They are cross subsidizing HRI by CMB

So aircraft can burn more fuel; when end of the financial year comes then blame it on the fuel cost

Hi CalgaryLankan, Thanks for your inquiry. Our content is exclusively for Air Sri Lanka Members. Please use our “Remember Me” autologin cookie remembers your password and automatically logs you in the Air Sri Lanka website so that you won’t have to re-enter your username and password. The session cookie remembers your password until you log out of the page. You should only use this feature if your computer is used exclusively for you.

@4R-SRD - Could you please tell us if you can see any of these HRI flight schedule loaded on GDS ?

It's less than 30 mins to Rajapakse airport (hikz) from CMB.

Whats the point?

Because ground handelling, refueling and catering(?) will be provided for free at Rajapakse airport the "cunning thinking" is to entice airlines to ditch CMB and use Rajapakse airport entirely. But guess who picks up the tab for those free services to the airlines? This trick to increase aircraft traffic for RA is going to be just a bigger black hole on the nations wealth. But i'm sure it will be sold as another "success" like Mihin "making profit".

Mihin Lanka Increases Dubai Service

so this will be the shortest route which A340 & A330 gonna fly so from cmb to hambantota we have big flights but cmb sin they fly A320 So narrow

I would say it's a frequency adjustment between Sharjah and Dubai in UAE. Sharjah service to be reduced from 4 to 3 weekly to add an additional service to Dubai, which will be increased from 3 to 4 weekly effec S13.

Cmb - ruh flight info as below. No hri mentioned

doul265/18mar/cmbruh
* 1a planned flight info * ul 265 33 mo 18mar
apt arr dy dep dy class/meal eqp grnd eft ttl
cmb 1820 mo jczypwmbhka/h 343 5:40
oeruqltv/h
ruh 2130 mo 5:40

comments-
1.cmb ruh - arrives terminal 1
2.cmb ruh - mct flight tracking i/i
3.cmb ruh - 9/ non-smoking
4.cmb ruh - et/ electronic tkt candidate

configuration-
343 no configuration set

I think A330HGW is a bit long way to go as first EIS planned after 2017 ?? If UL is looking for aircraft to meet the A340's capacity or over (318), I would suggest leasing three of second hand B772ERs is a better choice, will result in lower operating costs over the long run. Ex-CX B772ERs are could be old but there are much better than our fuel guzzlers. As per planespotters.net, ex-CX B772s are presently configured as 45C and 291Y. So UL may have to re-configure those ex-CX B772s as 18C and 331Y. B772 will add more capacity since UL planned to cut-down the frequency of long-haul flights (esp London from 12 weekly to 7 weekly). IMHO UL must get rid of all the A340s, and focus on leasing fuel efficient aircraft like A332s and B772ERs (it doesn't matter if they are second hand).

The below site says EIS in 2015:


I still think UL should go for A333HGWs with A333s for the first few frames. 777s add extra maintenance costs. Maybe once the market is developed they can consider 777s. But by that time the A350-1000 could be in service.

A330HGW can do CMB-LHR. It looks like it can carry maximum 300 Pax for the long-range, If I'm not mistaken.

300 seats too less for London and Narita..

WY operates their 332 with 20J 196Y.. can u imagine howmuch legroom they give in their economyclass..