Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Russian Jet Service  
User currently offlineCanadian747 From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 197 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1909 times:

Could someone explain to me why aren't there any North american Airllines using the russian built aircrafts.

1. Is it because the planes are poorly built?
2. the FAA won't give approval for the planes to fly in the US and Canada
3. Airlines think that the aircarfts are'nt a valid source of income?

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6461 posts, RR: 54
Reply 1, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1853 times:

Huh Canadian747, you ask a lot of questions. Anyway let me ask a few more questions:

1. Why don't we all drive Russian cars?
2. Why don't we all use Russian computers?
3. Why did all former Warsaw Pact airlines change to western equipment almost overnight when they could?

You cannot answer the last question with the word "noise" only, because some airlines changed to 737-200 - fully as noisy as a Tu-134.

I think that there is some substantial technology gap. We don't know much about it since we hardly see any Russian products these days.

Anyway they did create a quite impressive line of airliners. It was, however, to a much higher degree a spin-off from their enormous military projects. My guess is that oprational economy, maintainability and serviceability suffered from these military roots.

Things will change over time. But the breakup of the Soviet Union is less than a decade old.

Even worse: The breakup was in an already bankrupt country. And the Russians are still not anywhere near an economic capability where long lasting very high tech development programs can be financed the way we are used to see it happen.

Western investments could have made a difference. But they have been much, much slower than anticipated 5-6-7 years ago. There are many reasons, but the major ones are probably lack or ordinary economic laws, change of the few laws they have every two weeks or so, and of course some more substantial mafia activity than we are used to.

Regards, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1838 times:

Russian airliners have their faults, but being difficult to maintain or service are not on the list. They are some of the toughest metal tubes out there! Big grin

Three main problems I think are significant are fuel consumption, number of flight crew, and passenger comfort. Modern Russian airliners (such as Tu-204, Tu-334 and also transports such as the An-70) do share some of these problems, but to lesser extent, they usually feature options for a two-person glass flight deck, for example, although operators do not seem to go for that. The Tu-204 and Il-96 offer the option of using Western engines (a whole different topic) which helps overcome the fuel consumption problem.

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1796 times:

Certification cost loads of money and when its done,
maybe you can´t sell/lease any planes the money is
lost (only good publicity value left!). Also Airbus and Boeing give good deals that Iljysin/Tupolev can´t match
because of both Boeing/Airbus get loads of support from
their governments. It took a while and some money until Airbus got onto the North American market....



User currently offlineMiG31 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1789 times:

metal tubes out there (quote: LY744)
First of all they are not "tubes"!  Angry
:-(
I heard someone say that they are not technologically advanced, noisy and other bad things.
Let me remind you of such great a/c as Tu-204, Il-86, -96. Il-86, -96 never crashed by the way...
Maybe the civil airliners industry is not really big and advanced like in US but you cannot say that our planes are bad...

Regards,

I.T.


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1781 times:

MiG31, I was just kidding!  Big thumbs up

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineDelta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1775 times:

If North American airlines could make money with Russian aircraft, they would buy them!

The basic problems are lack of financial strength and management skills in aircraft manufacturing industry. This leads to.....
- slow/uncertain certification
- lack of product support (spare parts, mods, manuals, etc.)
- poor product reliability/high direct maintenance cost
- unreliable delivery of new aircraft
- lack of customer orientation (sales & marketing)

No matter how good the planes are technically, if an operator can't fly them 10-12 hours a day with high dispatch reliability, they are useless.

Cheers,
Pete


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1771 times:

Dear Mig31!
Well, the Iljysin86 had a crash in UAE, when it bellylanded, no-one died.


User currently offlineWasilenko From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1769 times:

""""If North American airlines could make money with Russian aircraft, they would buy them!""""

No way!!! The only Russian Airliner that can be bought by USA airlines is Il-96T (cargo Il-96M) as it has USA FAA certificate. But the whole Il-96M/T project has been canceled. In addition to this there is no need for Russian aircraft in the USA.

""""Anyway they did create a quite impressive line of airliners. It was, however, to a much higher degree a spin-off from their enormous military projects.""""

I don't think so! The only Russian Airliners with military background that I can think of are Tu-104 and Tu-114.
Even Tu-134 with its glassed nose was a purely civil project.

As for economy. Yes I agree that early Russian airliners such as Tu-104 and Tu-124 consumed a lot of fuel, but during their days Aviation Cerosine in USSR was so cheap that Aeroflot did not even worry about fuel consumtion.

Please always remember that if an aircraft is not economical no airline in world would operate it! One aircraft can be more economical than the other.

Wasilenko







User currently offlineDelta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1760 times:

No way!!! The only Russian Airliner that can be bought by USA airlines is Il-96T (cargo Il-96M) as it has USA FAA certificate.

What do you mean "No way"? That's exactly what I gave as my first reason ... I said "slow/uncertain certification " is one reason why North American airlines are not buying Russian aircraft. I also gave additional reasons.

Pete


User currently offlineUsairdc9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1748 times:

Username: Prebennorholm
Posted 2002-01-15 00:44:47 and read 91 times.
Huh Canadian747, you ask a lot of questions. Anyway let me ask a few more questions:

1. Why don't we all drive Russian cars?



*You are wrong my friend, Airbus,Porshe, made where exactly?
NOT IN THE USA!


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16285 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1745 times:

Russian airliners are relatively VERY innefficient compared to their equivalent Western counterparts. The TU-154 for instance is much heavier than the 722 with much less efficient engines.

Most Russian airliners were designed in the Soviet Union where the priority was on military aircraft and performance. Airliners were needed but since Aeroflot was the only game in town, efficiency was a non-issue.
While the Soviet bloc countries had to buy Soviet airliners, much of the rest of the world was free to buy Western or Soviet airliners and with very few exceptions, bought only Western airliners.





Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineWasilenko From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1728 times:

""""Russian airliners are relatively VERY innefficient compared to their equivalent Western counterparts. The TU-154 for instance is much heavier than the 722 with much less efficient engines.""""

It depend where you apply this statement! Tu-154 is still one of the best performing types in Russia and large number of Russian operators are very happy with it. JT8D-9A of 722 is more efficient than KN-8 of Tu-154(A,B...) but I am sure that D-30KU is very close if not better. You also have to consider the fact that Boeing-727-200 only operate on the premium aviation fuel while Tu-154 would fly on the lowest quality cerosine with no problem.

But both aircraft a build for different requiments and it is just a pity that Tu-154 can only perform well in Russia or very close to it. On the other hand I am sure that in Russia, a Russian build airliner would out perform any similar Western jet.


""""Most Russian airliners were designed in the Soviet Union where the priority was on military aircraft and performance.""""

How is that true? As I said in my previous post Tu-104 and Tu-114 are the only passenger airliners that are directly related to military aircraft. Where have you seen any Russian airliner perform a military task which would require more than performance of a standard airliner?

I don't understand why so many people think that if it is a Russian airliner then it is based on a military aircraft.
Perhaps you might recall that 707 and 747 were initially military projects.

I agree that many aircraft from former USSR have a high power to weight ratio, in most cases less efficient engines and are heavier than similar aircraft in the West. But were exist a lot of reasons for this and being build for military is not one of them.

Wasilenko



User currently offlineRussianplnelvr From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 228 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1723 times:

It is a shame that the IL-96m program was cancelled. It would have looked great in the colors of some U.S./Canadian carriers.

In my opinion, the TU-204 (the plane some claim is a 757 imitation) is the only russian airliner that would remotely have a shot at success in the west. It is fly-by-wire, unlike the 757, but doesn't have as much range. It probably could make money as a cargo hauler for FedEx, considering that its probably less expensive to purchase than a 757.
I would love to see it, or any other russian plane, in service with U.S. passenger carriers but I'm sure it will not happen. With all the certification/reliability problems aside, many passengers are under the impression that Russian/Soviet aircraft are unsafe and ready to crash at any given moment. Even though this is not true it most likely hurts the Russian aviation industry.



User currently offlineCanadian747 From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 197 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1704 times:

The reason why I asked all of your opinion is because I would like to add the Il96M to my fleet of my airline. I personally think that Russian airplanes are one of the most reliable airplanes in the air today. I think that the FAA should have a close look at those airplanes and aproove them for use in North America.... And I would like to be the first airline to fly the Illushin 96 in North America.  Smile

User currently offlineMiG31 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1691 times:

Old Il-86 have a really nice first class seats! Big grin

Regards,

I.T.


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1687 times:

Dear Yyz717!
Well, I don´t think the rest of the world was free to buy whatever they liked, politics was behind many airplane deals. I predict that the cargo biz will be dominated by Ukrainan/Russian planes in the future,
but passengerplanes will be of American/European design....


User currently offlineDelta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1687 times:

Canadian747........Russian airplanes are one of the most reliable...

Do you have any data on reliability? I don't, but my conversations with Russian engineers do not bear out your statement.

And, reliability is only half the equation...since all parts will eventually fail, even in the most reliable airplane, you must have good maintainability, which includes quick access to spare parts. Here's where the Russians fall flat on their faces.

Cheers,
Pete


User currently offlineDStuntz From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1617 times:

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 9):
Russian airliners are relatively VERY innefficient compared to their equivalent Western counterparts. The TU-154 for instance is much heavier than the 722 with much less efficient engines.

Yes, it may be true in some cases, but I have read that some Russian airliners come in newer versions that are more efficient. For example, I read that the Tu-154M has more efficient engines than the Tu-154 'A' or 'B', and has some airframe modifications.

I agree that many older Russian airliners built back in the Soviet era were fuel guzzlers. But back when the Tu-104s were popular, it seems to me that the western world had its share of fuel guzzlers too, including one of the world's most notorious airliners for fuel-guzzling and smoke emissions -- the American-built Convair 880.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1609 times:

Fuel Guzzelers.......Fuel is Expensive.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2901 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1532 times:

Quoting Russianplnelvr (Reply 11):
n my opinion, the TU-204 (the plane some claim is a 757 imitation) is the only russian airliner that would remotely have a shot at success in the west. It is fly-by-wire, unlike the 757, but doesn't have as much range. It probably could make money as a cargo hauler for FedEx, considering that its probably less expensive to purchase than a 757.

The Tu-204 is in use as a cargo plane at TNT, and the Tu204's are based in Liege, Belgium.



I scratch my head, therefore I am.
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 21, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1512 times:

Here is part of the answer:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mathias Henig


Aeroflot buying Boeings ought to tell you something.

I think it is telling that the most common comparison above is with the 727-200, a plane so inefficient by today's standards that they are giving them away for the price of the three engines. The other US model referenced was the 757, also out of production.

There was a story circulating years ago that China bought ten 707s and wanted 40 spare engines. (one for each mount) Boeing tried to explain that was excessive and that there were not that many spare engines in the world for it. They apparently rounded up as many as they could. After a year, China sold back all the spares but one. Don't know if it is true or not, but Russian airplanes had a reputation for being strong, but unreliable.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1508 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 18):
There was a story circulating years ago that China bought ten 707s and wanted 40 spare engines. (one for each mount) Boeing tried to explain that was excessive and that there were not that many spare engines in the world for it. They apparently rounded up as many as they could. After a year, China sold back all the spares but one. Don't know if it is true or not, but Russian airplanes had a reputation for being strong, but unreliable.

At least 4 of those spare engines were used on the Y-10  Smile

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;...-10&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc02a


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Russian Jet Service
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Much Water Can A Jet Take? posted Sat Dec 2 2006 21:11:45 by Kearney
How Long Can You Store Jet Fuel? posted Wed Aug 23 2006 21:50:39 by A342
SFC Of Russian Engines : Question About D-18T posted Sun Aug 6 2006 13:40:46 by A342
Russian Plane Cabin Smell posted Sun Aug 6 2006 01:23:56 by Afay1
The Cone Behind The Last Turbine Stage In A Jet... posted Sat Aug 5 2006 20:21:05 by Lehpron
Road Trips/ Field Service posted Fri Aug 4 2006 04:55:39 by MesaMXORD
Russian AGS Sizes posted Tue Aug 1 2006 09:35:30 by Saintsman
Please Help Identify This Jet Engine posted Fri Jul 14 2006 23:34:50 by EDDM
Engine Ingestion And Jet Blast Question posted Thu Jul 13 2006 19:14:48 by Phxplanes
Did Turbo Jet Powered 707 Have Trust Reverser? posted Wed Jun 28 2006 00:05:14 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format