That's Emirates A380 again. EK412 bound to Sydney have done the emergency landing at Colombo. What's wrong with the aircraft A6-EEG?

Not sure. seems to be a medical emergency

Any pic?

Medical emergency. Yes there are some photos



Credits: Dilshan Priyadarshana.

So what exactly is going on with SriLankan's flights to Melbourne? I've heard some people say that it is going to be called off, and something about SriLankan saying now isn't the right time to start the route. But according to both BIA and Melbourne Tullamarine's Wikipedia pages, the route is still due to start on November 2 of this year. Does anyone have any confirmation as to whether this route is still going, or whether it has been called off?

Some pics here, dated 12th July 2015:



Regards
Jish

For a moment I thought EK was uplifting less fuel from DBX

I will post some pictures of Lufthansa/Macro Asia-MNL, and the amount of work they are doing, including an A 380 (can't see who's it is), a LH 340-600, A VS 330, and more and more, all being flown all the way across the world.

Both your sources are not what I consider reliable information.

Look at the losses, the projected future losses, the integration of Mihin Lanka (more losses ), the complete lack of accountability and I think you have your answer....

The current situation is not sustainable.

The rumours I am hearing:-

- A350 will be cancelled as there is no money to pay for them.
- All European routes cancelled (except London because they have to operate this route).

Nothing further officially until after the election.

Well i hope the rumors about the A350 are not true but i guess the no money part is true, at least if they can get 1 or 2 planes would be great. Don't know about the other European routes but LHR seems to be doing pretty well

Doubt its worth cancelling the A350s as the likely penalties to be paid to Airbus for cancellation will be more than the cost savings from cancelling the aircraft. Its all good to wan't to save money but it has to be done logically.

Cancelling all loss making European routes sans LHR makes sense. They tried to do this even during MR's time but external influences kept them from axing these prestige routes (Eg: Malcolm Ranjit getting FCO re-started).

If UL does not have these routes, then there is no need for them to have the long legs of A350. All their regional and East Asian routes can be sufficiently covered by A332 and A333. For LHR, they could upgrade two of the upcoming A333s to the 242 tonne MTOW with extra fuel tanks.

This will also free up some metal to have a go at MEL and SYD on experimental basis.

UL does not need A350-900XWB. Current route and business profile does not justify it. Yes UL should continue to operate to Europe. A333 and A332 can do the job. LHR is definite. Italy SL has a large migrant community. Hi AirCeylon, what is your view on FCO and MXP.

well.. as i worked in MXP I can say that we had more pax and more cargo than FCO. UL571 was given to the italian market as srilankans requested it to the president. When I started working we had the CMB-CDG-MXP-CMB*and then it was CMB-FRA-MXP-CMB. Then CMB-ZRH-MXP-CMB*and finally CMB-MXP-FCO-CMB*as UL571. I must say that we had serveral issues with B767 operated by Luz Air. On board no ptv's and the Luz Air crew were very rude and unpolite. Just only 4 UL crew members to serve the whole flight and they were doing an excellent service. However station staff had many and many complaints at the airport due to the all white aircraft and about on board service. As a new route UL could operate with their AC but they sent for several months B767.... I had situatiosn like Srilankan passengers refusing to baord the AC due to no UL logo... night mare situations....In febb 2012 at BIT fair in Milan UL said that they are thinking to cxl FCO due to poor pax and cargo loads. MXP we had full cleaning, catering and transit CMB-FCO pax and our MXP-CMB pax as well more than 20 tonnes of cargo per flight. After few months the situation changed and even the loads were poor in FCO UL said that they decided to cxl MXP!!!*""*in 3 years MXP exs baggage raised to 30.000 EUR more or less, and the UL target is 9.000 US $!! And now I hear that somone says that the whole flight was a failed flight..... its not the time to point fingers... Let's work to save UL! As the biggest srilankan comunnity is in northern Italy they should operate to MXP with a direct flight an they were thinking to do like CMB-MXP-MLE-CMBor just CMB-MXP-CMB!!! I just wanna know the real reason of cxling MXP!! I dnt think that mxp is not profitable... or I should think that they cxld MXP to satisfy somone to reach FCO!!!!????

My info is that the Management Pilot in charge of the A350 project has resigned. I guess that makes sense if they aren't coming.

well articulated. It is good to hear first hand comments from someone working in an European Station. There are two broad issues you raise. The easy one to answer, is using Luz Air B767. Of course it is evident there would be complaints. Someone buying UL ticket would not want to fly Luz Air a comparison equivalent to chalk and cheese. Pax get annoyed at times flying a codeshare partner's metal ones ticket is bought on a particular airline. The second being the closure of MXP when it was more profitable than FCO. Well I guess simple answer is someone wanted FCO over MXP eventhough MXP was a better cash cow. It really is/was an appalling decision. I agree with you if is blatantly evident that MXP is a good yielding market in terms of both pax and cargo it should be brought back. UL needs cash generating and profitable stations. The more it is delayed the more the finances will head south.

On the same note
shutting down and not operating stations that drain cash and profits is a must. UL have had many examples in past and the same mistakes should not reoccur if revival is to be taken serious. Stations that UL operated for reasons not justified (atleast profit not justified) included Fukuoka, Johannesburg