Spending a few minutes searching for commercial and cargo airlines worldwide flying Russian/Ukrainian planes and helicopters would certainly enlighten you.
I think that you should follow your own advise and do that. In my post I said that you would not find even 1% to be Russian aircraft (outside of Russia of course) and I will still stick to that.
My world does not stop outside of North America, if it did I would have nothing to say due to the fact that Russian aircraft doesn't fly here. You need to read my post again. I believe the statement that you are questioning me about is this one written by Afay1:
They do have higher accident rates specifically because they are used in underdeveloped countries sometimes without proper maintenance.
Like I said before, this would not prove anything because you can find Boeing aircraft flying all over the world in the same underdeveloped areas and still the Russian aircraft has a worse safety record compared to "Western" aircraft. This statement also doesn't work because in most underdeveloped areas there are no records to show exactly how many planes truly did crash.
But how many posts do you see around here everyday of people wishing DC-9s weren't huskitted(and they're also noisy and uneconomical compared to 737s and 320s) and wishing that 727s and 707 still were flying around. Proves to show you....727s are mostly out and yet there's hundreds of -134s flying.
I think that this proves the point that we are trying to make that Russian aircraft is unsafe! You just stated that we will still use and fly on a DC-9 even though they are noisy and uneconomical and we would (and wish to) fly on a 727 and 707 even though they are old, however there is no way that we would or any airline would fly Russian aircraft. What you stated is that we would pick any of the old "Western" aircraft over a Russian one, and YES you are correct!
Check the safety record of the Tu-134, But don't just look and count up all the accidents. Read each single one. Let me tell you all this. I own the book Tu-134 by Yefim Gordon which outlines every accident of the type until 2002. A majority is pilot error or just freak accidents. One was caused by a bad runway. Some were in underdeveloped nations that just don't maintain the aircraft. Some writeoffs were because of gear collapse.
Sorry to inform you of this but if the gear collapses that is a problem with the aircraft not just some freak accident. In the world of aviation there is no such thing as a "freak accident" everything happens for a reason. Pilot error is also not something that you can just take out of the equation. Pilot error is usually the direct result of something. (Something usually goes wrong before the pilot makes a mistake) If you were to take out the pilot errors you would have to do the same when comparing the -134 to other aircraft and you would find that it would cancel itself out or in many cases work against the Russian aircraft. Now here are some FACTS to prove my case using your information. 7.9% Of all Tu-134's have been total losses due to incident. When compared to only 2% of Boeing 737's. Now you are going to tell me that a lot have been in underdeveloped countries and for that I tell you to look at my above comments. Boeing 737's fly in the same areas!
You can't judge a plane as being good or bad by looking at these statistics
ummmmm Yeah you can, how else would you do it??!?!?!??
Russian planes were built mainly for one customer - Aeroflot.
Yeah your right they were built for Aeroflot, do you know why? Because the government owns the airline and the aircraft manufacture! They couldn't sell the planes to any other airline so of course they would sell them to themselves, that is no secret.
What did Aeroflot need? Reliability, versatility, simplicity. Those are the 3 basics in every Russian plane. And they did those three better than any western jet
So let me get this right, you are telling me that the Tu-134 is more reliable than the 737? That's a joke! And for the versatility and simplicity the 737 is extremely versatile and the only reason that the Tu-134 is simple is because they don't have enough technology to give it modern amenities. Do you think that pax and airlines don't like having a state of the air aircraft?
saying Russian jets are good for absolutely nothing isn't true. If it was, so many airlines wouldn't use them.
You just said above that they were made for only one airline! And No many airlines do not use them.
Russian airlines only use western equipment because they're trying to fit in. To be "cool" so to speak. The western equipment is for show.
Give me a break! They are not paying millions of dollars to "look cool" they are buying Western aircraft because they are the best that money can buy and that is the only way that Aeroflot can stay alive! The Russian aircraft is more for show than the "Western" They have to keep it around to show that they support the government run company!
So now that I have taken your post apart and showed you what is wrong with your ideas I hope that you can see things differently. It is no secret that "Western" aircraft is a lot more reliable than Russian and that is why the worlds airlines fly it.