Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Russian Aviation - Aeroflot Skips The TU-204?  
User currently offlineTupolev160 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5517 times:

As it has been discussed previously on this forum, Aeroflot is really doing very little in supporting the domestic aviation industry. The recent Sukhoi orders are an exception. Aeroflot plans to order several dozen of A320 but not a single TU-204, of any version. What's the rationale behind that, knowing the TU-204 is a very capable and modern aircraft?
Also, the IL-96 production is set to be stopped for the passenger versions, similar faith in which is ending the A340 as well. Let's open a (very needed) thread on the recent developments in the Russian and East-European aviation.

http://www.aeroflot.ru/cms/en/flight/plane_park

35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineju068 From Vanuatu, joined Aug 2009, 2768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5482 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Could it have something to do with fleet commonality? I suppose that the A321 can do everything the Tu-204 can while at the same time bruning less fuel.

User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17787 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5456 times:

Quoting Tupolev160 (Thread starter):
Aeroflot plans to order several dozen of A320 but not a single TU-204, of any version. What's the rationale behind that, knowing the TU-204 is a very capable and modern aircraft?
Also, the IL-96 production is set to be stopped for the passenger versions, similar faith in which is ending the A340 as well.

I think that's your answer; perhaps it's a decent aircraft, but when Russian carriers prefer Western aircraft even with the import duties, it's pretty clear it's not that great.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineTupolev160 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5399 times:

Would anyone have real statistics on the matter of fuel consumption? I remember saying TU-204 fuel consumption per weight is on pair with the 757.

User currently offlineTupolev160 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5373 times:

Quoting ju068 (Reply 1):

How can they ever hope the domestic manufacturers reaching the same technological advances if they keep funding foreign industries instead of domestic programs in a country with such a high unemployment of highly skilled personal?
The technological lag of Russian aviation behind the Western one is not big and just require serious commitment of the government to reinvest into their own industries, enabling them to become globally competitive. If they don't do that in the short term the lag may indeed become too big to cover, while Russian companies are paying import duties + 5-6 times higher prices for foreign aircraft than for a comparable model domestically built. When thinking about what's profitable, is Aeroflot looking only at 5 or 10 years in advance? Such things must be thought with 30-50 years in advance, being better to loose money on fuel now than whole technological advance later. And i think many aviation lovers out there are tired of seeing the same type of planes everywhere, 90% coming from only 2 manufacturers. We need to see some variation at last, including in the wide-body field.

[Edited 2011-12-13 10:10:22]

[Edited 2011-12-13 10:11:38]

User currently offlinedazeflight From Germany, joined Jun 1999, 580 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5301 times:

The Tu204 is outdated and dead and is in no way able to offer what the A320-family does for SU. The SSJ is the first plane of a new generation of planes that is actually capable of rivaling it's western counterparts (or doesn't even have any) so that is how they expect to get back on their feet: with contemporary planes. The Tu 204 or the IL96 aren't, at leats not in the year 2011.

[Edited 2011-12-13 10:24:47]

User currently offlineju068 From Vanuatu, joined Aug 2009, 2768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5284 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 4):
How can they ever hope the domestic manufacturers reaching the same technological advances if they keep funding foreign industries instead of domestic programs in a country with such a high unemployment of highly skilled personal?
The technological lag of Russian aviation behind the Western one is not big and just require serious commitment of the government to reinvest into their own industries, enabling them to become globally competitive. If they don't do that in the short term the lag may indeed become too big to cover, while Russian companies are paying import duties + 5-6 times higher prices for foreign aircraft than for a comparable model domestically built. When thinking about what's profitable, is Aeroflot looking only at 5 or 10 years in advance? Such things must be thought with 30-50 years in advance, being better to loose money on fuel now than whole technological advance later. And i think many aviation lovers out there are tired of seeing the same type of planes everywhere, 90% coming from only 2 manufacturers. We need to see some variation at last, including in the wide-body field.

Well the Russian government has more than enough cash on their hands so if they really wanted the Tu-204 model succeding then they could have given subventions to the Russian operators.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17787 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5254 times:

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 3):
I remember saying TU-204 fuel consumption per weight is on pair with the 757.

Even if it was, that would mean it was competitive with decade-old technology.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineju068 From Vanuatu, joined Aug 2009, 2768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5230 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 7):
Even if it was, that would mean it was competitive with decade-old technology.

Well they managed to make a competitive aircraft, SSJ, so if it proves as a success then they might have motivation to develop the Tu-204.


User currently offlinecsturdiv From Australia, joined Aug 2005, 1506 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5212 times:

Did SU skip the Tu-204? According to CH-Aviation's listings, there were 5 Tu-204s operated by SU. 3 are listed as scrapped, one to be scrapped and one stored.


An American expat from the ORD area living and working in Australia
User currently offlinedazeflight From Germany, joined Jun 1999, 580 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5199 times:

Quoting ju068 (Reply 8):
Well they managed to make a competitive aircraft, SSJ, so if it proves as a success then they might have motivation to develop the Tu-204.

Why should they "develop" an outdated plane? Resources are shifted to newer models and there's no reason to revive the Tu 204/214.


User currently offlineju068 From Vanuatu, joined Aug 2009, 2768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5165 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dazeflight (Reply 10):
Why should they "develop" an outdated plane? Resources are shifted to newer models and there's no reason to revive the Tu 204/214.

Well why should they develop a completely new model when they can just upgrade an older one? B737-800 and A321 are selling well so why not try to offer a third alternative?
I am sure that there are airlines that would opt for it.

It's like saying why should Fokker introduce the NG model...


User currently offlinedazeflight From Germany, joined Jun 1999, 580 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5130 times:

The examples you have listed are successors of successfull planes. The Tu204 never was, for several reasons. Plus, the Fokker NG is alive and kicking and thriving with orders, right?

It's actually pretty smart to start over with smaller planes and try to build up something from that. Some Tu204 or Il96 revival dream would just throw out additional money.


User currently offlineTupolev160 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4981 times:

I don see why even the IL-96 couldn't be refitted with different engines, or even become a twin-jet. The airframe is still very good.

I don't see anything bad about the TU-204, there is absolutely no reason to say that "it wasn't a success". From the engineering point of view, especially taking into consideration the difficult era during which it was developed, it is a very good aircraft.

Btw no news on the 30 Iran Air orders of the type? Are they being produced?


User currently offlineUM78 From Italy, joined Nov 2011, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4651 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The market is global. I don' t think only SU or the Russian government may support the Russian aviation industry for passengers machine. And quite for sure, today, the other carriers will not go for these machines for a long time.. Exactly as it seems it's happening with SSJ.

User currently offlineju068 From Vanuatu, joined Aug 2009, 2768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4611 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dazeflight (Reply 12):
The examples you have listed are successors of successfull planes. The Tu204 never was, for several reasons. Plus, the Fokker NG is alive and kicking and thriving with orders, right?

The Tu-204 was never a successful airplane because the Soviets never cared about efficiency. This was not only restricted to the airplanes but home appliances, cars...
In 1990s it was practically impossible to work on making the NG models due to the chaos that was taking place in Russia.

Quoting dazeflight (Reply 12):
It's actually pretty smart to start over with smaller planes and try to build up something from that. Some Tu204 or Il96 revival dream would just throw out additional money.

To prove your theory wrong I will give you this link:
http://www.rosboch.net/aviationmedia/Early747options_doubledecker.jpg

It's the first design of the B747. It was supposed to have two full floors but the idea was dropped. If Airbus had not used the ''failed'' Boeing plane today we would not have the A380.
So why shouldn't the Russians try to revive these Russian aircraft? It's not like they have to create a completely new aircraft but rather create a new generation.

There are countries which would be more than willing to buy them. Starting with Iran which does need aircraft with greater capacity than the one offered by the Antonov. Then we have China where airlines are looking for capacity now and aircraft such as the Tu-204NG could be a great aircraft for the market.

If Boeing, Airbus, Embraer... can build aircraft then I do not see why the Russians would not be capable to create the NG variant for their aircraft.

Quoting UM78 (Reply 14):
And quite for sure, today, the other carriers will not go for these machines for a long time.. Exactly as it seems it's happening with SSJ.

Which is why Russia should use its political connections in various countries to promote the sale of its aircraft. It wouldn't be much different from what the French or the Americans are doing.


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4405 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4494 times:

When I take the numbers I get from Wikipedia which may be more or less true, at least enough for this purpose, comparing the
A321-200 and the Tu214 which is the most capable version, I get
Passenger in two class
185 vs 175
Range
3000mi vs 2700mi
MTOW
93.5to vs 107,5to
Max fuel
24500L vs 44600l

So a Tu214 needs 44600l to deliver less than the A321-200 does with 24500l, the A321-200 is more than twice as efficient as the Tu214.

Out of interest, here the numbers of the 757-200
200 Pax, Range 3900nmi=4300mi,115,7to,43490l - the 757 delivers far more than the Tu214 for more or less the same fuel, doing the math the 757 is already 85% more efficient - and the 757 has been replaced by many airlines already.

No, the Tu204 is nothing one cent should be wasted in.


User currently offlineju068 From Vanuatu, joined Aug 2009, 2768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4458 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 16):
No, the Tu204 is nothing one cent should be wasted in.

Yes but you are comparing two current models. Your comparison would make sense if you were comparing the cost of developping a NG vs creating a completely new model which could compete with the A321 and B752.


User currently offlinesomeone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 3481 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4423 times:

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 13):

I don see why even the IL-96 couldn't be refitted with different engines, or even become a twin-jet. The airframe is still very good.

No, that airframe has never been good

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 13):
I don't see anything bad about the TU-204, there is absolutely no reason to say that "it wasn't a success". From the engineering point of view, especially taking into consideration the difficult era during which it was developed, it is a very good aircraft

Compared to the Airbus 320-series it's a crap aircraft. And it's not Aeroflot mission to subsidize the Russian aircrafts manufactures. They have to focus on flying customers and making money on this, and if the Russian producers can't make good enough aircrafts it's not Aeroflot's problem


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4405 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4401 times:

Quoting ju068 (Reply 17):
Yes but you are comparing two current models. Your comparison would make sense if you were comparing the cost of developping a NG vs creating a completely new model which could compete with the A321 and B752.

We know a "NG" to be 5-20% better than the original model, My above estimation shows that you need about 4 times this step to get similar to the 757 which is on the way to the desert, 6 times to the current A321 and 7 times to the A321NEO - no if ever there is an example that a clean sheet new start is needed this is the obvious one. The 204 is nothing to start from.

To be competitive on the market, any new narrow body must sell at least 2000 times - I do not see the Russian industry in the state currently to develop an true A32NEO/B73MAX competitor. Russia better goes the following strategy:

Concentrate all efforts about pax airliners currently on the SSJ100 to ensure this gets a success. Make it a family.
Develop a dedicated cargo airliner, which is not derived from a pax aircraft, so as example flies a bit slower but beats all competitors on efficiency.

I did the above math for the SSJ100 and come out near to the 757, which is a great value for an aircraft less than half as big.


User currently offlineju068 From Vanuatu, joined Aug 2009, 2768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4400 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting someone83 (Reply 18):
Compared to the Airbus 320-series it's a crap aircraft. And it's not Aeroflot mission to subsidize the Russian aircrafts manufactures. They have to focus on flying customers and making money on this, and if the Russian producers can't make good enough aircrafts it's not Aeroflot's problem

Well you are forgetting one main thing here, Aeroflot is a state owned airline and as such depends greatly on the Russian government.
If the Russian government feels that Aeroflot should operate new generation Russian aircraft then they will make them order, it would not be the first nor the last time they have done so. Look at the Il-96 and SSJ...


User currently offlineju068 From Vanuatu, joined Aug 2009, 2768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4381 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 19):
We know a "NG" to be 5-20% better than the original model, My above estimation shows that you need about 4 times this step to get similar to the 757 which is on the way to the desert, 6 times to the current A321 and 7 times to the A321NEO - no if ever there is an example that a clean sheet new start is needed this is the obvious one. The 204 is nothing to start from.

To be competitive on the market, any new narrow body must sell at least 2000 times - I do not see the Russian industry in the state currently to develop an true A32NEO/B73MAX competitor. Russia better goes the following strategy:

Concentrate all efforts about pax airliners currently on the SSJ100 to ensure this gets a success. Make it a family.
Develop a dedicated cargo airliner, which is not derived from a pax aircraft, so as example flies a bit slower but beats all competitors on efficiency.

I did the above math for the SSJ100 and come out near to the 757, which is a great value for an aircraft less than half as big.

Well the Russians will keep on developping the SSJ, that is certain however I highly doubt that the Russian government will close down the Tupolev civil aviation branch. So since they do not intend on doing that then they should at least do something productive with it. There are two options for them, try to sell the inefficient Tu-204 or develop either a new generation of their aircraft or a totally new aircraft all together.
Since it is unlikely that they will produce a totally new aircraft then they should just make the Tu-204 more appealing to the airlines. If they can't make an aircraft efficient enough, then do what the Chinese have done, copy.
However I am certain that in Russia there are people capable enough in making the Tu-204 efficient. The only thing needed is the cash injection by the government followed by a stong will and comitment to reviving the Russian civil aviation industry.


User currently offlineRubberJungle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4274 times:

Quoting ju068 (Reply 20):
If the Russian government feels that Aeroflot should operate new generation Russian aircraft then they will make them order, it would not be the first nor the last time they have done so.

You've hit the nail exactly on the head. The only reason Aeroflot is considering Russian-built aircraft is because it is a government-owned airline and subject to pressure from the Kremlin.

In contrast, S7 - which is privately-owned - has no such constraints and operates whatever aircraft it feels are economical, hence the all-Western fleet.

Forget the Tu-204, it's a vanity project. And I'm not convinced that the MS-21 isn't heading exactly the same way. Russia needs to stop the ego-trip, and start investing its money in its true capabilities.


User currently offlinelollomz From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4257 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If I'm not wrong Aeroflot has ordered the Irkut MS-21. They have an order for 50 planes. I think that they didn't order the TU-204 because they prefer more efficent planes.

User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12808 posts, RR: 46
Reply 24, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4088 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Nobody could love Russian aviation and planes more than me, but to claim the Tu-204 is a "great plane" is a massive exaggeration.

For a plane that first flew in 1989 to have only managed the following really illustrates it's pretty poor:
153 "orders" (including options) and some of those look a bit weak (e.g. Syria)
Only 70 built, of which just 42 are in service (20 stored, 3 derelict, 4 scrapped, 1 crashed)
Building more than 4 in a year has only been managed three times since 1989.

It's sad, but this is how the Tu-204 will be remembered:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley




Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
25 luckyone : The airframe has always been inefficient, even from the start of the Il-86. A twin engine would be next to impossible without a new wing, which isn't
26 Post contains links Tupolev160 : Right, a new wing would be needed. I wonder how the IL-96 would perform with the new MS-21 type engines. Anyone has preliminary specs on those? http:
27 lollomz : I was sure they will use PW engines, I was wrong or there will be the possibility to choose between two diffent type???
28 Tsveto4nik : You're absolutely right - they are waiting for MC-21... well, at least they are saying that... but truly speaking, it's better to wait for a brand ne
29 tu204 : Rolls Royce actually, RB211 like on the 757. That or the PS90.
30 lollomz : Ok, thank you.
31 akelley728 : Why are we talking about developing a "NG" TU-204? There is one in the works - the MS-21. End of story.
32 Newark727 : Off topic I know, but this is something I've always wondered about. What would an airplane developed specifically for civilian cargo, not overbuilt f
33 AR385 : Actually, Alenia has a big participation in the project, almost 40% as well as a few other companies from Western nations. It´s not exactly a totall
34 Tupolev160 : There are many "efficient" non-Western airlines as well as many totally inefficient Western airlines.
35 AR385 : SU, and all the Soviet Bloc airlines for which the Tu-204 was conceived and designed for in its time, had anything BUT efficiency in mind.
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...
Information On The Tu-204-100CM1 Needed posted Thu Sep 11 2008 16:10:02 by A300
Air Koryo And The Tu-204 posted Mon Jun 11 2007 17:03:41 by Dalavia
Russian Aviation, Now Vrs The Future? posted Thu Nov 30 2006 04:18:02 by JAM747
Should Western Airlines Consider The Tu 204? posted Mon Apr 26 2004 01:25:21 by Tu114
Iran Signs For The TU-204 posted Fri Apr 9 2004 17:33:01 by FLYSSC
Any New Russian Aviation Projects In The Works? posted Tue Sep 23 2003 05:51:28 by 174thfwff
Victory: TNT Takes The Tu-204! posted Wed Mar 13 2002 19:10:42 by Ben
Lufthansa And The TU-204 posted Wed Apr 19 2000 01:03:35 by JAT
Taste Testing The TU-204 posted Mon Mar 6 2000 06:06:09 by 747-600X
TU-204 Production On The Brink Of Shutting Down posted Fri Oct 29 2010 02:26:16 by Soyuz