Sri Lanka Aviation

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • dilushasg-bdavi
    Senior Member
    • Feb 2011
    • 555

    #5446
    Originally posted by ejanson65
    Agreed - the wrong aircraft. It is designed for regional flights not long haul.

    London is severely payload restricted - operated at maximum weight with minimum fuel (Re-dispatch). No room for cargo so they've lost that market as well.

    The entire commercial side of UL needs to be investigated. I don't believe there is a business plan.
    Just sit and criticise.....this fellow is amazing

    Comment

    • anthonylk
      Senior Member
      • Nov 2014
      • 128

      #5447
      Originally posted by dilushasg-bdavi
      Just sit and criticise.....this fellow is amazing
      When they fly to Melbourne, will this also have to be load restricted ?

      Comment

      • lordvader
        Senior Member
        • Jan 2011
        • 366

        #5448
        Originally posted by dilushasg-bdavi
        Just sit and criticise.....this fellow is amazing
        I think given the circumstances the A333 was the right aircraft and I remember reading somewhere that the last 3 will have a centre fuel tank, hence the delay of their deliveries till the second half of this year (could be wrong though).

        In any case what do you think of the old UL management? I remember you were one of the few defending their actions. This is a genuine question as I've heard mixed reports about their performance.

        Comment

        • anthonylk
          Senior Member
          • Nov 2014
          • 128

          #5449
          Mihin-lanka-flight-returns

          http://www.dailymirror.lk/67589/mihi...edium=facebook

          Comment

          • Haleef
            Senior Member
            • Nov 2012
            • 1468

            #5450
            Originally posted by anthonylk
            That's why they shouldn't buy these small aircrafts which can't even take much people. Waste of money. By the way was it the 319?
            Haleef Ismail
            www.youtube.com/haleef1 | www.instagram.com/cmb_spotter

            Comment

            • banuthev
              Administrator
              • Dec 2010
              • 3947

              #5451
              Originally posted by Haleef
              That's why they shouldn't buy these small aircrafts which can't even take much people. Waste of money. By the way was it the 319?
              Technical Problem is on Mihin Lanka's A321 - 4R-MRD. 4R-MRD came back from the C-Check on 27/3/2015 and faced the technical issues on 27/3/2015 on MJ311 CMB-GAY and 29/3/2015 on MJ501 CMB-DAC. I think they tried the test flight also on 28/3/2015. 4R-MRE also AOG for engine change.

              mj-4r-mrd-tech

              Comment

              • sfernando34
                Senior Member
                • Feb 2013
                • 143

                #5452
                Originally posted by flylanka
                BA's LGW-MLE-CMB route was very poorly planned.
                1. The MLE-CMB route has stiff competition.
                2. LGW is not a lucrative connection port for passengers to and from Americas.
                3. LGW is BA's Caribbean connection port. Traffic between Caribbean and CMB is very poor.
                4. BA yes should and could launch CMB from Heathrow.
                I don't understand why they didn't just launch a non-stop from Heathrow, like you said. BA covers India very well from Heathrow, and seems to have no problem filling planes. Both the fact that it flew from Gatwick, and the inconvenient stopover in MLE certainly hurt BA's chances of doing well on that route. Also, if they flew from BA, they could also offer First Class on that route, as the 772s they fly from Gatwick are only equipped with Business. LHR would allow passengers coming from the US/Canada to more conveniently connect to CMB, as well as the countless tourists that are flooding into SL from the UK and other parts of Europe that aren't connected with nonstop flights to CMB

                Comment

                • sfernando34
                  Senior Member
                  • Feb 2013
                  • 143

                  #5453
                  Originally posted by skyline
                  4R-ALN got centre fuel tank?

                  Do we really need more A333s ? A333 is payload restricted on LHR & NRT routes. What a waste.
                  I am starting to wonder too whether this was the right choice of aircraft. I was hoping that UL might consider the 77W to become the new workhorse of the long haul fleet, as I do not believe it would need to have payload restrictions as the A333 does. It seems like other South Asian carriers like AI, JW, BG and PIA have all found success using the 77W, and have utilized them successfully on long routes such as LHR, CDG, MAN and beyond to JFK and EWR. I wish UL had considered the Boeing option, but I guess its too late now.

                  Comment

                  • janhongladarom
                    Member
                    • Oct 2014
                    • 60

                    #5454
                    Originally posted by sfernando34
                    I am starting to wonder too whether this was the right choice of aircraft. I was hoping that UL might consider the 77W to become the new workhorse of the long haul fleet, as I do not believe it would need to have payload restrictions as the A333 does. It seems like other South Asian carriers like AI, JW, BG and PIA have all found success using the 77W, and have utilized them successfully on long routes such as LHR, CDG, MAN and beyond to JFK and EWR. I wish UL had considered the Boeing option, but I guess its too late now.
                    Maybe is because they want to stick with an all Airbus fleet and pilot for A343 and A332 can easily switch to pilot the A333 with no hassel and save cost on training.

                    Comment

                    • anthonylk
                      Senior Member
                      • Nov 2014
                      • 128

                      #5455
                      Yesterday there was a MEGA Maldives flight from CMB to MLE. This some charter flight ?

                      Comment

                      • Srilankan1
                        Senior Member
                        • Dec 2010
                        • 499

                        #5456
                        Originally posted by lordvader
                        I think given the circumstances the A333 was the right aircraft and I remember reading somewhere that the last 3 will have a centre fuel tank, hence the delay of their deliveries till the second half of this year (could be wrong though).

                        In any case what do you think of the old UL management? I remember you were one of the few defending their actions. This is a genuine question as I've heard mixed reports about their performance.
                        Oh yes spot on brother.some people here were making big hype about new Aircraft orders and without thinking how this will effect the Airlines financial situation.

                        Comment

                        • 4R-ADA
                          Member
                          • Mar 2012
                          • 30

                          #5457
                          Originally posted by anthonylk
                          Yesterday there was a MEGA Maldives flight from CMB to MLE. This some charter flight ?

                          The flight number LV199 is the regular Shanghai-Male flight. Has to be some sudden diversion to CMB.

                          Comment

                          • Srilankan1
                            Senior Member
                            • Dec 2010
                            • 499

                            #5458
                            How about having 2 777's for UL?? to cover up London / Tokyo / Rome routes???

                            Comment

                            • banuthev
                              Administrator
                              • Dec 2010
                              • 3947

                              #5459
                              Originally posted by Srilankan1
                              How about having 2 777's for UL?? to cover up London / Tokyo / Rome routes???
                              SriLankan supposed to replace A343s with A359s but they couldn't get the delivery slots of A359s in end of 2014. Since the A343s are getting out-dated, SriLankan Management hadn't had no aircraft option within Airbus other than selecting the A333 which is suitable only to serve UL's China, Middle East and Far East Destinations (A333=Medium haul has no restriction for fully loaded with Pax and Cargo). SriLankan to take delivery of three x A359s next year when these brand new XWBs will be serving long haul routes importanly : London (Heathrow)

                              I do agree with SriLankan1, SriLankan needs a bigger aircraft for Heathrow, It's shame the government had sold most of the slots at our UL's iconic route : Colombo-Heathrow where UL used to serve approx double daily flights. Getting slots at Heathrow is not that easy now and it's quite long way to go for the expansion of Heathrow airport's sixth terminal and third runway.

                              Currently SriLankan is mixing A332/A333/A343 on Colombo - London (Heathrow) route. In the winter, using A333 on Colombo - Heathrow is not a best idea due to payload retriction result of long flying hours. SriLankan going to fly just daily flights to Heathrow from Summer 2015 and in Winter 2015 onboard A332. For Next year Heathrow operations, SriLankan had planned to use A359s with 2 class 315 seater aircraft. I doubt daily 315seats are sufficient for Heathrow. May be UL has to plan to get A350-1000 which is a 387 seater in 2 class (J/Y) and plan for the daily Colombo-Heathrow-Toronto route. Transferring to Boeing may be not a good idea due to training etc..

                              Comment

                              • Azamh
                                Senior Member
                                • Apr 2011
                                • 246

                                #5460
                                Originally posted by Srilankan1
                                How about having 2 777's for UL?? to cover up London / Tokyo / Rome routes???
                                why cant srilankan have a wet lease something like hi fly.....Srilankan s cargo industry has rapidly gone down,, HKG-CMB Cargo sector is doing v well,
                                Some routes like singapore using A321 /A320 it has given a chance to EK to carry Heavy cargoes.

                                Comment

                                Working...