Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Russian Aircraft; Uneconomical And Yet Popular  
User currently offlineAirmale From Botswana, joined Sep 2004, 377 posts, RR: 1
Posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1644 times:

Why are Russia's so called uneconomical aircraft so popular with new startups who im sure are cash strapped already such as Pakistans private airlines all of which are operating Russian and East European equipment even the ones that failed, infact they gave back the Western equipment to the companies they leased them from in favour of all Russian/East European fleets, Shaheen had the 737-200/400(400s were MH eqp which they took over after payment problems with NL), A300/320 and 321(all returned) and TU-154M, Aero Asia the 707/737-200(returned), Yak-42 and Rombac111, Bhoja 737-200(failed) then Yak-42 (now operations wrapped up), Safe Air Tu-145 and Yak-42 (operations cancelled), Hajvairy IL86(operations cancelled) and Raji Tu-154 (operations cancelled but now trying to make a comeback) Smile


.....up there with the best!
11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDave in Berlin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1596 times:

I think the common element in all those carriers is "operations canceled". I don't see a lot of western start ups making the move to TU-154s, no matter how cheap they are to buy. For one thing, they're too noisy for most airports nowadays.

Cheers,
Dave in Berlin


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8017 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1588 times:

If there had been enough money to do a large scale Tu-204/Tu-304 production, a lot of airlines would have bought the Tupolev planes because it would have fit the niche filled by the passing of the Tu-134/154 from service.

User currently offlineAirmale From Botswana, joined Sep 2004, 377 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1566 times:

The ones that are operating have Russian planes only, even though they operated Western ones in the past Smile


.....up there with the best!
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 4, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1553 times:

Its probably a financial issue; the US/European aircraft are likely to be too expensive to lease for these type of airlines and payments must be made in "hard currencies". It is proven that european and american airline pax prefer to fly on airbus, boeing, etc. products; that is why Aeroflot has some western built aircraft in their fleet and use them for mainly flights going outside of Russia.



User currently offlineB-HOP From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2000, 634 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1536 times:

in a recent issue of 'Flight International', it quoted a ex Malev TU 154 is around US$400000 upwards, you would expect to pay (around) US$40000 onwards for a month rental on a 737-400


Live life to max!!!
User currently offlineCaravelle From Norway, joined Aug 2000, 666 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1534 times:

Noise is a problem, yes.
So is emissions.
But for sheer sturdiness, no one can fault a Soviet built plane (I use the word Soviet because the construction bureaux I have in mind all date back to the Soviet era - although I do know they are not all within today's Russian borders. No more flak, please.)
 Smile

- caravelle



Trains and boats and planes....
User currently offlineSonic From Lithuania, joined Jan 2000, 1670 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1525 times:

No. Problem is uncomfortability. Try to fly in Yak-42 and you will see (don't used other Russian airplanes, but flied 6 times with Yak-42 and I hate when I am seeing it near gates). Lithuanian Airlines allways claiming, that they uses only Boeings and SAABs, but actually, it isn't. If they are writing, that flight will be operated with 737, that means that it will be operated with 737 (50%) or Yak-42 (also fifty). In four my flights with Yak-42, was written, that they are operated with 737. LAL Magazines writes that their sold Yaks at 1996. And these magazines also are on these Yaks...
LAL has 2 B732 (also do not match sound standarts), 3 (5?) Yak-42, and 4 SAABs (2 340B, 2 -- 2000) leased. Also, leased B733. If you live in Paris and will be planning trip to Vilnius, don't use LAL -- I flew two times this route (operating plane here is "B737", it is written on tickets and in magazines), and both times got Yak... It seems that they allways uses Yak for this route. The same about routes in Antalya, Limmasol, Barcelona (all available only on summer). Why I am saying Yak-42 is so bad?

1.There is no place for foot.
2.If seat is near emergency exit, there is no desk.
3.Allways shakes, no matter, is it turbulance or not.
4.You must get to it throw backstairs, so must ride via bus.
5.There is no bussines class (all things are the same except food), so if you have a ticket to this class, you have a ticket to lottery -- will you get bussines (like on 737) or not.
6.Seats are bad, it seems that they are unchanged since the airplane was in factory.
7.Desks are small, all food with drinks doesnt places here at one time because of lack of space.


User currently offlineAnzff From Australia, joined May 2000, 138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1498 times:

I think a lot of companies use less-efficient Russian/Soviet aircraft because it is cheaper for them to do so. A Tu-154 is much cheaper to own/lease than a 737-400. Even though it costs a lot more to actually fly the Tu-154, if the company doesn't get high enough utilisation rates out of the 737 it can end up more expensive. plus if the company in quesiton is a cash-strapped start-up then the capital investment required to start operations is much less if the acquire Russian aircraft.

User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1483 times:

Sonic,
ok, just an answer to your claims:

1.There is no place for foot.
*** Just a question of seats pitch, isn't it? have you ever flown 757 in high-density configuration (charters to holiday destinations)? it is even worse, but it is not a problem of aircraft.

2.If seat is near emergency exit, there is no desk.
*** ok

3.Allways shakes, no matter, is it turbulance or not.
*** ridiculous. i have flown yak42 around 20 times and must say that it's flying in the same way with boeing.

4.You must get to it throw backstairs, so must ride via bus.
*** just a question if airline using gate or it would like to save the money moving passengers by bus. Yak42 have no problems to be connected to gate.

5.There is no bussines class (all things are the same except food), so if you have a ticket to this class, you have a ticket to lottery -- will you get bussines (like on 737) or not.
*** a lot of shourt haul flights have no businnes class seats. f.e. Finnair MD8x, A321. and again - it is just a question of seats, not of aircraft, isn't it?

6.Seats are bad, it seems that they are unchanged since the airplane was in factory.
*** again - seats in question, not aircraft.

7.Desks are small, all food with drinks doesnt places here at one time because of lack of space.
*** again and again - seats.

here we are. only one of your 7 blames are realting to aircraft itself. everything other - problems of operator.


User currently offlineLZ-TLT From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1481 times:

Looking at all the bullcrap Sonic posted about the Yak-40/42, I couldn't resist to answer . B744F, you're right on all the points. And additional -

The German "General Air"-carrier operated Yak40's in the 70's on commuter routes in Germany. There operation of Yak's has proven profitable(I know, some of yours would blame it on the Yak's that General Air went bankrupt, but it was merely a prolonged ATC strike which caused this).

Another reason why your arguments on the Yak-40 are bullcrap? In the late 80's, Balkan operated their 40's on profitable international charters only, and this brought good profits in hard dollars! If they were bad, would Balkan even think of placing the Yak's on exclusive charters only? In fact, this was also the reason for founding Hemus Air - as Balkan's charter division. As they were founded, they took over almost all of Balkan's 40's(also due to publicity reasons after the 1988 Sofia crash).

In fact, both the 40 and the 42 were designed well ahead of time(or better said, they were just too innovative) - look now, almost every aircraft manufacturer is introducing new 30-60 seater jets. NOTHING NEW, the Yak's are there since long long time. Sadly that everybody calls the ERJ's, CRJ's and the upcomming Faircild-Dornier and Alliance Aircraft regional jets "innovative" and forgets about the Yak's and (of course) the German-built VFW-614. They were always around.


"4.You must get to it throw backstairs, so must ride via bus. "
What do you expect from a regional jet? Why don't you bitch at the 727(it also has these backstairs. As said, there is no problem for the 4/42 to dock on a gate.

Originally, the 40/42 series were deisgned for commuter service and outpost destinations which weren't that good equipped, thus the rearward stairs were added. More than this, these aircraft can land on virtually any airstrip and have excellent hot'n'high-capabilities.

I believe, if the Yak was better marketed by Aviaexport and the managers at the most airlines running after the new regional jets like weren't so dumb to ignore russian production, the Yak could be a good competitor in this hot market.


User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1449 times:

Agree almost completely with B744F and LZ-TLT, but still: both Yak40 and Yak 42 (flew once on both, good aircraft) and especially their engines are too old to be competitive. Yes, 737 is old too, but there is no Yak40NG and still no Yak42NG (which, AFAIK, was expected to come - a twin version was also considered). Yak40 was called a "fuel eater" more than 10 years ago in then USSR! Nothing to say about it to be competitive now, in 2001... Yak40 is probably overpowered since it was designed to be able to take-off from short strips in mountains in hot summer conditions (which it does perfectly). While fuel efficiency was never that important in the former USSR where everything flying was state-owned.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Russian Aircraft Vs. U.S. And European Aircraft posted Fri Aug 25 2000 01:40:52 by Superfly
Russian Aircraft And Their Market Share posted Mon Sep 12 2005 16:32:30 by Ourboeing
Iran And Russian Aircraft posted Thu Feb 21 2002 17:24:33 by Aviatsiya
AF Aircraft B777 And B744 Versions posted Wed Nov 1 2006 03:31:36 by Mk777
Aircraft Overrun And Catches Fire At Stord! posted Tue Oct 10 2006 11:31:11 by Spruit
Status Of Russian Aircraft? posted Sat Apr 29 2006 04:07:12 by Waterpolodan
Zimbabwe To Aquire Russian Aircraft posted Tue Apr 25 2006 14:08:26 by MetalInyoni
Most Advanced Russian Aircraft posted Fri Mar 17 2006 22:52:50 by Azza40
Baby Born Aboard Russian Aircraft posted Fri Feb 17 2006 02:36:28 by Sleekjet
Russian Aircraft In The US? posted Thu Feb 9 2006 01:24:58 by Fvyfireman