SIBILLE From Belgium, joined Jun 2005, 450 posts, RR: 3 Posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5700 times:
A sad new for Russian aviation.
Flying in Russia will be boring very soon on most of the flights!
I didn't know they still have an Il-62 (grounded???).
Aeroflot end of the year to stop the exploitation of 8 TU-154
Moscow. August 22. AviaPort - OAO Aeroflot - Russian Airlines before the end of 2008, to stop the exploitation of eight medium aircraft Tu-154, reported "AviaPortu" representative of the airline.
In turn, the press service of Aeroflot noted that while the exact number is unknown TU-154, which will be withdrawn from service. Aircraft output will be sold and not transferred to subsidiaries, as part of hors TU-134.
As the deputy general director of Aeroflot, Lev Koshlyakov, the decommissioning of the TU-154 is one of the paragraphs of anti-crisis programme, which will allow the carrier to cope with rising prices for aviation fuel. "Antikrizisnaya program will be presented to the board of directors on August 26," - L. Koshlyakov said.
He also added that under the plans carrier, Tu-154 aircraft will be completely withdrawn from operation until December 31, 2009 According to the record company for 2 quarter 2008, Tu-154 planes in 2010 will be replaced on the aircraft Airbus A320.
Aeroflot in 2007, increased the transportation of passengers by 12% - up to 8 million 166 thousand people.
Park airline has 11 aircraft Boeing-767, A320 family of 39 aircraft, 11 of them - A319 - 18 A320, 10 - A321, 6 Il-96, 1 IL-62, and 26 TU-154
The main shareholders of OAO Aeroflot are the State (51.17%), as well as Cyprus Grabor Trading (Overseas) Ltd. and Dunsland Ltd. The National Reserve Corporation through an affiliate structure owns about 30% stake in society. Individuals owned 8.35% stake in AO.
Eghansen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5632 times:
I am always amazed that anyone is still flying Tupolev aircraft. I know Russia has lots of oil, but it still seems ridiculous. They were uncompetitive fuel hogs even back when they were knew.
I believe there is some sort of import duties on foreign aircraft. Given the large number of 737 classics that are being parked, it seems that Russians could do better than the Tupolevs without a huge capital outlay.
PlunaCRJ From Uruguay, joined Nov 2007, 573 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5542 times:
Sad to see these amazing looking aircraft go... They just look splendorous in Aeroflot´s metallic paint. Truly one of the best looking three holers ever made.
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6348 posts, RR: 23 Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5444 times:
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 3): Surely no more amazing than airlines still flying 40+ year-old DC9's.
Indeed, much less in fact. Newer TU-154M models are really not as bad as many people think, but still, good old anti-Russian prejudice has never stood in the way of facts.
Quoting Eghansen (Reply 1): believe there is some sort of import duties on foreign aircraft.
That's true, import duties are harsh, and Russian frames are cheaper to acquire even without taking that into consideration. Coupled with the fact that they burn less fuel that you obviously think, it makes total sense why they still fly. Factor in also that they are a solid, rugged and (believe it or not, I don't really care either way) reliable aircraft capable of operating in a range of environments.
It will be a terrible shame to see these gorgeous planes go.
✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
IronDuke08 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 117 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5283 times:
Quoting SIBILLE (Thread starter): Aeroflot end of the year to stop the exploitation of 8 TU-154
I'm glad that Aeroflot has stepped up to the plate to end the exploitation of Tu-154s. This issue wasn't getting enough attention, and these aircraft deserve better. Hopefully they'll find loving homes in the future.
Eghansen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5206 times:
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 5): Indeed, much less in fact. Newer TU-154M models are really not as bad as many people think, but still, good old anti-Russian prejudice has never stood in the way of facts.
Don't think it has much to do with prejudice.
Tupolev 154M
Fuel Capacity 39,750 Kg
Range with max fuel and 12,000 Kg payload - 2805 nm
Boeing 727-200
Fuel Capacity 32,200 Kg with optional fuel tanks
Range with max fuel and 12,474 Kg payload - 2400 nm
The fuel burn rate on a TU-154M is higher than on a Boeing 727-200, never mind newer models.
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6348 posts, RR: 23 Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5134 times:
Quoting Eghansen (Reply 7): The fuel burn rate on a TU-154M is higher than on a Boeing 727-200, never mind newer models.
Obviously it's not the most fuel efficient, I never claimed that, but there are many other factors mentioned that, along with the fact that it is not as thirsty as many claim or think, render your "I can't believe anyone flies these things" stance somewhat ridiculous.
✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
TheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2346 posts, RR: 6 Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5030 times:
Quoting Eghansen (Reply 7): Tupolev 154M
Fuel Capacity 39,750 Kg
Range with max fuel and 12,000 Kg payload - 2805 nm
Boeing 727-200
Fuel Capacity 32,200 Kg with optional fuel tanks
Range with max fuel and 12,474 Kg payload - 2400 nm
It's interesting that although the Tu-154 looks almost identical to a Boeing 727, it differs in many ways. Both aircraft were originally designed for quite different missions and each have their strengths.
The Tu-154 was more heavily constructed to enable it to withstand tougher operating conditions than the B727 - like landing on clay packed runways, for example. You'll notice it has a much heavier triple bogie rear undercarriage design that retracts into underwing pods, unlike the more sleekly designed B727. It was also designed to operate from short airfields.
If you compare the two directly, it's perhaps not that surprising that the 727 wins on the fuel efficiency front.
The Tu-154 weighs 43,500kgs and has three 20,950 lb thrust engines.
The B727-100 weighs 36,560kgs and has three 14,000 lb thrust engines.
I flew on one of these wonderful birds from Moscow to St Petersburg in 2006 and found that the runway at St Petersburg is every bit as rough as reputation has it. You can only imagine how tough some of the airfields in remote parts of the USSR must have been when the Tu-154 first took to the skies!
And anyway... who cares about the fuel consumption? Although my ears are still bleeding, the Tu-154 has a wonderfully unique engine note, something that truly takes you back to the days when jets really thundered.
Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
NWOrientDC10 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1391 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4982 times:
Quoting OA260 (Reply 4): Have never been on a TU154 and would love to try it . Nice to know there is another while to go with SU.
So would I.
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 5): It will be a terrible shame to see these gorgeous planes go.
Maybe there are other carriers operating Tu-154's. Isn't there an Egyptian carrier operating these? Of course if non-Russian carriers are leasing them from Aeroflot and Aeroflot is retiring them then the leased Tu-154's will go as well.
Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 10): It's interesting that although the Tu-154 looks almost identical to a Boeing 727, it differs in many ways. Both aircraft were originally designed for quite different missions and each have their strengths.
The Tu-154 was more heavily constructed to enable it to withstand tougher operating conditions than the B727 - like landing on clay packed runways,
Interestingly, Alaska Airlines operated their 727's to/from airports with gravel runways (I think Juneau or Sitka has a gravel runway about forty years ago).
Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 10): the Tu-154 has a wonderfully unique engine note, something that truly takes you back to the days when jets really thundered.
707's, 727's and DC-9's were quite noisy but maybe had a lower decibel level than Tu-154's.
KiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 5420 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4881 times:
I flew from Astrakhan to St Petersburg via Moscow on an Aeroflot TU-154 on Thursday 21st, apart from little legroom and no space in the luggage bins for anything except your coat the 154 is ok, it's big strength IMO is that it's a very quiet plane to fly in. I'm also a frequent flyer on the TU-134, it's a very quiet plan and the windows are massive on the early round window models.
I think that the TU-154 looks awesome in SU's current livery. What a pity, SU is retiring them within the next two years. Does that mean the IL-96 will the the only Russian built aircraft remaining in the fleet after 2010, and not more than six aircraft?
Ben Soriano
"Aimer jusqu'a l'impossible, c'est possible". Tina Arena.
Aviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1348 posts, RR: 12 Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 19 hours ago) and read 4764 times:
Quoting PlunaCRJ (Reply 2): Sad to see these amazing looking aircraft go... They just look splendorous in Aeroflot´s metallic paint. Truly one of the best looking three holers ever made.
Yes! I agree. The TU-154 is a gothic masterpiece of an airplane.
I'm not saying that makes it an engineering masterpiece, or an aerodynamic materpiece, but it sure is cool to look at. It says, "Cold War."
Hey by the way, Pluna, your being from Uruguay, you might enjoy this account of my ride on a Pluna 737-200....
Eghansen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 15 hours ago) and read 4704 times:
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 9): Obviously it's not the most fuel efficient, I never claimed that, but there are many other factors mentioned that, along with the fact that it is not as thirsty as many claim or think, render your "I can't believe anyone flies these things" stance somewhat ridiculous.
For whatever their reasons, the eastern European airlines (CSA, LOT, MALEV, Balkan) got rid of all their Russian-made aircraft as soon as they could afford to.
As I understand it (and someone mentioned this in this thread) the reason the Russian airlines still fly Tupolev aircraft is because the Russian government has hefty import taxes on importing aircraft.
But if you want to keep believe that 30-year-old aircraft that guzzle fuel like the 1960s and can't meet the noise restrictions of airports in the west is the future, go right ahead.
BestWestern From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 6509 posts, RR: 58 Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 14 hours ago) and read 4662 times:
S7 will also stop all 154 scheduled flying by the end of 2008.
Quoting Eghansen (Reply 15): But if you want to keep believe that 30-year-old aircraft that guzzle fuel like the 1960s and can't meet the noise restrictions of airports in the west is the future, go right ahead.
Nobody in this thread said this - so dont try to flamebait.
Having very very recently flown the 154 this week its a shame that the aircraft will be retired within two years, as it is still a very capable aircraft. The SU examples are still very modern and well maintained, with comfortable leater seats.
Indeed the engine note is simply amazing - instantly recognisable as a 154. I had the pleasure of row 27 on my return flight this week, and the aircraft is especially noisy on landing.
One negative about the 154 is the absence of air conditioning until the three jets are completly spooled up - resulting in an onboard sauna until rotation - and boy - what fun a 154 takeoff is - catapulted down the runway - real back of seat stuff.
Surprised we havent had the typical anti Aeroflot comments on this thread - their service is now amongst the best of any european airlines flying -with quality meals even on domestic flights, a good FFP, and an amazing dedicated terminal being constructed in Moscow by them.
SIBILLE From Belgium, joined Jun 2005, 450 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (4 years 10 months 13 hours ago) and read 4635 times:
Quoting American 767 (Reply 13): Does that mean the IL-96 will the the only Russian built aircraft remaining in the fleet after 2010, and not more than six aircraft?
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6348 posts, RR: 23 Reply 18, posted (4 years 10 months 11 hours ago) and read 4582 times:
Quoting Eghansen (Reply 15): As I understand it (and someone mentioned this in this thread) the reason the Russian airlines still fly Tupolev aircraft is because the Russian government has hefty import taxes on importing aircraft.
But if you want to keep believe that 30-year-old aircraft that guzzle fuel like the 1960s and can't meet the noise restrictions of airports in the west is the future, go right ahead.
And with that statement you demonstrate that indeed you do not 'understand it' as the situation is obviously far more complex than you allege. Also, absolutely nobody, least of all me, has said that the 154 is 'the future' so stop being so unnecessarily provocative and stop twisting words.
✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5918 posts, RR: 8 Reply 19, posted (4 years 10 months 10 hours ago) and read 4527 times:
Quoting Eghansen (Reply 15): As I understand it (and someone mentioned this in this thread) the reason the Russian airlines still fly Tupolev aircraft is because the Russian government has hefty import taxes on importing aircraft.
But if you want to keep believe that 30-year-old aircraft that guzzle fuel like the 1960s and can't meet the noise restrictions of airports in the west is the future, go right ahead.
Well, it might also have something to do with the Russian govt. trying to protect its aerospace industry, give them a chance to continue to sell a/c and make money to modernize their offerings to compete with western deisgns, a lot of countries still view national pride for their own home grown products as a good thing.
American 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3334 posts, RR: 14 Reply 20, posted (4 years 10 months 8 hours ago) and read 4495 times:
Quoting BestWestern (Reply 16): Surprised we havent had the typical anti Aeroflot comments on this thread - their service is now amongst the best of any european airlines flying -with quality meals even on domestic flights, a good FFP, and an amazing dedicated terminal being constructed in Moscow by them.
That's right. And the fact Sky Team admitted them, it means that they meet the standards of Western European airlines, nothing to do with what it was twenty or thirty years ago. Communism is ancient history. I would not hesitate to fly with them if I ever travel in Russia one day, it is the only European airline of Sky Team I haven't flown.
SIBILLE, thanks for correcting me, I didn't know they would get the SSJ. I hope they keep the IL-96 longer.
Ben Soriano
"Aimer jusqu'a l'impossible, c'est possible". Tina Arena.
WildcatYXU From Canada, joined May 2006, 2452 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (4 years 10 months 7 hours ago) and read 4462 times:
Quoting NWOrientDC10 (Reply 11): The Tu-154 was more heavily constructed to enable it to withstand tougher operating conditions than the B727 - like landing on clay packed runways,
Interestingly, Alaska Airlines operated their 727's to/from airports with gravel runways (I think Juneau or Sitka has a gravel runway about forty years ago).
Gentlemen, please don't forget one very significant difference between the B727 and the TU154. The TU 154 is a true product of the soviet era, where almost all means of transportation where designed with war in mind - in case of airliners and buses troop and wounded transportation. This is most likely the real reason for the robust design, tall gears and six wheel bogies in pods (added stability in very rough conditions). This bird is is indeed a product of the
Quoting Eghansen (Reply 15): For whatever their reasons, the eastern European airlines (CSA, LOT, MALEV, Balkan) got rid of all their Russian-made aircraft as soon as they could afford to.
Well, a look to their balance sheets would suggest that the above mentioned airlines couldn't afford to buy Western made planes...but they did, nonetheless
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, RR: 23 Reply 22, posted (4 years 10 months ago) and read 4343 times:
Quoting Eghansen (Reply 15): But if you want to keep believe that 30-year-old aircraft that guzzle fuel like the 1960s and can't meet the noise restrictions of airports in the west is the future, go right ahead.
For SU they serve much the same purpose as NW's DC-9s which, by the way, are much older than SU's Tu-154s. If not mistaken, all or almost all SU Tu-154s are the final Tu-154M model which only went into service in 1984. so they're less than 24 years old. NW still has a few 41-year old DC-9s in service and I believe their newest DC-9 is 27 years old, built 1981.
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6747 posts, RR: 65 Reply 24, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4180 times:
Quoting OA260 (Reply 4): Have never been on a TU154 and would love to try it
I was lucky enough to fly on two Aeroflot examples in 1984 - nearly a quarter of a century ago!
I'm guessing that they are a bit less spartan nowadays!
Be a shame to see them go...
25 RayChuang: I'm surprised that Aeroflot hasn't ordered more Tu-204's to replace the Tu-154 fleet. The Tu-204 with an upgraded version of the PS90 engine would eas
26 Sovietjet: It was actually the opposite. They couldn't afford it. The reason they got Western jets was more for image than economics. Malev got 732s...not much
Sponsor Message: 
From Belgium, joined Jun 2005, 450 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Uruguay, joined Nov 2007, 573 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 25121 posts, 
From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6348 posts, 
From Russia, joined Mar 2004, 2958 posts, 
From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2346 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 5420 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5918 posts, 
From Canada, joined May 2006, 2452 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, 
From India, joined Feb 2005, 6747 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
