Makes sense to have direct IST-CMB flights as passengers to and from CMB are to IST and beyond as TK does not have fifth freedom on MLE-CMB-MLE sector. Plus TK too is expanding at a rate and flies into many European, Central European and African Cities that the QR, EK and EY dont fly.

Bad news for UL that TK is going to double the daily flights on IST-CMB sector by using the maximum regulated capacity (14 weekly) per air service agreement. But TK double daily flights yet to be loaded in AIS/GDS system. Definately this will make UL to loose the business on European routes.

It appears to be acquiring brand new A359s and A321Neos are expensive at present due to UL's dire financial situation. Also there are rumours, UL may cancel the A359 order with Airbus/ILFC. On the other hand, Definately UL is not going to increase the quantity of the fleet (from 21 aircraft) any time soon. So UL is better invest on larger aircraft like B777-300 (360+ seater on J/Y with good leg room) which can provide more capacity for European/Japan/Saudi/India/Maldives routes with their current frequency of flights. Unfortunatley A332/A333 (got 275/297seater) havn't got sufficient capacity for passenger & cargo to meet the demand of European routes especially for London (frequency restricted route after UL sold the slots) and Frankfurt. Do you think it will be cheap leasing couple of mid-aged B777-300s for European Routes instead of getting expensive Seven brand new A350-900s. Also UL better replace the two A320s (lease period for ABK/ABL expires in 2016/7) with younger leased two A321s (not brand new neos) and get only six x A330-300s instead of seven. As umedhah mentioned earlier, UL better extend the lease period on 5 of the younger A330-200s in the current fleet and maitain the airline fleet as : 4 x A320, 4 x A321s, 5 x A330-200s, 6 x A330-300s and 2 x B777-300s until they recover from losses. What do you think?

B777-300ER too much for UL but B777-200ER would have worked.. But getting 777 means a lot of additional costs. No viable and economical.

capacity wise a B777-200ER is quiet similar to an A340-300 or an A330-300.....it would be better to get a B777-300ER or an A340-600 (both would be expensive as one would need pilot trainning and the other would be highly fuel inefficient), once they become financial stable they can replace them with A350-1000s

340-600s will do great, as long as the lease is low

TG is undecided what to do with their retired fleet !

They have good airframe hours left I think !

Any Airbus is less hard to integrate vs any Boeing product, unless it came on a wet lease !

well i will start like this . Im not in aviation business but im an aviation freak !!

after checking about many airways and air crafts an idea came up to my mind to bring some life back to UL , but i dnt know how much this will be practical .

1) UL & MJ need to be merged . but UL MUST have a budget service to support pilgrims.
* UL must keep service to Varanasi , Gaya & I suggest UL must start KTM , and a destination like REP (Angkor) and I suggest these routs must
A319 with Y class config
2) UL must increase Indian destinations and start new routs like GOA , Hyderabad & I suggest Vijayawada too , that place has become a very
developing city and UL must use A 320/321 for this routes
3) For the Gulf routs UL must go for A330-200 and for the EU destinations I suggest the A330-300

now this is a totally my concept

For long haul destinations the ideal bird is 777-300 or 787-9 . AI does DEL-SYD in 787-8 nonstop and it is doing very well unfortunately Air bus doesn't have a fuel efficient bird where UL can buy AT THE PRESENT SITUATION . (I FEEL AT THE MOMENT WE CAN'T AFFORD A350-900/1000). But also at the moment we can't change AC types and switch to Boeing bcz then we have to invest more on pilot training , cabin crew training etc SO FOR SOME TIME WE HAVE TO BE WITH AIRBUS :/

I know A340-600 is not a good move but since we can't afford brand new A350s or even used 777s A340-600 is the best option . Lot of other airlines are retiring them so i guess we can find few of these birds for less price and the extra money we have to spend on fuel can be earned if we utilize them well .

So with the current UL situation my personal choice is having

4 X A340-600
5 X A330-300
5 X A300-200
4 X A321
4 X A320
3 X A319

once UL come back alive this will be my choice

7 X A330-300
5 X A321
5 X A320
4 X A319

2 X B787-9
2 X B777-300

UR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME

my suggested long haul destinations for UL

CMB-SIN-MEL
CMB-KUL-SYD-AKL
CMB-LHR-YTO
CMB-DXB-LAX


tnX

Finding the right balance between capacity and anticipated demand is not always exactly clear. As the day of departure approaches, it can be a challenge to refine capacity when a flight is expected to come in either significantly over or under what was originally forecasted in the fleet-planning process.

However, if you were able to adjust capacity as close as 45 days prior to departure to capture the additional anticipated demand, or downsize capacity to avoid spoilage, you could gain a significant financial benefit.

Close-in re-fleeting, also called demand-driven dispatch, is a business process that can help overcome unplanned spillage or shortfalls in a flight’s demand. By using revenue management forecasting data, the fleet type assigned to a given flight can be adjusted close to departure to better accommodate the anticipated increase or shortfall in demand. In instances where demand is lower than expected, a smaller common cockpit aircraft can be assigned for cost avoidance, and when demand is higher than expected, a larger aircraft can be assigned to capture additional revenue.

Typically the near-term swaps are made within the last 45 to 60 days prior to a flight’s departure. Common cockpit crew compatible fleet types such as A330-200/300, A320/321 and B-737/738/739 have shown to have the biggest financial impact.

Please see below how SriLankan's brand new Airbus A330-343Es were operating last week from Colombo airport. Do you think SriLankan is utilising these brand new aircraft on the correct routes. In my opinion these brand new aircraft supposed to serve the high-yield market where SriLankan can make money from the high-spenders by giving best product (new aircraft/good service). But it appears to be SriLankan is sending these aircraft to some destinations where it's mostly used by labour traffic (e.g. Jeddah, Doha etc..). Sending this aircraft to low-yield destinations loosing money for our national carrier not only that also will make high-maintenance cost for these aircraft (e.g. I have seen in more occasions most of these labour passengers damage the seats, IFE etc..). I think SriLankan's flight planning department is not planning the aircraft/flight utilisation correctly. What do you think? Also has anyone flew on UL brand new A333s? share your experience?

4R-ALL/ALM/ALN flew to below destinations last week.

Colombo - London
Colombo - Male
Colombo - Beijing
Colombo - Shanghai
Colombo - Chennai
Colombo - Tokyo
Colombo - Jeddah
Colombo - Delhi
Colombo - Bangkok - Guangzhou
Colombo - Doha

330-300's should fly London , Tokyo , Shanghai /Beijing , Frankfurt and Paris. may be Male too. But not on Indian Routes please.

It is ok for these aircraft's to be used for short haul routes as a gap fill and to get maximum utilisation from the metal. But regularly using them on routes without a proper purpose a loss. Example: CX/TG/SQ all use their long haul B77W for short hops may it be for loads, cargo utilisation etc.. But not as the primary purpose of such aircraft's.

Why not Indian routes specifically?

Btw, my brother is coming flying DEL-CMB on 30th April. Aircraft type is A330-200. I will report if it is an A330-300.

As Banu mentioned in his post UL has found passengers on this sectors making unnecessary damages to the interior of those New Aircrafts.

Pakistan is the second largest trading partner of Sri Lanka in South Asia. The signing of new MoUs will further enhance bilateral cooperation. Recently, Sri Lankan Airlines has expressed an interest in expanding its operations in multiple cities in Pakistan and has also invited Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) to operate more flights to Sri Lanka. This will increase people to people contact between the two countries. The cultural heritage of both countries provides a sound basis for building and nurturing a multifaceted partnership to their mutual advantage. Their shared values and concerns about regional security justify the increased interaction of their economies and reinforcing of the institutional framework for cooperation - http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/

Hi Gambler787, Do you know when PIA planning to start Colombo service? I agree SriLankan should be expanding more flights to Lahore & Islamabad.

You have a point, sir.
It is true: SE Asia - Middle East are notorious for passengers not respecting the aircraft as such. UL's seeing it on their A333s, AI on their B787s, etc..