GarryB wrote:I am sorry but that is nonsense. Every civilian aircraft purchase during the cold war had political implications and decisions made had little to do with aircraft performance.
It had political infulence to some extent but it had great economic infulence as well , government can take a political decision and ignore economic implications but not the private airlines who vouch for "bottom line" and would like to make profit.
Otherwise there would be no need for Airbus AND Boeing. They both make the same aircraft for different markets. If the markets ignored politics then one or the other company would win and the other would die.
The reality is that Boeing and Airbus mostly survived on enormous military subsidies from their own governments.
Airbus and Boeing company belong to different nations and continents and they vigorously compete against each other , Airbus turned out to be niche better than Boeing as they could make more fuel effecient and low down time aircraft.
Airbus subsidy would probably fade in comparision to what Boeing gets from US Government not to mention unfair trade practices that US Congress/Senate follows for eg recently Airbus won a big order for its A-330 against Boeing in fair competition but due to pressure from Boeing and its lobby with Senators/Congress and Government the order was canceled , so much for fair competition and fair practices that US preaches around.
Fuel price was nothing if your spare parts supplier was Boeing and you happened to be Iranian airlines. Politics came first... if you looked East you bought east and the same for west. After that came the quality of the hookers and bribes supplied by the competing companies (Airbus and Boeing). A distant third was the quality of the aircraft. As long as it could do the job the official that made the decision to buy couldn't care less about fuel efficiency... he already bought a yacht with the money he was bribed with and it never moves from the pier because he gets sea sick.
Fuel prices does matter if you operate an aircraft for 25 years which is their designed life , the fuel prices rises exponentially during those decades of operation and then if you operate a fleet of 50 -100 aircraft you can judge for your self the losses will be in billions of dollars.
Infact MS-21 main claim to fame is its 15 % more fuel effecient against Airbus A-320/21 and Boeing 737-NG.
Second most important factor is mean time between failure ,which means for x amout of hours you operate you will experience failure y amount of time , leading to aircraft going in maintenance and spares replacement leading to lesser fleet being available for business and more money spent on spares.
Like the report i have posted for An-148 which experince down time some 400 hours compared to 3000 hours for airbus.
And even today the F-15, pride of the USAF has wing problems, what is your point?
Today after being starved of money for 20 years a Ukrainian design has a few reliability issues... I would expect all Soviet aircraft to be grounded by now if you were right, yet there are lots of old aircraft flying and making profits... how can that be?
Well it did lost a lot of market , check for your self how even state carriers like Aeroflot have added a huge amount of western aircraft and big orders pending with Boeing and Airbus , most private airline players operate only Western Type.
Infact the Russians have all but moved their their new aircraft development to International/Western Certification Standards in reliability , fuel efficiency and technology a good example will be Superjet and MS-21 , look how they have been developed to match or exceed Airbus/Boeing/Bombardier/Embrarer and yet remain cheaper compared to all in its class.
An-148/158 is something of Russian/Ukranian attempt to make a cheaper yet good aircraft for countries that may not be able to afford western or russian types build to western standards.
BTW I think you will find that Boeing 737s and Airbuses had a few reliability issues during their first few years of service, this is just part of the process of getting a plane into service. You are comparing a new aircraft to mature designs. Very unfair.
I may sound unfair but the world is not sparing either , so it better to beat the best in their game and remain cost competitive , no one will wait for Russia to catch up with them but Russia has to prove it can come up much better after falling down and can beat the best.
I think Superjet and MS-21 is designed to do exactly that beat the best and remain cost competitive.
It would take Russia civil airlines about 2-3 decade to capture a good size of market but the process has started.
On the contrary for Sukhoi or Mig its not as great a challenge they are doing quite well globally specially Sukhoi.
And your passengers freeze to death because western aircraft don't have cloak rooms for heavy coats on their aircraft so the walk to the terminal in -30 degree temperatures is really fun.
I am not sure if this is a big issue , check for Western types operated by Russian airlines and they seems to be mostly western types and doing well in Russian climatic conditions.
Like I said Western aircraft are designed for well equipped airfields and there aren't that many if you look at the whole world and not just the west.
I think most airfields where there is decent air traffic have basic or better facilities to operate Western types , its only for non-profitable routes or remote routes the infrastructure is not well developed and there where An-148 can fill the niche.
Who is talking about small components?
Well these are key components and not small either ,Big and proven names in the field like Honeywell , Snecma or Goodrich adds value to the reliability factor.
On December 27, 2007 Boeing and VSMPO-Avisma created a joint venture Ural Boeing Manufacturing and signed a contract on titanium products deliveries until 2015, with Boeing planning to invest $27 billion in Russia over the next 30 years.
Not Titanium ingots or just Titanium, but Titanium products.
They did that but again reliability and quality was not upto western standards
Who cares about western standards? Not everything needs to be gold plated.
These are transport planes for people and cargo, not luxury hotels.
Well most would care of International Standards like ICAO ETOPS , JAR,FAA etc Sukhoi went out of the way to certify their jets to European ESA standards and similarly Perm improved reliability by opting for P&W sources hot components to make PS-90A2 meets ETOPS standards and Western/Russian/US requirements.
I would like to see the Russians set their own standards that are different to western standards that western planes have jump through hoops to meet, and then the Russians can talk about western aircraft being upgraded to meet Russian standards and they can be all snotty and upper class like the western aholes that seem to have influenced your attitude so much.
Russians have their standards and these generally closely match similar Western or US standards for eg Engine certification standards like AP-33 of Russia is similar to American FAR-33 and European JAR-33 , all Western aircraft that operate in Russia has to meet Russian Aviation standards.
Similarly any aircraft that operate in West needs to meet some basic standards in Noise or opt for top class standards like Sukhoi Superjet went for European EASA certifications after meeting all Russian certification standards so that its product can compete in the West and in the World with Western types
If you want cheap tickets... and 99% of passengers do, then improving "quality" is counter productive.
Well we need top notch Quality and Safety standards , cheap tickets or low cost carrier compromise on comfort where instead of 2 seats they would squeeze in 3 or instead of carrying 30 Kg of luggage for business class they would just provide 15 Kg for the cheap ticket and they wont provide any inflight food etc.
Ultimately both the Business class , First Class and Economy Class or Low fare tickets travel on the same airplane with different configuration ,cant compromise on build quality or safety standards of aircraft