Why is it, that more 'Western' airlines do not order from this (or Tupolev etc) manufacturers? Is it to do with politics or just a negative attitude to anything being produced in the former USSR? Just wondering, as these days they seem to produce some fantastic aircraft both civil and military.
Flying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4161 posts, RR: 36
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2579 times:
... well, how does the spares support look like? Where can you actually maintaine the plane? Where is the MRO taking place? How fast is the support/service? Hasn't been too good in the past...but this is the crucial part for any airline operation.
53Sqdn From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2496 times:
Hi Flying-Tiger. Thanks for the reply. Surely though, if Airlines bought 'their' A/C wouldn't the rest fall into place? Surely all manufacturers have to pre-empt the thought of maintenance, spares etc? Why shouldn't the Russians be given a chance? This is not me being argumentative, just having an enquiring mind. Having seen the endless humdrum of European/USA built Aircraft I still find the 'Reds' have wonderful looking planes. They fit the criteria and I (think) they should be given a chance. Just my thoughts though
MEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4329 posts, RR: 35
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2482 times:
Their track record in customer support already is spotty for decades. Even the most successful Russian jetliner in technical and export sense, the Tu-154, was hard to keep in the air by small faraway airlines which were smooth talked into buying them, like Aeronica, Cubana, Alyemda, Syrianair and they withdrew them quickly.
Since the 1990s you constantly see programs and deliveries running years late.
The small production new aircraft like the Il-96, Il-114 and an-140 for instance had either crashes or groundings last year. If doubts about safety aren't fully taken away yet, I can also imagine airlines have some second thoughts. Maybe an ATR is twice as expensive then an An-140 but at least you know it's being delivered on time and that spares and customer support are available. Of course things can turn if the An-140 fleet gets critical mass and C and D-checks are offered everywhere.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
Airevents From Germany, joined Jan 2002, 884 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 2342 times:
Sad as it is, I think since the crash of the Azerbaijan AN-140 in Baku, this plane has not had the best of publicity and this incident has cast some shadow over its future. On my first and only flight on the type, I found it to be a very comfortable (more comfortable and quiet than an old ATR42-300 for sure) aircraft and would be most happy to see it fly into Central Europe more often.
Alessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 2327 times:
AirbusA6, the IL-116 is developed with support of Uzbeckistan where it´s built, design started before the breakup of the Sovietunion. AN-140 was developed by Ukraine after breakup of Sovietunion, alongside the AN-70 and AN-148, unfortunatly both AN-140 and AN-70 has suffered from crashes and few airplanes has been built.
BBiter From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 34 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2254 times:
Apart from the crash near Baku, at least one other An-140 crashed. This happened in Iran in December 2002 IIRC.
Also, there seems to be a joint venture of some sort between Antonov and Iran. Apparently An-140 aircraft will be assembled in Iran for the local market. I didn't know that there's a large enough market in Iran for this type of aircraft. BTW, there's a picture of an Iranian manufactured An-140 in the database.
Slawko From Canada, joined May 1999, 3799 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2194 times:
I think their biggest problem is marketing the aircraft....the Sukhoi people did the right thing by at least teaming up with a western manufacturer for sales, marketing and development. This gives them the access to greater support infrastructure for the airplane.
If the politics could be removed fromt he equation I think you would see a very different result, especially with Antonov. Who have done a good job of developing half decent and inexpensive aircraft, with relative reliability and modern technology to support niche markets like Cargo, and Regional. The tension in recent years between Ukraine and Russia has only gone to further politicize any russian support of the Antonov programs. It will take big market support from the western outsize, and military markets to take greater interest in the antonov products before they can be produced in any great number. Maybe the recent NATO contract will help to stimulate that move. That said untill they stop their internal disputes between the local "design bureaus" and manufacturing companies and develop some good marketing and support infrastructure they are not going to do much more then they do now...
"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada