Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Global Airline Alliances > SkyTeam
Reload this Page >

Does Aeroflot have any business being in Skyteam?

Does Aeroflot have any business being in Skyteam?

Reply

Old Mar 7, 08, 10:55 pm
  #31  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,778
Well if you had written DC-9, your argument would have made even less sense to me. "Replace the names of a few airports and aircraft and the OP could easily be describing experiences with any of the US airlines currently in the three major alliances, as well as many others."
rrgg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 08, 12:48 am
  #32  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: GOT, LAX, CDG, NRT, ICN
Programs: M&M, FB, DL, BA, UA...
Posts: 788
Flew SU OSL-SVO-HKG and returned KL HKG-AMS both in C, and must say that the flight experience was much better on Aeroflot than KLM. Admittedly it was a sub-par KL experience with condensation dripping over my seat and the FA using a newspaper to stop the leak and then forgetting to have drinks served with the meal service. I do much prefer AMS and the KL lounge to SVO and the SU lounge though. Also required to send in BP to get AF/KL credit for the SU flights, but have had the same issue getting NW flights credited to AF/KL.
cardesigner2000 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 08, 4:26 am
  #33  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold, ex-BD Gold, SPG Gold, HH Gold
Posts: 2,033
Originally Posted by apoivre View Post
I don't like Aeroflot's Tupolevs in Y but safetywise I have absolutely no hesitations to fly on one.

The Tupolev 154 is an over-engineered plane built to operate anywhere in the ex-USSR, which included some less than stellar runway facilities. But if it was long enough to accomodate the 154, it would land on it. (Anything smaller would be flown to on Yakovlev 40's). It is extremely rugged. One of those recently had a collision with a USAF tanker on the runway at FRU. The Tupolev lost 2.5 m of its wing but managed to take off, go around and land safely. The KC-135 was totalled. Which plane would you rather be on?

My guess is a fair share of the crashes involving the 154 in the Soviet days happened in those really remote locations no comparable Western aircraft would operate in. More recent crashes were either in Iran (I have no idea how they maintain their planes) or were due to suicide bombings, stray Ukrainian missiles and some such. Then there was this one crash last year (?) in the Ukraine when the pilots tried to fly over a thunderstorm and stalled the plane but this is the only one I can remember where the plane's peculiarities must have played a part (combined with some really bad judgement on the pilot's part probably influenced by the policies of the company he flew for, Pulkovo).
Agree. When flying a Tu-154 my concerns are with respect to how regularly, and to what standard, the airplane has been maintained. With SU I am not particularly concerned, but even S7 and FV (as apoivre notes) raise some questions (though probably not to the point that I would not fly them), and smaller/lesser-known airlines even more so. When standing besides/boarding one, I always feel that an Olympic weightlifter could take a sledgehammer to the wings and no one would even notice. They are a rather noisy, but from a summer near DCA I seem to recall 727s being rather noisier than 757s, 737s and A319/320/321 series.
chalf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 08, 9:46 am
  #34  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: MOW
Programs: KLM Flying Dutchman forever, bmi Diamond Club (is there a theme here?), LH, BA, EK, DL nobody
Posts: 1,877
Originally Posted by chalf View Post
Agree. When flying a Tu-154 my concerns are with respect to how regularly, and to what standard, the airplane has been maintained. With SU I am not particularly concerned, but even S7 and FV (as apoivre notes) raise some questions (though probably not to the point that I would not fly them), and smaller/lesser-known airlines even more so.
Oh, I'm sure even S7 and FV properly maintain their birds. It's the soft aspect of their safety culture I'm concerned with. A factor that might have played into the latest FV crash was their corporate policy to overwork crews and fine captains if they use too much fuel or are significantly late. Wasn't that why the poor sod - who had an instructor breezing down his neck - chose to try and fly over the thunderstorm? (And you don't want to see some youtube videos of S7 crews having fun in the cockpit at landing).

The word in the local aviation community is the only two majors that take their safety culture serious - even though the pilots don't really like all those Western thingies like CRM - are SU and UN (Transaero). And UN, as you know, is prone to delays and is mainly geared towards leisure traffic. So I guess SkyTeam was absolutely right when they chose SU as their partner in Russia. (And I think UN still has a long way to go before it can get admitted into *A. And OW would be crazy to let S7 in as they are now)

Last edited by apoivre; Mar 10, 08 at 1:18 pm
apoivre is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 08, 8:23 am
  #35  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SYD
Programs: |QF Gold|OZ Gold|HH Diamond|
Posts: 1,692
Originally Posted by rrgg View Post
Well if you had written DC-9, your argument would have made even less sense to me.
The original post was about whether dated equipment, bad service (both in-flight and ground) and non-existant treatment of flyers with status should disqualify Aeroflot from being in an alliance.

Using those criteria, US airline membership of alliances would be on shaky ground as well - based on my experience at least.
Supersonic Swinger is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 08, 12:22 pm
  #36  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: PHL
Programs: AA EXP; A3 Gold; Marriott LPP Ambassador; Hyatt Globalist; IHG Plat; National VIP
Posts: 2,509
Originally Posted by rrgg View Post
When I responded to the MD-80 and Tupolev comparison, I did write, "If I remember correctly." In other words, that means I don't have data readily available.

However with a quick search I can see that statistically the MD-80 has the 2nd best record on this short list of 19:

http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/
Model Rate Events No. Flights Rank
McDonnell Douglas MD-80 0.45 9 20 Million 2
Boeing 727 0.66 46 70.0 Million 6
Boeing 737 0.62 47 76.0 Million 5

This article tries to debunk some misconceptions about the Tupolev, yet still says it has a "questionable safety record."
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/col/...101/index.html

Since it at least has a questionable safety record, I would ask you the same question. Do you have statistics showing the ratio of flying hours to accidents? I'm not being facetious. I'm just interested.
Certainly, here is the statistics for Tupolev-154:

56 incidents for 1015 aircraft built.

Statistics for B-727 (the closest Western aircraft model):

104 incidents for 1832 aircraft built

Result: 0.055 incidents per aircraft for Tupolev-154, and 0.056 incidents per aircraft for B-727.

Where is the questionable safety rating you are taking about?

http://www.jacdec.de/statistics/types/Types.htm
asnovici is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 08, 1:37 pm
  #37  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,778
Are you implying that the Tupolev 154 and MD-80 (or B-727) have equal flying time around the world? You cannot compare the rate of incidents per aircraft. It's meaningless.

The rate I posted is per number of flights. (Maybe per flight hours is better, but that is probably tough data to find.)

Last edited by rrgg; Mar 10, 08 at 1:49 pm
rrgg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 08, 2:29 pm
  #38  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: PHL
Programs: AA EXP; A3 Gold; Marriott LPP Ambassador; Hyatt Globalist; IHG Plat; National VIP
Posts: 2,509
Originally Posted by rrgg View Post
Are you implying that the Tupolev 154 and MD-80 (or B-727) have equal flying time around the world? You cannot compare the rate of incidents per aircraft. It's meaningless.

The rate I posted is per number of flights. (Maybe per flight hours is better, but that is probably tough data to find.)
First off, I strongly disagree that its meaningless. It is another angle on how one may wants to use statistics. Flight hours (or block hours) for Tupolev-154 did not come up as immediately available, unlike in MD-80 case, for instance. Until you have actual statistics that MD-80 (or 727, whichever you prefer) rate of incidents per total fleet flight hours is better then that of Tupolev-154, it remains empty rhetorics. What you are showing right now is just rate for MD-80 and 727, but Tu-154 rate is unknown, so what does that prove? Neither you nor I have that statistics to prove one way or the other. I did, however, provide the statistics on the incident per plane built basis, and it shows Tu-154 being actually slightly better then 727, and certainly not worse.
asnovici is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 08, 2:58 pm
  #39  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,778
Sure, it's another angle, a very skewed angle.

The statistic has little meaning, because a model heavily flown in the western world will have far more flights and hours than something limited to mostly to some less developed countries and former Soviet states and North Korea. This isn't the best analogy, but when you buy a used car the odometer matters too.

The rate per number of flights is a much more representative figure. It seems like it would correlate to the rate per flight hours for the 2 aircraft. I'd be surprised if you don't agree.
rrgg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 08, 6:08 pm
  #40  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: PHL
Programs: AA EXP; A3 Gold; Marriott LPP Ambassador; Hyatt Globalist; IHG Plat; National VIP
Posts: 2,509
Originally Posted by rrgg View Post
Sure, it's another angle, a very skewed angle.

The statistic has little meaning, because a model heavily flown in the western world will have far more flights and hours than something limited to mostly to some less developed countries and former Soviet states and North Korea. This isn't the best analogy, but when you buy a used car the odometer matters too.

The rate per number of flights is a much more representative figure. It seems like it would correlate to the rate per flight hours for the 2 aircraft. I'd be surprised if you don't agree.
I absolutely do agree with you, the rate per number of flight hours means more (thats why they measure MTBUR for Rotable and Repairable spare parts in block hours), but since that statistics is not readily available for comparison, its impossible to say anything conclusive about safety record of Tu vs. 727. We do, however, have incidents per plane built, and while not perfect, its an apples to apples comparison and shows that Tu record is either the same or even better then that of 727's.

In terms of Western aircraft flying more hours per each then Russian aircaft built, I tend to agree to an extent, for instance during the Soviet Union days the flight utilization was quite high and comparable to that of Western operations. While the schedules were reduced for about 5-7 years following the fall of the Soviet Union, they were subsequently picked up again in the recent 10-12 years, and are comparable again. Therefore, I think its fair to say that the number of historic block hours per airframe associated with Tu and 727 counterpart is quite comparable.
asnovici is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 08, 8:24 pm
  #41  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,778
Nope. That would seriously underestimate the incredibly busy air traffic in the US. I haven't looked up official figures, but take a look at wikipedia numbers. Just compare the difference in figures between #1 and #30 on the list. Then take a look at how much of it is in the US and also western Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's...senger_traffic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%2...ffic_movements

And here's Aeroflot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ines_in_Europe
And here's some Asian traffic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rlines_in_Asia

Look. I may be wrong about the Tupolev. However, since many have my same reservations including various articles and columns like "Ask The Pilot," I'd like to find this missing Tupolev statistic. I figure one of the defenders here can come up with it.
rrgg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 08, 8:23 am
  #42  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: PHL
Programs: AA EXP; A3 Gold; Marriott LPP Ambassador; Hyatt Globalist; IHG Plat; National VIP
Posts: 2,509
Originally Posted by rrgg View Post
Nope. That would seriously underestimate the incredibly busy air traffic in the US. I haven't looked up official figures, but take a look at wikipedia numbers. Just compare the difference in figures between #1 and #30 on the list. Then take a look at how much of it is in the US and also western Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's...senger_traffic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%2...ffic_movements

And here's Aeroflot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ines_in_Europe
And here's some Asian traffic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rlines_in_Asia

Look. I may be wrong about the Tupolev. However, since many have my same reservations including various articles and columns like "Ask The Pilot," I'd like to find this missing Tupolev statistic. I figure one of the defenders here can come up with it.
Correct, we would need statistics to come up with a consclusion. In terms of personal opinions, you stated yours, I stated mine.

The articles you are referring to are very often based on subjective opinions of people influenced by several factors, including cultural, sociological, etc. For instance, an article written by a former Vietnam vet (just an example, not trying to create general assumptions) would probably lean towards praising US-built planes and dissing anything Russian built. Likewise, an article written by Russian Afghan war vet would be written with the opposite bias.

Therefore, until statistics is available, it is empty rhetorics.
asnovici is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 08, 10:31 am
  #43  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,778
Actually you can pretty well infer some statistics. Do you agree that Russia, North Korea, and former Soviet states have far fewer take-offs (or total flying hours), as implied by the quoted figures? If so, then their planes should have far fewer total number of incidents by a large factor. They don't. This is one reason to not give them the benefit of the doubt.

However I agree that the argument can't be completely shut without the missing piece of data I mentioned.
rrgg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 08, 11:51 am
  #44  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: MOW
Programs: KLM Flying Dutchman forever, bmi Diamond Club (is there a theme here?), LH, BA, EK, DL nobody
Posts: 1,877
Originally Posted by rrgg View Post
Actually you can pretty well infer some statistics. Do you agree that Russia, North Korea, and former Soviet states have far fewer take-offs (or total flying hours), as implied by the quoted figures? If so, then their planes should have far fewer total number of incidents by a large factor. They don't. This is one reason to not give them the benefit of the doubt.

However I agree that the argument can't be completely shut without the missing piece of data I mentioned.
I'm sorry but you're comparing apples and oranges. Tupolev 154 was the backbone of Soviet and Eastern bloc civil aviation in the 1970's and the 1980's. I don't really see what the current traffic figures have to do with it. According to this Wikipedia article, it carried "about half of all passengers flown by Aeroflot and its subsidiaries, or approximately 137 million passengers per year". (I guess the sentence was lifted from this BBC article - plenty good info there, too). That's the 1970's, mind you, when (the Soviet) Aeroflot was the world's largest airline.
If you're really interested, you should probably edit that Wikipedia article, sit back and read what the knowledgeable people will have to say on the matter. Some of the editors will probably have the statistics you're looking for (if it really exists. The Soviets were pretty secretive, you know).
apoivre is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 08, 12:44 pm
  #45  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: PHL
Programs: AA EXP; A3 Gold; Marriott LPP Ambassador; Hyatt Globalist; IHG Plat; National VIP
Posts: 2,509
Originally Posted by apoivre View Post
I'm sorry but you're comparing apples and oranges. Tupolev 154 was the backbone of Soviet and Eastern bloc civil aviation in the 1970's and the 1980's. I don't really see what the current traffic figures have to do with it. According to this Wikipedia article, it carried "about half of all passengers flown by Aeroflot and its subsidiaries, or approximately 137 million passengers per year". (I guess the sentence was lifted from this BBC article - plenty good info there, too). That's the 1970's, mind you, when (the Soviet) Aeroflot was the world's largest airline.
If you're really interested, you should probably edit that Wikipedia article, sit back and read what the knowledgeable people will have to say on the matter. Some of the editors will probably have the statistics you're looking for (if it really exists. The Soviets were pretty secretive, you know).
Agreed. Precisely my point from post #40.
asnovici is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread