Happy May to all Turkish aviation fans.

Last months thread ended with a deep discussion about the IGA and its construction costs. If you choose you can continue here.

I like to begin this months thread with this great photo of Pegasus jets in TLV:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Yochai Mossi - AirTeamImages



Few more headlines here:
-TK finally starts IST-ATL daily on May 16th
-TK starts IST-BOG-PTY-IST 3 x weekly with 332 this month.
-Iberia suspends IST May 8th
-DL suspends IST
-Pegasus' first A320NEO ready
-What is the latest on the Atlasjet 30 x Airbus order??

Thanks everyone, and welcome

Quoting TK787 (Thread starter): -TK finally starts IST-ATL daily on May 16th

We are excited and ready for Turkish to start service in Atlanta! Cheers from Atlanta!

Thanks for another thread TK787

TK took delivery of A330-243F TC-JOV http://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb.main?LC=nav4&page=2
Also one 737-8F2 TC-JVP and one 777-3F2 TC-LGJ http://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb.main?LC=nav4&page=4
What's the latest on the three ex Kenya 77W frames?

On another note TK is looking to receive a record number of airplanes from Boeing this year total 26 http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...to-turkish-airlines-300259987.html
I'm guessing the parking space is getting a little tight in IST happy May to everyone here..

Thanks for the new thread!

TK will start this month 4 new destinations. Beside Atlanta, next week Bogota and Panama follows. And before ATL, Dubrovnik starts.

Quoting TK773ER (Reply 2):

TC-LJG isn't delivered until now.
One of the three ex Kenya Airways B77W, TC-LKB has flown yesterday to Mumbai. First scheduled flight. Other two will follow this month. Configuration C28Y372.

Quoting Yakamoz (Reply 3): And before ATL, Dubrovnik starts.

Seems bookings are good so far. Flights will be increased to 5w end of May and 6w end of Aug from initially 3w.

Quoting TK787 (Thread starter):

Quite interesting to see 3 PC planes on TLV at the same time...

Until I flew from BJV into SAW this past weekend, I thought IST was a mess. Every single flight was delayed at least by an hour or two due to airport congestion and heavy traffic around Istanbul. At SAW, we (TK) sat on the aircraft for over an hour waiting for ATC clearance to push back. We were then number 5 for take off which took another 20-25 minutes or so. They urgently need to build that high speed exit or whatever it is and reduce the distance between two landing aircraft. I am afraid with summer season coming soon, things will get even uglier. At BJV, we also had to wait an extra hour to board due to restrictions at SAW and it took us 1hr 20 minutes to get to SAW from BJV... Total mess...

On a side note, I totally freaked out upon landing at SAW. During the last few minutes of the flight, we were probably at 4000 ft or so, I saw the 3rd bridge. I know the landing and take off patterns of SAW very well and we were not supposed to be anywhere near the 3rd bridge. After we landed and I did a little research, I found out that they are actually building a new bridge over Izmit Korfezi. Who knew? I didn't  

Quoting TK787 (Thread starter):

Thanks for another thread. 3 Pegasus planes indeed looks fantastic at TLV.

Quoting TK787 (Thread starter): Last months thread ended with a deep discussion about the IGA and its construction costs. If you choose you can continue here.

Let me share with you some insider information about IGA which I got today.

Concessioner expects to spend 10B€ to finish 1st phase of the project. To finish all phases, overall construction cost is expected to be around 25B€. It is stated that, 2nd phase is the most difficult and expensive phase as they will need to cover some lakes to built the runways. So all in all, information given by Die Welt is unfortunately true and it is not a poor journalism.

By the way, this figure is just construction cost! It does not include additional infrastructure (roads, railways, subways, etc) costs and money to be paid to land owners.

Interestingly Concessioner plans to have up to 30K construction workers to be employed by end of this year. BUT this will go down to 1K when 1st phase is finished. So I conclude that once 1st phase is finished, Concessioner wants to see if the project is sustainable and then start the expensive and challenging 2nd phase. So we may see the project stuck at phase 1 for a long time. Also note that 2019 is election year...

Another issue is, so far Concessioner has enough finance till summer 2017. But they will finish the finance given by Turkish Government Banks by then. They do not know how they will continue afterwards. This is something we need to follow.

One interesting comment was about name of the Airport. It is said that HE is aware that even his name is given to Airport, it will be changed with the first opportunity to something else (probably "Ataturk"). So to avoid it, he may prefer to give name of an Ottoman Empire (such as "Suleyman the Magnificent") which will stay for good.

I am sorry if this is asked before,

Will they transfer the code of the current airport ( IST ) or come up with a new code?

Quoting TurkishWings (Reply 6):

I was about to post about my experience at SAW this past weekend. The situation is really bad. Flew ARN-SAW, SAW-AYT and SAW-ESB. All 3 flights delayed by about 1-2hrs due to congestion at SAW. On the SAW-AYT flight we waited 45min for pushback followed by a 50min taxi time for departure. On my SAW-ESB flight our taxi time (47min) exceeded our flight time (36min).

So how will airlines even be able to operate within their schedule when you have chronic delays like these?

Quoting LLA001 (Reply 8): Will they transfer the code of the current airport ( IST ) or come up with a new code?

INA (the temporary name or reference for Istanbul New Airport) will definitely have totally new IATA & ICAO codes.

After INA starts operations, the current (AHL (IATA: IST) will still be continued to be used as an airport, for some un predicted period of time and for certain utilisations (which are said to be none civil passenger flights, but others!!!). So there will be planes landing and taking off from IST, after INA makes a start.

FYI: At rather rare conditions the old airport can give its code to the new one. This is what recently happened at Doha/Qatar. But in this particular case:
a) All activities from the old airport really ceased when the new one one started,
b) The old and new airports are located practically next to one another; the distance between these two is 5-6 miles, or so. Actually they build totally new facilities (inc. runways) at Doha but practically moved or shifted the old airport to the neighbouring new one...

One thing I can assure you of: the INA's IATA code cannot possibly be taken as "RTE". That code has already be taken!...

TK only a few weeks ago officially announced in media outlets that they're increasing IST-JNB to 10 x weekly from July, however it was not mentioned to be only temporary, but still no additional flights are loaded for after October?

Quoting tk105 (Reply 7):

After reading more into this topic I also have some doubts 10B € will be enough for the whole project.
Just for comparrison the
-HKG enlargement alone will cost about 20B $ and will be ready in almost 8-10 years.
-LHR T5 was built for 4.2B £, Queens Terminal for another 2.3B£
-DXB T3 was completed for 4.55B $

But still poor journalisim of Die Welt to quote an internet discounter page where airport enlargements are compared to new builts. After all 'Die Welt' is a reputable weekly newspaper with nice in depth articels.

Quoting mafaky (Reply 10):

Actually its not that rare. After Bangkok got a new Airport the old Airport remaind in service and changed their code to DMK.

Quoting Tkfan (Reply 12): Actually its not that rare. After Bangkok got a new Airport the old Airport remaind in service and changed their code to DMK.

You are perfectly correct; I wasn't aware of this!... So, we may assume (prematurely, of course) that when the INA becomes operational its IATA code can be inherited as IST, while the still somewhat operational Ataturk Airport can be allocated a new IATA code.

However, I believe the ICAO Airport Code (which is a 4 digit alphanumeric one; e.g. LTBA for IST) by nıo means can be changed/transferred. INA will have to get a new ICAO code.

Quoting mafaky (Reply 13): You are perfectly correct; I wasn't aware of this!... So, we may assume (prematurely, of course) that when the INA becomes operational its IATA code can be inherited as IST, while the still somewhat operational Ataturk Airport can be allocated a new IATA code. However, I believe the ICAO Airport Code (which is a 4 digit alphanumeric one; e.g. LTBA for IST) by nıo means can be changed/transferred. INA will have to get a new ICAO code.

Not true.. When the new Denver Airport opened with the closing of Stapleton both DEN and KDEN transferred. The key was Stapleton closed at the same time. If the plan is to keep Ataturk Airport open to local training and bizjet flights, then there is an issue. I have a sneaky suspicion that the new airport will be named after Tayyip Erdogan. This will fall in line with his new presidency as well.

Quoting bahadir (Reply 14): Not true.. When the new Denver Airport opened with the closing of Stapleton both DEN and KDEN transferred. The key was Stapleton closed at the same time. If the plan is to keep Ataturk Airport open to local training and bizjet flights, then there is an issue.

Well I actually assumed that IST/LTBA will not cease all flight operations once the INA becomes operational; therefore I commented that the ICAO cannot (will not) be transferred. BTW, the rumors are that IST will also continue with some cargo operations, after INA becomes operational; not only training-maintenance and general aviation.

This makes a little bit of sense:

1) THY has pretty recently established its own Cargo Terminal at IST/LTBA. It will be just a waste of money and facilities to throw away this investment after 3-4 years of usage. Besides it is highly debatable if THY can really carry all its facilities at IST/LTBA to INA at a very short period of time. Yes, you can re-locate the fleet, the facilities inside the passenger terminal but not everything, every facility you currently have established at IST/LTBA. Foremost of these will be the Turkish Technic facilities. Even, you cannot build the THY HQ Building at or nearby the INA, because no one can really allocate you the site (land) where to start constructing it.

It goes without saying the enormous financial burden of THY's relocation at INA, if you consider a complete one, covering all technical and commercial/managerial facilities.

2) This also applies to the General Aviation facilities: In my understanding the General Aviation will be moved away from IST/LTBA maybe only by 2025 or so.

Maybe I prophesize something which doesn't look "impossible" (to me, at the least):

By 2018 (Feb 26th 2018 or Oct 30th 2018) they will start operations at INA --- assuming the new facility will be fully certified, etc. etc. But TK may not be fully re-located there. In fact TK will continue most of its flights from IST/LTBA.
Possibly (if this happens) the Star Alliance members will also continue flying from IST/LTBA. All other domestic and international airlines will be pushed out to the INA. This will bring out two results:

a) There will be a kind of soft and more hassle-free opening at INA. (the other int. airlines practically only will carry out their offices out from IST/LTBA. No big technical infrastructure to be re-located or newly built at INA)

Once again, just think of THY's big burden for re-locating at INA. But everything asie, just think of the re-location and re-building of the CIP Lounge that THY (not the IGA Consortium!...) has to build at INA. And they can be allocated maybe only 3-4 months to finish it, before INA becomes operational! Wow!...

b) As most passengers will be more willing to fly out from IST/LTBA, THY's load factors will possibly improve!..

It may be that THY may operate some connecting domestic flights from INA to major domestic destinations such as ESB, ADB, AYT, DIY, say some more like BJV for the summer season with b738s or a320/321s and base maybe 15-20 of these frames at INA at the start...

Maybe a few of you are aware that currently there's an extension underway at the International Terminal at IST/LTBA. It will be operational by Sept/Oct. 2016. Nothing too big; an extension to give a little bit more breath by increasing the presently congested terminal by 10-12 million pax/year. Equipped only with 4 dual airbridges (8 narrow bodies or 4 wide bodies can be served at a time...) You know what THY is asking for? They want that this new extension to be allocated to other airlines while the current "old" terminal totally devoted for the use of TK (and maybe for the other Star Alliance members)? Why should they do this if they are so sure they will be (safely, healthily and totally) re-located at the INA, by 2018?

Sorry folks, it has been long enough for today. Thanks for your patience! More to follow, asap.

It seems the folks at AtlasGlobal have big plans. I saw an interview with CEO Murat Ersoy

He says the board approved the formation of 2 additional airline subsidiaries. According to him they will be located in the Gulf Region, and in the Middle East.

For AtlasGlobal own operations they continue to adjust their network away from domestic ops and charters to more international operations. In the last 2-years their network has gone from 8 foreign cities to 30 by July 2016 - latest market being Sharjah which launched in April.

Ersoy also says the company is looking forward to the new airport as it will provide additional opportunities to develop a more robust network that will "connect countries east of Turkey to those west of Turkey."
He also says carrier is seeking additional current generation Airbus aircraft instead of the NEO's. With fuel cost relatively moderate, he says "investments in new-generation and energy-efficient aircraft rendered meaningless."


In other news, today TK had its inaugural Bogota and Panama flight. Here is the arrival at BOG



=

Here's her arrival into PTY

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 16): He also says carrier is seeking additional current generation Airbus aircraft instead of the NEO's. With fuel cost relatively moderate, he says "investments in new-generation and energy-efficient aircraft rendered meaningless."

This sounds to me more like a confession such as: "Errr, we don't really have adequate financial resources and credibiltiy to lease ex-factory, brand new aircraft and we have to get along with aged, second hand, operational leased frames!..."

Same case in Onur Air, as well !...

Quoting mafaky (Reply 18): This sounds to me more like a confession such as: "Errr, we don't really have adequate financial resources and credibiltiy to lease ex-factory, brand new aircraft and we have to get along with aged, second hand, operational leased frames!..." Same case in Onur Air, as well

Ahhh the Turkish way of thinking that every airplane you fly on must be brand new. Ersoy is correct , with engine issues on NEOs , they are better off leasing some classic ones.

I guess united buying some off lease airplanes, delta ordering a321 classics must be a dumb move.

Quoting bahadir (Reply 19): Ahhh the Turkish way of thinking that every airplane you fly on must be brand new.

You've got my point on the wrong side: Any frame older than 10 years old (no matter how well it may be maintained in the past) is a source of higher maintenance expenses for the airline. And I have rarely seen Atlas or Onur leasing 5-10 years old frames (at he time of leasing them), so far.

But yeahh, "there's no old airplane, as long as it's a well maintained one..." rule seems to apply for some airlines. In such case, it's another dumb case for Pegasus for buying (leasing) ex-factory airplanes to establish a young fleet, increasing its operations and increasing both the pax numbers and profitability (while offering an awful inflight service...).

On the other hand if you compare the US airlines, some of which are still flying MD-90s to European or Asian airlines I have no comment. Those historical frames are just better maintained and preserved ones compared to the Iranian airlines fleets. But just think why those same US airlines are not still flying widebodies like the b747-200/300 or even the MD-11. Surely these could have been kept in flyable conditions (for passenger flights).

Quoting bahadir (Reply 14): Not true.. When the new Denver Airport opened with the closing of Stapleton both DEN and KDEN transferred. The key was Stapleton closed at the same time.

Just for the benefit of the contributors' general knowledge (as this info has no direct relation with Turkey Civil Aviation) --

Quoting from Wikipedia :

""A small ceremony celebrating the end of the airport was held inside the control tower after the last flight took off. Richard Siegel, then director of civil aviation of Hong Kong, gave a brief speech, ending with the words "Goodbye Kai Tak, and thank you", before dimming the lights briefly and then turning them off.

After the last plane, a Cathay Pacific A340-300, took off from Kai Tak International Airport to new Hong Kong International Airport at 01:28 HKT, Kai Tak was closed, transferring its ICAO (VHHH) and IATA (HKG) airport codes to the replacement airport at Chek Lap Kok.""

Quoting mafaky (Reply 15): 1) THY has pretty recently established its own Cargo Terminal at IST/LTBA. It will be just a waste of money and facilities to throw away this investment after 3-4 years of usage. Besides it is highly debatable if THY can really carry all its facilities at IST/LTBA to INA at a very short period of time. Yes, you can re-locate the fleet, the facilities inside the passenger terminal but not everything, every facility you currently have established at IST/LTBA. Foremost of these will be the Turkish Technic facilities. Even, you cannot build the THY HQ Building at or nearby the INA, because no one can really allocate you the site (land) where to start constructing it.

During the opening ceremony of the Cargo Terminal it was said that the Terminal is easily to deconstruct and transferred to the new Airport.
It makes sense to establish your Cargo facilities at the Airport where your main PAX operations are. Turkish Airlines carries more Cargo underbelly with its Passenger A/C than dedicated Cargo Planes.

Its another story with MRO facilities. They can easily be left at IST and be specialized for heavy checks and repairs as well as painting.
Besides, with the speed of TK's growth, they need additional MRO facilities at the new Airport at least as large as the current capacity at IST or/and SAW.

Quoting Tkfan (Reply 22): During the opening ceremony of the Cargo Terminal it was said that the Terminal is easily to deconstruct and transferred to the new Airport. It makes sense to establish your Cargo facilities at the Airport where your main PAX operations are. Turkish Airlines carries more Cargo underbelly with its Passenger A/C than dedicated Cargo Planes.

Well I fully agree with your second paragraph. I'm also happy to learn that TK will have some flexibility for moving some infrastructure to the INA.

However we cannot afford to see only the trees, we have to see the entire forest. THY will have to move out so many facilities to the INA, that it is materially impossible to faciliate at the first opening of INA. Therefore a slow, in fact years taking transition will be needed for TK and has to be tolerated.

As of today, the IGA Consortium is pushing real hard for the construction of the 1st (main) terminal, the two N/S runways and the associated other infrastructure (Control towers, Fuel farm, other major facilities say inc. Fire Station, etc. etc.) After these, will come the General Cargo (Freight) Complex.

The part of land where additional facilities (such as THY's facilities including a dedicated cargo Terminal, MRO facilities) can be built is a totally devastated area, which first have to be tamed and made ready for further construction. THY's own HQ Building also has to be built inside the complex, most probably within the Airport City Complex as described by the IGA (BOT) Consortium.

All these can never ever be finalised within the next 2-3 years; so an gradual transition and re-location is inevitable.

So, things are getting serious:

Turkish Airports Traffic Results Jan-Apr 2016
--- Airport ---	--- Domestic % ---	--- International % ---	--- Total % ---
IST	+4	+4	+4
SAW	+22	+9	+17
ESB	+8	-2	+7
ADB	+8	-5	+6
AYT	+4	-31	-14
TURKEY	+12.5	+0.1	+7.5

Any updated on the runway overrun at PRN?

Avherald link: http://avherald.com/h?article=497beb72&opt=0

[Edited 2016-05-06 13:00:49]

Quoting bgm (Reply 25): Any updated on the runway overrun at PRN?

An NPA with a 3.5 glide, offset, slight tailwind and a wet runway in a -800 to boot. Looks sporty.



Anyone know if this 737 was sfp equipped?

Quoting Chaostheory (Reply 26): Anyone know if this 737 was sfp equipped?

It wasn´t. TC-JGY / JGZ, TC-JH series and TC-JV series has.

BA reinstated ADB LHR today with seasonal one weekly service on Saturdays until end of October with A320..BA previously served ADB LGW on a year-round service by 734 thrice weekly and discontinued since last 4 years...Good to see BA back in this route and LHR is a better hub to connect ADB to the rest of the world than LGW for sure...

Let's hope BA considers reinstating ESB LHR soon too...

With TK's dominant situation airlines like BA should try to re-establish themselves in secondary markets in Turkey if they want to compete with TK and attract some premium pax...This will also give some more competition for pax in Ankara and Izmir to connect to the world without TK. Already done through LH but some more alternatives would be good too...

Quoting ankaraflyjet (Reply 28): Let's hope BA considers reinstating ESB LHR soon too...

I think going forward there will be a slow move/testing of the waters back into certain routes by a few European airlines that once left. This will also depend on the security situation on the ground too. I doubt it will be more than a few key routes and sometimes seasonal though.

Another new route for Atlasjet -- IST-Doha Qatar - daily effective July 1st.

KK6530 IST-DOH 2210-0220+1 A320
KK6531 DOH-IST 0340-0820 A320

Quoting OA260 (Reply 29):

The following routes are likely to commence and the visa free travel between Schengen and Turkey may help this as well

AZ: FCO ESB & FCO ADB
AF: CDG ESB
KL: AMS ESB & AMS ADB
LX: ZRH ESB
BA: LHR ESB & LHR AYT

The following city pairs also can be served;
ESB ATH, ESB CPH, ESB BRU, ESB GVA,

Some of these routes could be seasonal to start with in summer schedule only

Quoting ankaraflyjet (Reply 31): The following routes are likely to commence and the visa free travel between Schengen and Turkey may help this as well

Except that there seems to be NO VISA FREE TRAVEL between Schengen States & Turkey, within the imminent future!...

Quoting ankaraflyjet (Reply 28): BA reinstated ADB LHR today with seasonal one weekly service on Saturdays until end of October with A320..BA previously served ADB LGW on a year-round service by 734 thrice weekly and discontinued since last 4 years...Good to see BA back in this route and LHR is a better hub to connect ADB to the rest of the world than LGW for sure...

   

Izmir is not a scheduled route that is bookable. Its a charter service for tour operator that contracted with BA.

However you do have several airlines offering schedule nonstop service between Izmir and London -- EasyJet, Thomas Cook and Pegasus.

Good to see BA back in Izmir and congratulations, but with only a weekly Saturday flight we can clearly see that this is "remaining-capacity" siting around in LHR over the weekend and utilized to some warmer destinations.
Same approach btw from LH Group with weekend flights from/to BJV/DLM/AYT and LH daily to ADB.

As mentioned the BA Izmir flight is a charter. Its not openly bookable online or listed in GDS.
And even if it was, its timing is not optimized for connectivity at LHR, but instead its timed for UK origin holiday makers with early AM departure from UK and evening return.

However what BA is again doing this summer and which is bookable with the airline is running LGW-Bodrum and Dalaman scheduled flights a few times per week.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 33):

Thank you for the clarification

Sri Lankan are in a bit of trouble. They have 4 a350-900XWB on firm order (plus options) which they definitely want not to take delivery. But in such case they will have to pay rather heavy penalties. 2 of these birds have already been manufactured; I mean the general frames... No engines, no internal equipment yet. The third one should also be in the "pipeline" somewhere, the MSN is not too far away from the 2nd one.

Do you think THY can get interested in these 4 aircraft, somehow (by sharing cancellation penalty charges with the Sri Lankan, etc.)?

Have a look at the thread within this Forum: http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-

forums/general_aviation/read.main/6682149/

AC turns IST service to year-round Dreamliner service...good news that means Premium Economy (TK's former Comfort Class equivalent) cabin will continue on a year-round basis on this route as TK no longer continues this cabin in their 777 fleet (TK uses 777 to YYZ and 330 to YUL) anymore.

Toronto – Istanbul Ataturk Boeing 787-8 replaces 767-300ER, 3 weekly during winter season

AC is now the only North America airline with year-round scheduled service to Turkey.

I also heard from Ottawa that TK got the permission granted by Canada to turn YYZ and YUL to daily now...YVR still pending for further amendment on the bilateral ASA...

Quoting ankaraflyjet (Reply 38): (TK's former Comfort Class equivalent)

Good News  
We have to note that TK's Comfort Class was a superior product than AC's. At least you got 8" more leg room but I know of at least two friends taking AC to Istanbul from West Coast of USA instead of TK for this reason; Premium Economy.

Quoting ankaraflyjet (Reply 38): TK got the permission granted by Canada to turn YYZ and YUL to daily now

Interesting. I wonder what changed their minds after all these years??

Quoting mafaky (Reply 37): Sri Lankan are in a bit of trouble. They have 4 a350-900XWB on firm order (plus options) which they definitely want not to take delivery. But in such case they will have to pay rather heavy penalties. 2 of these birds have already been manufactured; I mean the general frames... No engines, no internal equipment yet. The third one should also be in the "pipeline" somewhere, the MSN is not too far away from the 2nd one.

The Sri Lankan A350s currently in production are actually for a lessor, and Sri Lankan will lease those as they have previously agreed to. Sri Lankan also has a separate order for 4 A350s which are not being manufactured as yet and which they intend to cancel.

Plus it seems TK is going with the 787 anyway: http://www.thenational.ae/business/a...craft-orders-from-turkey-this-year

TK starting IST-SEZ 3 weekly A332 from Oct.
Also the increased JNB schedule now uploaded for after Oct, however timings changed and also then all JNB flights get a tag-on again...two seperate schedules basically with both DUR and MPM service increase to 5 weekly via JNB.

Quoting HALtheAI (Reply 40): The Sri Lankan A350s currently in production are actually for a lessor, and Sri Lankan will lease those as they have previously agreed to. Sri Lankan also has a separate order for 4 A350s which are not being manufactured as yet and which they intend to cancel. Plus it seems TK is going with the 787 anyway: http://www.thenational.ae/business/a...craft-orders-from-turkey-this-year

Pls. have a look at this archived thread, as well as other misc. news on the net:

Sri Lankan Seeks To Cancel A350 Order (by LAXintl Mar 11 2016 in Civil Aviation)

My impresssion is that UL wants to close the a359 chapter altogether and stick to a333 and later to a339NEO's, for whatever range/payload these may provide for their current and future destinations. It's pretty much obvious that UL is shrinking and re-shaping.

Moreover: b787 possibility for TK --- well there have always been speculations or even semi-formal information from TK executives and we're pretty used that they in some cases these don't turn out true, or at the least, on short notice. The thread you have given states that the declaration was made by that TK executive sometime in Nov. 2015 and no nothing have been heard about it since then. Do you think they are waiting for the Farnborough Show to make the official statement, or are they simply using such statements for negotiating with Airbus?

And, if TK orders the b787, which version (-8 or -9) will they possibly take and in which qty? Will these be ex-factory aircraft (going thru a lessor - typical financial leasing) or from a lessor who has already ordered some 787s at their own risk (typical operational leasing)?

Sometimes there are rather secretive things happening at TK. Very current example --- those three ex-Kenyan b777-300er. All three are in Turkey, after being thoroughly maintained in Schiphol/KLM MRO. They are in Turkey, all being painted to TK colors. Turkish registrations are already allocated... Only one is in active service, the other two still on ground waiting for some undisclosed formalities between the TK / the lessor (some subsidiary of GECAS) and the previous operator (Kenya AW) to get finalised. What's the deal, or what's the cause of the delay?

Quoting mafaky (Reply 42):

I don't know the reason, but another one will start flying to LHR and DXB on May 18, the last one operates DEL daily from May 22.

Interesting - Pegasus and FlyNas will team up and offer codesharing.

Initially the agreement will cover services from Antalya, Ankara, Adana, Hatay and Trabzon to Saudi Arabia effective May 15th.

Down the line, the idea is to offer growing portion of Pegasus network for sale via flynas.com, which I suppose allows flynas to be able to reestablish a commercial presence in Europe which ended when it cut its London and Manchester routes.

An article in Turkish daily Cumhuriyet mentions Limak's Nihat Özdemir, one of the partners of IGA consortium, complaining about public transportation infrastructure investments for INA lagging behind.

For Turkish speakers, link is as follows: http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/koseyaz.../529952/Metro_2018_e_yetismez.html

Quoting ankaraflyjet (Reply 38):

Thanks for update about TK daily YYZ and YUL service. Do you think that we need to wait at least another year for TK YVR service?

TK has reported over 600m TL operational loss in 1st quarter 2016.

Sales revenue down 2%, cost of sales up 8%... Cost increase mainly due to personnel, depreciation & aircraft maintenance. Decrease in fuel costs help alleviate the painful loss to some extent.

Other than the operational loss, a very significant, bigger f/x loss on financial activities. 319M USD loss vs. 217M USD operational loss.

Other things to take from today's financial report.

There's a 10% growth in passengers, but a 2.9 percent point drop in load factors from 76.9% to 74%.
International load factors dropped 2-3 percent points to 72%.
Anadolu Jet has a 20% growth.
There's a 14% increase in cargo carried.

I'm just wondering, what are the profit margins like on the cargo carried for airlines like TK? Aren't many African routes only profitable because of the cargo carried?

[Edited 2016-05-09 17:10:30]