apoivre

Terminal C has nothing whatsoever to do with SVO3. It's just that, Terminal C, the new SVO1, if you will - even though the old SVO1 continues to operate. The terminal where SU and all of SkyTeam except flights to the US are going to be transferred will be Terminal A. It's being built on the opposite side of the runways to Terminal C, right by the side of SVO2 (which will be renamed as Terminal B).

Supersonic Swinger

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

Not really. US airlines don't seem to have many Tupolevs, and they do offer elite checkin in something like the nations capital city. They'll also move you between terminals without needing a taxi. If you're referring to a poor service attitude, well YMMV.

Supersonic Swinger

^^ Tupolev's = MD80s
In my experience, I've had better "elite" check-in on the sadly no longer extant Royal Tongan Airlines that on US airlines...

rrgg

I don't see a smiley, but I assume you're joking.

asnovici

True that. US based airlines Elite recognition is less then stellar in most instances. SU does have a very recognizable Elite check in at all airports I have traveled with them from, including, of course, SVO. They also do have a free transfer bus between SVO-1 and SVO-2, so I dont quite see what the issue is? Once SVO-3 is ready, it's promising to be a very convenient transfer, departure, and arrival for SU and ST flights.

By the way, there will be no Tupolevs as of 2009. 134's are gone, and they are taking 154's out of service. What will be left are 767-300ER's for long haul, and brand new A319/320/321 (the condition of which, by the way, are far superior to what legacy US based airlines are flying).

graraps

What is wrong with the Tupolev?
I flew it a couple of days ago and it was very comfortable and quiet (at least the front part was ). Landing into SVO was incredibly smooth, too.
From a pax comfort viewpoint, it's lightyears ahead of the Alitalia MD80 (and don't get me started on KL not-quite-business-class).

rrgg

I don't mean to start a debate, but the short answer is that (if I remember correctly), the commonly used model has the worst safety record, statistically.

asnovici

Would you care to elaborate on the statistics you are referring to? Specifically, number of accidents in relation to the number of aircraft built Tupolev vs., say 727 or MD/DC family? Otherwise, its just empty rhetorics.

rrgg

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.

graraps

I say whoever can afford to worry about the safety record of a mainstream commercial airliner is exceptionally fortunate (and never travels anywhere by car).

rrgg

Let's get something straight. The earlier claim was that MD80 and Tupolev are equal. That is what I responded to.

graraps

Fair enough.
The misunderstanding was because I obviously don't think that a crash is big enough risk to take into account when flying. I compare planes on things like noise and comfort levels. Now I am sure that you can make a case that the 154 or even the DC-10 have had a disproportionately large amount of accidents, but it's still far too small compared to car accidents, and I can't see many people in a rush to fight for standing room on the commuter train!

apoivre

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).

Supersonic Swinger

In my earlier post, I should have said DC-9s, not MD-80s.

I wasn't talking so much about safety, more that on both Russian and US airlines you can fly planes designed and built back when LBJ was US president and John Wayne and Doris Day were #1 at the US film box office.