Aren't the A359s scheduled for late 2016?

Why do we need old A300? Did you mean A330-200?

Why 4R-MRF is not flying again?

Given the current route network of UL, best would be:

4 X A320
6 X A321
7 X A330-200
7 X A330-300

Would like to see the A350's as well, at least a couple, but there is still no official confirmation if this order has been cancelled or put on hold ?

I heard 4R-MRF has been wet-leased to SriLankan Airlines for about three months as 4R-ABM sent for maintanance. But this A319 still been parked in the CMB's remote apron and not yet started flying. What a waste keeping the aircraft on the ground while paying the lease bills to the leasing company (ALC). Any news on merger of UL & MJ? Gov has to think about part-privatise the UL to some foreign airline (QR, EY..)

As previously planned UL supposed to receive three A350-900s from ILFC in July, Aug and September 2016. I am not sure about the current situation about getting A350-900 to the UL fleet. But UL seriously need a long-haul aircraft because A332 and A333 can't meet the demand (fully loaded pax/cargo) for London route especially in the winter due to long flying hours.

In my opinion, SriLankan has to keep following aircraft fleet until 2020. Please remember SriLankan can't increase the fleet size from 21 aircraft due to their current financial position.

4 X A320 (ABM, ABN, ABO, ABP) (3 years old +)
4 X A321 (ABQ, ABR, ABS, ABT) (6-7 year old)
5 X A332 (ALB, ALC, ALD, ALH, ALJ) (Upgrade Cabins with Recaro seats)
6 X A333 (ALL, ALM, ALN, ALO, ALP, ALQ) (brand new)
2 x B772 (wet lease two B772s (314 seater) until july 2016. These two B772s should be leased with crew + maintanance. From July 2016, replace two B772s with two A350-900s on 12 years dry-lease)

Agree with above but why wetlease two B772?

Agree 100% on the Boeing Issue. Will A333 be able to meet the high LHR demand during winter months ?

I mean A330-200....

UL unlikely to get A350-900 in 2016.

Interesting discussion over the past couple of days as to ideal fleet choice of UL.

I think UL first need to define their role in clear and concise terms.

They need to abandon the prestige routes such as those in Europe (sans LHR) and focus on being the number one regional airline in South Asia.

Compared to others such as SQ, CX or even EK, UL has the cost advantage when it comes to labor and ground handling services, therefore, they need to run routes that are more labor intensive. These are usually short to medium haul routes as long haul and ULH incur hefty fuel bills (which UL buys at the same price as other carriers) and thereby eroding their advantage.

UL has tremendous scope in the region. Take CMB-DXB for example. EK has FOUR daily 777s (combination of 773 and 77W) while FZ has TWO daily 738s. UL in contrast operates and SINGLE A320 (occasional 332) daily. Obviously UL can increase the capacity as well as frequency to Middle East.

Similarly, they should increase the destinations and the frequency to India. Just like EK is the De facto "Indian carrier" for Westbound destinations, UL could be the "Indian carrier" for Eastbound destination via CMB, if they could create flight banks (waves) as EK has done in DXB.

UL is already strong in Japan and China. Why not add more frequency to these destinations and time them in a way connections and seamless at CMB.

As for the Long Haul operations, UL could have a daily flight to SYD and another daily to MEL and operate two connecting flights to LHR. This will allow them to tap in to the cost conscious Kangaroo route traffic as the total travel time will be similar to connecting via DXB, DOH or AUH.

In this scenario, I would envisage a UL fleet consisting of A320/1 for flights to India and Middle East, A333 to medium haul destinations and high density Middle Eastern routes and a bona-fide Long Hauler such as A359 for SYD/MEL-CMB-LHR ops.

And As for the Long haulers, if UL cannot afford the A359, why not lease some sparingly used A346s for a couple of years until they get back on their feet?

The second part is about the "culture" at the Airline.

All discussions about fleet and routes are meaningless unless this is tackled. This has to be done before anything else.

Ex Chairman Nishantha - no action taken against him
Ex CEO Kapila - no action taken against him
COO Druvi - still holding his post. No action taken against him.
HHR Pradeepa - still holding his post. No action taken against him.

As we all know, the A346 is the worst thing ever to happen to the aviation industry. Does anyone have an idea A346 is profitable for UL? I was wondering A346 more fuel efficient than A343?

Could well be profitable given how low A346 leases currently are (even when compared to A333s etc).

While I have not done any calculations, I assume for the types of routes we are talking about, A346 should have comparable CASM to A343.

The advantage of A346 is that the lease rates are rock bottom at the moment and as the oil prices may continue to remain suppressed for the foreseeable future, it actually may make sense for UL.

Of course someone has to 'do the math' on this.

Besides, when you are cash strapped you do not have a lot of options

This is interesting news especially in light of the recent announcement that Jet Airways planning to sell their six A330-200s.




Any chance UL leasing those 7 years old A330-200s to replace our ageing A330-200 fleet?

Yeah I agree with you, UL may consider leasing some 6-7 years old CF6 powered A330-200s instead of brand new A350-900s. UL is not financially ready to take delivery of brand new aircraft. World leading airline like Turkish Airlines still operating the mid-aged fleet. Why not UL.

Report which came from Weliamuna Committee On SriLankan Airlines, reported that UL must have leased 4-6 years old A332/A333s to replace the ageing A343/A332s. The difference in the lease price between the A340-300's and the A330-200's was approx USD 550,000 per month or bit more. In the case of the A350-900's the difference was about USD 1 million higher per month.