studio76

Come on, it's not that bad! I flew on an Orenburg Airlines TU-134 about 3 weeks ago, and it was quite fun:
-No overhead bins, just a shelf!
-the round windows were HUGE and had curtains.
-I was in business and the quantity and quality of breakfast served was extraordinary (better than longhaul F on BA or QF!)
-I was in the first row and the view to the galley revealed a sink and residential style fridge.
-The service to Y was from the front galley and the pub on wheels / I mean liquor cart that they pushed by for the Y folks around 6:40 in the morning was the best stocked thing I have ever seen in my life

I'll see if I can upload some photos this week as well.

hfly

Oh please... I have flown Aeroflot's 154's multiple times, as recently as this past February. Yes 4CD have much greater leg room, but the other rows aren't too bad. I find the wood trim, etc to different, yes there is almost no overhead space, a big problem. The 154 is actually a pretty solid plane and I enjoy flying them from time to time to brek up the monotony.

orbitmic

This breakfast description gets me interested! I wonder what you got, never heard of Orenburg airlines before!!

DanTravels

When you listed the planes, it became obvious there'd be some drinking involved.

apoivre

Gotta love this huge window in the loo. I know the A380 has it as well but I've taken the ugly thing and don't remember seeing it so the 134 remains the only plane for me with this must-have facility

studio76

It's a small airline flying some off the beaten track routes. When the first tray was presented it had: smoked salmon, coldcuts, fruits, cereal, bread, candy bar, crackers, cheeeses and came with juice, water, coffee. My coworker and I both commented on how pleasantly surprised we were. Just about the time we were wrapping up, the FA came around and asked what we would like for our hot breakfast! needless to say we hadn't left any room, but had to try for curiousity sake. There was something for everyone.

bostontraveler

Enjoy those aircraft... I had a "minor" right wing engine explosion some years back on takeoff from SCL to HAV... after the plane had to return to the terminal because of "extensive rodent presence"...
Russian climate will take care of point B but go for it... fly 'em all... you only live once!

tmac100

What IS your point?? MANY USA-built aircraft (and helicopetrs) are not fly-by-wire and do incredible service. The same is true is USA built military aircraft. I will not make a list of these flyng aircraft.

It does not seem that any nation's pilots have cramps to cause problems with these USA-built aircraft.


The IL-62s are falling out of the skies??? Check airdisasters.com and see how many Boeing 737s have fallen out of the skies lately.

Your comments are simply politically correct for the domestic USA audience, and not based on fact. Emotion/patriotism - yes. But...

X3Skier

Most, if not all high performance aircraft, civil or military, have boost for the flight controls. Fly By Wire just means that there are no direct physical links, just electrical signals, to the actuators while if it is not FBW, there are direct cables attached to the Stick or Yoke that actually move the surface or the attached actuators. Both also include a simulated force feedback to give the pilot the necessary "feel" that is missing in a pure electrical or actuator connection.

I have no personal insight but it sounds like the IL-62 does not have boost so the pilots have to move the surface purely by muscle. Having flown both types of control systems, I can testify one can get very tired without boost, especially if one is "yanking and banking".

Cheers

Palal

Flew the same route last year, also on a TU154M. I don't know why it gave you the jitters. The reason you have 3 people in the cockpit (maybe the fourth one was probably in the jump seat, as you said, he was coming in and out) is union rules:
Captain, first officer, flight engineer. You don't really need the last one, but they trained so many of them back in the soviet era, that the unions mandated that they be employed.

I didn't really like the overhead bin space issue as well, but the wood trim actually looks good compared to plastic that we see on the Boeings.

BTW. I would feel much more comfortable flying the Tu, then any of the old boeings or airbuses that some of these airlines like S7 or Rossiya use.

Medic1

The statistics on airdisasters.com are misleading, because 737s are some of the most common airplanes in the skies, all over the world. If you extrapolate for accidents per number of actual flying aircraft models, all of the Russian and FSU airlines should induce shudders in most rational people. There's a reason why Russia and the FSU are known as the most dangerous airlines to fly and why Russian-built passenger jets are not allowed to land at most US airports. That's not some jingoistic nonsense either, those opinions come from international safety agencies. That shouldn't be surprising. When my girlfriend came out here last month to visit, she flew from OVB to SVO on Aeroflot Nord. When she described to her mother (a retired SU FA) the dilapidated plane she flew on, her mother was horrified, "My God, that airplane is over 40 years old!"

I flew on a T134 out of Sochi one time, and they had to have the mechanic come out and beat on the cabin door frame with a sledge hammer so it would latch shut. He'd just keep beating and trying to slam the door until it would stay closed. Once it stayed closed, he gave the thumbs up, and I was off for the most terror-induced flight I can recall. I'll take a Boeing any day over those flying Soviet coffins. Thank God SU is finally going to retire the 154. I fly them every couple of months out of OVB, and I can't wait until they're gone. I've always tried to marvel at how I'm flying on the fastest passenger jet currently out there, but all I can seem to dwell on is that it means I'll slam in to the ground that much harder. ;-)

sbm12

A number of the NW DC9s are 30+ years old and are not considered safety hazards. There are also a number of 747s flying that are getting on in age. The maintenance of the planes is as important - if not moreso - as the age.

Medic1

Good point. I remember reading somewhere that this is the reason FSU airlines had such poor safety records; poor maintenance programs. Despite the fact you're more likely to test Newton's theory of gravity while flying Russian aircraft, I have nothing but good things to say about SU on the LAX to SVO route, a route I've flown many times this year. The FAs actually smile and are friendly, the food is excellent, and it's always on new Boeing aircraft in a cabin that's always been about half full. The internal flights are still an Orwellian experience, but they likely will be for some time to come.

mallthus

The Cpt, FO & FE spots are all required to be filled on all versions of the 154. The forth spot on the 154 is for the Navigator. You correctly point out that this is due to Union rules, as this role is no longer required from an operational standpoint.

Truthfully, as was borne out on Western aircraft of the same and later periods, this role wasn't really required ever from a technical standpoint, especially on the TU154, which otherwise boasted an avionics package comparable to Western aircraft of the period. Two forces in Soviet policy of the era led to this and other Soviet aircraft having this role. The obvious one was the concept of universal employment. Every added cockpit job meant another employed person. The other was less overt, but no less obvious. The "Navigator" was typically the "political officer" on the 154 as well (although a 5th crew member, a SO, was often carried as well in this role, especially to Western destinations).

tmac100

Don't worry, be happy. Hitting the ground at 50 mph will kill you just as dead as hitting the ground at Mach 1.

That US pilot who crashed into the ground in eastern CA (and whose aircraft was just found after being missing for a year) wasn't flying all that fast was he?? It appears that he is just as dead as if you/I crashed in a much faster (Russian built) aircraft.