the so-called statistics, and instead are fully using their quads and adding more quads. Life is not so rosy as everybody would like it to be .. and considering UL's cash reserves, we got to live with what we can afford, and dream of a Rolls Royce .. but in the meantime, get around in a fairly decent Japanese car ..
Now where does that place UL, and what kind of Line of Credit do we have ? And in today's world, how many financial institutions are going to back a 'national' carrier ? Even AI has more than enough problem trying to find financing .. now don't tell Sri Lanka is much bigger than India, though that is what we like to believe, but, with 1 billion people, and more than enough cash, if AI struggles .. If you have been to India, and watched the number of aircraft flying in and out of airline like BLR, you will know what I mean ..
1) When leasing, it does not matter what the declining value of the aircraft it. The bird belongs to the lessor .. And, more than enough carriers have had the pleasure of flying gas-guzzling aircraft, to fill in capacity, and never regret about it.
3) As for the 'statistics' driven by arm-chair critics, well 772Ls brawn has .... let's not digress .... And numbers are numbers, and for the near future, CMB's sole runway will not be extended, atleast for the next few years, and unless somebody can perform a minor miracle and get a 'fly in runway - fully assembled and ready to use .. ', if such a thing exists ..
And again, as for migrating to a newer type, well, it is not a open and shut case. Best case, it will be painful, and with zero experience in maintaining, I will easily guess atleast a 2 to 3 year gestation period, if we are still making money .. And, if we still get through that, well, it would be a miracle. Large airlines have taken almost one year plus to introduce newer types, even with their experience and funding. Where does UL sit in this equation ?
PS: As for the trip report .. I didn't get to read it fully, but the UL bashing guy needs to get his head examined. Airlines are to make money, and while most passengers never make noise about having to pay for more than 10-15 kg on LCCs, and the nett fare becoming more than a regular carrier, they will whine like nobody, when a regular carrier checks on weights, after the generous allowance.. There have been more than a few incidents of aircraft departing a south asian country, where lot of things went wrong to the extent of near tail strikes, because, 300 pax X 15 KG of hand luggage = equates to a lot of drama for the flight crew up in the pointy end of the pressurised flying canisters .. Those guys who 'sneak' in a more than few extra kilos are not only endangering the lives of themselves, they are also trying to murder the fellow passengers ..
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 1°21'10.20"N - 103°56'36.21"E
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kflye2: the specific Asian Airline I quoted .. have their own flight training schools, and in terms of passengers carried and routes, are almost 10 times more than UL, and their planes cross the Pacific daily .. and, while the 'aviation' analysts recommended they get a dozen of the must-have Twin Jets, they could not find financing for even 2 brand new .. 
Though I would have loved to see their logo on newer jets, and also on the 'still born' A350s and 787s, reality bites ..
Though I would have loved to see their logo on newer jets, and also on the 'still born' A350s and 787s, reality bites ..
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Asia based
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, ecurelix, I respect your opinions but from an operations perspective, the 777 is really a far better aircraft than the A340. But let's stop this discussion here to avoid it becoming a quad vs twin and then an A vs B battle.
In any case, the 345 would be nice for UL - IF they can afford it.
What happened to 4R-ABE anyway ? Scrapped ? So, UL now has a fleet of 12 a/cs ?
Re CMB, airport.lk posted a notice saying CMB was selected as an emergency destination for EK A380s. Surely the 380 can land in CMB's 45m wide runway. But will they really need to do so ? Anyway, let's think it is because all their Australian 380s fly over CMB.
In any case, the 345 would be nice for UL - IF they can afford it.
What happened to 4R-ABE anyway ? Scrapped ? So, UL now has a fleet of 12 a/cs ?
Re CMB, airport.lk posted a notice saying CMB was selected as an emergency destination for EK A380s. Surely the 380 can land in CMB's 45m wide runway. But will they really need to do so ? Anyway, let's think it is because all their Australian 380s fly over CMB.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Inosphere
Age: 70
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confusion
I am with a nother Operator flying Big Birds, and i was not on that Flight , a buddy of mine forweded the article and thought of letting you guys know ........
Anyway Hope there will be a rainbow !!!!!!!!!dont walk on thin lines ....
Anyway Hope there will be a rainbow !!!!!!!!!dont walk on thin lines ....
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: ocean
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
row row row a boat
Half rate Air fare to those who are flying to SL to vote for Mahinda
(Lanka-e-News, Jan. 21, 2010, 7.15PM) The Sri Lankan airlines has offered special concessions to Sri Lankans in Italy who are coming to Sri Lanka to vote for President Mhainda Rajapakse.
This concession is available only to the Sri Lankans in Italy flying to SL on the 23rd by SL Airlines. It is learnt that the air fare from Italy to SL and back is Euro 650. But to those Sri Lankans who are coming to cast their votes for Mahinda Rajapkse is only Euro 300.
According to Reports reaching us from Italy, the Govt. has instructed the SL Airlines agents in Italy whom the Govt. trusts to grant this concession only to those who are sure of voting for the President.
(Lanka-e-News, Jan. 21, 2010, 7.15PM) The Sri Lankan airlines has offered special concessions to Sri Lankans in Italy who are coming to Sri Lanka to vote for President Mhainda Rajapakse.
This concession is available only to the Sri Lankans in Italy flying to SL on the 23rd by SL Airlines. It is learnt that the air fare from Italy to SL and back is Euro 650. But to those Sri Lankans who are coming to cast their votes for Mahinda Rajapkse is only Euro 300.
According to Reports reaching us from Italy, the Govt. has instructed the SL Airlines agents in Italy whom the Govt. trusts to grant this concession only to those who are sure of voting for the President.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: colombo
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So how would this airline ever make money?
Purchasing new aircraft need not be even discussed!
But we should all give credit to those who have lately come into this forum and are now providing positively with their learned contributions. This thread happens to be one of the best in this forum so keep up with the good work guys instead of resorting to the petty name calling we had previously.
Excellent work, we are proud of you.
Purchasing new aircraft need not be even discussed!
But we should all give credit to those who have lately come into this forum and are now providing positively with their learned contributions. This thread happens to be one of the best in this forum so keep up with the good work guys instead of resorting to the petty name calling we had previously.
Excellent work, we are proud of you.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Inosphere
Age: 70
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sad situ...................
We had Mihin in the first 4 years .... so get ready for a another in the second 4 years now... probably Basil Air or Gota Air ( Goat Air )
