Russian Civil Aviation: News #3

GarryB wrote:The real problem is that the focus is on profit for the share holders and nothing else... work the workers as hard as you can with as few as you can get away with... pay them minimum wage and expect 100% effort 24/7... who cares about the customer or customer service... keep the chit chat for your own time, no gossip and how many customers can you serve per hour... volume is what counts.

It is easy to fool a boss who has never done the job and doesn't really know what you do, but then you get a paranoid one that thinks you are scamming them and just screwing around most of the day...

Companies with no social conscience and no morality are what are destroying communities and countries...

LMFS wrote:

GarryB wrote:The real problem is that the focus is on profit for the share holders and nothing else... work the workers as hard as you can with as few as you can get away with... pay them minimum wage and expect 100% effort 24/7... who cares about the customer or customer service... keep the chit chat for your own time, no gossip and how many customers can you serve per hour... volume is what counts.

It is easy to fool a boss who has never done the job and doesn't really know what you do, but then you get a paranoid one that thinks you are scamming them and just screwing around most of the day...

Companies with no social conscience and no morality are what are destroying communities and countries...

Of course it is the way of doing business that results in such idiots being selected to positions of responsibility. Dishonest approach needs dishonest implementation. But there are also companies that are actually trying to do things more or less right and get infected too by that totally ridiculous approach because it is the way companies are supposed to be run today

GarryB wrote:Money should not be wasted, but there are products and services that should not come down to just money.

Healthcare and education and law enforcement spring immediately to mind, but there are plenty of others.

Look at the criminality involved in waste management.... how many organised crime groups are there getting large amounts of money for recycling stuff that ends up burned or put into the land fill or shipped over seas.

The problem is that the best manager is the one that makes the most money and the things they have to do to make the most money make them total bastards... become one or don't expect to get a job as a manager for long.

When I was a kid most petrol stations were owned by ma and pa operations and they worked fine, but pretty soon it was clear money was to be made and they became less personal and more of a money making franchise where the people working in that fuel station started to get minimum wage... even the ones working in the middle of the night on their own... and with new work contracts if anyone steals petrol and just drives off without paying it comes out of your wages... I have refused to do such work... fuck them...

Big faceless companies coming in using huge work contracts... Burger King was recently fined because their managers have set jobs to do but they are on a salary... to get everything done they work extra hours but are not paid for those extra hours that is just them trying to get all the work they are supposed to get done finished... they use minimum staff numbers which makes things worse... the fine was because a Burger King manager was actually working over 80 hours a week and because of his fixed salary it meant he was working for less than minimum wage. The worker he had making the food were on their normal zero hour contracts... so on any given week they might not get any work at all... the next week they might be working extra hours including Saturday and Sunday but no extra pay... just flat rates... We used to get time and a half and a day in lieu if we had to work on a Sunday... now they are lucky to get that on a public holiday...

These days it is in work contracts that retail workers cannot take any holidays during December or January... things have changed and not in a good way.

kvs wrote:Russia ends up making better products by having to "start from scratch".   We saw this with the marine gas turbines that replaced
the Zorya-Stroymash products from Ukraine.   The efficiency went up thanks to higher operating temperatures.   So Russian companies
don't just copy when they replace imports, they apply innovation.   This makes sense, since Russia has the technological and
scientific depth and if you are going to go through the bother of making the product (e.g. engines) yourself, you may as well
as modernize the design.   Or even try a whole new approach.  

Apparently there is a critical mass for a country which enables domestic generation of technology and real independence.
Russia has this critical mass.   Ukraine doesn't.   Western deciders assume that Russia is just like Ukraine.

GarryB wrote:Actually the fact that they left it too late is their problem... right now or in 2014 having to actually replace Ukrainian products is a pain in the ass but it wont kill any projects except joint projects to actually make Antonovs.

If they had cut them off from everything in the 1990s then having to make everything from scratch would have been a problem... it would be a case of... we can't afford to develop everything for ourselves so we have to decide priorities... which would probably be strategic nuclear weapons first and a few other key areas next, but a lot of their new current technology would never have been developed and they would be in a much worse situation than now.

Fortunately the poison they are feeding Russia to try to control her is being fed in very small doses over a long enough period that the poison will make the patient sick for a while but gradually they are building up an immunity and pretty soon they will be able to poison both drinks with Iocane powder and save the princess... how inconceivable is that...   (who gets that reference...)

The irony is that while working with other countries on a civil aircraft project is normally a good idea... it gets top quality components without having to develop them yourself, but it also gets the other country on board as a market and another country supporting your sales drives to sell the product around the place.

The advantage of a western country supplier is wasted because of western bias against Russian planes limiting the number of aircraft sold in that market. The advantage of working with the Chinese however is that the Chinese market itself is huge so even if only Russian customers and Chinese companies show interest that can be enough sales to make it a success.

The bonus is if you can get your military to buy a related version of your aircraft because that expands your market significantly too... and often military contracts can be used for a general upgrade of the aircraft after a few years in service.

kvs wrote:The main issue for such modifications is the frame resonance characteristics with the new engines.   The details pertaining to
coupling the engines with the jet are rather secondary since the PD-14 is not designed to be totally different.   But the Devil
is always in the small differences.   If the resonance characteristics are poor, they may have to redesign the wing, but I am
hoping that the PD-14 design has been accomplished on a high level with modeling of potential resonance issues with different
potential wing/frame hosts.

Ministry proposes diverting Il-96-400M subsidy to fund other programmes

Russia’s ministry of transport is tabling a legislative proposal to withdraw subsidies intended for the Ilyushin Il-96-400M programme and redirect them to support other areas of the domestic aircraft industry.

The draft legislation follows a meeting on the Russian air transport industry held in May and a presidential directive in June.

It proposes to redistribute federal funds amounting to Rb13.8 billion ($181 million), planned for the Il-96-400M this year.

Just over Rb12 billion of this figure will be put towards other aircraft programmes, adding to Rb4.9 billion in funding previously provided in a December 2019 declaration. The balance of Rb1.78 billion would compensate state lessor GTLK for lower lease rates offered to Sukhoi Superjet 100 operators.

The transport ministry had put forward a suggestion, earlier this year, to allocate Rb7.2 billion to the Il-96-400M plus another Rb4.5 billion for domestic aircraft acquisition.

But the “current lack of a potential operator” for the Il-96-400M, says the draft legislation, presents a risk regarding the subsidy.

The aircraft is a stretched and modernised 386-seat version of the Il-96-300 and a single example is undergoing assembly at the VASO plant in Voronezh.

Documentation accompanying the legislative proposal details the proposed re-allocation of the Rb16.9 billion in funding, which would be put towards 56 aircraft.

These include two Superjet 100s, five L-410s and three Ilyushin Il-114-300s, plus 46 assorted helicopters – a mix of Mil Mi-8s, Mi-38s and Kazan Ansats.

This documentation puts the total funding required for the aircraft and helicopters at Rb31.35 billion, adding that a balance of Rb14.4 billion in extra-budgetary funding will be needed for the acquisitions over the period 2020-23.

It points out that the Il-114-300 and Mi-38 are new types which present additional costs during introduction to operators’ fleets. The proposed financing figures will enable these operators to be offered a “preferential rate” of leasing and support further sales.

Russia’s government has been trying to stimulate domestic aircraft production. Subsidy legislation for the Il-96-400M programme had stated that more than 95% of air transport in Russia was conducted by foreign-built types, and that the number of Russian-built aircraft was “constantly decreasing” – threatening to fall to just 73 by 2025.

https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/ministry-proposes-diverting-il-96-400m-subsidy-to-fund-other-programmes/140777.article

PhSt wrote:
Not sure if its been posted already, but I have a suspicion that some elements of the NATO 5th columnists inside Russia have been activated to sabotage Russia's widebody civil aircraft development. Instances like these should be investigated thoroughly and those making these proposals need to get their backgrounds checked.

Ministry proposes diverting Il-96-400M subsidy to fund other programmes

Russia’s ministry of transport is tabling a legislative proposal to withdraw subsidies intended for the Ilyushin Il-96-400M programme and redirect them to support other areas of the domestic aircraft industry.

The draft legislation follows a meeting on the Russian air transport industry held in May and a presidential directive in June.

It proposes to redistribute federal funds amounting to Rb13.8 billion ($181 million), planned for the Il-96-400M this year.

Just over Rb12 billion of this figure will be put towards other aircraft programmes, adding to Rb4.9 billion in funding previously provided in a December 2019 declaration. The balance of Rb1.78 billion would compensate state lessor GTLK for lower lease rates offered to Sukhoi Superjet 100 operators.

The transport ministry had put forward a suggestion, earlier this year, to allocate Rb7.2 billion to the Il-96-400M plus another Rb4.5 billion for domestic aircraft acquisition.

But the “current lack of a potential operator” for the Il-96-400M, says the draft legislation, presents a risk regarding the subsidy.

The aircraft is a stretched and modernised 386-seat version of the Il-96-300 and a single example is undergoing assembly at the VASO plant in Voronezh.

Documentation accompanying the legislative proposal details the proposed re-allocation of the Rb16.9 billion in funding, which would be put towards 56 aircraft.

These include two Superjet 100s, five L-410s and three Ilyushin Il-114-300s, plus 46 assorted helicopters – a mix of Mil Mi-8s, Mi-38s and Kazan Ansats.

This documentation puts the total funding required for the aircraft and helicopters at Rb31.35 billion, adding that a balance of Rb14.4 billion in extra-budgetary funding will be needed for the acquisitions over the period 2020-23.

It points out that the Il-114-300 and Mi-38 are new types which present additional costs during introduction to operators’ fleets. The proposed financing figures will enable these operators to be offered a “preferential rate” of leasing and support further sales.

Russia’s government has been trying to stimulate domestic aircraft production. Subsidy legislation for the Il-96-400M programme had stated that more than 95% of air transport in Russia was conducted by foreign-built types, and that the number of Russian-built aircraft was “constantly decreasing” – threatening to fall to just 73 by 2025.

https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/ministry-proposes-diverting-il-96-400m-subsidy-to-fund-other-programmes/140777.article