Sri Lanka Aviation

Let me step in, This is my opinion, Currently UL has a huge debt accumulated because of mismanagement of previous governments and politicians (As everyone knows.........) but last few years, UL was experiencing less political interference.

Three major points : Inconsistent Hard product across the fleet (Example : cabins/seats across the A320 fleet), Fleet shortage (Repairs and maintenance of current fleet is slow due to lower hangar space and staff shortage, need few more planes), lack of better management practices (Crisis response, Customer care, Lounge facilities)

UL management and some part of operations need to be re-structured (example : There was no any plan for passengers who affected due to sudden flight cancellations last few week, Just like crisis response, there were no any management team within the commercial team) (example : in Last 2 - 3 years UL had a operational Net Profit and because of Financial Cost, final figure is a loss)
Regarding the fleet, If UL goes with New aircraft model (A350), UL needs to adopt all new engineering and crew training, which is a considerably huge cost for UL. UL should adopt both Short term Fleet upgrade/expansion and a long term fleet renewal. (Focusing on consistent hard product across the fleet)

For the short term fleet : UL needs to get A330-300s (-343 RR772B powered, less than 12 years old, on 6 year lease) for long and medium haul operations and also with a cabin overhaul (Lie flat seats 1-2-1 for business, 2-4-2 reclining for Economy), and A320-200s(either -214WL or -232WL powered, less than 12 years old, in 6 years lease) with good cabins.

For the long term fleet : UL needs to get (at least 12 jets) A330-900s (-941, with the same cabins, Lie flat seats 1-2-1 for business, 2-4-2 reclining for Economy in total 297pax) and (at least 10 jets) A321neo (s) instead of A320neos ( -251N/NX 12 lie flat business and good seats with Economy). These aircrafts should join with UL by at least 2028.

that would make sense, since A333s were produced until 2020 and that new aircraft deliveries would take years considering the high demand for these new aircraft(A320/1Ns and A339s)
could UL make out by retrofitting the cabins in existing aircraft to spec?(regarding inconsistent hard product)
but really, UL is in the problems it is in because of the stupidity and greediness of the previous managements(they worked for their benefit, not UL's benefit)

Hi MAW,

Thing is, UL has a very good soft product, everyone is talking about it, especially airline reviewers like Josh Cahill, Noel Phillips, Sam Chui, etc. but they all complain about one thing and that is UL's hard product, which is what you have been talking about in this reply. A333s business class differs from the A332s, different seat configurations and higher density seat configurations are present on 4R-ALS. Some A320s have newer cabins, some have old cabins which have not been refurbished at all! take 4R-MRE and 4R-ABL, both of these jets are almost nearing two decades of service and have the same issues which i have stated, old, outdated and flimsy cabins.

Look at 4R-ABT and 4R-ABS, both of them have Royal Brunei cabins (I think, correct me if I am wrong), this is why UL's hard product is very very inconsistent across the fleet, doesn't help that SL tourism basically relies on UL to transport tourists from here and there to the country.

Wasn't UL interested (or still is) in a fleet diversifications strategy? I heard they would be taking Boeing jets as a result of this, which could be very hard considering both UL and 8D have Airbus only aircraft so having a boeing enter ULs fleet would be quite a mess, since they have to invest in new technicians, engineers and etc to maintain planes.

A321 Neo (s) and A320 Neos (s) will benefit UL in the long run, especially on short haul/medium haul or even some long haul routes, UL can use these jets to expand it's capacity to Australia (Perth), South East Asia (Manila, Hanoi etc.), Africa (Nairobi, Addis Abba, Port Louis), Middle East (Amman, Tel Aviv and etc)..

This is my opinion though, it may not be feasible but still this is how I believe that UL could use its A321 Neos and A320 Neos. To also accommodate these aircrafts, UL and CMB must build additional hangers and must expand the airport, thankfully this is slowly happening with T2s construction, which could mean that UL could serve more passengers and could have more jets as a result of that construction.

However, I want to say that I 100% agree with your opinion, But we have to wait and see how this restructure goes, I am hopeful that this will go well and that UL could be a profitable airline once again..

Agree WizzWaveSien​,

If UL could do this as a short term fleet upgrade, and long term fleet renewal, UL can start more flights...UL should avoid A320Ns instead they should go with A321Ns since they can use for high density medium haul routes in off-seasons.
My suggestion as follows,

I guess there are no more slots available between Australia and Colombo, if there are UL can increase frequency between SYD, and PER.
Around the year,
DEL, BOM, BLR, HYD, MAA, CCU, AMD, COK, TRV
DAC, KTM, KHI, LHE, MLE, GAN
MEL, SYD, PER
LHR, FRA, CDG, MXP, AMS, OTP
NRT, ICN
BKK, KUL, SIN, CGK, HAN or SGN​

Currently there is a surge of Sri Lankans' in Romania, so, need to find the possibility and slots between Bucharest​ (OTP) Romania...
and missed routes AMS Amsterdam, MXP Milan Malpensa....

A321N can operate OTP-CMB routes without a problem, same goes with CMB-MXP, CMB-FCO and maybe even CMB-ZRH? etc.. UL could pick up A321NX/NYs to begin routes to those destinations, UL could also use the A321 XLR or LR or NEO for that matter on long haul routes where much demand is not needed for a widebody aircraft, such as PVG-CMB, PEK-CMB, ICN-CMB etc.

A321Ns can be used as a replacement for A320's that UL has..

To run above routes efficiently, UL should have at least 35 aircrafts and at least 15 of them has to be long range widebodies.

UL may keep around some 320s considering they do certain routes such as GAN.
considering that the A321N is more fuel efficient than the A332, I guess it would be viable to go that way,(correct if i'm wrong)
as of A321NX, which would be better- the -251NX, the -252NX or -271NX or the -272NX

also, any updates on the following?
AND
ANE
ANF
ALH
ALM
ALN

Doesn't know about ALM, ALN is on weekly maintenance, as I heard, one A21N is near the hangar, one was at Apron Echo.

A321-27#N# is bit dangerous, Better to go with CFMI Leap 1A engine option, and also Better to consider LR version and also Business class configuration with 1-1 full lie flat seats just like Iberia's A321XLR cabins or Air Astana's A321N cabins. It will help UL to maintain long haul routes even in off-seasons instead of A332s, and also to cater short-haul routes instead of using dated A320ceos..

you're absolutely correct about the problems around the GTF(271/272) since it's still a relatively new design
but then, I also heard of problems around the LEAP as well, specifically in IndiGo's A321Ns.
A321 is the closest you might get to a B757(which is a medium-long haul narrowbody), and I see airlines like EXS replace their 757s with 321NXs
considering that the XLR started delivering in Oct 30th and having a significant backlog, UL might not be able to get their hands on one in the near future, rather by 2030 or later.
or they could go by dry-leasing A321N/LRs from other airlines(if that's economically correct to do and if airlines agree to lease them)
(I still have some questions about A321s serving lower passenger demand routes instead of A320s, or did you mean UL retiring the 320CEO and retain the 320NEO?)

I was refering of current A320ceo retirement (around 2026-2028) and as a replacement, A321N LR is better option, even the pax number is lower, UL can utilise for Cargo...
However A321N XLR is bit dangerous to operate for UL and not suitable for UL's network, since its a much new aircraft, Design flaws can be there and lease amount is high, Cargo space is not enough (UL does the cargo business and makes profit), Aircraft delivery can be delayed (Backlog is huge),, instead UL should go as i stated earlier in the thread.

For the short term fleet : UL needs to get A330-300s (-343 RR772B powered, less than 12 years old, on 6 year lease) for long and medium haul operations and also with a cabin overhaul (Lie flat seats 1-2-1 for business, 2-4-2 reclining for Economy), and A320-200s(either -214WL or -232WL powered, less than 12 years old, in 6 years lease) with good cabins.

For the long term fleet : UL needs to get (at least 12 jets) A330-900s (-941, with the same cabins, Lie flat seats 1-2-1 for business, 2-4-2 reclining for Economy in total 297pax) and (at least 10 jets) A321neo (s) instead of A320neos ( -251N/NX 12 lie flat business and good seats with Economy). These aircrafts should join with UL by at least 2028.

Final word is What ever the aircraft model, should be easy to get, lower maintenance, bit younger (like 4R-ABT, ABS) and with a good cabin (consistent hard product) ; )​

Do you think that if UL would hypothetically pick up an A350 (ULR or Normal) that they would be able to expand their operations to North America? such as YYZ, JFK, YUL etc? I don't think the A339 is sufficient to serve those routes (due to the limited range). Correct me If I am wrong but pilots who fly the A330 family can easily transition to the A350s, but the issue comes with maintenance such as high costs and more training (like you said).

I think UL's older jets will be going through a cabin refurbishment (eventually) after the restructure begins soon.. But will have to wait and see.

a330 pilots can do difference training to fly an a350 because cockpits are 'similar'. difference training takes less than a week as I've heard.
but the maintenance crew might need to be specially trained to maintain these new types(//correct if im wrong)
this is possible to pull off. and if they do, it will get demand because currently to get to these destinations you said, there are around 2-3 connections.
for example when flying to YYZ,
CMB->MAA->CDG->YYZ or CMB-DXB-YYZ

If UL fly to North America and Central Asia which flight number will they use?

As far as i know UL number being used as below

UL 1## - South Asia
UL 2## - Gulf
UL 3## - South East Asia (excl Thailand)
UL 4## - East Asia (excl China) (inc Thailand)
UL 5## - Europe
UL 6## - Australasia
UL 7## - Africa
UL 8## - China and Hong Kong
UL 9## - ?

This is an interesting conversation noh? isnt it? : )

UL should go forward with A350s (ULR or normal) once UL got financial stability (This can be happen after 2028/29), but before that UL should start fleet renewal at least by 2026 for the entire fleet, for that UL cannot go with A350s, since the aircraft is totally different from A330s, its a clean sheet design, engineering team must be overhauled, need new tech equipment, crew training (this is a significant cost, UL cannot bear this at this situation)

With the current route network and traffic operating such long flight to North America is not feasible and not profitable (There can be enough pax/load, but not feasible and not profitable with A350 ULRs, If this A350ULR is really good, most of airlines in this world operate this aircraft, only few airlines are operating this and those flights are also lower in terms of frequency.)

According to my opinion, instead UL should focus about Europe, Australia, East Asia (China/Japan/Korea/HongKong) if UL wants to make BIA a regional mini hub (Like DXB/ SIN).

Hi Banu and WizzWaveSien​

UL should do a feasibility study on Central Asia market, As far as I know there are only two or one major operators in international network.

But always for a passenger traffic between two cities, there should be a reason to fly, That means, There should be cultural or economical or defence or educational ties between two countries (without transit pax traffic). Without these things, UL cannot fly to a new destination.
(Examples : CMB ICN flights - for people who go there for work on gov to gov deal basis)