BAJMowiec From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3120 times:
Ok, ConcordeBoy, I don't see your point, but I guess I know what you mean. Russian planes are not trusted, underestimated and distrusted for deacades.It's the way it is, Airbus and Boeing are among the trusted brands.It all comes down to safety and quality, as well as a name
Polnebmit From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3093 times:
I guess it's due to the fact that Russian and ex-Soviet Republic owned airlines have not had a good maintenance program for their aircraft, understaffed or untrained people working for the airline. This has given their whole fleet of AC a tainted name. Still, I trust Boeing AC a whole lot more. I'd think twice before boarding a Russian made AC. Just personal opinion.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3057 times:
Ok, ConcordeBoy, I don't see your point,
The point is....
what would compel major airlines who 1) already have extensive Boeing and/or Airbus fleets and 2) are shifting toward fleet commonality to the maximum extent allowed their chosen business model; to purchase Russian aircraft, which would be complete oddballs in their fleet???
The answer: .....nothing!
That's why you dont see CX flying IL96s, or DL flying TU204s, etc
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3037 times:
....in fact, probably the only airlines you'll EVER see operating those such fleet types are Eastern European, Siberian, airlines of countries under UN sanctions, and possibly new airlines to whom startup startup capital is in extremely short supply.
Petertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3464 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2906 times:
The thee main reasons probably are:
1) shoddy or no customer support. Having a plane is nice, but if you can't get spare parts to repair it....
2) no leasing companies have them in the portfolio. Only very few airlines actually buy their planes.
3) reputation. The new TU-204 and the AN-140 may be very safe, but try explaining that to mom and dad with 3 kids and a Toyota. They don't know. The press will have a field day when, say, BA announces to buy TU-204s.
Positive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2773 times:
I agree with Petertenthije. Russian aircraft have a bad image in the minds of the public. Imagine if QANTAS got IL-96's instead of 747's, a lot of people would be reluctant to fly on them simply because they are Russian. They might be a great plane, but bad image with the public.
Broke From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1322 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2612 times:
1st: For a long time aircraft designed in the Soviet bloc would not meet either US or European airworthiness standards. The Yak-40 and -42 were the first aircraft to do so.
2nd: Soviet aircraft were not economical or reliable; you could get them cheaply in the past, but the cost of operation was not good.
Currently, the trend of combining Russian airframes with western engines and avionics are making the aircraft more attractive; but they have a considerable headwind to overcome. Most countries who used to rely on Soviet aircraft for their commercial fleets have gone western and so they do not have a base market, even domestically, to start with.
Aa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3350 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2566 times:
I'm thinking along the lines of Positive rate and Petertenthije. The new Russian planes could be indestructible but people would much rather fly on a Boeing or Airbus. I have read stories online of Russians flying on a certain airline just because they have western aircraft.
Nikibary From United States of America, joined May 2003, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2526 times:
Aa757first, are youjudging the tu-204 by the type of seats that the airline installed in it??
Also the tu-134 is a vaey old aircraft, im sure most western aircraft in the 60s and 70s didnt look much better, if its the cabin that you're comparing.
Trintocan From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2000, 3274 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2177 times:
That is a complex problem. The old school of prejudices against Russian built planes are proving very hard to overcome so most Western airlines (and many from elsewhere) stay loyal to Boeing and Airbus planes. Even though the newer Russian planes are of better quality and have higher technology than the older ones their engines remain singularly problematic - while the mating of Western engines with Russian frames (as on TU-204) overcomes this somewhat it does not erase the views of Russian planes held by some.
The other part of the equation is that Aeroflot, which is the best-financed Russian carrier, has been introducing many Western planes into its fleet. On the one hand this is to present a more acceptable image to moneyed customers in Western destinations and, on the other, because securing deliveries of Russian planes has been very difficult in recent years. They have only ever received 6 of the 12 IL96-300s they ordered some 15 years ago! Many of the CIS airlines (and virtually all Eastern European ones) have also gone Western in recent years. The many smaller Russian domestic carriers do not have the finance to buy the newer (and thus more expensive) planes so they stay with the old, noisy and smoky types from the 60s and 70s.
For all of those reasons, the new Russian planes have found few buyers. It is a great pity though.