I didn't know that Armavia is operating just a single aiframe of this new airplane. Does anybody know more?
It raises the question if such a relative small airline should become the launch customer of an entire new airplane....
zkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 994 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5526 times:
Armavia seems to have had financial issues for a while. An A319 was repossessed at some point recently and in the last year two other Airbus A319s as well as two A320s have been returned to the lessors.
From a financial point of view it doesn't make sense to operate only one of an aircraft type (they only intended to operate a maximum of two anyway) for an extended period of time - particularly an aircraft type that hasn't been 'proven' as such.
This recent thread discussed Armavia not taking up the second Sukhoi Superjet it had on order: Armavia Cancels Second SSJ Order (by thenoflyzone Jul 10 2012 in Civil Aviation)?threadid=5510030&searchid=5519031&s=armavia#ID5519031
Dublinspotter From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2011, 123 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5463 times:
Very odd, I would've thought they had more than one after a year, considering Aeroflot have a few I believe.
I am guessing this is related to the crash in Indonesia?
They haven't sold at all many since the beginning and even fewer have been delivered to customers. I really like the plane and I hope it manages to find success but I think this will be a not to successful plane and will be in limited use.
As per the article, no. It's rather about the reliability of the Sukhoi, quote from the article linked above:
Quote: The plane is not bad, but not perfect. Airbuses and Boeings fly 330-350 hours per month, while the Sukhoi spent only 150 hours flying, " RBC daily quotes a source close to Armavia. “The last straw was it spent four days clearing customs in Russia to have a two-day service.
With any new type, operational problems are to be expected the first few years. Look at the A380. I guess Armavia doesn't have the financial leverage one would require to overcome these kinds of hurdles.
This also explains why they chose a tried and tested (and cheaper !) B735, having leased 3 from OK with Czech flight crews, in order to service their destinations for the time being.
Suckhoi should have chosen a more financially stable company, such as SU, as a launch customer, if for no other reason than to avoid the bad press this has created for them.
As for U8, well, they gave it a shot in the big leagues and soon realised that it is above their pay grade !
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2448 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4441 times:
As posted here and elsewhere, this has more to do with financial troubles than aircraft performance. In any case it makes little sense to operate just 2 aircraft of one type, those leased 735's are probably a better fit for an airline like U8 than A32x and SSJ.
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 4): Quote:
The plane is not bad, but not perfect. Airbuses and Boeings fly 330-350 hours per month, while the Sukhoi spent only 150 hours flying, " RBC daily quotes a source close to Armavia. .
SU flies them around 240 hours per month, so this seems more an Armavia issue.
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11510 posts, RR: 62 Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4349 times:
This is Armavia blowing hot air, it's not the aircraft which has difficulties, it's the airline.
I actually wonder if they'll try and order more SSJs as a result of this. Might sound odd on the face of it, but Rossiya pulled a similar stunt before ordering more An-148s, although their financial position was better than Armavia's.
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...