Sri Lanka Aviation

Senok Air orders two AS350 helicopters

Just don't see them filling a 777... Weren't all 340/330's sold and leased back? Should be just a case of dumping them back to the leaser when they get new air craft. The story doesn't make much sense at all, but this is coming from LBO who have a tad more credibility than the usual SL media.

If they are talking new aircraft directly with the manufacturers that means they want to order directly or get the manufacturers to finance the deal which also doesn't fit with their late strategy of leasing.

That said, I hope they go for A330-300s...

Sri Lankan New Cargo office in Hambantota

It will be better if Sri Lankan can get four Boeing 777-300ER aircrafts

The Boeing 777-300ER ("ER" for Extended Range) is the B-market version of the −300. It features raked and extended wingtips, a new main landing gear, reinforced nose gear, and extra fuel tanks.

The 777-300ER also has a strengthened fuselage, wings, empennage, and engine attachments. The standard GE90-115B turbofans are the world's most powerful jet engines in service, with a maximum thrust of 115,300 lbf (513 kN). The maximum range is 7,930 nautical miles (14,690 km), made possible due to a higher MTOW along with the increased fuel capacity.

The 777-300ER can fly approximately 34 percent farther than the −300 with a full load of passengers and cargo. Following flight testing, the implementation of engine, wing, and weight modifications produced an added 1.4 percent reduction in fuel consumption.

Benefits

Using only two engines produces a typical operating cost advantage of around 8–9 percent for the 777-300ER over the A340-600.

The 777-300ER’s direct Airbus competitor is the A340-600.

As of 2011, 777-300 deliveries to 24 different customers totaled 272, with 220 unfilled orders. Operators had 237 aircraft in active service.

I really don't think UL will be or need to be flying further than LHR right now, unless they want to be flying a lot of empty metal around. For UL's business case the best aircraft is A340/A33-300 or a 787 (can't see that happening unfortunately), the operating efficiency would hardly matter if they can't fill seats.......

Shouldn't you be indicating the source (i.e wikipedia) where you got the details from if you are copying and pasting verbatim ?

Source: http://www.boeingchina.com/ViewConte...92%8C777-300ER

The Boeing 777-300ER extends the 777 family's span of capabilities, bringing twin-engine efficiency and reliability to the long-range market. The airplane carries 365 passengers up to 7,930 nautical miles (14,685 km).

Boeing incorporated several performance enhancements for the 777-300ER, extending its range and payload capabilities. Excellent performance during flight testing, combined with engine efficiency improvements and design changes that reduce drag and airplane weight, contributed to the increased capability.

Boeing 777-300ER

Boeing may win SriLankan 777 order

Guys Please Share your views regarding Boeing 777-300ER to SriLankan

In real business, UL should go for the best deal. Switching to Boeing will add extra cost of maintaining a mix of Airbus/Boeing parts, trained techs, pilots etc etc. However, Boeing will do its best to get in to business with UL to break in to 100% airbus fleet. Unfortunately, in Sri Lanka the % of commission to politicos and others will also decide the deal. Overall, 777 is better replacement for 340s for fuel efficiency and cargo handling if the bottom line of the deal is a plus number.

What makes you think that they cannot fill a 77W? And why do you think that they should use 332s to LHR?

As I hope you do know, an aircraft deal goes much farther than the list price and training costs.

From airliners.net (a thread started by you incidentally )

ttp://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5072204/


an extract from reply 12 by user eksath


I ran some numbers for LHR - CMB. My assumptions are listed too. It supports your point of view.

Tourist traffic to Sri Lanka Stats:
[2009] = 447,890
[2010] = 654,476
% Change = +46.1%

Tourist from the U.K for 2010= 105,496
% Change from 2009 = +29%

Doing some calculations based upon assumptions:
Assumption 1: All UK tourist originate in LHR (only UL destination in the UK)
Assumption 2: Ignore other connecting traffic from North America (significant SL immigrant population total=400,000-500,000)
Assumption: All UK tourists to SL,fly on UL.

Current UL traffic = 2X daily X 365=730 trips
105,496/(730)= 146 UK passengers per flight.

A340-300 = 296 economy +18 business class= 314 seats.

Conclusion: UL has to fill the 168 extra seats per flight with other nationalities (i.e. North American market) or with Sri Lankans returning home. In the cursory estimate, it appears current capacity is adequate for LHR-CMB.


I recall seeing a much more recent airliners.net thread started by you about UL getting 777 which had a few good replies on why 777 is not a good idea for UL but can't seem to find it anymore...

332 seems to be the logical choice if they want to get rid of the 340 and use a stop gap measure till say the 350 arrives. But I think replacing the older 343s with slightly newer frames (343x) is a better measure. But that is my 2 cents....

Whilst Max (and others) seems to be visibly excited at the prospect of UL getting 773ERs (judging from the number of posts he has posted on this topic), I agree with Lukeskywalker in thinking that the A330-300(X) would be a better aircraft to replace the A343s at the moment. Maybe when the tourism sector is fully stabilized in a couple of years, then UL could consider 773ERs. I think 773ERs would be a good long term aircraft for UL. An initial order of four like what Max suggested may be a good idea.

And any idea when the A332s will be refurbed?