Sri Lanka Aviation
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
-
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
-
-
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?Comment
-
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 CMBBA'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.Comment
-
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
-
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.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
-
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.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
-
-
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
-
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

Comment