I do not want to be an air carrier or a couple of words to domestic aviation officials

539
About two years ago I already performed with similar material. It is clear that this did not bring any result, but repetition is sometimes necessary. Especially in light of what is happening.



We have obvious problems in the air. And, unfortunately, not only in the military, but also in civil terms. One of our readers rightly remarked that if "Tu" had fallen, then there would have been a cry on the subject that we were flying to old ones. So raised. And the "carcass" was removed from the airline.

But instead of a normal program for the development of the domestic aircraft industry, for some reason, they rushed to buy Boeings and Airbuses. Naturally, used. Let's look at our Aeroflot for an example.

The first digit shows how many aircraft are in operation, the second - how many are ordered.

Airbus A319-100 - 4 / 0
Airbus A320-200 - 63 / 14
Airbus A321-200 - 26 / 8
Airbus A330-200 - 5 / 0
Airbus A330-300 - 17 / 0
Airbus A350-800 - 0 / 4
Airbus A350-900 - 0 / 18
Boeing 737-800-12- 17/0
Boeing 737-900ER- 0 / 15
Boeing 777-300ER- 13-3
Sukhoi Superjet 100 - 21 / 29
Irkut MC-21 - 0 / 50

Total 161 aircraft, of which domestic 21. Ordered 158, domestic 79. A bit better.

But this is Aeroflot. They started with him, they need to continue.

The problem is in our aviationrather, not even in airplanes, but in the organization of civil aviation in Russia.

When the Soviet Union was gone, the single Aeroflot was divided, by Primitisation, into dozens, if not hundreds, of airlines. It seems that everything should be like in the enlightened West, competition and everything else. But no one thought at the time whether these companies would be capable.

Our readers, who with the sky "on you", I think, will not be strongly against my opinion. Its essence is that the airline (if it is) is obliged not only to sell tickets and pay for fuel and services of dispatchers, but also to train specialists: pilots, engineers, technicians. That is, take care of the trouble-free operation of its equipment. On time and efficiently maintain and repair it. Improve repair and service bases.

And most importantly, in time to update the fleet.

With the destruction of civil aviation, aviation civil aircraft construction collapsed, and aircraft factories and design offices closed. Our VASO, a huge aircraft manufacturing plant, is in a state of "rather dead than alive."

In general, everything that happens reminds of a Soviet-era anecdote, when a grocery store asks a saleswoman if there is black caviar. She says no, because no one asks her.

So it is with our civil aircraft. Indeed, why deal with the Balashikha plant about the UG151 unit for IL-96? We will ban its operation, and buy new Boeing and Airbus. Who can. Thin reservation.

We have dozens of small carriers in our country, such as the airline Kogalymavia, whose plane crashed in Egypt, having up to 10 aircraft. And what? Journalists have already extracted the entire track record of this "Airbus". The A321 aircraft with the 663 tail number was released 18 a half years ago, and was operated by several foreign companies, including Malaysian Airlines, before entering Russia. And already had an accident in the same Cairo.

Can these pseudo carriers afford to buy new planes? We see the answer on the example of "Kogalymavia". Tragic example. But maybe, at least he will make our aviation officials think.

It is necessary to stop with a large variety of air carriers in Russia, ideally return to one state-owned airline, which Aeroflot has been for many years. Did the whole Union fly Aeroflot airplanes? And then let Russia fly. Enough to produce incomprehensible "low-cost airlines" and other figures from aviation.

The security of Russian citizens must be ensured at the state level. Now, of course, the relatives of the victims will be compensated. Will they help them a lot? Compensation is good, I agree, but isn't it better to compensate in advance the possibility of the need to pay compensation? Highlighting, for example, money for new aircraft.

Speaking of new aircraft. The question arises, why do our aviation guardians hate our aircraft builders so much? Why is it so easy to give up ours in favor of foreign? Is A320 so younger and more perfect than the IL-96 that the use of Ela is not at all? So it seems to be IL-96, even younger will be like a model. And none of my friends who flew on it said a word about the fact that there is no comfort. On the contrary.

Mr. Khristenko, the former Minister of Industry in 2009, decided to discontinue the Il-96-300 passenger aircraft, since the liner "not able to compete with the latest long-haul passenger aircraft of the companies Boeing and Airbus". Mr. Khristenko is no longer in the ministry, but the situation remains the same.

In general, nothing but another betrayal of national interests, I would not describe it.

Mr. Khristenko needed some kind of competition there. And so he with one stroke of the pen sentenced several factories building airplanes. And at the same time, a certain number of people in Russia who will break up in ancient aircraft.

Result: VASO, where the "Elah" was produced, is worth American workers in Detroit get paid, and I, as a potential client of the airline, have to risk my life in a twenty-four-year-old Boeing or Airbus, with tail baked after the accident and other amenities. Well, thanks.

Actually, after an emergency landing at Pulkovo, the flight Rostov-on-Don - Kaliningrad in 2003 on a Boeing-737, you can't drag me into a plane (especially Boeing, especially an ancient one). And my three friends, whom I picked up from Lipetsk, because the Saab flight from St. Petersburg - Voronezh to Voronezh clearly did not reach. And flopped in Lipetsk. Successfully, at least, thanks to the pilots.

The question arises: is the new IL uncompetitive compared to Boeing, which is slightly less years old than me? It is quite competitive. Because new.

The president talked a lot about import substitution. How about the necessary details of the development of the country in a crisis. Isn't it time to seriously think about the import substitution of used foreign aircraft to domestic ones? At VASO, paradoxically, for serial production of "IL-96-300" is everything. And machines, and tooling, and, most importantly, people. They have not fled yet, although many were called to Samara and to Ulyanovsk. They get mere pennies, but they don’t run away anywhere, because apart from collecting planes, they are no longer taught anything.

In addition, for all history the use of IL-96 was registered only one emergency when the Aeroflot plane burned down. For an unknown reason, in the parking lot. No casualties. Yes, all 28 aircraft were released, but this is still an indicator. Cubans, by the way, exploit the "IL-96" and do not cry. And Putin, by the way, too.

And the history of the use of the predecessor, "IL-86", which was made more than a hundred, is also remarkable. For 21 year of operation of the entire 4 PE. In which 22 (twenty-two) people died. In three, moreover, the fault was the gross mistakes of the crew, in the fourth case on the "Ela" fell "Boeing". That is, for the 21 year a single accident for technical reasons.

And compare with the data on the "Boeing" and "Airbus".

It is clear that they were released a lot more, but there are enough accidents for technical reasons. So there is something to think about.

I am sure that our planes are no worse than American and European ones. Comfort and other show-off are organized in the course of production. This is not the reason for the Russians to constantly risk their lives on ancient flying aircraft-cemeteries of foreign manufacture.

And one more consideration. Who do you think is easier, cheaper and better can be serviced / repaired? "Boeing" or "IL"? Rhetorical question in my opinion.

I will sum up some written.

1. Russia needs a state-owned airline and a state guarantee of our air safety.

2. Russia needs to revive not just a civilian fleet, as it was in the USSR, but to revive it in a pattern and likeness, to revive the system of personnel training, the system of training and maintenance of aircraft.

3. Russia needs a park new domestic aircraft. To be fed by updating the fleet should be Russian aircraft builders, and not officials involved in contracts for the supply of aviahlama from the bounty of the West.

But this requires a tough political will of the Russian leadership.

We wait. Sincerely hoping that this will not require another tragedy. Are looking forward to.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

539 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -179
    1 November 2015 05: 31
    Author, do not run ahead of the cart! The investigation has just begun, there are still no conclusions.
    1. +201
      1 November 2015 05: 53
      Quote: NKVD
      Author, do not run forward carts!

      Yes, if I had run .. the problem has long existed and therefore, against the backdrop of the tragedy, the article is especially hard on the nerves ..
      1. +89
        1 November 2015 07: 49
        Sick !!!

        This is not the first plane to crash in recent years. I hope the last ...

        It is time to return the airline industry to state control. Leave 2-3 Airlines. State. One for domestic flights. Others are for foreign.

        What is this "Kagalymavia"? What the hell is this? And they are not the only ones ... They rented an old rotten plane, cut the loot, saving on safety!

        18 years the plane was operated! And most of them are abroad!

        It is also necessary to refuse leasing of foreign junk. And do the production of their civilian aircraft.
        1. +87
          1 November 2015 07: 58
          The problem is in our aviation, rather not even in airplanes, but in the organization of Russian civil aviation.
          ...
          It is necessary to stop with a large variety of air carriers in Russia, ideally return to one state-owned airline, which Aeroflot has been for many years. Did the whole Union fly Aeroflot airplanes? And then let Russia fly. Enough to produce incomprehensible "low-cost airlines" and other figures from aviation.
          - from an article by Roman Skomorokhov

          That's right, Roman Skomorokhov !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
          For Russia, with its endless expanses, where very few people live, but where "you can only fly by plane", and flights there are deliberately unprofitable, the presence of dozens, if not hundreds of private air campaigns, is state stupidity.
          Therefore, in Russia, all inter-regional and intra-regional air transportation has practically ceased.
          Therefore, for the sake of profit, aviation safety is neglected in all air campaigns.
          Civil aviation in Russia is in a miserable state, there is practically no building of its own aircraft, and flight and engineering personnel are not being prepared in the right amount, ...
          It is time for the Russian leadership to discard all the liberal cracking and think, finally, about the revival of civil aviation on a planned state basis. By and large, the death of people in a plane crash last quarter century, on the conscience of Russian leaders.
          It is necessary to stop this criminal variety of private air carriers.

          And finally it came to Russian lawmakers.
          The head of the State Duma's international affairs committee, Alexei Pushkov, proposed reducing the number of air carriers in Russia to two or three. He said this on the air of the Russian News Service. In his opinion, "this is the area in which the state should intervene.". - information Newspaper.Ru
          1. +129
            1 November 2015 08: 36
            I would like to add the following thesis.

            Transport for Russia (rail, air, etc.) is not just a branch, but in no small measure a means of ensuring economic growth and development of the country!

            Remember: in the USSR, the unprofitability of passenger rail transport was offset by the profitability of freight. No one thought about making profit from the trains! We thought that they provide mobility for people who can provide economic growth! Jobs and so on!

            And now we are fixated on making a profit! It is not right.

            It must be said once and for all: transport in Russia is for people and for the development of the economy. Transport in Russia - should be under state control.
            1. +22
              1 November 2015 09: 03
              Quote: Enot-poloskun
              Remember: in the USSR, the unprofitability of passenger rail transport was offset by the profitability of freight. No one thought about making profit from the trains! We thought that they provide mobility for people who can provide economic growth! Jobs and so on!

              And now we are fixated on making a profit! It is not right.

              it only works when everything is in one hand
              after all, it was like that everywhere that the children's assortment was subsidized, in Central Asia they set up enterprises that never went to industrial capacity but at the same time gave jobs to the local population
              1. +25
                1 November 2015 09: 47
                In fact, everything is simple: No matter how many airlines, shipowners, meat processing plants, etc.!
                It is important that the PERSONAL responsibility of directors, technologists (PHIZHLITS) with full confiscation of property is restored! Then they will tremble and do whatever is necessary for the safety and health of those for whom they work!
                1. +5
                  1 November 2015 11: 11
                  You will not find directors.
                  1. +5
                    1 November 2015 20: 27
                    We find, and worthy of their cause. Yes, we will not look for any trash.
                  2. +6
                    1 November 2015 20: 45
                    Quote: Igor Nikonov
                    You will not find directors.
                    It's Easy!
                    If a person is happy for his job, if it is important for him, he has the honor (and not money) to do his job correctly, without a hitch, without a hitch, then he is at least a locksmith, even a director! And the Shvets, and the reaper, and the igrets on the pipe, and the pilot on the plane, and the jailer on the tank and the swimmer on the steamer! And the Director - stoyets !!!
                    And then (when the PERSONAL, PERSONAL MATERIAL, MORAL responsibility of the locksmith who manufactured the part; the cleaners who washed the floors well / poorly; the director, managing 100 or 1000 or 10000 people), when it comes (albeit first by force), but eventually in the generations of the pope , mothers will be more and more children about conscience, honesty, professionalism, work,
                    ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY TO ENVIRONMENT, NEARBY, BROTHER, OWN, FRIENDS !!!
                    ACCEPT AND RELATE TO OTHERS AS WAY YOU WANT TO RELATE TO YOU !!!
                    And to write in the elevator - to harm others, neighbors - SHAME!
                    1. +1
                      1 November 2015 21: 30
                      Damn, I missed the comma!

                      GO AND RELAX TO OTHERS (,) AS YOU WANT TO RELATE TO YOU !!!

                      That is - the power of the RUSSIAN COMMAND !!!
                      Execution cannot be pardoned!
                      You can’t leave work!
                2. +11
                  1 November 2015 11: 13
                  Hiring the Chairs.
                  Rewrite the property on the mother-in-law. But you never know ...
                3. +10
                  1 November 2015 14: 06
                  It is also true, but in part. People from super-profits just tear the roof and they did not care about responsibility.
                4. +10
                  1 November 2015 15: 30
                  True capitalists for the sake of profit and they will not spare their mother and they will climb into the loop themselves.
                5. +3
                  1 November 2015 20: 25
                  In principle, Yes, but not enough. For those in power, there must be a direct responsibility to people! Around like in Japan, or sepuco or went down.
                  1. +4
                    1 November 2015 21: 33
                    "Russia needs a state airline and a state guarantee of our air security." There are industries where the state should be the determining player. Aviation is a high-tech area that determines the technical level of a country. It is naive to hope for a private owner or a foreign fleet of aircraft bought for petrodollars, or rather a crime.
                6. +6
                  2 November 2015 08: 51
                  As IVS said, every mistake has a name, surname and patronymic. Responsibility must be restored in all areas of life, otherwise it will get worse.
                7. +3
                  2 November 2015 13: 14
                  My opinion is this: I, you and others elect the leaders of the state so that, in particular, they ensure our security, welfare, etc. But at the moment, or rather, since the 90s, the state has withdrawn, giving it all to private hands (such as the pension system). The same is true in aviation. How the state can be held accountable for that uncle. Only conditionally.
                  And airline executives have one goal - profit. And everything else is secondary, serves to serve the main purpose.
              2. +25
                1 November 2015 15: 28
                Central Asia is different. I worked for 7 years at the largest aviation association in Tashkent. Five IL-76 per month plan is much more powerful. And the local population is half Russian and 90% Russian-speaking. Now, in the place of the giant of the aviation industry, ruins, the population makes good money on shift and other earnings. And for the time being, the entire accident rate is yet to come. I’m now connected with a piece of iron and see how much has been done in recent years for collapse and destruction for the sake of the same superprofits.
              3. +1
                1 November 2015 22: 49
                In Russia 24 and Russia1 publish the names of 217 passengers who died in this disaster, I have a question why crew members are not being added to them ???
                1. +1
                  2 November 2015 15: 53
                  The crew members are getting a plus because "Kogalymavia" paid them only for July ... So August, September and October they are "not on the lists" yet. B ....! Pilots pay three months a salary !!! And what about the ground staff and the quality of its work with such bestiality ???
            2. +48
              1 November 2015 09: 14
              Quote: Enot-poloskun
              Transport for Russia (rail, air, etc.) is not just a branch, but in no small measure a means of ensuring economic growth and development of the country!


              Just like that, subscribe to every word. Too long distances for transportation to be super profitable.

              In general, Russia is such a unique phenomenon that some things simply have to be under the control of the state. Otherwise, the beginning of lawlessness begins.
              1. +32
                1 November 2015 12: 53
                Quote: Banshee
                Otherwise, uniform chaos begins.

                Novel....
                It (lawlessness) began, and not even yesterday.
                I'm just too lazy to dig around and collect materials on the status of such an industry as the navy. There are problems everywhere - from the training system to local administration. Visible everywhere hand of Moscowno matter how loud it sounds.
                These Moscow managers from the main altar, equipped with enormous powers, money and arrogance, arrive in their places and begin to managering so that the howl rises.
                Short.
                There is no modern fleet. And nobody builds it, they don’t order abroad. Even in China.
                Nautical schools are only renamed.
                A former captain, one of the most competent specialists in the North-West of Russia, is working in the Arkhangelsk seafarer, for 18 tons per month - as an example.
                40% of graduates of naval schools in their specialty were not going to work initially, and the money was spent.
                The old fleet - the average age of the courts of the Russian Federation is more than 24 years.
                Etc. etc.
                hi
                1. +10
                  1 November 2015 17: 40
                  Quote: stalkerwalker
                  There is no modern fleet. And nobody builds it, they don’t order abroad. Even in China. Nautical schools are only renaming. A former captain, one of the most competent specialists in the North-West of Russia, works in the Arkhangelsk seafarer for 18 tons a month - as an example. 40% of graduates of naval schools by profession did not intend to work initially, and the money was spent. The fleet is old - the average age of the courts of the Russian Federation - more than 24 years. etc. etc.


                  In Murmansk, the same thing. Yes, and throughout the country it would be strange if it were different. Everything collapsed at the same time.
                2. The comment was deleted.
                3. +4
                  2 November 2015 13: 19
                  In the river fleet, the situation is even worse. We can say that he disappears. You can write to the Red Book
              2. +18
                1 November 2015 14: 14
                It begins to put it mildly, the whole country has long been living in this lawlessness, already from the 90s. A simple example with the sale of US shares in the unique production of quartz in Gus-Khrustalny. The best quartz in the world were and the whole defense industry worked for them. Therefore, we have long been living in lawlessness. But a fresh example, in Pyatigorsk we decided to sell unique baleos and mud baths. Since tsarist times, no one has encroached on them, people from all over the country go for treatment, because it’s useful, affordable and there are no analogues in the world since the water is unique .. But what will happen now ... or is the nation’s health not the country's direct security?
              3. +5
                1 November 2015 16: 52
                Quote: Banshee
                In general, Russia is such a unique phenomenon that some things simply have to be under the control of the state. Otherwise, the beginning of lawlessness begins.

                In fact, in general, everything should be under the control of the state. Here, however, control control strife. Everything rests on the personality of the controllers, controllers of controllers and leaders of controllers of controllers, as well as those who control them. These individuals, from here to "heaven", all together, form the structure of state control. The activities of the state are determined by law. The state is the law. And how this law is observed is an indicator of the health and strength of the state. And what difference does it make if the law is violated in one airline (for whose benefit it doesn't matter) or in a dozen? In fact, a set of legislative measures is needed to ensure the safety of transportation (limiting the service life of ships, admission of summer personnel, personal responsibility at all levels, including in permitting structures, etc., etc.), and not solely on the notorious "profitability" and profitability. First life and safety, then money. And compliance with the law. The bottom line is the obligation of the state to stop the ghouls (whoever they are) earning money for the life and health of citizens. If you can't organize it like that, you don't fly. Absolutely. You can - please. At least 10, at least 50 companies, whether you are public or private. And it’s not only in aviation.
            3. +5
              1 November 2015 09: 38
              You do not understand that our market economy and the airline are not appointed by the state, but by PEOPLE voting by the ruble. Especially when it comes to charters. Well, make you airlines buy our new planes, but if they turn out to be uncompetitive, then passengers will still fly other planes, most likely foreign carriers. And our planes will rust, airlines will go bankrupt. The state should not be prohibited and forced, but stimulated. In order for companies to buy domestic aircraft, those must firstly be, not only modern, but also economical. But now the most important thing is not even that. We have crazy loan rates in our country. It is because of this that our companies operate old planes, because for them leasing an 15 summer airplane costs as much as leasing an 5 summer airplane for a European company. It is simply not affordable for us to operate new aircraft. Hence the high accident rate.
              1. +23
                1 November 2015 10: 08
                duck, the author correctly draws attention to the fact that the authorities are stimulating the leasing of foreign used aircraft, absolutely not stimulating their own manufacturer. A very recent topic with Transaero also showed a lot. Of course, the management worked there too, but at least they tried to lease new planes and generally collapsed because of this, but instead of supporting and helping somehow, they took and closed a huge one, which was not bad at all, comparing with the same Kogalymavia company.
                There should be no wild capitalism where everyone survives as best he can. In many industries, even in the west, the state participates in this very market struggle.
                It is a pity for people who die not only from a desire to save money, but also from a negligent attitude of the authorities towards their people.
                1. +8
                  1 November 2015 10: 42
                  Most aircraft are leased, it is a well-established international practice. Aeroflot's superjets are also leased. The state just does not stimulate anything, which is why the old Boeing are leased because the new ones are not affordable and because there are simply no domestic old planes. And new domestic ones are almost equivalent in value to imported ones. If the state wants to develop its own economy, it must solve the problem with credit rates, without which we are not competitive. Air transportation is a prime example.
              2. +1
                1 November 2015 11: 52
                Quote: Cap.Morgan
                Hiring the Chairs.
                Rewrite the property on the mother-in-law. But you never know ...

                Well, yes. "Technical Director - Chief Engineer" - a seasoned inmate will be.
              3. +2
                1 November 2015 11: 59
                Nikolay K RU Today, 09:38 ↑
                "... We have crazy lending rates in our country. It is because of this that our companies operate old aircraft, because leasing a 15-year-old aircraft for them costs the same as leasing a 5-year-old for a European company ..." rubles take a loan?
                1. +4
                  1 November 2015 20: 34
                  And you don’t have to buy a western one; you exchanged your aircraft industry for 30 pieces of silver.
                  They have their own planes, they do not allow to run into a series - corruptible skins. This can be understood, 3% of their ships in the sky and that is the legacy of the Great Motherland! Administrators dragged the country !!! Where did our oligarchs come from - Did the merchants inherit ??? Where is our IL-96 ????
                  1. 0
                    2 November 2015 00: 41
                    Quote: SAN31
                    Where is our IL-96 ????

                    Dear!
                    I beg you, do not rush into the mass accusation of everyone and everything! This has long been clear to hedgehogs that in the real world, commercial profit means everything, well, or almost everything. And everyone seeks to earn more.
                    To the question "why was our aviation industry abandoned?" There is one banal (although unpleasant for me) answer - in the USSR, and then in Russia, the domestic engine building has always lagged behind the Western. Yes it is true, and yes it is regrettable. If in the USSR this was not of particular importance (higher fuel consumption was always compensated by state subsidies), then in modern Russia fuel economy has come to one of the first (if not the first) place. In fact ... having the finest, extremely reliable and unpretentious IL-96, we simultaneously have 10-15% higher fuel consumption, and this is already many, many thousands of "unsaved" money.
                    As a result ... after the collapse of the USSR, it became more profitable for passenger air carriers to buy a Boeing or Airbus, because it provided a significant item to the company's budget on fuel savings every year. No! I'm not saying that there was no need to abandon attempts to modernize Ily. It just turned out that it was economically unprofitable for any company to redesign the same Il-96 for two more powerful and economical engines, like the B-757, or the A-330 (than the 4th in the base modification of Ilyusha). Rather, the design bureau could carry out such a modernization, but the cost of revision and alteration of existing aircraft would result in such a "pretty penny" that no airline would buy it.
                    And yet ... there is a way! And he has long been found! ;)
                    The IL-96s family, or rather, the experience in the production of these aircraft has not been lost and is now being used again. The existing fleet of the 96s began to be redone (according to the defense state order) from tanker planes for the needs of the East Kazakhstan region. The PS-90 engines currently available are being processed to meet increased requirements and meet modern conditions for cost-effectiveness (take at least the PS-90A-76 for the IL-76MD-90A) ... I don’t think in the not too distant future we will hear about the existence of modifications of this engine in the form of (let's say) - PS-90A-96, or whatever it may be. It may also become finite that one of the PD-96 variants will be installed on the IL-14e.
                    In addition ... the creation of a new main airliner is a very troublesome and costly business (in the current conditions) and in order to reduce financial costs it is simply necessary to cooperate with someone. That we are already successfully implementing together with some representatives of other countries in the MS-21 project. In addition, an intergovernmental agreement was signed between Russia and the PRC on the creation by 2020 of a new long-range airliner with 250-320 seats. According to rumors :) untested infa ... but it has the right to exist ... Perm Aviadvigatel has already been instructed to design a new type of turbofan engine with an operating thrust of about 30-35 ton-forces (a direct competitor to the Trent and GE-90 engines) ...
                    So, even after the collapse of the Union, the acquisition of Western airliners was justified, but now the situation has nevertheless (albeit slowly, but still) begun to change.
                    In general ... "wait and see," as they say.
                    :)
                    1. +2
                      3 November 2015 15: 36
                      Quote: doxtop
                      An intergovernmental agreement was signed between Russia and China on the creation by 2020 of a new long-haul airliner with 250-320 seats.

                      Well, well, actually - we’ll give the Chinese the technology for building wide-body aircraft (IL96-300). And that’s all over.
                      doxtop, tell me, where did you get data on the low profitability of IL96-300? The man who once piloted the IL96-300 from Moscow to New York told me that when the American service staff at the New York Airport checked the remaining fuel in the tanks of the IL96-300, I was very surprised at this. These guys said that the Boeing is a classmate of the IL96-300, flies in on crumbs of fuel, and yours has a solid balance. It seems that the low efficiency of our aircraft is a myth that Boeing needs and is organized with their money.
                2. +1
                  2 November 2015 07: 18
                  This is true, the nationalization of the Central Bank is indispensable.
              4. +28
                1 November 2015 12: 41
                If your wife cooks a tasteless soup - this is not a reason to eat at a neighbor's;) There are areas of life where the words "competition", "economy" are inapplicable. ANY foreign equipment with electronics can be turned off at the request of the manufacturer. What, at all, is the economy when it comes to everyday security.
                1. +3
                  1 November 2015 15: 03
                  Quote: Bayun
                  If your wife cooks a tasteless soup - this is not a reason to eat with a neighbor;)
                  Well said ... add only:

                  If your wife cooks a tasteless soup - this is not a reason to eat with a neighbor, and a reason to find a way to teach how to cook delicious !!!
                  1. +3
                    1 November 2015 19: 17
                    Or cook yourself.
                    1. 0
                      2 November 2015 00: 01
                      Quote: housewife
                      Or cook yourself.
                      As they say in taste and color ... so there are enough ways to solve the problem ...
                2. +1
                  2 November 2015 01: 27
                  About soup and wife - it's cool ++++
              5. 0
                1 November 2015 13: 26
                Maybe just the leaders of such companies need to think in their pocket how to fill it up thicker and faster, and about people. Then the cranes will not fall and planes.
                1. +3
                  1 November 2015 15: 37
                  And they just think about people, about themselves and their loved ones, that they will have a lot of due to saving on the safety of others, too, sort of like people.
                2. +3
                  1 November 2015 21: 38
                  The current "leaders" will never think about safety. As well as reducing the cost of transportation.
                  They will not think and their immediate subordinates. There can be no talk at all about TB, or about any kind of social support (well, if only, the promise of a social package of services when hiring). There is only one argument: "If you don't like it, get away! There will be others."
                  Here they are. And, then the crew did not undergo a pre-flight medical examination for alcohol, then the driver of the snow blower left the runway, then ...
                  In principle, even if there will be only one airline in Russia, I am sure that the similar style of work of managers will be the same. An example is Russian Railways !!!
                  The whole system of the current Russian state is a mixture of the worst principles of work under the tsarist, capitalist and socialist system. And without her cardinal change, not a damn good.
                  No references to examples of "developed" countries are appropriate. This is Russia gentlemen !!!
              6. +10
                1 November 2015 14: 16
                Do not confuse a market economy with a selling one. In Russia there is no and there is no market economy, no where in the world there is no such pricing. hi
              7. 0
                1 November 2015 15: 35
                Yes yes - the invisible hand of the market, market economy and other delights. Not to mention democracy. We all vote, who ruble, who ass, and someone listening and eating does not get drunk. State regulation just cuts off the activities of such cheap and insecure companies. Let the planes be ours, let the tickets be more expensive, BUT security is higher.
            4. -4
              1 November 2015 10: 53
              Market monopolization will lead to higher prices. You can of course get airlines to buy new planes. But will you be willing to pay 3x more for air tickets? As you correctly said, transport, especially aviation, is a priority for Russia and its territories. Now imagine, if even now our people soar for several days in a reserved seat carriage or die on our broken highways, because they cannot afford to fly by air, then what "progress" will come if air tickets rise in price three times? The problem is big, but you can't solve it by swinging a checker.
              1. +6
                1 November 2015 12: 19
                Quote: Nikolai K
                Market monopolization will lead to higher prices. You can of course get airlines to buy new planes. But will you be willing to pay 3x more for air tickets? As you correctly said, transport, especially aviation, is a priority for Russia and its territories. Now imagine, if even now our people soar for several days in a reserved seat carriage or die on our broken highways, because they cannot afford to fly by air, then what "progress" will come if air tickets rise in price three times? The problem is big, but you can't solve it by swinging a checker.

                I agree. Russian Railways went along a similar path - they reduced the number of passenger trains, and they are struggling with an influx of passengers ... increasing the fare. The same, quite likely, can happen with Aeroflot ... With an insufficient number of aircraft, there will be a number of people who want to limit.
              2. +8
                1 November 2015 12: 54
                Quote: Nikolai K
                Monopolization of the market will lead to higher prices.

                it all depends on the goal of monopolization, once again in the Union a 12-page notebook cost 2 kopecks even though the market was monopolized
                1. +1
                  1 November 2015 13: 25
                  Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                  Quote: Nikolai K
                  Monopolization of the market will lead to higher prices.

                  it all depends on the goal of monopolization, once again in the Union a 12-page notebook cost 2 kopecks even though the market was monopolized

                  Because no one else produced notebooks. But if you make a couple of state. companies just a few dozen as it is now, it will not save this pair of state. companies from competition with foreign airlines. And they will lose this competition. Look, even now, the price of Aeroflot’s flight, for example to Berlin, is much higher than that of Swiss or AirBerlin.
                  1. +3
                    1 November 2015 13: 27
                    Quote: Your friend
                    Because no one else produced notebooks.

                    why did you write this ?!
                    you yourself understood or most importantly blurt out?
                    1. -7
                      1 November 2015 13: 34
                      Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                      Quote: Your friend
                      Because no one else produced notebooks.

                      why did you write this ?!
                      you yourself understood or most importantly blurt out?

                      This is if you did not understand that in the USSR there was only one manufacturer. If it were 4, 5, 100, then how do you know that 2 cents is not enough, maybe due to competition the price would drop? Maybe her price is 1 kopeck.
                      For the rest, have something to say? Do you distinguish the difference between monopolies in a planned economy and a market economy?
                      1. +8
                        1 November 2015 13: 52
                        Quote: Your friend
                        . If it were 4, 5, 100, then how do you know that 2 cents is not enough, maybe due to competition the price would drop? Maybe her price is 1 kopeck.

                        before writing, find out something on the topic, the cost was about 8 cents, it was simply more profitable for the state to lose here, but to win in another
                        but this can only happen when everything is in one hand, otherwise each owner thinks about the benefit and the benefits of others eat on the drum.
                        and it was profitable for the state to lose "6 kopecks" but win a "ruble"

                        what would you be aware of the monopolist (USSR) dated the entire range of children
                      2. -2
                        1 November 2015 14: 05
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        Quote: Your friend
                        . If it were 4, 5, 100, then how do you know that 2 cents is not enough, maybe due to competition the price would drop? Maybe her price is 1 kopeck.

                        before writing, find out something on the topic, the cost was about 8 cents, it was simply more profitable for the state to lose here, but to win in another
                        but this can only happen when everything is in one hand, otherwise each owner thinks about the benefit and the benefits of others eat on the drum.
                        and it was profitable for the state to lose "6 kopecks" but win a "ruble"

                        The link is to the cost of 8kop., I did not find?
                        And what does this prove? Only that no one was thinking about cutting costs because there were monopolies everywhere.
                        and it was profitable for the state to lose "6 kopecks" but to win a "ruble" so that you would be aware of the monopolist (USSR) dated the entire children's assortment

                        And the state would not be more profitable to pay people so much money that they had enough to pay 8 kopecks. for a notebook and an undated "children's assortment"?
                      3. +4
                        1 November 2015 14: 26
                        Quote: Your friend
                        The link is to the cost of 8kop., I did not find?

                        from reliable sources laughing
                        you think that only info is posted here from neta, be surprised, but no
                        I don’t know how to give you a link to the knowledge gained in the USSR
                      4. -1
                        1 November 2015 14: 32
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        Quote: Your friend
                        The link is to the cost of 8kop., I did not find?

                        from reliable sources laughing
                        you think that only info is posted here from neta, be surprised, but no
                        I don’t know how to give you a link to the knowledge gained in the USSR

                        Clearly understood.
                        Give me knowledge not from the Internet, you write cleverness, in which book of the Soviet times there is information about the cost of notebooks?
                      5. +5
                        1 November 2015 14: 45
                        Quote: Your friend
                        Give me knowledge not from the Internet, you write cleverness, in which book of the Soviet times there is information about the cost of notebooks?

                        don’t play the fool, the uncle of the direct notebook factory in Almaty, the mother was engaged in the design of light industry enterprises, you will be surprised but the person receives knowledge from different sources
                      6. 0
                        1 November 2015 14: 49
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        Quote: Your friend
                        Give me knowledge not from the Internet, you write cleverness, in which book of the Soviet times there is information about the cost of notebooks?

                        don’t play the fool, the uncle of the direct notebook factory in Almaty, the mother was engaged in the design of light industry enterprises, you will be surprised but the person receives knowledge from different sources

                        Clearly, there are no official data.
                        Seriously, I somewhere argued that only one source needs data to be taken? Rave
                      7. +1
                        1 November 2015 14: 46
                        Quote: Your friend
                        Is there information on the cost of notebooks?

                        Feasibility study polygraph enterprises, look
                      8. -3
                        1 November 2015 14: 48
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        Feasibility study polygraph enterprises

                        What kind of TechEcObosn. polygraph enterprises? Is this a magazine? What year?
                      9. +2
                        1 November 2015 15: 06
                        you checkered or go?
                        The feasibility study is done for the projects of various enterprises, there they will find all the information you are interested in, including the cost of production
                        and please don’t turn on the fool.
                        By the way, you never said how old you are.
                      10. -1
                        1 November 2015 15: 11
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        you checkered or go?
                        The feasibility study is done for the projects of various enterprises, there they will find all the information you are interested in, including the cost of production
                        and please don’t turn on the fool.
                        By the way, you never said how old you are.

                        Do you know how yap differs from a normal person? The fact that yap is not responsible for what he carries. (
                        You said that the cost of the notebook is "8 kopecks.", You did not give a single proof, but I "turn on the fool." Lovely.)
                        I will answer you again, why do you need to know how old I am?
                      11. +2
                        1 November 2015 15: 13
                        Quote: Your friend
                        Do you know how yap differs from a normal person? The fact that yap is not responsible for what he carries ...
                        You declare

                        Tell me, do you have anything to do with printing ?!
                        and all so how old are you I'm just wondering if you lived with the union or not
                      12. 0
                        1 November 2015 15: 17
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        Quote: Your friend
                        Do you know how yap differs from a normal person? The fact that yap is not responsible for what he carries ...
                        You declare

                        Tell me in relation to printing?
                        and all so how old are you I'm just wondering if you lived with the union or not

                        Oh my god, what do I have to do with printing or not. What does this have to do with data on the cost of a notebook of 8 kopecks?
                        Yes, I lived under the USSR, how will this information help you?
                      13. +1
                        1 November 2015 15: 23
                        Quote: Your friend

                        Oh my god, what do I have to do with printing or not. What does this have to do with data on the cost of a notebook of 8 kopecks?
                        Yes, I lived under the USSR, how will this information help you?

                        to the fact that, unlike you, I have worked in this industry for 20 years and I’m talking about it as if from the inside you can’t distinguish offset paper from newsprint, but at the same time you’re clever how old you are
                      14. -2
                        1 November 2015 15: 32
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        Quote: Your friend

                        Oh my god, what do I have to do with printing or not. What does this have to do with data on the cost of a notebook of 8 kopecks?
                        Yes, I lived under the USSR, how will this information help you?

                        to the fact that, unlike you, I have worked in this industry for 20 years and I’m talking about it as if from the inside you can’t distinguish offset paper from newsprint, but at the same time you’re clever how old you are

                        This is a complete bdzets, once again I am already writing, you did not provide evidence of YOUR data that the cost of a notebook is 8kop, and at the same time I am "clever" ???)))
                        "how old are you" - what about your perception? I replied that I lived in the USSR. Why do you need my exact age? How does this help you?
                      15. +1
                        1 November 2015 15: 41
                        "respected"
                        once again find the design documentation of a profile enterprise of the USSR period
                        and you have a full bzdets or not at all somehow violet
                        our problem is that amateurs like you undertake to discuss topics that even by ear do not know
                      16. -3
                        1 November 2015 15: 50
                        No no. This is a real bzdets.))) Not amateurs with us can not provide confirmation of THEIR data. Not amateurs, we believe that in the USSR they reduced the cost of goods by building "enterprises of the light industry and local industry whose main task was to provide employment and not profit."
                        But this is certainly not a problem, the patamushta is "violet".)))
                      17. +1
                        1 November 2015 15: 53
                        sorry, but you are stubborn like a ram
                        you will not find this data in nete personal knowledge of specific people you consider fiction
                        fat to be discus finished
                        if it’s very interesting, find the archives of the State Planning Commission
                        no, consider that the union had two varieties of sausages, etc.

                      18. -2
                        1 November 2015 15: 59
                        sorry but go to the ass

                        The post was changed, but I saw everything.
                        Ay-ay. Such an adult, an integral marshal, and so uncivilized. (((
                        But "not an amateur". lol
                        Again twenty-five, where I thought that "there are two varieties of sausages in the union"? Where did I write it?
                        sorry, but you are stubborn like a ram

                        Are you in trouble with your head? I only ask you to give me a source, a SPECIFIC source, where these "8 kopecks." are counted. What knowledge of specific people, what kind of nonsense.
                      19. -1
                        1 November 2015 16: 09
                        Quote: Your friend
                        but I saw everything.
                        Ay-ay. Such an adult, an integral marshal, and so uncivilized. (((
                        But "not an amateur".

                        I'm happy
                        http://natribu.org
                      20. 0
                        1 November 2015 16: 12
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        Quote: Your friend
                        but I saw everything.
                        Ay-ay. Such an adult, an integral marshal, and so uncivilized. (((
                        But "not an amateur".

                        I'm happy
                        http://natribu.org

                        Ahahahaha ... but there is nothing about "8 kopecks." ?!
                        Hell, you screwed up with the source of your knowledge again, you are not our amateur.
                      21. 0
                        1 November 2015 16: 31
                        for you have
                        The source of knowledge I told you, he will not suit you, all are free
                      22. -1
                        1 November 2015 16: 45
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        for you have
                        The source of knowledge I told you, he will not suit you, all are free

                        What is "for you", Marshal? Delirious again. You pointed it out to me, this is your source of knowledge. Again, from a sore head to a healthy one. Not good.
                        The source, the grandmother in the yard said, and the site http://natribu.org, of course does not suit, somehow in amateurish, you are not an amateur.
                        "everyone, free" - what a touchy marshal)))
                      23. 0
                        1 November 2015 17: 30
                        factory director is a grandmother ?!
                        the person who designed the light industry enterprises is a grandmother ?!

                        Once again, you are talking to a person who knows this industry, but you can’t distinguish offset printing from high printing and at the same time try to be clever
                      24. -3
                        1 November 2015 18: 46
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        factory director is a grandmother ?!
                        the person who designed the light industry enterprises is a grandmother ?!

                        Once again, you are talking to a person who knows this industry, but you can’t distinguish offset printing from high printing and at the same time try to be clever

                        Granny, of course.) How can you believe a person who claims that in the USSR, light and local industry enterprises were built to "provide employment".)
                        Who writes that "unlike today's prices and wages during the union, they were just grounded and calculated" - fucking grounded and calculated - that they had to sell notebooks 4 times cheaper than their cost.)
                        I have no doubt about your knowledge of "the difference between offset and high printing".)))
                        By the way, please indicate where I am "clever".
                      25. +1
                        2 November 2015 07: 50
                        Who do you work for?
                      26. -1
                        2 November 2015 11: 29
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        Who do you work for?

                        I’m waiting for everything when I answer my questions:
                        once again for those who in the tank the children's assortment in the USSR was dated ALL

                        where did I argue with you that the children's assortment was dated or not dated?
                        no, consider that the union had two varieties of sausages, etc.

                        Again twenty-five, where I thought that "there are two varieties of sausages in the union"? Where did I write it?
                      27. +4
                        2 November 2015 01: 31
                        "Which Soviet-era book contains information about the cost of notebooks?" - open any accounting department of the boom of the plant and you will understand - everything is transparent and understandable there
                      28. -4
                        2 November 2015 11: 22
                        Quote: viktor561
                        "Which Soviet-era book contains information about the cost of notebooks?" - open any accounting department of the boom of the plant and you will understand - everything is transparent and understandable there

                        Who are you to poke me?
                        "Any accounting department is booming" - do you have it, do you have data on 8kop? If not, why are you bothering with your advice?)
                      29. +1
                        2 November 2015 13: 41
                        Clung to "8 kopecks." the topic of discussion was completely taken away !!!
                      30. -1
                        2 November 2015 14: 48
                        Quote: AlexeyL
                        Clung to "8 kopecks." the topic of discussion was completely taken away !!!

                        Those. the one who mentioned the first about 8 cops, he wrote on the topic, but I mean hooked. Ischo one wise guy.)
                      31. +2
                        1 November 2015 14: 30
                        Quote: Your friend
                        And the state would not be more profitable to pay people so much money that they have enough to pay 8 kopecks.

                        sorry write nonsense, I hope why you will understand for yourself, by the way, unlike today's prices and salaries at the union, they were justified and calculated
                        another example in the SA were built enterprises of light industry and the local industry whose main task was to ensure employment and not profit
                        as a result of losing on this in general the state won having employment and relieving social tension,
                      32. -2
                        1 November 2015 14: 40
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        Quote: Your friend
                        And the state would not be more profitable to pay people so much money that they have enough to pay 8 kopecks.

                        sorry write nonsense, I hope why you will understand for yourself, by the way, unlike today's prices and salaries at the union, they were justified and calculated
                        another example in the SA were built enterprises of light industry and the local industry whose main task was to ensure employment and not profit
                        as a result of losing on this in general the state won having employment and relieving social tension,

                        Yes, yes, I already understood, "I am stupidity", you are clever.
                        Seriously, enterprises were built to "provide employment", and not to produce goods necessary for the country ??? Just think what kind of leadership there was in the USSR, truly Samaritans.
                        Yeah, everything was calculated, social. the tension was removed, the state won - and as soon as the USSR collapsed, surprisingly. Oh yes, the traitors who sold themselves for cookies collapsed.
                      33. +1
                        1 November 2015 14: 32
                        Quote: Your friend
                        and the undated "children's assortment"?

                        actually it was dated and not vice versa
                        Quote: Your friend
                        Just the fact that no one was thinking about cutting costs because there were monopolies everywhere.

                        you will be surprised but just then thought
                        how old are you?
                      34. -1
                        1 November 2015 14: 44
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        Quote: Your friend
                        and the undated "children's assortment"?

                        actually it was dated and not vice versa
                        Quote: Your friend
                        Just the fact that no one was thinking about cutting costs because there were monopolies everywhere.

                        you will be surprised but just then thought
                        how old are you?

                        Read carefully what I am writing to you. I wrote to you that maybe it was worth the salary. raise so people can buy undated "baby assortment", what's not clear to you?
                        We did not think about cost reduction. You yourself wrote:
                        another example in the SA were built enterprises of light industry and the local industry whose main task was to ensure employment and not profit

                        This is a super mega cost reduction)))) You wouldn’t contradict yourself.
                        Why do you need my age?
                      35. +4
                        1 November 2015 19: 48
                        What kind of salary increase can we talk about if all the time prices were cut at enterprises? As soon as they started to produce something more than the notorious 102%, they reduced their prices - otherwise the workers would get too much money!
                      36. +1
                        3 November 2015 01: 05
                        Well today, then, as I understand it, they raise prices! Or increase the rate?
                      37. +2
                        1 November 2015 21: 09
                        Quote: Your friend
                        This is a super mega cost reduction)))) You wouldn’t contradict yourself.

                        I understand with an understanding of the reading of the problem?
                      38. -3
                        1 November 2015 21: 16
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        Quote: Your friend
                        This is a super mega cost reduction)))) You wouldn’t contradict yourself.

                        I understand with an understanding of the reading of the problem?

                        So yes, you have a "reading understanding of the problem".
                      39. +4
                        1 November 2015 21: 17
                        I’m typing into the blind, you understand what I’m talking about, but since you are just trolling, you cling to everything
                        once again do not know the topic quietly unscrew
                      40. -5
                        1 November 2015 21: 29
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        I’m typing into the blind, you understand what I’m talking about, but since you are just trolling, you cling to everything
                        once again do not know the topic quietly unscrew

                        I’ll cheat on you, since you’re so slow-witted. Here is your phrase:
                        enterprises of light industry and local industry were built in the SA, the main task of which was to ensure employment and not profit

                        Those. according to your phrase, in the USSR, an enterprise is not being built where it is profitable and where it is possible to produce goods the country needs (where there is good transport accessibility, affordable and close raw materials, trained personnel - that is, the cost of goods is reduced), but where it is necessary " provide employment. " Thus, during the construction of these enterprises, no cost reduction occurs. Ferstein?
                        So what about "8 kopecks.", Are you our expert on the topic and not an amateur?)
                        "quietly back off" - but what is it, Marshal, and you behave yourself so cattle, it's not good.)

                        PS. It's funny that the person was the first to write - "as I understand it, with the understanding of reading the problem?", And when the answer is the same to him - it is trolling. What's a man with a head ...)
                      41. +3
                        1 November 2015 21: 37
                        Quote: Your friend
                        Those. according to your phrase, in the USSR the enterprise is not built where it is profitable and it is possible to produce goods that the country needs

                        excuse me, but you are really either stupid or stubborn, the lack of social tension is the same financial benefit on a statewide scale, only it is expressed not in the production of goods, but in the reduction of the criminal situation and the pressure on interethnic relations.
                        goods were produced and at the same time a different task was being solved, but this is not possible in today's conditions
                        Quote: Your friend
                        So what about "8 kopecks.", Are you our expert on the topic and not an amateur?)

                        no all the same are stupid and not stubborn
                        these are two different topics, albeit from the same area
                        once again for those who in the tank the assortment of children in the USSR was dated EVERYTHING and put me with a part, believe it or not, you can find the info or not, it's just an existing fact, the whole topic is closed to argue with a brow who really doesn’t understand a thing in the subject no
                      42. -4
                        1 November 2015 21: 52
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        Quote: Your friend
                        Those. according to your phrase, in the USSR the enterprise is not built where it is profitable and it is possible to produce goods that the country needs

                        excuse me, but you are really either stupid or stubborn, the lack of social tension is the same financial benefit on a statewide scale, only it is expressed not in the production of goods, but in the reduction of the criminal situation and the pressure on interethnic relations.
                        goods were produced and at the same time a different task was being solved, but this is not possible in today's conditions
                        Quote: Your friend
                        So what about "8 kopecks.", Are you our expert on the topic and not an amateur?)

                        no all the same are stupid and not stubborn
                        these are two different topics, albeit from the same area
                        once again for those who in the tank the assortment of children in the USSR was dated EVERYTHING and put me with a part, believe it or not, you can find the info or not, it's just an existing fact, the whole topic is closed to argue with a brow who really doesn’t understand a thing in the subject no


                        Ahahahaha ... What ???? Are you raving ??? What are you talking about, what kind of criminogenic situation, what interethnic problems, what kind of social. tension ??? These were our specialists in light industry, which dealt with interethnic problems, and not light industry. Everything's clear with you.(
                        Do you have something with your head, show me where I argued with you that the children's assortment was dated or not dated? You need to be seriously treated.
                      43. +3
                        1 November 2015 21: 59
                        Quote: Your friend
                        Ahahahaha ... What ???? Are you raving ??? What are you talking about, what kind of criminogenic situation, what interethnic problems, what kind of social. tension ???

                        stupid stupid
                        earlier, these same Uzbeks and Tajiks were employed, including at "unnecessary" enterprises in your understanding, and now they are all in Russia, including in the criminal space
                        I'm generally interested in having you ever done a product cost calculation?
                      44. -3
                        1 November 2015 22: 08
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        Quote: Your friend
                        Ahahahaha ... What ???? Are you raving ??? What are you talking about, what kind of criminogenic situation, what interethnic problems, what kind of social. tension ???

                        stupid stupid
                        earlier, these same Uzbeks and Tajiks were employed, including at "unnecessary" enterprises in your understanding, and now they are all in Russia, including in the criminal space
                        I'm generally interested in having you ever done a product cost calculation?

                        Really, you need to be treated, well, what Uzbeks, what Tajiks. What is my understanding? Where did I talk about "unnecessary" in my understanding of the enterprise "? Are you delusional again?)))
                        You ignored this, as always:
                        Do you have something with your head, show me where I argued with you that the children's assortment was dated or not dated?

                        ALL the topic is closed to argue with the brow who really does not understand a damn topic does not make sense

                        I'm generally interested in having you ever done a product cost calculation?

                        You have big problems with your head, then you want one thing, and then you want the opposite)))
                      45. +2
                        2 November 2015 21: 35
                        Quote: Your friend
                        And the state would not be more profitable to pay people so much money that they had enough to pay 8 kopecks. for a notebook and an undated "children's assortment"?

                        Not more profitable. Salary growth in those conditions was almost the only engine of inflation. Therefore, enterprises could not jump above the size of wage funds. But everyone who wanted this could live well, the rest could not be afraid of tomorrow.
                      46. -2
                        2 November 2015 23: 54
                        Quote: bot.su
                        Quote: Your friend
                        And the state would not be more profitable to pay people so much money that they had enough to pay 8 kopecks. for a notebook and an undated "children's assortment"?

                        Not more profitable. Salary growth in those conditions was almost the only engine of inflation. Therefore, enterprises could not jump above the size of wage funds. But everyone who wanted this could live well, the rest could not be afraid of tomorrow.

                        Yes? But wasn’t the lack of consumer goods the driving force behind inflation?
                        More profitable or not more profitable, nevertheless zp in the USSR grew.
                      47. 0
                        3 November 2015 18: 00
                        Consumer Product Lack - Inflation? How?

                        Salaries grew according to plan, the planned economy. But still, for each enterprise there was an approved (regularly approved) payroll.
                      48. 0
                        3 November 2015 22: 44
                        Quote: bot.su
                        Consumer Product Lack - Inflation? How?

                        Salaries grew according to plan, the planned economy. But still, for each enterprise there was an approved (regularly approved) payroll.

                        And where did they grow according to plan or did not grow. You wrote that it was not profitable for the state to raise the charge. charge due to inflation. And it was periodically raised. Although the term "inflation" itself looks oddly dismissive of a planned economy.)
                        There is a lot of money - there is not enough goods. Remember these stores are "commission". What kind of "commission" prices were there for a scarce commodity, and what state. the prices were for this product, which was not in ordinary stores or it was quickly bought up. Remember the prices for meat in the markets and in the state. stores. Remember the state. auto prices and auto sales prices according to advertisements.
                        http://afanarizm.livejournal.com/274525.html
                      49. 0
                        4 November 2015 20: 09
                        Quote: Your friend
                        Although the term "inflation" itself looks oddly dismissive of a planned economy.)

                        Why is he strange?
                        Quote: Your friend
                        And where did they grow according to plan or did not grow. You wrote that it was not profitable for the state to raise the charge. fee due to inflation. And she was periodically raised

                        The amount of cash on hand at the population was strictly regulated in accordance with the mass of cash goods and services.

                        Quote: Your friend
                        There is a lot of money - there is not enough goods.

                        Once again, there was exactly as much money as goods. There are many people - there are few goods, here is the deficit formula. Due to distortions in the economy, but it is not fatal. Nobody was dying of hunger and lack of clothing and the range was growing. In commissions, as far as I remember - to Gorbachev, of course - prices were often even lower than in state trade. We thought it was a second-hand, in modern language. Perhaps in large cities it was not so, but then I lived in a small laughing With the collapse of the union, the situation began to change with us.
                      50. 0
                        4 November 2015 21: 23
                        Why is he strange?

                        Brrrr ... If as you say:
                        The amount of cash on hand at the population was strictly regulated in accordance with the mass of cash goods and services.

                        how can it be that "the growth of wages in those conditions was almost the only engine of inflation." According to your statement, the increase in wages should be offset by an increase in the mass of goods and services, so "there was exactly as much money as there was goods." Inflation, based on your statements, should not be.
                        Inflation (lat. Inflatio - bloating) - increasing the level of prices for goods and services. With inflation for the same amount of money after some time, it will be possible to buy less goods and services than before. In this case, they say that over the past time the purchasing power of money has decreased, money has depreciated - they have lost part of their real value.
                        Once again, there was exactly as much money as goods.

                        Of course of course. Now we have 100 rubles of money, and the amount of goods that we have is 5 carrots, tomorrow we printed another 900 rubles, but we had 5 carrots as we had. But today and tomorrow we "had exactly as much money as goods." It's just that today one carrot costs 20 rubles, and tomorrow 200).
                        Do you have any links that your statement is true?
                        There are many people - there are few goods, here is the deficit formula.

                        You seriously wrote this ??? And there are "many people" here? Deficit is the excess of aggregate demand over aggregate supply. Although there will be a billion people and few goods, if they do not have money, then the goods will not become a shortage. According to your statement, it turns out that since there are few diamonds, and there are a lot of people and there are not enough diamonds for all, diamonds are in short supply. Here it is.)
                        Due to distortions in the economy, but it is not fatal. Nobody was dying of hunger and lack of clothing and the range was growing. In commissions, as far as I remember - to Gorbachev, of course - prices were often even lower than in state trade. We thought it was a second-hand, in modern language. Perhaps in large cities it was not so, but then I lived in shallow laughing. With the collapse of the union, the situation began to change with us.

                        These are all lyrics, and in the USSR they were dying of hunger (hunger of 32-33, and hunger of 46-47, it is clear that after the war, but it was), and in stores, with the "growth of assortment", there were sprat, matches and seaweed on the shelves ...
                      51. -1
                        1 November 2015 18: 56
                        If you follow your logic, should the state subsidize air transportation? At whose expense, doctors, army, road construction? You understand that in this world nothing arises from emptiness, including money. Well, there is still the option to raise personal income tax. Will it become easier for you if the air tickets get cheaper, but your salary will decrease by the same amount?
                      52. 0
                        1 November 2015 21: 11
                        Quote: Nikolai K
                        You understand that in this world nothing arises from emptiness, including money

                        in today's conditions it couldn’t be possible to do this only when there was a single owner and created the most optimal balance by redistributing financial flows
                      53. 0
                        3 November 2015 13: 32
                        We have Gazprom a monopolist in the market for gas production (more than 90%), its transportation and export (100%). You want to say that Gazprom is working efficiently? Or, moreover, the company knows how to make money out of nothing, just like that and gas is free for everyone?
                      54. 0
                        3 November 2015 13: 32
                        We have Gazprom a monopolist in the market for gas production (more than 90%), its transportation and export (100%). You want to say that Gazprom is working efficiently? Or, moreover, the company knows how to make money out of nothing, just like that and gas is free for everyone?
                      55. +1
                        3 November 2015 00: 51
                        Your friend! Today, several oil companies. And gasoline is getting more expensive. Enlighten them about competition. They probably don’t know this.
                      56. -1
                        3 November 2015 01: 36
                        Quote: 34 region
                        Your friend! Today, several oil companies. And gasoline is getting more expensive. Enlighten them about competition. They probably don’t know this.

                        Hahahaha ... What? Today, Gazprom is a monopolist, and gas is getting more expensive. But you probably don’t know this.
                        Did you consult a doctor on my advice? Do not tighten.)))
                  2. +10
                    1 November 2015 13: 53
                    For comparison, you need to know how many yachts and villas our leaders bought themselves and German. After all, we have always overstated both the cost of fuel, and the cost of airport services and the airline itself. The whole point is this, and then the economy is coming. The most important thing for our businessman is to quickly fill your pocket and spit on everything thicker.
                    1. +1
                      1 November 2015 14: 19
                      Matches in the USSR cost 1 kopeck. How much was the cost of 1 box of matches? About 10 kopecks.
                      1. -7
                        1 November 2015 14: 29
                        Quote: sabakina
                        Matches in the USSR cost 1 kopeck. How much was the cost of 1 box of matches? About 10 kopecks.

                        So what? It only says that the monopolist in the USSR set what price he wanted.
                        "The cost price of a VAZ car, which was in 1972..1975. This is no more than 1950 rubles.
                        The retail price for the buyer was about 5500 rubles ... 6000 rubles. "
                        So what? It only says that the monopolist in the USSR set what price he wanted.
                      2. +2
                        1 November 2015 19: 14
                        The State Planning Commission calculated the cost of goods and services in the USSR, and despite the cost, socially significant products were sold cheaply, and what was equated with luxury and were not vital goods, they were sold much more expensive, but with the layout of the annual plan, indicators were always balanced, well, that those who are not able to decipher the feasibility study - a feasibility study, may not understand this and pour in full pseudo-economic terms.
                      3. -2
                        1 November 2015 19: 53
                        Quote: nov_tech.vrn
                        The State Planning Commission calculated the cost of goods and services in the USSR, and despite the cost, socially significant products were sold cheaply, and what was equated with luxury and were not vital goods, they were sold much more expensive, but with the layout of the annual plan, indicators were always balanced, well, that those who are not able to decipher the feasibility study - a feasibility study, may not understand this and pour in full pseudo-economic terms.

                        Are you talking to me? Where did I pour in "pseudo-economic terms", show me? Where am I "unable to decipher the feasibility study", show me? Let you not ascribe and invent to me what I did not say.
                        What does your passage have to do with the topic of our discussion with the marshal?
                      4. +3
                        1 November 2015 22: 14
                        Quote: sabakina
                        How much was the cost of 1 box of matches? About 10 kopecks.

                        Girl, what mushrooms did you eat? The cost of packing a match was less than 1 penny. The USSR produced them in hundreds of millions, so stop raving!
                    2. +1
                      1 November 2015 14: 25
                      Quote: perm23
                      For comparison, you need to know how many yachts and villas our leaders bought themselves and German. After all, we have always overstated both the cost of fuel, and the cost of airport services and the airline itself. The whole point is this, and then the economy is coming. The most important thing for our businessman is to quickly fill your pocket and spit on everything thicker.

                      Do you think German leaders offend themselves?
                      Strange, global airlines fly to our airports and no one overstates them and their prices are lower than those of Russian.
                      So all the same, it's not about leasing and old planes, but about our "leaders", you yourself wrote that.
                      1. Mwg
                        +2
                        1 November 2015 20: 20
                        Yeah, they have lower prices. However, the Germans stopped feeding passengers on the airlines, and if you want some water, buy from a Stuart at their price. And you can’t carry with you - anti-terrorism security. And you want to take insurance, but you do not want to take it, but you want to take incomplete. But to put everything in a heap, it doesn’t turn out very cheaply and cheaply.
                      2. 0
                        1 November 2015 21: 07
                        Quote: MVG
                        Yeah, they have lower prices. However, the Germans stopped feeding passengers on the airlines, and if you want some water, buy from a Stuart at their price. And you can’t carry with you - anti-terrorism security. And you want to take insurance, but you do not want to take it, but you want to take incomplete. But to put everything in a heap, it doesn’t turn out very cheaply and cheaply.

                        Seriously? Lufthansa flew to Barcelona last NG (with a change, it’s true, but by the way 2 times cheaper than direct Aeroflot). They fed and watered. I don’t know, maybe now what has changed. But we can’t carry water through the inspection either, what a claim to the Germans. By the way, we also have companies that do not feed and do not drink.
                2. +2
                  1 November 2015 18: 49
                  The declared goal of monopolization is to remove companies with an old fleet from the market. Accordingly, a monopoly with new (expensive) aircraft remains on the market. She will naturally raise ticket prices and quite reasonably, since she has a high cost price. There are no miracles.
                  1. -2
                    1 November 2015 19: 05
                    Quote: Nikolai K
                    The declared goal of monopolization is to remove companies with an old fleet from the market. Accordingly, a monopoly with new (expensive) aircraft remains on the market. She will naturally raise ticket prices and quite reasonably, since she has a high cost price. There are no miracles.

                    As if, if you make one company, then some other people will start working in it, who will stop stealing, those. service and repairs will rise to unattainable heights, and service will be at the level of Qatar Airways.
                3. +2
                  1 November 2015 21: 52
                  Maybe you will find out the current price for this notebook, and then you will calculate how much you could buy then and how much now, let’s say the salary of an engineer.
                  But then the state was engaged in this, and now there are a bunch of rather small companies profiting from "privatized" paper mills and printing houses.
                  1. -5
                    1 November 2015 21: 54
                    Quote: cuzmin.mihail2013
                    Maybe you will find out the current price for this notebook, and then you will calculate how much you could buy then and how much now, let’s say the salary of an engineer.

                    One more. Why should I do this? What does this have to do with cost
                    notebooks?
                    But then the state was engaged in this, and now there are a bunch of rather small companies profiting from "privatized" paper mills and printing houses.

                    Do you want to wipe yourself with a newspaper, as did most of the country then, and not with toilet paper?
                    1. +1
                      3 November 2015 01: 30
                      Why paper? There is water!
                      1. -1
                        3 November 2015 01: 37
                        Quote: 34 region
                        Why paper? There is water!

                        To the doctor!)
                  2. 0
                    1 November 2015 21: 57
                    then more if you take a salary of 30000 thousand
                4. -1
                  3 November 2015 13: 43
                  Do not confuse capitalist monopoly with the state economy of the USSR. In the first case, the company's goal is to maximize profits and in the vast majority of cases it is achieved by setting high prices. In the second case, the goal of the company is the production of what is prescribed above, the effectiveness or profitability of the production does not matter. Because notebooks can even be distributed free of charge, if ordered, and then they will heat the stoves. We in the USSR had stories when pigs were fed with cheap bread. And heads of state-owned companies strive to steal more, because again, personally, they don’t give a damn about the final financial result. If you have already forgotten the history of the Soviet era, you can look at the current Gazprom. What inevitably comes an economy built not on the principles of efficiency, but on the implementation of someone’s authoritative decisions, we have already seen on the example of the collapse of the USSR. Apparently you liked it, do you want to repeat it again?
            5. +6
              1 November 2015 11: 17
              You see, we managed to separate just (at least in railway transport) freight and passenger transportation. THIS IS NOW 2 DIFFERENT COMPANIES. When they were in one and the transportation of 4 passengers in the village was compensated. "Conditional name" on a 4-car electric train. Now, the passenger side is heavily unprofitable. "Managers" do not know how to do otherwise and cut routes. or pull government subsidies.
            6. +4
              1 November 2015 11: 49
              That's right ... they split up the branches ... they left only revenue parts for themselves, and subsidized and socially significant ones ... while there was one pocket it was not noticeable, expenses were compensated by incomes in other places.
              In Siberia, air travel that now a fixed-route taxi was ... not much more expensive than a bus ... but many times faster.
            7. +3
              1 November 2015 13: 36
              Quote: Enot-poloskun
              Transport for Russia (rail, air, etc.) is not just a branch, but in no small measure a means of ensuring economic growth and development of the country!

              Transport is everything! For any country. This was understood even in ancient Rome, paving the road wherever the legions passed. Efremov was right — without knowledge of history, humanity is doomed to repeat its mistakes.
            8. +4
              1 November 2015 14: 04
              Totally agree with you. And I want to add that not only transport, but also all enterprises and industries responsible for the direct security of the country should be under the strict control of the state other than the state - Russia will get tryndets.
            9. +2
              1 November 2015 14: 59
              Raccoon-strip. In the last sentence: Transport in Russia, should be under state control, I would add: AND BE STATE.
            10. +3
              1 November 2015 16: 04
              It must be said once and for all: transport in Russia is for people and for the development of the economy. Transport in Russia - should be under state control.

              Everything was --- ruined with the same slogans only about the great "MARKET"!
              Now, too, but at 180 degrees!
            11. +4
              1 November 2015 18: 33
              Enot Poloskun (3)I agree, in view of its peculiarity, Russia, railway, as well as air transport is strategic for the country and, therefore, should be only state!
            12. +3
              1 November 2015 21: 57
              Quote: Enot-poloskun
              Transport for Russia (rail, air, etc.) is not just a branch, but in no small measure a means of ensuring economic growth and development of the country!

              troops what are you lucky with? transport is a strategic industry under strict state control ...
            13. +3
              2 November 2015 04: 18
              Quote: Enot-poloskun
              It must be said once and for all: transport in Russia is for people and for the development of the economy. Transport in Russia - should be under state control.

              I would allow you to say a little differently, Transport, and its communications, should relate to strategic objects, because they provide national security. It is enough to recall the state of emergency with refueling (or rather, with failure) of the aircraft of the Russian Armed Forces during the exercises at one of the civil airfields in the Far East several years ago. This is what Entrepreneurship and Private Business leads to. Everything that is in the bowels should belong to the state, and not to a gang of swindlers, the same applies to transport and transportation.
              You just look at the railway transportation, this is a full scribe, the railway hires automobile transport companies to transport them foam plastic, and rolls of linen to replace the railway linen. Scribe, insanity is growing stronger. And what are the wagons, of any type, belonging to such as Kagalymavia? All on "snot" and wire twists. This is how we, gentlemen, live, balancing over the abyss because of the greed of our businessmen.
              A familiar businessman told me somehow. I won’t get up from the couch if the profit is less than 50%.
          2. +5
            1 November 2015 13: 19
            Yes, for that matter, then everything must be returned to the state, not only the defense industry and aviation ...
            1. +1
              1 November 2015 13: 54
              It's about time.
          3. +3
            1 November 2015 15: 53
            Perhaps the number of domestic flights does not need to be increased, but the fleet should be updated to domestic. The issue of the profitability of domestic air transportation, of course, cannot be resolved right away, but, finally, we need to start producing our own aircraft.
          4. 0
            4 November 2015 04: 01
            Today, if we evaluate transport, and not only, even the military-industrial complex is guilty of this, making a profit at any cost is at the forefront. No wonder now "Kagalymavia" foaming at the mouth are carrying out the idea that the plane died as a result of external damage. They also need to support their image, no matter how blasphemous it may look, otherwise the authorities put an end to their activities. Although Aeroflot is not far ahead. Especially when CEO Saveliev (also a top manager), who really cares for Boeings, and for his own pocket, of course. This is above all. The author of the article is absolutely right, domestic aircraft manufacturers should work, not Boeing and Airbus. I'd like to see the presence of the navy, which was squandered by shipowners who fled from "unwashed Russia", as one of them put it. Part of the former USSR fleet is waiting for its fate to be cut up somewhere in Bangladesh, and the remnants have joined the Mongolian! sea ​​power. And once the fleet was the pride of the country and our flag was respected everywhere! All is not lost on the railway, but there are also unhealthy tendencies. It is not too late to stop them. As for the military-industrial complex, here I have many opponents in the military-industrial complex, but still, as long as there is such a structure as "Oboronexport", our army and navy will not become stronger. Elementary, the replenishment of new weapons in their armed forces is secondary, everything is at the mercy of exports, everyone who is not too lazy to pay. I do not argue, a profitable place, the main thing for the layman is to savor the billions of the parish, he is not interested in anything else. And the fact that instead of the planned "Alligators" that went to Egypt, it will be necessary to extend the service life of worn-out crocodiles - there is almost no word about this. Only then will everyone grieve that the helicopter fall has begun again.
          5. 0
            13 November 2015 18: 33
            Aeroflot killed transporter ahead and ticket prices for Vladivostok residents soared 3 times because of Aeroflot, and if he alone will carry all the money we have for tickets is not enough
        2. +9
          1 November 2015 08: 56
          Quote: Enot-poloskun
          18 years the plane was operated! And most of them are abroad!

          18 years is not much, but how the machine was monitored here and there is a question
          1. +8
            1 November 2015 09: 15
            If the car has changed the 4 owners for these 18 years ... Draw an analogy with the car. Maybe someone was courting as it should.
            1. +8
              1 November 2015 09: 41
              Generally speaking, the analogy with the machine does not work here.

              But if you try, it will look like this: for an airplane 18 years old for a car for 5 years. Yes, old one, yes, soon to change, but still running and running.

              And the service - imagine that you MUST undergo repairs at the official. And on the slightest problem MUST be repaired.

              Yes, repairs can be substandard. But if there is a signature - the person is CRIMINALLY responsible for it.
              1. -1
                1 November 2015 12: 42
                Quote: Skiff_spb
                And the service - imagine that you MUST undergo repairs at the official. And on the slightest problem MUST be repaired.

                But in practice, is that so? Far from it. Take at least scandals with spare parts from China and bu.
                Quote: Skiff_spb
                Yes, repairs can be substandard. But if there is a signature - the person is CRIMINALLY responsible for it.

                Well, now it will be possible to see firsthand the justice of the state of these matters ...
              2. 0
                1 November 2015 17: 27
                Quote: Skiff_spb
                And the service - imagine that you MUST undergo repairs at the official. And on the slightest problem MUST be repaired.

                Moreover, there are technical regulations after what time what units and systems to change, repair, do preventive maintenance, who has the right to do the corresponding work, etc. Everything is very detailed with signatures and seals, passed - accepted. Technique needs to be able to operate ... If you drive an absolutely new Merce in summer tires in winter, then the result is predictable (this is about supposedly bad equipment).
            2. +3
              1 November 2015 10: 08
              the main thing is exactly how they followed the technique, but in general it is time to introduce limits on "bourgeois" aircraft
            3. 0
              1 November 2015 12: 35
              This aircraft recently underwent a heavy maintenance, it may be that during this check they screwed up.
            4. +1
              1 November 2015 12: 40
              Quote: Banshee
              If the car has changed the 4 owners for these 18 years ... Draw an analogy with the car. Maybe someone was courting as it should.

              If we draw an analogy with a car, then I think it is not in vain that sellers consider it a duty to indicate one owner in auto sales announcements. I think this is an indicator.
          2. +3
            1 November 2015 12: 47
            21-year-old "IL-86" written off due to old age (resource exhausted) -and 18-year-old, in your opinion, is much younger?
            1. +2
              1 November 2015 15: 51
              They decommissioned due to the greed of airlines (high fuel consumption) and increased engine noise, which is why the IL-86 was not allowed into Europe, where the most profitable flights.
              And about the disaster "Watermelon". What if such a version: hackers got into the control of the plane - the computer controls it - and the engines turned on the reverse, then the sharp drop in speed to 180 km / h and the plane crash in the desert can be explained?
              1. +3
                2 November 2015 00: 10
                Indeed, they were decommissioned because of the greed of the airlines — no one wanted to pay a design bureau for extending the resource to 40000 hours.
        3. +7
          1 November 2015 09: 42
          It is time to return the airline industry to state control. Leave 2-3 Airlines. State. One for domestic flights. Others are for foreign.


          And will it give something? Well, besides raising prices (monopoly) and closing unprofitable routes (that is, all small transportation)? For example, hundreds of companies work in the USA, but after a series of sensitive disasters, both due to the fault of pilots and poor maintenance of equipment (the worst catastrophe in the USA was before the 90's - the engine came off on take-off, we figured it out, the technicians optimized the process removed the engine from the wing with the loader together with the pylon, and then pushed the fasteners back - the fasteners cracked, a crack started to grow - the pylon came off, interrupted the hydraulic lines, the wing mechanization was pressed in and because of the distortion of the lifting force they crashed into the hangar), they significantly twisted the nut ki, more control, more reporting, sudden spot checks of both pilots and the technical process.

          It is also necessary to refuse leasing of foreign junk. And do the production of their civilian aircraft.


          This is a very global challenge. Now not a single country in the world (generally in everything) can provide itself with its aircraft. Companies in the USA fly on Embraers, Lierzhet and Airbuses with the Asia-Pacific Region, with a live Boeing. Companies in France fly on Boeing, Asia-Pacific, Embraers with live Airbus.

          Yes, and not the fact that the plane is to blame. Or he can be partially to blame. For example, the Turks crashed an absolutely serviceable plane - the reason was Wasp’s nest pit in the pipes (the technicians didn’t put the plugs), this gave the wrong speed, could not navigate in the clouds and went into a tailspin.
          1. +2
            1 November 2015 13: 20
            In the states, with hundreds of airlines, only one organization deals with flight safety. And so that no one could put pressure on this structure, it is headed not by some average official, but by the US president. He also has such a position, maybe even a purely nominal one. It seems to be thought to him that there is nothing more to do? But they adopted such a law. And I think that this move had the best effect on flight safety.
        4. +2
          1 November 2015 11: 17
          Quote: Enot-poloskun
          What is this "Kagalymavia"? What the hell is this?

          This is probably a way for officials to throw responsibility on all sorts of "Marmyzhi-Avia", "Kobelyaki-Fly" and "Syktym Wings". Well, kickbacks with levies, of course.
        5. +1
          1 November 2015 12: 03
          Quote: Enot-poloskun
          It is time to return the airline industry to state control.


          Dear Enot-poloskun, and officially the industry is under the control of the state, and there are several bodies that carry it out. The question is, how is this control carried out? In addition, everyone is well aware that airlines like "Kagalym .." are a priori unable to organize transportation at a level that ensures safety, for the simple reason that its working capital is not enough for all the necessary measures. And the organization of air transportation at the level of appropriate security is an expensive and multifaceted event.
        6. VSC
          +1
          1 November 2015 12: 16
          They ditched their aircraft industry in order to have a bribe from Boeing and Airbus. Now they say that 18 years for an airplane is not age (they do not remember how it was operated and maintained). And at the Samara Aviation Station it is even worse than in Voronezh: there are no orders, a little repair and renewal of old aircrafts, people ran away, they generally wanted to cover production and give the Bosch plant for warehouses.
        7. +1
          1 November 2015 12: 29
          Quote: Enot-poloskun
          It is also necessary to refuse leasing of foreign junk
          And you did not forget that in our country a legislative step has been taken that kills the training of domestic specialists? I mean permission to hire foreign pilots. Everything purposefully moves towards feudalism. Soon there will be no specialists left - there will be no one to educate. The teaching staff is being destroyed and not developing.
        8. The comment was deleted.
        9. The comment was deleted.
        10. +5
          1 November 2015 13: 47
          Guys !!!! What to guess, just on TV in the news they said that the wreckage of the plane scattered over an area of ​​30 km. What does this mean? Yes, the campaign that it was blown up at a high altitude. Is it logical? If there was a malfunction, he would have fallen to the ground in one "piece" (I apologize for the word), and so .... well, you understand me. One thing is bad .. to hell with it with this iron ..... sorry for people ((((((((((((.
          1. +2
            1 November 2015 14: 27
            I also wanted to write about it. There was an opportunity to compare the crash of that Boeing, our 321 and just (damn it, sorry, I do not know how to correctly write) a plane crash.
            It sounds wild that he wrote, but life is life ...
          2. +1
            2 November 2015 00: 14
            In life, everything happens - the plane could fall apart from overloads.
        11. +2
          1 November 2015 14: 52
          In the year 2012, he went on a business trip from Blagoveshchensk, the Transaero, Boeing, and so, flew away more than a day later due to a plane malfunction, it landed with difficulty, the third time, the landing gear was defective! I flew off as a result, which surpassed from Moscow during the night! In general, it’s better to develop and revive their work, and work for people and we are calmer! Transport workers are all domestic, military aircraft, too, and then caved in for the sake of someone’s business projects and just huckster in the ministries! their time with a broom! There is no Stalin on them!
        12. +2
          1 November 2015 16: 52
          Quote: Enot-poloskun
          Sick !!!

          This is not the first plane to crash in recent years. I hope the last ...

          It is time to return the airline industry to state control. Leave 2-3 Airlines. State. One for domestic flights. Others are for foreign.

          What is this "Kagalymavia"? What the hell is this? And they are not the only ones ... They rented an old rotten plane, cut the loot, saving on safety!

          18 years the plane was operated! And most of them are abroad!

          It is also necessary to refuse leasing of foreign junk. And do the production of their civilian aircraft.


          Absolutely agree!!! Stop "playing" the market economy, it's time to return the state to the main industries !!! A bunch of private airlines is nonsense !!!
        13. +1
          2 November 2015 11: 25
          Hello.
          Add: and not only aircraft, but also buses, at least.
        14. +2
          2 November 2015 12: 30
          It is not so easy to build an airplane, it is possible to destroy the production of aircraft in a few years, for example, the Saratov Aviation Plant. There was a factory and there is no factory (thanks to Mr. Yermishin), for that there was a territory (land) almost in the center of the city. What we have on it, that's right, a hypermarket and skyscrapers and still a lot of land left for development, and there is also an airfield (or rather land). Yes, if you put on rose-colored glasses and imagine that the state gave "dough" for the revival of the plant, where the human resource that will build these aircraft. Ulyanovsk AVIASTAR AU. The whole city was built as a plant and where are 30 Tu 204? Aircraft a year. Super jet vaunted, where? There are orders, but no planes ...
        15. 0
          2 November 2015 12: 55
          Quote: Enot-poloskun
          It is time to return the airline industry to state control. Leave 2-3 Airlines. State. One for domestic flights. Others are for foreign.

          We have a monopolist in the field of railway transportation ....
          Suburban traffic is almost collapsed. Livestock is transported in the best conditions. Electric trains are massively closing .... Traveling to compartment cars is more expensive than flying on an airplane ...
          Destroying competition in aviation is very simple. Going back will be impossible.
      2. +8
        1 November 2015 08: 06
        Quote: afdjhbn67
        Yes, if I had run .. the problem has long existed and therefore, against the backdrop of the tragedy, the article is especially hard on the nerves ..

        Whatever it is, a terrorist attack or a breakdown, the problem does not disappear. We fly on imported junk, instead of developing our aircraft industry. They handed over such an important industry to hucksters, and they are used to saving on everything, including our security.
        It's time to announce sanctions to the Boeing.
        My deepest condolences to the relatives of the victims, unfortunately anyone can be in their place.
      3. +4
        1 November 2015 10: 54
        I wonder how many Khristenko got kickbacks on the paw for ditching our aircraft industry. And why our government is not doing anything, they would all be gathered on that plane, everyone would cross themselves with relief.
      4. +3
        1 November 2015 13: 35
        Quote: afdjhbn67
        the problem has long existed and therefore, against the backdrop of the tragedy, the article is especially hard on the nerves ..

        The article is good, it’s only a pity that things will not go further than discussion on this site. Those officials on whom it all depends are unlikely to enter VO.
      5. +4
        1 November 2015 15: 46
        One obvious conclusion can be drawn from this tragedy - it is necessary to produce and buy domestic aircraft. Of course, this will require significant funds. And the problem is not as simple as it seems (although setting up the production of our own aircraft on the right scale is an extremely complicated task). The problem is servicing our aircraft abroad. Foreign airlines will not let us into their own and service-controlled markets, as they have not allowed to do so far. Therefore, first of all, it is necessary to create favorable conditions (legislative, tax and others) for the operation of our aircraft with us. Our planes should fly on the domestic line and no Boeing and Watermelon! Yes, and domestic carriers need to be enlarged, then the money will be for new planes.
        R.S. Although I am not a supporter of the conspiracy theory, no one excludes the likelihood that during the production of Boeings and Watermelons programs are not sewn into their electronics that, upon signal from a satellite, can destroy some aircraft systems. You should not forget about this either.
      6. +3
        1 November 2015 18: 01
        Quote: afdjhbn67
        Quote: NKVD
        Author, do not run forward carts!

        Yes, if I had run .. the problem has long existed and therefore, against the backdrop of the tragedy, the article is especially hard on the nerves ..

        in the west, too, planes are falling, and what does it mean that they are out of date ?!
        This tragedy smacks of a provocation by "friendly" to us "Western partners", they are very much upset by the successful strikes of Russian aviation on the loyal West "ISIL". It's their style! ! !
      7. +3
        1 November 2015 20: 22
        I decided to speak, in fact the problem is acute. It so happened with the collapse of the Union that all of us beggars were blown up to rake in money, whoever can do it from wherever! Business does not count people, only profit. Medvedev and Putin fly to IL-96. The plane is good and it is often checked. We have a lot of lawlessness in the country, starting from counterfeiting of spare parts for aircraft (which I don’t hear about the last, they solved the problem in the process) to the old foreign rubbish. Our aviation industry has turned into the so-called, we can produce sell for the same hill! Sukhoysuperjet 100, Ms-21, tu-204.
        The tragedy in Tatarstan
        AIR TRAGEDY IN KAZAN. ALL DIED, INCLUDING THE SON OF THE PRESIDENT OF TATARSTAN
        An example of what happens when one of the officials' children dies.
        Epilogue According to the results of the audit conducted after this disaster, Rosaviatsia decided to revoke the certificate of the company’s operator.
        Aeroflot company (do not consider it advertising, the most reliable airline company at the moment, I do not take into account its subsidiaries) The pilot training base has been preserved there. I try to fly with this airline.
        What about other companies, they survive, practically make ends meet and they don’t have money for new planes! No! Everything eats away from taxes, payments of loans and salaries! The state doesn’t really support! There are of course those who just want to profit and shit on safety. As they say everything from leadership policy.
        We have the same circular problem with banks and their crazy interest on loans! Then the strings go to the Central Bank and Putin who was not allowed to privatize him!
        Abroad, banks give loans to residents and private owners within the country from 3-8%. That's where we returned to the money problem. The state should reduce small air carriers. Aeroflot should become a locomotive. (Refused to buy Transaero, it does not need crazy debts and pay on loans) Privatize the Central Bank! It’s strictly for banks: The interest on loans should be minimal, especially for government agencies, whose activities relate to the security of the country and its citizens, these are strategic untouchable things. We live on the economic problem of the West, that’s all the problems we have, starting from falling planes, ( it’s not profitable to produce ourselves), destroyed by agriculture (producing high-quality products is not profitable), stupid USE means poor education, hello Livanov!
        PS is ready to fly quietly with other companies on old airbuses and Boeing, if D.A. is sitting next to me Medvedev, I will be calmer if we die, at least something in our air transportation will change. I’m wildly afraid of flying, but my wife loves it! Why, in order for a small airline to close, an official’s relative or ordinary people should not die for their careless safety attitude .....!
        I really hope that the Petersburgers will not let this matter slip on the brakes. Let the earth be lost to the dead ..... Scary. of course!!!
      8. +1
        1 November 2015 21: 51
        Foreign planes buy similar small companies at aviakladishchi, where such small companies can buy a plane or, more precisely, auto rubbish at bargain prices. About five years ago after another disaster, even a documentary was shown. Then they forgot to another disaster. Lord, when Christians will be removed from power. After all, they harm as much as they can.
      9. +1
        1 November 2015 21: 51
        Foreign planes buy similar small companies at aviakladishchi, where such small companies can buy a plane or, more precisely, auto rubbish at bargain prices. About five years ago after another disaster, even a documentary was shown. Then they forgot to another disaster. Lord, when Christians will be removed from power. After all, they harm as much as they can.
      10. The comment was deleted.
      11. -1
        2 November 2015 10: 43
        The specialized ministry of civil aviation is urgently needed, which would be entrusted with the solution of all the safety issues of air travel.
      12. +1
        2 November 2015 19: 42
        It seems that the Americans about these falling planes said ****** our military females are not for them to slog. always these underdeveloped were vile freaks and besides ordinary citizens they have no strength to kill (But they will get an answer according to all the rules of international law ......
      13. +1
        2 November 2015 23: 18
        In the UAE, the only airline "Emirates Airlines" is state-owned and none of the private companies will be allowed into this industry, and they do not see any monopoly in this.
        It would be nice for us to do so, and not just copy fountains from them.
      14. 0
        3 November 2015 22: 53
        In my opinion, such a tragedy was already on August 12, 1985. Airliner Boeing 747SR-46 of Japan Airlines in Tokyo, one hundred percent coincidence also operated a Boeing with a damaged tail, but no one draws conclusions, the thirst for money overshadowed everything, and people and the hardest children die
    2. -8
      1 November 2015 06: 20
      smile
      You might think, fool what the true cause of the tragedy will tell you
      1. +4
        1 November 2015 08: 58
        Quote: Just BB
        You might think that they will tell you the true cause of the tragedy

        personally, you personally and I personally could not say anything, neither you nor I have any relation to this, it’s important that the experts understand and draw conclusions
        1. +1
          1 November 2015 12: 49
          Had for 15 years and I know how everything is made out ...
          Thanks for the "minus" - the level of competence of the audience good
          1. 0
            1 November 2015 13: 04
            what have you had for 15 years ?!
            1. 0
              1 November 2015 15: 50
              investigations of flight accidents and incidents - sorry, for some reason it was forwarded in a trimmed form
              1. 0
                1 November 2015 18: 32
                then you do not need to communicate to me, to you well, if you are in the "cage" you need
          2. +2
            1 November 2015 13: 57
            Put a plus. BUT all the same, since you have had the experience of fighting so that everything comes. Not like that. - that all the same deceive.
            1. +2
              1 November 2015 14: 31
              Quote: Just VV
              Had for 15 years and I know how everything is made out ...
              Thanks for the "minus" - the level of competence of the audience good

              I think, right now, not 2000 ... But the truth about the "Kursk" will emerge ...
              1. 0
                1 November 2015 15: 53
                "Honor of the uniform" - there is such a concept. Here it is "protected" by all sorts of methods
              2. 0
                2 November 2015 05: 13
                She surfaced a long time ago.
            2. 0
              1 November 2015 15: 55
              Already got out -"time is over"
    3. dpu
      +30
      1 November 2015 06: 40
      But LADIES, said that the Yak-42 "is the worst aircraft in the world," when the dead near Yaroslavl "did not cool down." And no investigation has begun yet. Although the fault is 100% of the airport, the company and then the crew. But what does it have to do with the materiel? A fallen A-321 - old junk.
      1. +4
        1 November 2015 09: 00
        Do you think that 18 years of operation is OLD JUNK ???
        WELL. WELL.
        1. +7
          1 November 2015 09: 23
          Do you think that 18 years of operation is OLD JUNK ???
          WELL. WELL.
          - Turkestan

          You are probably not quite up to date. Yes, an airplane can be operated for more than 18 years, BUT everything depends on the strength and durability inherent in it, an hour raid, and the economic development of the state operating the aircraft, its economic power.
          There is an estimated life of the aircraft, which is assigned by the manufacturer, it is calculated in flight hours. Usually it is from 30 to 60 thousand hours. But the operation in our time is carried out according to the "actual state", after which the aviation safety is reduced.
          Usually, government agencies regulate aviation security. For example, in the United States, the Federal Aviation Agency banned the operation of passenger aircraft over the United States with a flying time of more than 60 thousand hours. But these planes are purchased in the United States on the cheap, many countries, including Russia.
          Well-established airlines usually get rid of airliners over 12-15 years old, but these machines continue to be used in third world countries, where airplanes that are 35-40 years old or more are not uncommon.
          So that it is possible to operate aircraft older than 18 years, and more than 35-40 years of operation, but this is the lot of the underdeveloped countries of the Third World, probably to which Russia can already be attributed, judging by the planes on which its citizens are transported.
          1. +4
            1 November 2015 13: 00
            Quote: vladimirZ
            So that you can operate aircraft older than 18 years, and more than 35-40 years of operation, but this is the lot of underdeveloped third world countries

            The example is not from civil aviation, but indicative. Remember when the B-52 was produced. And nothing fly. Just the continuation of their operation is associated with a very significant investment. And the private owner does not want to go to great expenses.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. +2
            1 November 2015 14: 00
            Thank you very much, it’s good when there is a knowledgeable person and can correctly explain.
            Yes, in normal countries they clean and in the 3 countries of the world they sell. Of course, a plane can fly a hundred years. With proper care. But best of all is proper care and a new plane.
        2. +4
          1 November 2015 10: 16
          Quote: Turkestan
          Do you think that 18 years of operation is OLD JUNK ???
          WELL. WELL.

          So say the former A321 operators, Saudis, Turks, Syrians, who got rid of this junk, obviously in order to get yourself something newer!
        3. -1
          1 November 2015 12: 46
          Quote: Turkestan
          Do you think that 18 years of operation is OLD JUNK ???
          WELL. WELL.

          It turns out falling brand new aircraft? Well then, it’s generally no way .....
      2. +7
        1 November 2015 12: 42
        Quote: dpu
        But LADIES, said that the Yak-42 "is the worst aircraft in the world,"

        But DAM understands aviation like a pig in oranges. A lawyer who does not have a penchant for technology, that he understands this. Let him learn how to password protect his iPhone. He would be dragged to court for such statements abroad.
      3. +5
        1 November 2015 12: 45
        Quote: dpu
        But LADIES, said that the Yak-42 "the worst aircraft in the world"

        And there that, charging for an iPhone was not found?
        1. +5
          1 November 2015 13: 00
          Quote: tomket
          And there that, charging for an iPhone was not found?

          WiFi is missing there :-)
          1. +1
            1 November 2015 14: 41
            Modern airplanes are not LI-2, not Cornfield ... Care and money are needed ...
            Chkalov proved with his flight that Russian planes are the most volatile.
    4. The comment was deleted.
      1. +4
        1 November 2015 07: 27
        here he is the sales functionary himself and whined on a truthful article.
      2. +3
        1 November 2015 08: 27
        Just whining and wheezing from your text rolls over))) laughing
      3. 0
        1 November 2015 09: 16
        Quote: EGOrkka
        how disgusting it becomes to read.

        So you do not read-the collective farm is voluntary .. wassat
    5. +3
      1 November 2015 07: 32
      You suggest to wait until the next plane crash? It turns out that among the authors of our forum there is a whole fan club of defenders of imported air junk!
      1. +3
        1 November 2015 09: 00
        Quote: Aksakal_07
        It turns out that among the authors of our forum there is a whole fan club of defenders of imported air junk!

        I doubt that "imported junk" has fans, but there are people who understand the obvious things: any plane must initially be profitable for the carrier.
        Therefore, our planes are absolutely necessary, but for them to be bought (including foreign carriers) they must not be inferior to Western competitors in the same noise / environmental friendliness, otherwise there will be no sense in them.
        1. +1
          1 November 2015 09: 39
          they should not be inferior to Western competitors in the same noise / environmental friendliness otherwise they will not be of any use.

          The European regulations do not apply on domestic routes, so the aircraft are not limited in terms of noise and ecology. On external lines, yes, you can start up quiet and "environmentally friendly".
          1. 0
            1 November 2015 09: 47
            Quote: Camel
            The European regulations do not apply on domestic routes, so the aircraft are not limited in terms of noise and ecology. On external lines, yes, you can start up quiet and "environmentally friendly".

            That's exactly what:
            The volume of domestic traffic is not enough to pay off the development and production of a truly modern aircraft.
            It is initially not profitable for carriers to buy an aircraft capable of operating only in a single region.
            1. 0
              1 November 2015 10: 18
              Quote: Down House
              The volume of domestic traffic is not enough to pay off the development and production of a truly modern aircraft.
              and in numbers you can justify
              1. -1
                1 November 2015 10: 41
                Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                and in numbers you can justify

                They will not approve, but I read about 250 regional aircraft.
                This is only enough to recoup a single aircraft, and still need to make a profit, and we also have several manufacturers of these same aircraft.
                And this is the problem - they cannot sell so many planes to recoup their production - it is imperative to enter foreign markets.
                1. +1
                  1 November 2015 10: 59
                  Quote: Down House
                  They will not approve, but I read about 250 regional aircraft.
                  This is only enough to recoup a single plane

                  So what?!
                  But how many planes are required in the domestic market? !!!
                  Quote: Down House
                  And this is the problem - they cannot sell so many planes to recoup their production - it is imperative to enter foreign markets.

                  and what does this mean? !!!
                  1. 0
                    1 November 2015 12: 48
                    Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                    But how many planes are required in the domestic market? !!!

                    Wrote about 250.
                    Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                    and what does this mean? !!!

                    From the fact that the demand for aircraft in the domestic market is less than the amount needed for the development of a truly new aircraft to pay off.
                    1. 0
                      1 November 2015 13: 13
                      Quote: Down House
                      Wrote about 250.

                      Are you seriously?! can source
                      1. 0
                        1 November 2015 13: 47
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        can source

                        Is Aeroflot suitable?
                        161 aircraft and 23,6 million passengers last year.
                        Of the 125 destinations, only 51 are located in the CIS.
                        Catch the logic?
                2. +2
                  1 November 2015 11: 02
                  Quote: Down House
                  in order to recoup their production, it is imperative to enter foreign markets.

                  or can the manufacturer lease the airline, then the financial burden will not be as burdensome as with the purchase of a new plane
                  1. 0
                    1 November 2015 12: 51
                    Quote: sa-ag
                    can the manufacturer lease the airline

                    Well, this is already done for a long time.
            2. 0
              1 November 2015 14: 03
              Come on . Well, how much everything can be measured by profit. How long we will have it. Profitable not profitable. It is necessary. So you have to do it. And your planes and excellent pilots, and may I be foreign aircraft, but good and new.
              1. +1
                2 November 2015 04: 02
                Quote: perm23
                Come on . Well, how much everything can be measured by profit.

                At least a strange question for those living under the capitalist system ...
          2. +6
            1 November 2015 10: 10
            Quote: Camel
            On domestic lines, the European regulation is not valid

            it seems to me that the geo-regulation sought and achieved one goal: the destruction of our aircraft industry and the screwing of their equipment, to introduce reciprocal regulations
            1. +3
              1 November 2015 10: 30
              Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
              it seems to me that the geo-regulation sought and achieved one goal: the destruction of our aircraft industry and the screwing of their equipment, to introduce reciprocal regulations

              But maybe something else? For example, a reduction in noise and emissions is associated with a more complete combustion of fuel and an increase in power, therefore, you can take more passengers, at a reduced fuel consumption, and hence get a big profit
              1. 0
                1 November 2015 10: 33
                Do you think that Europe cares about the profits of our airlines?
                1. +2
                  1 November 2015 10: 59
                  Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                  Do you think that Europe cares about the profits of our airlines?

                  No, of course, they were concerned about the profit of their companies, which is why they introduced requirements, forcing manufacturers to improve technology, the USSR was behind in this regard, so its liners were forced to leave the European market
                  1. +2
                    1 November 2015 11: 08
                    only with all this, the prices for air transportation in the USSR were several times lower
                    Alma-Ata Moscow 82 rubles
                    1. 0
                      1 November 2015 11: 37
                      Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                      Alma-Ata Moscow 82 rubles

                      I would not say that this is a low price
                      1. -1
                        1 November 2015 11: 53
                        Quote: sa-ag
                        I would not say that this is a low price

                        I agree 86 rubles Ulan-Ude - Moscow .. I remember a tangible hit on a skinny wallet ..
                      2. +1
                        1 November 2015 12: 16
                        and how much is now and what is the real salary in Ulan Ude
                      3. 0
                        1 November 2015 12: 44
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        and how much is now and what is the real salary in Ulan Ude

                        Volodya, now he costs about 16 thousand rubles if one way Well, the average salary is declared 35 thousand, but for some reason no one believes and laughs nervously ... (the average temperature in the hospital is with the morgue)
                        Something then the site to hang began to overheat from emotions, it somehow broke through to answer hi
                      4. +4
                        1 November 2015 12: 49
                        that is, Aunt Dusya, a cleaner, will definitely not fly to Maaskwa with her child without it.

                        But after the Union, the student could fly off the discount was 30%, for schoolchildren 50
                        By the way, I asked not the middle one, but the real one
                      5. 0
                        1 November 2015 13: 09
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        By the way, I asked not the middle one, but the real one

                        My general is to blame, I am correcting myself - the average HBZ, probably 15-20 tr ... recourse
                      6. +1
                        1 November 2015 13: 28
                        it turns out that with the union and one airline ticket prices were cheaper?
                      7. 0
                        1 November 2015 12: 13
                        compare with today, by the way the school cost 40
                      8. 0
                        1 November 2015 12: 20
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        compare with today

                        What to compare with? For example, an EasyJet ticket from London to Rome costs an average of £ 60
                      9. +1
                        1 November 2015 12: 50
                        let's not compare buses with wings
                    2. 0
                      1 November 2015 20: 21
                      Salary in the USSR postal operator or kindergarten teacher.
                    3. 0
                      1 November 2015 20: 21
                      Salary in the USSR postal operator or kindergarten teacher.
                      1. +1
                        1 November 2015 21: 15
                        compare with the salary of a postal operator today
            2. +1
              1 November 2015 10: 44
              Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
              The regulation sought and achieved one goal: the destruction of our aviation industry

              No, this is a consequence of the global practice of the struggle for the environment.
              And these are not only such trends in the aircraft industry, but the same trends in the automotive industry.
              1. +3
                1 November 2015 11: 00
                Quote: Down House
                global environmental practices.

                Are you seriously?!
                as a rule, grandmothers and not ecology stand behind all this struggle
                1. 0
                  1 November 2015 12: 56
                  Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                  as a rule, grandmothers and not ecology stand behind all this struggle

                  And this too, but specifically aircraft manufacturers from this have not a penny.
                  1. +1
                    1 November 2015 13: 29
                    have more like they have, especially us swami
                    1. -1
                      1 November 2015 13: 49
                      Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                      especially us swami

                      Us?!
                      How?!
                      They never even heard about us and don’t want to know anything! Calm down! ))))
                      1. +1
                        1 November 2015 15: 47
                        you see, they didn’t hear, but they have, but the technique reached the point
                      2. +1
                        1 November 2015 16: 03
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        you see, they didn’t hear, but they have, but the technique reached the point

                        Well, tell the truck faster how exactly they do it, otherwise nobody knows except you.
        2. +6
          1 November 2015 11: 18
          - "initially it should be profitable" ... yes, it should NOT be profitable, but RELIABLE and SIMPLE, so that the pilot in a sudden situation would not rummage through notebooks like a schoolboy in search of causes and their elimination, but KNEW how to do it ... profitability a corpse is not needed ... (reliability is the main criterion of all our Ilov, Anov, Carcass) reliability and simplicity
    6. +8
      1 November 2015 07: 41
      Roman is right. The problem is old. Where profit rules and money for human life rules. They will buy western auto trash instead of new domestic aircraft, because it’s profitable. Money in the first place is the law of the market.
      1. 0
        1 November 2015 14: 06
        That's right, not everything needs to be measured by profit.
    7. +14
      1 November 2015 09: 01
      Quote: NKVD
      Author, do not run ahead of the cart! The investigation has just begun, there are still no conclusions.

      Nobody runs ahead of the engine, rather, on the contrary, the author beats all the bells and has long been beating at the position that now exists in civil aviation.
    8. +7
      1 November 2015 09: 09
      Quote: NKVD
      Author, do not run forward carts!

      The author does not run ahead of any carts.
      But the matter is somewhat more complicated. During the years of perestroika, we had a significant lag in the development of competitive commercial aviation. Yes, and organizational team. Indeed, why dozens of weak airlines that do not fully meet the requirements of this highly responsible industry?
      And IL-96, the plane is good, but outdated, alas. On the machines of this class now put not 4 engine, and two ... Here's your efficiency, and payload. We, unfortunately, do not produce engines of this class ...
      Tu-204 is more competitive. BUT and it is 5 tons heavier than the A-321 with the same passenger capacity. So much for the same end and the same place.
      Could this car be upgraded? In theory, probably yes. But in practice in the 90s - this is unlikely ...
      Now, as far as the fleet is concerned, we are trying to catch up.
      Our hopes are the MS-21 and Superjet, the development on the basis of IL-96 of a new range of composites with motors based on the technologies acquired when working on the PD-14 project.
      May God grant success.
      And airlines like the same "Flight" that stuck at one time in Voronezh and others like that should be driven in three necks.
      By the way, all over the world in such a current case the airline must pay substantial compensation to relatives. Will Kalamavia, which does not have even a dozen of liners, do this?
      1. +1
        1 November 2015 09: 20
        Quote: Alekseev
        And airlines like the same "Flight" that stuck at one time in Voronezh and others like that should be driven in three necks.


        "Flight" flew off. Already happy.

        Quote: Alekseev
        And IL-96, the plane is good, but outdated, alas. On the machines of this class now put not 4 engine, and two ... Here's your efficiency, and payload. We, unfortunately, do not produce engines of this class ...


        It's a shame that they do not. BUT: you can, of course, buy engines. It is still cheaper than the whole plane. And so much dough does not float abroad.
        1. +1
          1 November 2015 11: 13
          Quote: Banshee
          You can, of course, engines and buy


          Better yet, develop. True, for the future.
      2. 0
        1 November 2015 10: 13
        Quote: Alekseev
        And IL-96, the plane is good, but outdated, alas.

        But the A-321 is not outdated? 18 flew for years, and when the first sample flew? The first flight of the 1987. How do you think the new one? If the IL-96 had been operated as much time, there would have been modifications as the Tu-154 had been modified at one time.
        1. +5
          1 November 2015 10: 49
          Quote: cesar65
          But the A-321 is not out of date?

          You read a book, that is a comment, but, unfortunately, you don’t perceive. No.
          Once again about "obsolete". Here the years are not decisive.
          Here is another. Tu-214 weighs about 60 tons (empty). A-321 about 50. Passengers take the same.
          Each ton of weight is extra kerosene, and now it costs 32-36 rubles. per liter.
          Why is that? However, the manufacturing technology is of varying degrees.
          The same applies to the IL-96.
          Four motors with systems can't weigh lighter than two
          But that's not all.
          MOT of our cars due to a number of reasons, including a small series, is by no means cheaper than Airbus and Boeing.
          In general, the problem is complex. It is not for nothing that only two companies massively produce mainline aircraft in the USA and the EU.
          This is not just the squandering and sabotage of "individual civilians." Here general level of development many industries need to raise. What they are trying to do now through the projects PD-14, MS-21 and, in part, the Superjet.
        2. 0
          1 November 2015 11: 18
          Quote: cesar65
          If the IL-96 was operated as much time, there would be modifications, as the Tu-154 was modified at one time.

          and IL-62
        3. 0
          1 November 2015 12: 40
          Actually, the A 321 that crashed was put into operation in 1996, and 18 years of operation for airliners is normal.
          1. 0
            2 November 2015 12: 27
            Only probably the director of this airline does not go to Merce who is 18 years old. A plane that has already been sold more than once before cannot be normal.
      3. +6
        1 November 2015 10: 17
        I'm not a big specialist in aviation, of course, but in the same TU 204, excess weight is most likely associated with safety and durability. As I remember the Superjet project was drawn on a Boeing, but ours had to completely revise it due to the lack of a safety margin. That is, along the way, everything was "drawn" on the maximum possible minimum tolerances. But in the USSR they always knew how to make gliders for airplanes and I do not think that they could not have brought the TU 204 or Il 96 to more or less decent performance. About engines: even in the most difficult post-war years, when the Cold War flared up, the USSR managed to buy licenses for the production of Rolls Royce jet engines for MIGs .. There are probably enough engineers who would then be able to keep the quality and parameters of these units at the proper level and modernize them according to the realities of progress.
        1. 0
          1 November 2015 11: 13
          Mikoyan did not buy them, but won billiards with a representative (or director Royce))))
          1. +1
            1 November 2015 11: 57
            Well, I also heard such a version ... But still, we acted honestly, unlike the Americans, who not only steered the engines but also the plane itself ..
            1. 0
              1 November 2015 12: 31
              How much do I remember with the Me-262?
        2. 0
          1 November 2015 11: 14
          The main thing in our aircraft industry is avionics and engines. The glider is very good, and if you put the composite wing without assembly and hydraulics, it's just fantastic.
          1. 0
            1 November 2015 12: 32
            more (to your written) hydraulics
        3. 0
          1 November 2015 11: 14
          The main thing in our aircraft industry is avionics and engines. The glider is very good, and if you put the composite wing without assembly and hydraulics, it's just fantastic.
      4. +4
        1 November 2015 13: 01
        4 engines "IL-96" give me, as a passenger, confidence in a happy ending of the flight, especially if you need to fly across the ocean. Examples of the fall of "Airbus" with 2 engines are enough.
    9. +1
      1 November 2015 09: 10
      Quote: NKVD
      Author, do not run forward carts!


      In your opinion, you have to wait until a couple of planes fall, right? Or hope that data about a terrorist attack or a rocket leaks from somewhere?
      1. +2
        1 November 2015 09: 28
        In our opinion, it is necessary at the legislative level to introduce the responsibility of all those involved from below to the top. And the higher the position, the higher the measure of responsibility and the higher the level of punishment.
        1. +1
          1 November 2015 15: 57
          Amur (2) RU

          In our opinion, it is necessary at the legislative level to introduce the responsibility of all those involved from below to the top. And the higher the position, the higher the measure of responsibility and the higher the level of punishment.


    10. +1
      1 November 2015 09: 37
      Actually, the author tried to say something completely different, if you didn’t understand.
    11. +1
      1 November 2015 09: 50
      The conclusion is long-standing and unequivocal - it is necessary to build YOUR aircraft, regardless of the results of the investigation !!
      1. +1
        1 November 2015 09: 53
        100% agree with you, Roman! Yesterday, my son and I discussed this topic in the same vein.
    12. +2
      1 November 2015 10: 39
      NKVD(1)SU

      Author, do not run ahead of the cart! The investigation has just begun, there are still no conclusions.


      Is it too late to run, or will you deny that instead of reviving the domestic airfield, we feed a foreign one and actually fly on a charge?
      It's time to take up the mind!
    13. +2
      1 November 2015 10: 39
      Quote: NKVD
      no conclusions yet


      And what conclusions do you want to wait?
      The author has already drawn some conclusions, including: "Russia needs a fleet of new domestic aircraft. The aircraft builders of Russia, and not the officials involved in contracts for the supply of air junk from the bounty of the West, should feed on the renewal of the aircraft fleet."
    14. 0
      1 November 2015 10: 39
      Quote: NKVD
      no conclusions yet


      And what conclusions do you want to wait?
      The author has already drawn some conclusions, including: "Russia needs a fleet of new domestic aircraft. The aircraft builders of Russia, and not the officials involved in contracts for the supply of air junk from the bounty of the West, should feed on the renewal of the aircraft fleet."
      1. BMW
        +1
        1 November 2015 12: 36
        A little off topic, but essentially.
        I would also like to focus on the moral and ethical behavior during the catastrophe of our valiant media, and in particular the main news channel "Russia-24".
        Three previous hours, before the final presentation of the information about the plane crash, different versions of what was happening were broadcast, sometimes contradicting each other. In particular, from the initial loss of communication, to the crash that occurred for various reasons. I was especially outraged by the information submitted 5-10 minutes before the finally confirmed information about the crash, which was that the plane was in Turkish airspace. Really it was impossible to refrain from "savoring" what happened, and at that moment without having practically any reliably confirmed information.
        I’m just scared to imagine what was happening at that moment in the souls of loved ones, from complete despair to relief from joy, and vice versa.
        1. +1
          1 November 2015 14: 08
          That's for sure. The main thing is to give info on all channels. And drive her. And how are they to people what.
    15. +2
      1 November 2015 12: 17
      The question is, will they bring the whole truth about the tragedy after the investigation, or will they be written off to the crew again. Smart people have long warned of the abandonment of foreign aircraft since maintenance personnel must undergo retraining, avionics and electronics all according to Western standards. Where is the guarantee that the equipment failure was not provoked by interested parties.
    16. +3
      1 November 2015 12: 23
      If it were a domestic-made cart, then it would have already been banned for use in Russia, the most powerful lobby in the Duma and the government, which is kept at the salary of Boeing and Airbus, will never miss domestic aircraft in sufficient quantities for release, one Serdyukov-Taburetkin in Rostec set to oversee aviation, which is worth it, and our machines are no worse than imported, and in some ways even better, timely modernization and improvement would put everything in their place, but in Russia there was no time for this, then perestroika, then the construction of a gloomy democracy, what kind of planes are there, Medvedev’s order alone after the Yak-42 crash was worth what, in general, the creation of a state-owned airline buying domestic cars with branches all over Russia is long overdue and there is no alternative to this, or flying in constantly decreasing fleets of aircraft with huge service life and no less enormous risk for passengers.
    17. +2
      1 November 2015 12: 39
      Author, do not run ahead of the cart! The investigation has just begun, there are still no conclusions.

      It looks like you are against the restoration of the Russian aircraft industry. The author raised the right topic. Aircraft must be built, ground aviation services must be provided with qualified technical personnel, pilots and navigators must be trained, etc. All this is possible only if there is a single carrier under the leadership and supervision of the state. To the author of the article "+".
    18. +1
      1 November 2015 14: 51
      Igor. The author is right for all 100%% !!! And I am not a specialist in this industry completely agree with him!
    19. +3
      1 November 2015 15: 07
      The author writes correctly, and he is not in a hurry, but only supplements what he said earlier. What will happen now can be predicted, and you do not need to be a visionary. We go through all this every time Russian civilian ships crash. The first thing will be a meeting of the Government, where they will talk about the shortcomings in civil aviation. The second will be a meeting with the President, where it will once again be said about the production of Russian aircraft. That's it, that's all over. They'll talk a little more on TV - box, and then everything will go on as before. There will again be reports about the purchase of the next Airbus and Boeing, and everyone will forget what they talked about at the meetings in the Government and at the President's. Because by this time the Airbus and Boeing employees will visit whomever they need, leave whomever needs a "diplomat" with a nth sum, and again it will turn out that our Silt and Carcasses are of poor quality, consume a lot of fuel, etc. .P. ... Tired !!! How many more people have to be killed so that the Government finally begins to do business, not nonsense.
    20. +1
      1 November 2015 16: 28
      At one time, when the Yak-42 crashed in Yaroslavl and a whole sports team died, Mr. Medvedev, long before the end of the investigation, ordered to ban the use of these aircraft and organize the purchase of foreign abroad. And now, when the A-321 crashed, all the high-ranking bureaucrats hid their heads in the sand. Yes, we need our own aviation and domestic aircraft.
    21. +1
      1 November 2015 18: 22
      Yes?! The cart is generally long in the ditch. There is nothing to run before. These are the long-known FACTS. Boeings - goners of old people - are scared to sit in them. I remember (it’s good to remember) how calmly I flew our years that way 30 years ago It was reliable. I support the author as a whole.
    22. 0
      1 November 2015 20: 04
      Kogalym (hunt. Kogym - black spot) That's why call it that
    23. +1
      2 November 2015 15: 24
      Hi!! You did not understand the author correctly. If you are in the know, please explain to everyone who reads the site. WHAT IT IS FOR ORDERING MAINTENANCE OF THE AIRCRAFT. A very clear prospect for the passenger who is buying a ticket hoping for quality service. And now a little about the accidents. Remember the drowned Bulgaria. How much noise and remember the result. How many court have been jailed. This is the situation in China. Twenty-five people sat in court, among them there were many officials from the Shipping Company. In addition, several articles were additionally added to river and sea transport, gaps in legislation were taken into account, and liability was clearly specified for what the official is responsible for what the company is .. And we have. Everything is fine. Now bankrupt is a big company, but now they are talking about the same with might and main. Leasing machines have non-native parts taken from other machines of the same company. But we, ordinary passengers, thought that there shouldn’t be such a thing in principle. And how then to trust our officials from transport. If this is news for them. In principle, we have a major catastrophe in transport that brings out many problems that clearly manifest blatant impunity. So how do you understand the service ordered. In Samara, they say the board went through those services now they say no it was not ordered. That's how they carry us.
    24. 0
      2 November 2015 15: 37
      Quote: NKVD
      Author, do not run ahead of the cart! The investigation has just begun, there are still no conclusions.

      Run do not run. We are the second largest number of air crashes after the states, despite the fact that the flight intensity is several tens of times lower. Does this tell you something?
    25. +1
      2 November 2015 16: 58
      NKVD, the problem is complex. We, from the filing of such as Khristenko, buy air junk that flew off wherever possible. Small companies save on everything by squeezing all of their aircraft. Security is at stake.
      Still, air transportation should be completely under state control.
    26. 0
      2 November 2015 18: 13
      The question is not in the investigation of the reasons, but in principle.
  2. +6
    1 November 2015 05: 46
    Reducing to one airline, however, is overkill. But to minimize, say, one company per region with tight control from the center. Well, or as regional units of Aeroflot. And your planes. Especially on domestic routes.
    1. +11
      1 November 2015 06: 06
      It was reduced to one company, so that there was someone to ask, so that it could organize aircraft maintenance and pilot training. At the regional level, this is not possible. Right now, higher education can be obtained at universities in every gateway. For aviation, such a training and service system is simply unacceptable.
      1. +21
        1 November 2015 06: 57
        The main problem is that current higher education is characterized by the presence of a piece of paper, and not by education itself.
        1. SSR
          +7
          1 November 2015 07: 34
          Quote: obskoyd
          The main problem is that current higher education is characterized by the presence of a piece of paper, and not by education itself.

          How many incidents do uzbekiston aba yullpri (fig. Pronounce the name) have turkmeniston, and kazakhstan have breebolt hub yulari? And Belarusians and ..... You can go on for a long time ... We must take our airline owners and their founders with a fingernail, and first of all, the law should punish not only directors but also the founders. Founders set the tone for the whole company.
          1. +3
            1 November 2015 09: 20
            Uzbekistan Airways. Translation: air (havo) routes. Lines (yul-rub. Road. Line. Yullari-plural. Number. Uzbekistan is understandable. This is a state-owned company. Therefore, there is more to the order. By the way, only new planes are bought. I know for sure because brother ground engineer.
          2. +2
            1 November 2015 09: 23
            I’ll add that airplanes (GVF) in Uzbekistan are based only in Tashkent.
      2. +1
        1 November 2015 07: 09
        Quote: TVM - 75
        It is reduced to one company, so that there is someone to ask ...

        "Who to ask"- it will be if there are hundreds of companies. It's another matter that the human psyche is so arranged that it remembers well no more than six subjects, objects (remember the size of the department), then the optimal number of companies, it is desirable to have no more than six. And from this number too The presence of only one company, you know, there is no one to ask from either, since there is no competition and in this case even greater misunderstandings are possible.
      3. -5
        1 November 2015 12: 26
        That's right, but sausages need 2 varieties - doctoral and cervelat. And cars - Lada and Volga, well, the military is still UAZ.
        Well, that was all, it was, we see the result. Competition is GOOD, but competition within the framework of the law with the control of state bodies over its implementation. No competition, no development. no quality service. What for? I am ONE in the market, all the same, everyone is FORCED to bring me money.
        1. +7
          1 November 2015 13: 01
          Quote: vitls
          That's right, but sausages need 2 varieties - doctoral and cervelat.

          Apparently, you only know about sausage in the USSR from the words of the then "starving" dissidents
          By the way, I agree on two varieties, the main thing is that of that quality
          Quote: vitls
          What for? I am ONE in the market, all the same, everyone is FORCED to bring me money.

          stupidity, a question in goals and objectives
          1. +7
            1 November 2015 14: 12
            Better than 2 varieties of sausage than 100 varieties of incomprehensible what made. And about competition, no need to listen to the wise guys from the HSE. Competition is not a panacea.
        2. +6
          1 November 2015 21: 56
          Quote: vitls
          That's right, but sausages need 2 varieties - doctoral and cervelat. And cars - Lada and Volga, well, the military is still UAZ.

          I personally do not need such a variety of sausages, as now. Better a little, but from meat. These are fairy tales of liberal majorities such as Shevchuk, Weller or Orlushi that dogs and cats did not eat Soviet sausage. They ate and how! In Soviet times, when I walked past the store, I could tell by smell whether they brought fresh sausage or not. And now you go to the store - there are hundreds of varieties of sausages, but there is no proper smell. By the way, in the 70s sausages in stores were free, they took 200-300 g and cut, the deficit of these products began 3-4 years before the death of Leonid Brezhnev, when the food program was adopted until the 90th year, and think sabotage or not. The bastard sellers used to drink real sour cream with real kefir, and powdered milk was sold in the form of only powder, from milk, by the way.
          Regarding foreign cervelates and salami: representatives of the Soviet trade mission bought only the highest grade food abroad, because they believed that it was useless for a Soviet person to eat that compound feed that is now being fed to Russians like cattle, this product, naturally, fell into the category of a deficit and, as a result, became an object of envy and corruption, because it was bought a little. But I got along with loin, ham and "Ocean" pasta made from natural crab and shrimp meat (state price - 52 kopecks / 0.5 kg or per kilo, I don't remember). As for 2 varieties of sausages, dear sir, you were misinformed, fell in love with, so to speak.
          The assortment of foreign (Western, non-socialist countries) cigarettes was not excessive, but it was real tobacco, and not what it is now: Pall Mall, Salem, Dunhill, Ambassador, Camel, Bond, Winston, Marlboro and other lesser-known brands lay on the shelves in cafes and bars, and even in our grocery store, but they were taken tightly, the price was 1 ruble, from the beginning of the 80s - 1r. 50 kopecks About "Partagas" and "Ligeros" (Cuba) I will modestly keep silent, they were lying almost everywhere, they were hefty strong, cigar tobacco, however. But in all the stores there were Cuban cigars in some kind of aluminum pencil cases, something 60-65 kopecks, a little expensive, but if you forget it periodically, it was enough for a day. There were also domestically produced cigars, I smoked pogar "Falcon" and "Pogar". Now this is the lot of the elect.
          Okay, enough about the eater and cigars. move on to the cars.
          I didn't really like Zhiguli and Muscovites, but I drove. I liked the "Volga" and, as soon as there was a moment - got behind the wheel of "Volzhanka - 3102". The car is simple, like a bicycle, strong, it was enough for me. Repair can be done with pliers, a hammer, and, of course, the magic word, no processors. UAZ, especially the "loaf" (not in the current tyap-lyapov performance), I consider a masterpiece of ingenious simplicity. If you don’t suffer from a handshake and you know how to use it correctly, you’ll have enough for life. I don't like to depend on services and the local razvodilov. Now I am without a wheelbarrow, circumstances, but I want to take just the old "loaf", carburetor, comfort for me is the second thing, I am not spoiled, although I also drove foreign cars that were not rotten and even new (there was one).
          Well, okay, boyars. Be healthy! hi
        3. +4
          2 November 2015 12: 34
          You remembered the Soviet era. I also remembered - the competition is there. At the entrance to the market, 7-10 grandmothers were sitting and selling seeds and that someone was lowering the price of them. Not all of them sold at the same price. Businessmen will always agree. And an example when my grandmother went to sell the fish we caught and decided to sell cheaper, everyone around who sold flew, or sell at our price, or even get out of here. That’s all your good in competition. All this lies and the tales of false democrats about competition, so that we can powder our brains. For 20 years we have heard the market come and put everything in its place.
    2. +16
      1 November 2015 06: 53
      There is no search, in Soviet times Aeroflot existed and coped with all transportation, as did the Ministry of Railways (now the Russian Railways).
      1. -4
        1 November 2015 09: 05
        Quote: obskoyd
        Aeroflot existed in Soviet times

        It existed, but we are no longer in the Soviet era and no one will launch airplanes "free of charge" anymore - it's time to adopt new rules.
        1. BMW
          +1
          1 November 2015 13: 12
          Quote: Down House
          it's time to accept the new rules.

          Who establishes or imposes these rules?
          We live in our own country and we must establish the rules for ourselves and implement them. The issue is performance, not the number of companies. It makes no difference one company or several if the state sets the tariffs. You are not against the monopoly of energy production and energy sales.
          1. -3
            1 November 2015 15: 25
            Quote: bmw
            Who establishes or imposes these rules?

            Constitution.
            We have a free capitalist state and we cannot de facto prohibit airlines from acquiring imported aircraft.
            Quote: bmw
            We live in our own country and we must establish the rules for ourselves and implement them.

            For God's sake.
            I’ll just repeat once again that the volumes of our domestic transportation are not enough to pay back the production of new equipment.
            1. 0
              2 November 2015 12: 38
              We have a huge volume of domestic traffic. We do not know our country. We do not travel on it due to the fact that there is no traffic. You can pay back. Just do not evaluate everything only profit. We must also think about people. there would be flights everywhere and inexpensively. people would fly with might and main. And so now.
              1. 0
                3 November 2015 09: 03
                Quote: perm23
                We do not travel on it due to the fact that there is no traffic

                I travel - but by car.
                I don’t travel by plane because it’s boring and expensive.
                And more expensive because no one flies. Either they are not interested, or they save on the train.
          2. +4
            1 November 2015 17: 50
            Quote: bmw
            We live in our own country and we must establish the rules for ourselves and implement them. The issue is performance, not the number of companies.

            In the USSR there was one basic rule - everything for the people, everything in the name of the people, all other rules were built from here, now profit is the basis, hence all other rules
            1. -2
              2 November 2015 00: 09
              Quote: sa-ag
              one basic rule - everything for the people, everything in the name of the people, from here all the other rules were built,

              Rules by rules, but something really was better then, something really better now.
              And if in general, there used to be more guarantees, now there are more opportunities.
              My parents were safer, but I live better, and you can not compare these 2 periods only in black and white - the truth is in semitones.
    3. 0
      1 November 2015 09: 03
      Quote: shinobi
      .But minimize

      You don’t need to reduce anything, you just need to properly regulate the quality of transport, control the quality of aircraft service, give priority to companies flying our planes.
      And how many carriers will be specific is already the second thing.
      1. BMW
        0
        1 November 2015 13: 16
        Quote: Down House
        give priority to companies flying our aircraft.

        If you care about market competition, then you need to give preferential concessions and preferential loans, they themselves will switch to our equipment. The law is simple "demand creates supply", sort of like the mantra of market people.
        1. +1
          2 November 2015 12: 43
          Yes, understand YOU. Do not need business exemptions and loans. Because the business wants only one profit more and faster. And if tomorrow you give them zero credit and exempt from taxes, what do you think these directors will take care of new technology for airlines. No . Here, they will take care of new technology for themselves, about new castles, for themselves and their loved ones. It is necessary to ask them toughly, and if relief is given, then so that they answer for it, and that’s how the money will go to their own needs.
          1. 0
            3 November 2015 09: 12
            Quote: perm23
            Yes, understand YOU. Do not need business exemptions and loans

            Yes, YOU understand that there is such a word as Profitability in the capitalist world.
            I explain to you, if Pyotr Petrovich has a billion and he thinks where to invest it, then where will he invest it?
            In construction with 300% per annum or in air transportation at 30% per annum?
            In Moscow, we are now building new buildings on every corner - because it is profitable.
            And in aviation, the cat wept - it is not profitable!
            And you offer carriers to tighten the nuts even more, then there will be nothing to fly on - and the last enthusiasts will go to other areas.
        2. 0
          2 November 2015 15: 08
          Demand of course gives rise to an offer, but the offer from heaven will go down to earth and consider such an example. Buses and trolleybuses have always been public transport. They also performed a social mission and a commercial one. But then there was a demand and minibuses appeared - gazelles, and then imported minibuses. Good! Fast, convenient, though not entirely safe. As a result, the buses almost disappeared, and passenger traffic fell in trolleybuses. They have become unprofitable. But what about the social mission! And although there is a demand for it, there will be no supply. Not profitable. As a result, entrepreneurs remove foam (far from always worrying about security, because this is secondary, primary - profit), and the social mission - to the state. Something like this.
  3. +23
    1 November 2015 05: 48
    Both civil aviation and railways should be only public and not private, which pursue profit neglecting everything! (this does not apply to the last crash, a serious investigation is needed) just my opinion as I work on the railway and see what was done to it after the MPS.
    1. +8
      1 November 2015 07: 31
      ... only state-owned and not private, which pursue profit neglecting everything!

      The interesting thing is that you are not alone in your opinion.

      Why are local branches of one state company worse and wasteful of small companies? And as regards aviation, and transport in general, they cannot exist without state relations and support (of course, if the government is not in private hands ...) An example of love for passengers from private airlines we saw recently when tickets to Moscow began to cost 80 rubles. And the fragmentation of railway transport did not lead to healthy competition, but to an increase in transportation tariffs. On the sea and river transport entire enterprises (sites) disappeared ...
      1. +4
        1 November 2015 08: 30
        And not only railways and air transportation - banking should also be a state monopoly. And then it was fruitful of garbage cans with only one idea: to cut the loot on the interest on the loan.
        1. BMW
          -1
          1 November 2015 13: 21
          Quote: Basarev
          And then it was fruitful of garbage cans with only one idea: to cut the loot on the interest on the loan.

          Oh come on, this is so a side run-in. The main earnings are speculation on the stock exchange and the carousel of state funds or large companies.
      2. +3
        1 November 2015 14: 17
        Yes, they told everyone that there will be competition and all. Prices down, quality up. Yes, no. All this is a lie. That someone does not need an extra ruble. He will look at a neighbor and say, I will sell the best quality product at a low price, Why. It will make it easier. will set the same price. Why should he save up for 5 years on a new yacht, if it is possible for a year. And then the children need it, etc. Here in my city in a radius of 500 meters there are already 5 stores and what, the price has changed somewhere. No and no.
  4. +15
    1 November 2015 05: 56
    Yes, they constantly talk about it. From one tragedy to another.
    Only now it is apparently more profitable to pay compensation to those who died in another plane crash every few years than to constantly invest in aircraft construction.
    So I think that this time too, everything will be limited to angry articles, speeches ... until the next catastrophe.
    1. 0
      3 November 2015 05: 37
      Yes, there is a whole field for our beloved deputies. After all, the state pays the bulk of the compensation. Why. There the German fell in the Alps where all payments were made by the carrier company. But there will be another trial. The company’s fault is complete and compensation for the dead is considered small. And the main thing is clear that this company will have to fork out again. All lawyers associated with this catastrophe unequivocally predict this. Here we are talking about something else. Jets produce only 35 pieces a year. This is very small, the cost will be high. Now they are trying to take the figure 40. Until there is a release of cars, the cost will be high. Two years they built one first IL-XNUMX in Ulyanovsk, too, the second two years. While production is still stalled. The fault of non-aircraft manufacturers is a much deeper problem. Related industries in a difficult situation. Instrument making, machine tool engineering, etc., etc. Breaking up with Ukraine is expensive for us. Helicopters of Russia feel better. Import substitution is faster here, since they took up this problem a little earlier. Only by the end of this year bottlenecks in the production of high-tech high-tech products were clarified. For a year they can’t be solved as soon as I would like. The sanctions highlighted a lot. Even the fact that we have product samples is much better than imported ones. But she was not needed, it was cheaper to buy and not bother. Of course, the liberal wing of the Government is in full swing to oppose the change of outlook on our native industry, they have to wait and all the sanctions will be lifted. But now it has come for a long time. The bulk of the confusion problems, but things are moving forward. And if the cash flow tracking system that was launched in the MO proves to be effective, then things will go even faster. The president wants to launch this system in the Government. Just imagine all the expenses in the budget country will work with the so-called colored money. That's where the dog is buried. This is for now in the Moscow Region and the military-industrial complex, she earned a lot of interesting translations in test mode. Competent organizations are now dealing with these issues. Only after a certain time, we will find out whether our authorities managed to cope with this disaster by producing new aircraft for passengers. It is useless to say anything now.
  5. +16
    1 November 2015 06: 00
    Until they introduce protective duties on the operation of aircraft junk in Russia and there will be no point in importing junk. I am not against imported aircraft, but only new cars should be registered and it is not necessary for 10 years this is not operation and the car will fly and fly. Also, officials do not take cars that have been a year in operation, but only new ones are taken? And another question? Why does the government want to allow foreign pilots to fly on our flights? It will not be cheaper, only more expensive. The best will not go to Russia, it is not bad for them, at home, but the refuse of Western companies that are not needed there. I have a proposal: to calculate all the pilots of the government squadron and replace them with pilots from the West, typed according to advertisements: "I am looking for a job."
    1. +3
      1 November 2015 07: 29
      It is necessary to do as with the auto industry, to produce our own and western and to ban the import of junk.
      1. +5
        1 November 2015 08: 38
        I would prefer only domestic transport. There is nothing to feed the West, who are so unfriendly to us. That is to ban absolutely all imports, regardless of the fraternity of the people ... Yes, and the term fraternal people itself is forbidden. And then every time we throw billions into the next fraternal regime, and in return we get betrayal over and over again. And then calmly write off and forgive debts.
        1. 0
          1 November 2015 11: 29
          Then it is necessary to ban everything imported, cars, clothes, food, and most importantly, machines and equipment, we will carry out modernization at our domestic, if we can ...
          1. +1
            1 November 2015 12: 36
            Well, why should such extremes (be forbidden) but how should rams follow everything be no better than prohibitions ... The West, for the sake of simplifying work (human labor), will automate everything as much as possible ... and by will not a person (driver or pilot) becomes a hostage get out of a situation that is sometimes incapable
      2. 0
        1 November 2015 15: 55
        Hey, don't touch the cars. Primorye against. The Japanese do not fail on the roads, unlike the domestic auto industry.
  6. 0
    1 November 2015 06: 07
    Roma minus you for the article. Yesterday Zyuganov condoled, or rather PR on corpses.
    Your article is not PR, but. A321 aircraft with tail number 663 was released 18 and a half years agoFirst of all, you need to look at the raid in the watch. The average age of operation is 25-30 years.
    Quote: Siberia 9444
    Both civil aviation and railways should be only public and not private, which pursue profit neglecting everything!

    In the world in every country, piles of private carriers fly on different machines, including new ones, but sometimes planes crash in different countries.
    In the days of the USSR, there was one state-owned company, with a bunch of new planes, but the planes still crashed. This is a tragedy and there were and will be many more, simply because the equipment sometimes fails.
    And the same Finn Air for 34 did not have a single disaster, and the company is private.
    1. +4
      1 November 2015 06: 32
      Have you seen where they fly? From the neighboring village to the city and back! So our "corn workers" have the same statistics!
      1. +8
        1 November 2015 06: 42
        Quote: Platonitch
        Have you looked where they fly? From a neighboring village to the city and back!

        Finn air from a neighboring village and back? The company flies around the world, for you a screen. And the link about flights it is lain http://www.finnair.com/en/en/flights/flightlist
        Qantas Airways also has not had a single crash in 34 years.
        All Nippon Airways
        Cathay pacifi

        You dear, it’s better to keep silent once again, it won’t leave you.
        1. +5
          1 November 2015 07: 09
          Silence is gold, not I came up with. Finair is an excellent carrier, especially for Petersburgers
      2. 0
        1 November 2015 11: 46
        Corners could (and can) plan + to sit where more or less exactly.
        It seems to me from the experience of flying on modern airliners that modern mass planes cannot plan in principle (did they see the extended parts of the wings when the speed decreases? - obviously to increase the bearing capacity when the speed decreases (c) Bernoulli), there is no fuel dump system - in case of emergency landing - 100% explosion, no chance to survive.
    2. -3
      1 November 2015 07: 49
      how infected you are with this idiocy ... you don’t even want to see facts through this veil. that hecate with his torch will illuminate that and are happy ...
      1. 0
        1 November 2015 09: 06
        and you can expand the idea?
    3. The comment was deleted.
  7. +12
    1 November 2015 06: 24
    The problem is in our aviation, rather, not even in airplanes, but in the organization of Russian civil aviation. Russia needs a fleet of new domestic aircraft.

    We do not have that country to allow ourselves to be left without the domestic aviation industry. Apparently this is the main conclusion from this article.
    1. +1
      1 November 2015 09: 24
      Apparently so.
      1. BMW
        0
        1 November 2015 13: 40
        Quote: Banshee
        Apparently so.

        That's right. We have from conclusions to making decisions, as to the moon on foot. And from making a decision, to putting it into practice, a whole hollow. This is a systemic crisis, because the system is no longer able to support and reproduce itself. hi
  8. +22
    1 November 2015 06: 25
    A very correct and timely article! Having ditched their own fleet of civil and, to some extent, military aviation, our grabber-"busmesmen" have collected some trash flying somehow and squeeze out profits to the maximum without caring about hundreds of lives of their fellow citizens. They save on everything: on fuel, personnel training, spare parts, maintenance, etc. I have a familiar Boeing pilot who plows just for wear and tear, since he is still young and already at the limit of human capabilities. There is a merciless, in the name of enrichment, exploitation of both people and technology. So the author has a huge respect !!!
    1. +6
      1 November 2015 06: 33
      Quote: Platonitch
      Very correct and timely article!

      After each plane crash, hundreds of such articles come out. After each fire in which people die, hundreds of articles go out. After each major accident involving buses, hundreds of articles are published.
      Dancing on blood-mourning today!
      1. +3
        1 November 2015 06: 59
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        After each ... hundreds of articles come out.

        This is the only way, unfortunately, on the blood of people, and to study. "Until the thunder breaks out ...".
        1. +3
          1 November 2015 11: 21
          Quote: venaya
          Only in this way, unfortunately, do people study on the blood.

          No, they don’t study, there will be slogans and inspections of companies all over the country, then everything will return to normal again. Until next time.
      2. +13
        1 November 2015 07: 52
        [quote = Alexander Romanov] Dancing on blood-mourning today!

        Yes! Mourning, and again no one will answer for this mourning. In Soviet times, two of my classmates sat down. One pilot was the commander of the Yak-40 - he sat down for an extra passenger, took pity on the lagging passenger and got caught. And the second sat down at the knot that was out of warranty, and there was nothing to replace. Here he succumbed to persuasion and received two years of probation with a wolf ticket. And then he worked as a mechanic, with a higher education, until his death. That's how they fought accident rate in Soviet Aeroflot.
        1. -1
          1 November 2015 08: 48
          And I think more and more about airships. Think about it: even with the crash of Hindenburg, less than a third died, and yet it was filled with flammable hydrogen, and this was the case in the thirties, and since then the technology has taken great strides.
          1. +4
            1 November 2015 09: 28
            Quote: Alexander Romanov
            Dancing on blood-mourning today!


            AND? What would change if the article came out tomorrow? Would you be less relevant?

            In general, each judge in moderation. To each his own.

            Alexander Romanov, for example, is being promoted on anti-flame. But this is Romanov, he can do almost everything here.
            1. -5
              1 November 2015 11: 13
              Quote: Banshee
              . But this is Romanov, almost everything is possible for him here.

              Oh, how you got hooked, you write articles so be able to accept criticism or do not write at all.
              Especially when you write an article.
          2. +1
            1 November 2015 10: 25
            Quote: Basarev
            during the Hindenburg crash, less than a third died, and yet it was filled with flammable hydrogen, and it was in the thirties, and since then technology has taken a big step forward.

            I will add a little: the Hindenburg airship is the first German airship that did not have the name Zepelin, from the very beginning of its development it was designed for the first time for non-combustible helium, which at that time was produced exclusively in the USA, but due to a trivial competitive war, the Americans did not their contractual obligations and did not supply strategic helium to Germany. It was this that became fatal for such a successful airship design and naturally ended in the largest tragedy at that time. In principle, this could not have happened if the Americans had supplied their helium to Germany. Only in this way was it possible to end the era of the monopoly of airships in commercial transatlantic transport and move on to the development of commercial use of heavier-than-air vehicles (aircraft) on this route.
      3. 0
        1 November 2015 14: 20
        You are wrong, we do not dance in the blood. We simply express our sorrow and think and reason that this should not happen. Therefore, we write here.
  9. +5
    1 November 2015 06: 39
    Platonich SU
    .... our grabbers - "busmesmen" have scored some trash flying somehow and are squeezing out profits to the maximum

    Hmm ... You are 100% right.
    As the saying goes, "nothing personal, just business ..." am
    The kingdom of heaven to the dead, condolences to the close.
  10. +17
    1 November 2015 06: 51
    The author is completely right - both in terms of import substitution, and in the monopolization of air transportation.
    See how the country's leadership "rush" with the "auto industry", although the country has never been a leader in this industry and the prospects for this to become very vague. But the rationale is that we save jobs.
    The aircraft industry — where we have much more and we can use the forces of industry (already! For almost everything is worth it) you can do much more — the chemical industry, metallurgy, engine building, electronic industry, etc.) —this is how many jobs. That’s where the money is - and it’s own money, not oil dollars!.
    But for some reason it is more profitable for our carriers to use leasing equipment ("buying" is inappropriate here - as Papanov's hero said to his son-in-law in the film "Beware of the car": "There is nothing of yours here! You are a HUNGER!").
    Maybe because Western banks easily give loans for such leasing

    A sad example of "Transaero" and how many before that - it is very easy to take such owners as a causal place and throw them to the sidelines.

    Air carrier today there should be one and the state - well, we are still under-grown to the private aviation market -

    The Kogalymavia airline, whose plane crashed in Egypt, is owned by private individuals.

    According to the SPARK system, in the early 2000s it was co-owned by Lukoil, but then it was completely taken over by the Western Aviation Investment Company, registered in Moscow. Its owners are Khamit Bagana, Amirbek Gagaev, Buvaysar Khalidov. They also own travel companies, and Amirbek Gagaev owns the Moscow security company Almaz.

    In 2012, the airline rebranded and became known as Metrojet. In 2013, revenue amounted to 7,5 billion, profit - 10,6 million. In 2014, with the same revenue, profit was minimal - 43 thousand.

    The company's fleet consisted of five Airbus A 321.


    "Cooks" are not suited to control the "sky" - no matter how rich and advanced they are
  11. +18
    1 November 2015 07: 02
    I am ready to subscribe to all three points of the author’s conclusions. But this unfortunately will not happen. Our army is led by traders in furniture, energy and nanotechnology, Chubais, etc. But for some reason they don’t want to work as pilots. Dangerous for health.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. +2
      1 November 2015 10: 35
      Quote: Stinger
      . We are taken by the army to manage furniture dealers,


      And now these merchants will also manage the production of civilian aircraft - I’m talking about the new appointment of Serdyukov to Rostec ...
      While at the forum, commentators shock the air with curses against them and give various advice, the country's leadership has already taken practical steps to rectify the situation and has entrusted Serdyukov with overseeing the civilian aircraft industry ..
      It seems above that they believe that now the civilian aircraft industry is in good hands and has no doubt in success ...
      He is a man already proven in business .. hi
      1. BMW
        +1
        1 November 2015 14: 10
        Quote: ranger
        He is a man already proven in business.

        Of course, it will destroy the corruption scheme, take away (save) billions. I realized that they put an end to Superjet and MS, we will definitely buy Airbus and Boeing.
  12. +7
    1 November 2015 07: 12
    I subscribe to every word of the author.
  13. +23
    1 November 2015 07: 16
    I agree with the author! The IL-86 (96) in comfort is in no way inferior to its foreign counterparts, it flew on many aircraft of the USSR (of course, a passenger). The TU-204, when compared with charter purchased Boeing, is a palace! Legs can be pulled out without problems! And they don’t buy our planes are enemies of the people! There are various reasons not to take your own, but to buy and sponsor Americans and Germans with frogs! And then sit and talk that the economy is not growing and not developing am It's a shame for the motherland ..... We are not worthy of such a fate!
    Put minus fans of business class massage chairs!
    1. +2
      1 November 2015 07: 39
      Do not treat cons as negatives. This is an indicator of your personal personality. The more there are, the sharper your person stands out in the crowd.

      It's a shame for the motherland ..... We are not worthy of such a fate!
      good
  14. +9
    1 November 2015 07: 22
    I absolutely support the author!
    As a passenger, I want and demand that I deal with air travel ONE STATE COMPANY-powerful and strong, using DOMESTIC aircraft — new and reliable, not foreign stuff!
    If you offer potential passengers to fly to a state-owned company or to a private flyfish, the answer, I think, will be obvious!
    1. -2
      1 November 2015 09: 10
      Quote: Aleksander
      I want and demand that ONE STATE company, powerful and strong, using DOMESTIC aircraft, new and reliable, and not foreign stuff, is engaged in air transportation!

      Forgot to add - and to cheap, and even better almost free!
      And how many people will fly at normal prices, not really that people want to fly on expensive flights - they themselves buy tickets for 20-year old stuff because it is cheaper.
      1. +2
        1 November 2015 09: 46
        One company is a monopoly. That is, prices you can draw whatever you want, all unprofitable routes for the knife and infrastructure for sale.
    2. +3
      1 November 2015 10: 34
      Quote: Aleksander
      I demand that ONE STATE company, powerful and strong, using DOMESTIC aircraft, is new and reliable, and not foreign stuff, is engaged in air transportation!

      It was so in the USSR! One company, a state-owned company, acquired exclusively new aircraft and serviced them from start to finish. And now what? After the Turks, Saudis, Syrians, Lebanese got rid of the plane, it was acquired by a small private company Kogalym-Aviya and registered in Ireland. How it was exploited, what problems it had, why it was sold, we are told everything is recorded in the documents. But, in life it often happens that: "It was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines!"
  15. +5
    1 November 2015 07: 23
    I agree with the author! For a long time there was an article about the airbus cemetery in America, and there they bought this trash-Russian huckster for a penny!
  16. +2
    1 November 2015 07: 26
    The author is right. We are talking about the independence of Russia, but in fact almost everything belongs to Western exploiters.
    1. +4
      1 November 2015 08: 54
      The secret is that independence means responsibility, and this, by no means, fits into the worldview of the ruling elite.
  17. +4
    1 November 2015 07: 34
    I respect Roman very much, but the view on things is very amateurish. The problem does not lie on the surface .... if earlier, while Tu and Yak and An were still in operation, our average person (no worse than DAM) also shouted that we were flying in the trash, let's buy Bobiki and Watermelons, now the polarity has changed. And the matter is not in the manufacturer, not in the plane itself, and sales are not in the age of this VS. Specifically to yesterday's event - the plane does not fall so fast .... think further.
    1. +6
      1 November 2015 07: 39
      Yesterday's event is an occasion to raise once again the problem that has developed in civil aviation - no planes, no pilots, no techies. Some ticket sellers !!!
    2. +11
      1 November 2015 07: 46
      And I respect any person who can compose correct, convincing phrases and express their thoughts with this ...
      About those who love Bobiks and Watermelons:
      I know there are more families
      Where our screaming and scolding,
      Where they look with emotion
      On foreign stickers ...
      And fat ... Russian eat!
      1. 0
        1 November 2015 08: 14
        I love planes !!!!! .... no need to juggle. And I meant that maintenance is always at the level !!!! ... damn, so I want to say disgusting ...
        1. +1
          1 November 2015 09: 34
          I love them too. And he had nothing against the planes (until a certain time). And pleading just for the fact that they were as written in the article. New and ours.

          And who (like Romanov, for example) likes 30-year-old Boeings, so what's the question?
    3. +2
      1 November 2015 09: 31
      Quote: VovanFalcon
      a look at things is very amateurish.


      Naturally. To write professionally, you need to at least work in the air transportation system. But those who work there are silent, silent and will be silent. For the street reluctance, and narrow specialization does not give a choice.

      Of course, the judgment is amateurish and purely consumer. But how many professionals were on that plane? I think that some consumers were.
      1. 0
        1 November 2015 16: 10
        Roman, I don’t know how to write professionally ..... and I will be silent. And it's not about the street .... I'm not Magomed Tolboev, I won’t draw conclusions ..... but I suggest thinking. A working plane does not crash quickly.
  18. +12
    1 November 2015 07: 39
    Our aviation industry was demolished on purpose, according to a knurled scenario. They say they do not pass through noise and emissions. From 1999 to 2002 he worked in the fire department of VASO. So, with full maintenance, the IL-86 is disassembled almost completely and almost everything on it changes, at the factory. The question is, what full MOT can the owner of the aircraft do in his home hangar in 30-40 days? It was just that the news said that the plane had recently passed a "heavy maintenance". And in terms of quality. I saw how and in what modes the ILs are driven and therefore I am confident in them. The comfort in them is at the level, and at the request of the customer (then the Il-96 presidential was at the assembly).
    1. 0
      1 November 2015 07: 50
      "Severe form" of Watermelon and Bobik is no worse than it was on our equipment. Sometimes it also seems to me that I can treat myself better than a doctor.
      1. +2
        1 November 2015 11: 17
        There are many doctors, the treatment of which is better to prefer independent.
      2. 0
        1 November 2015 11: 17
        There are many doctors, the treatment of which is better to prefer independent.
    2. +10
      1 November 2015 07: 54
      Who would doubt - why is there an extra competitor on the Globe: Boeing and Airbus are enough. The fact that our planes have "become" uncompetitive is "purely literary" arguments.
      In Soviet times, the designers "did not soar" with noise, efficiency - there was no question - airfields far outside the city, and not in its center, there was enough kerosene for everyone ...
      There were "requirements" there were new engines.
      But alas, the "new owners" quickly replaced the fleet of domestic cars with used foreign cars and the issue of replacing engines on domestic aircraft disappeared "as unnecessary."
      "As unnecessary" they plundered the Saratov Aviation Plant, and the rest are "riveted".

      And the fact that our aircraft production is not a "primus plant" is evidenced by the fact that the same Boeing locates the production of its components at these enterprises.
      1. +1
        1 November 2015 09: 12
        Quote: Just BB
        the same Boeing places production of its components at these enterprises

        And this is good!
    3. +1
      1 November 2015 09: 36
      That's what I mean! So it is "IL", which was going to VASO. And THAT was done by people who knew him before riveting!

      Would you make a Boeing on VASO? Fuck there! Would you do such a renovation at the airport? Right now!
  19. +3
    1 November 2015 07: 47
    The author’s words are in the ears of GDP, although I think he does not solve much in the light of recent events.
  20. +6
    1 November 2015 07: 48
    Article plus. The problems outlined in the article exist, they must be addressed.
    The fact of silencing problems also takes place, and not only in aviation.
    Pilots carry a great emotional and psychological burden, and at a critical moment, people's lives depend on their decision. It is necessary that at such moments they should not be punished for undermining the commercial interests of the campaign, only then the decision will be unambiguously taken to reduce risks for passengers. Small passenger transportation companies do not have a sufficient technical base for operating such complex objects as airplanes. must be recognized and corrected. The fragmentation of aviation into many small companies has a negative imprint on the safety of aircraft operation, on the training of pilots.
    This is a national problem and I must admit that in this regard, the commercial interests of carriers, rather than passengers, still prevail, moreover, measures to revive domestic aircraft manufacturing, improve pilot training will have a beneficial effect on the country's economy and increase the safety of air transportation.
    Like everyone, I sincerely condolences to the relatives and friends of those killed in the plane crash. The eternal memory of people who died prematurely.
  21. +2
    1 November 2015 07: 49
    But the author is not right about privatization Trademark ** Aeroflot ** and all the consequences of this have been seized by Moscow internationals. And then, if you want, you don’t want to, ALL THE OTHERS. Out of need !!! If the author of an article from the Minaviaprom system, at least I didn’t even read about the topic and asked the civil aviation workers. As for Minaviaprom, put the men in order with counterfeit spare parts and increase the warranty resources of components and assemblies for domestic cars and then wash that there are no orders AvtoVAZ also cried that production was not working well, it didn’t improve anything, it hung on the neck of taxpayers and was engaged in eating state money without any progress in production And what? Ask yourself the author, what did you do in this direction except for the article on the site?
    1. +3
      1 November 2015 09: 39
      Quote: AIR-ZNAK
      If the author of the article from the system Minaviaproma


      Not. The author is purely consumer. No relation to the aviation industry.

      Quote: AIR-ZNAK
      Ask yourself the author and what have you done in this direction besides the article on the site?


      Asked. He published two materials in defense of the Voronezh Aircraft Building Association. Here and in other places. Even so.
  22. +9
    1 November 2015 07: 51
    The problem is money. Or rather, in the greed and complete immorality of the owners of the aviation market in Russia. They only need money, only profit, and as little costs as possible. It is for this reason that amendments to the flight code of the Russian Federation were lobbied and adopted, allowing guest workers to work in Russia on the basis of only national flight diplomas, etc. Look at what is being done in terms of aircraft maintenance in Russia. Quite recently, one of the leaders of our aviation industry complained that the planes are serviced by "who knows how and who knows who", that our airlines attract Gaster with dubious qualifications for this and "invent" their schedules and maintenance standards - and all this for one if only it was cheaper. The same is with spare parts - what do you think of this old junk, which our air carriers use during repairs and put new spare parts? Yes, no matter how it is, for many it is just that such spare parts are not produced due to the antiquity of aircraft brands and therefore we have a thriving market for used spare parts and illiquid assets from all kinds of air dumps.
    1. +6
      1 November 2015 08: 04
      In confirmation of your words. The truth is not an example from aviation. It was necessary to buy spare parts for equipment repair. Does the seller ask me? You for sale or for yourself? I was dumbfounded asking what is the difference? And the answer: for the sale is cheap and for several hours of work, for yourself more expensive, but for that, factory and high-quality.
      1. +1
        1 November 2015 14: 22
        I had the same thing. One to one
    2. +2
      1 November 2015 08: 21
      Any unit for an aircraft produced in the USSR had a passport. Even if it is a "duplicate", it is not difficult for a specialist to establish the "normality" of the unit. Forms of the main units l. were restored only after the unit was repaired. I do not think that any of the heads of the repair enterprise was found and "legalized" such a unit. Supervisors don't sleep. A trifle that does not affect flight safety may slip through, but you cannot do "business" on them (unless it is "XXX - Avia"), and there is a lot of stench.
      Although there are "amateurs", as in the city dumps
    3. 0
      1 November 2015 09: 15
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      They need only money, only profit and the lowest possible costs.

      Yes, that's why people open their own business and this is a feature of any business.
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      amendments to the flight code of the Russian Federation allowing migrant workers to work in Russia

      And it is possible in more detail, what kind of "guest workers" are they?
      1. 0
        1 November 2015 10: 01
        Quote: Down House
        And it is possible in more detail, what kind of "guest workers" are they?

        And, the very brains do not have enough to think about who this "might be" (although, what am I talking about, what brains can there be in Daun House)? Or a crest with a "temporary registration" is no longer a "Gaster"? I generally keep quiet about "outsourcing" ...
        1. -3
          1 November 2015 10: 51
          Quote: Monster_Fat
          Or a crest with a "temporary registration" is no longer a "Gaster"?

          Do Ukrainians work on US lines? Or what exactly did you want to say ?!
          AAA - I realized that international law does not prohibit pilots who are citizens of other countries from flying over other countries!
          Well, this is so everywhere, and concerns not only pilots, but also sailors and truckers for example.
          Now it remains to clarify something else (more precisely, what I initially asked): why do you think this is bad ?!
          And most importantly, how are you going to fight this ?!
          1. +2
            1 November 2015 11: 27
            "Durka" -that "turn on" is not necessary ... Why "bad" ... I do not even want to explain, you still do not understand in your "Daun ..." once you did not understand until today. And "how to fight" ... first, at the state level, prohibit "outsourcing" ..., then introduce compulsory "licensing" of flight and technical personnel ...
            1. 0
              1 November 2015 13: 12
              Quote: Monster_Fat
              Why "bad" ... I don't even want to explain, you still won't understand

              Yes, I don’t understand.
              "guest workers" and "outsourcing" are a worldwide practice and it is useless and senseless to fight against this, it is in the direct interests of air carriers.
              And they hire "guest workers" not because our "licensing" does not pass, but because our pilots often do not pass their "licensing"!
              1. +1
                1 November 2015 14: 05
                There is nothing "meaningless" and "useless", and there is no need to refer to some mythical "international practice". You will tell the German trade unions in the aviation industry about this "practice" - they will tell you in detail about "outsourcing" in Germany. And the fact that it is in the "direct interests" of greedy carriers, I absolutely agree. Outsourcing and everything connected with it, this again brings me back to my very first post about the uncontrolled greed of the tycoons of our aviation industry, who by any means want to quickly reduce any "costs" they consider. So it is the direct responsibility of the state to control the "appetites" of greedy hucksters from the aircraft industry and carriers without conscience, and to monitor compliance with all regulatory and regulatory rules and documents related to operation and safety, and not to be eliminated hoping for the notorious "self-regulatory" "hand of the market".
                1. 0
                  1 November 2015 15: 41
                  Quote: Monster_Fat
                  monitor compliance with all regulatory and regulatory rules and documents related to operation and safety

                  And with this I completely agree!
                  But do not confuse the warm with the soft - any business will reduce costs and work to increase profits.
                  And if "outsourcing" makes the business more profitable and does not harm security, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
                  Remember the same MTS at collective farms - the same "outsourcing".
                  And as the tractor was hung on the balance of collective farms, so immediately the small ones began to bend.
                  1. 0
                    1 November 2015 16: 34
                    You are not speaking correctly about MTS. Motor-tractor stations (MTS) were created by the state to help collective farms to facilitate the maintenance and processing of arable land. The MTS system assumed: full state service, including spare parts, but the collective farm paid for the fuel. In fact, MTSs were bases on which there was equipment supplied by the state for FREE, but assigned to a specific collective farm or group of collective farms and was serviced by the collective farmers themselves. Spare parts and so on were sent on demand-order, which was issued at the collective farm. After the resource was spent, tractors and other machines were left on the farm as a source of spare parts. This system has nothing to do with "outsourcing", it is more like "free leasing". "Outsourcing" involves the withdrawal of labor from under the jurisdiction of the direct employer and the transfer of it to another company, another employer, which carries out attention! operating this workforce on its own terms, from which the direct employer "rents", then, this workforce. "Outsourcing" was created and serves for non-fulfillment by the primary hiring company of higher wages, hazard payments, labor protection and safety conditions in certain "complex" industries and production. "Outsourcing" is an evil that the state needs to fight, and to stop the practice of "outsourcing" you can easily ban it and that's it. But the state does not agree to this, since "outsourcing" is lobbied at the very top by gas producing, oil producing and other companies.
                    1. 0
                      1 November 2015 19: 46
                      Quote: Monster_Fat
                      "Outsourcing" involves the withdrawal of labor from the jurisdiction of the direct employer and the transfer of it to another company, another employer

                      No.
                      Outsourcing is the initial transfer by an organization, on the basis of an agreement, of certain business processes or production functions.
                      And these functions are not limited to labor alone.
                      And what you are talking about is called outstaffing.
                      I explain briefly.
                      Taxi tractor rental - outsourcing.
                      Taxi service at OD, and not in its own workshop - outsourcing.
                      The contract with the private security company - outstaffing.
                      In all of this, initially there is nothing wrong, provided that the services are provided in a quality manner, to verify this, the state introduces licensing for certain types of activities.
                      Quote: Monster_Fat
                      You speak incorrectly about MTS

                      I initially spoke not about MTS (although this is also outsourcing) but about the fact that any even the most decent businessman will seek to save.
                      And initially there is nothing wrong with that.
    4. +1
      1 November 2015 14: 25
      Everywhere and everything like that. And the dash knows what equipment. what specialists. a lot of illegal immigrants. Here are some of our friends driving buses. And that they monitor the machine, the safety. For the owner the main thing is profit, and everything else is not interesting to him.
    5. GAF
      +1
      1 November 2015 16: 00
      "The whole problem is in money. Or rather, in the greed and complete immorality of the owners of the aviation market in Russia. They only need money, only profit, and as little costs as possible."
      In fact of the matter. Small private campaigns, the main concern of which is profit, violate the main requirement for ensuring flight safety: a unit that has exhausted a resource established by the technical regulation, for example, 500 hours, regardless of its condition !!! must be replaced with a new one or with a diagnosis after cap. Repair, with a certificate of validity for the nth number of hours.
  23. +1
    1 November 2015 07: 57
    I agree with the author
  24. +1
    1 November 2015 08: 04
    The author is a hundred times right. All foreign-made aircraft are not of the first freshness that have come to us through the tenth hands.
  25. +6
    1 November 2015 08: 06
    Who doubts that Boeing and Airbus bring kickbacks to the government for the airlines not to buy Russian planes, but to buy their troughs, and our Ilushin and Tupolev do not carry, because there is nothing to bear, you can bet me a minus ... am
    1. +3
      1 November 2015 16: 39
      plus put. Although Ilyushin and Tupolev have a lot of problems with the characteristics, they could not be completely closed in any case. Who did this are criminals. They would be right now to find and punish.
      And since it is not with an armed look that it is clear that all these tricks with the pushing of the interests of Boeing and Airbus are made due to good infusions into the budget of the home of some officials. I even think that finding who it is not difficult, even I think that some still receive this money and feel good ...
  26. The comment was deleted.
  27. +2
    1 November 2015 08: 35
    ..... The article is correct, it’s all too painful according to ours, according to Russian: we destroyed the whole Aeroflot world, to the ground, and then .. we will build our new Azroflot. And you think the planes will not fall .. will be, just as cars beat, ships sink, rockets fall ...... Remember ten to twenty years ago .... How many of them fell our TU-a lot ... a big scandal arose and shouted: = Russian everything for soap ... = .... Abandoned our technical specifications and that foreign planes appeared, by the way, not only old, but also new .... And in general, the concept of an old aircraft in aviation, the name is relative, no one will give rubbish carry passengers, and fly them, there are no suicidal pilots, so the concept of an old plane is a literary concept, but not a technical one ... and again an emergency ... But let's not judge everything based on initial information only. ..It is nevertheless necessary to wait for the results of the investigation. Moreover, it’s an international investigation and I'm sorry, you can’t hide the sewed bag in it ...... Although the author’s claims, I repeat, many people are forced to think .........
    1. +2
      1 November 2015 08: 59
      Quote: Siberian
      The concept of an old airplane is a literary concept, but not a technical one ...

      In Singapore, if I’m not mistaken, after seven years of operation, the plane is written off, what they do with it then I don’t know, maybe it’s sold to those countries that believe that they bought a lot of aircraft for little money
  28. +5
    1 November 2015 08: 42
    I agree with the article by 100%. What is needed to ideally avoid such incidents, or to minimize the number of air accidents and as a consequence of the victims:

    The first is the creation of a single air carrier under the state wing (it is much easier to control one large company than a few dozen "snakes" with a fleet of two or three aircraft. The capabilities of a large company for servicing cars, training personnel, technological equipment, etc. are incomparable with small companies (especially with the maximum unification of the fleet with the minimum required variety of cars by class). The combination of profitable destinations and flights with marginal ones will minimize losses and require less government subsidies for such flights)

    The second is the ban on the purchase of used cars from abroad (as a minimum the maximum hours in hours for each model in accordance with its manufacturer-designated resource in the region of 20-25% of the use of the flight resource)

    Third, as the domestic civil aircraft industry develops (intensively) over a period of 7-10 years, it prohibits the purchase of new foreign-made aircraft that have an appropriate analogue to the main performance characteristics of domestic production (provided that they have comparable operational characteristics, such as the cost of the board, the assigned resource for the glider and engines, fuel efficiency). Of course, a capable state aircraft manufacturing program for manufacturers, and for a carrier a convenient mechanism for acquiring aircraft (leasing with state support or something else).
    1. +2
      2 November 2015 23: 03
      The problem is that we have lost our technical support staff abroad. And the maintenance of our aircraft outside our ports is associated with these difficulties. At one time, we were squeezed in this way from their airports, citing the fact that Boeing and Airbus were unified in service. And for our board we need another service and stuff, here's another snag.
  29. -2
    1 November 2015 08: 46
    Why is it so easy to abandon ours in favor of a foreign one?

    Including because flying abroad (if I'm not mistaken of course) today can only Superjet - the rest are too noisy and environmentally friendly.
    Russian aircraft builders should be fed by updating the fleet, and not officials who deal with contracts for the supply of air junk from the bounty of the West.

    Strange, but for some reason I thought that the airlines themselves buy aircraft - and not necessarily from the "generous west" and who will sell cheaper))
    Russia needs a state airline and a state guarantee of our air security.

    First of all, Russia needs normal production, normal engines to start, which will be launched abroad and which will work there.
    The thing is that the capacity of the regional market of the Russian Federation is 200-250 aircraft maximum and this is not enough to recoup a plane flying only with regional flights.
    Therefore, of course, it is necessary to support production, it is necessary to support airlines flying with our new planes - but this will absolutely not help if it will be impossible to fly abroad.
    1. +1
      1 November 2015 08: 56
      Including because flying abroad (if I'm not mistaken of course) today can only Superjet - the rest are too noisy and environmentally friendly.

      1) Abroad is not only EU requirements
      2) The issue is decided by the introduction of its own rules for them. I think the ES people are reasonable and would not aggravate the situation.
      PS In order to defend the domestic aviation industry, you need will, desire and eggs. Our rulers have problems with this.
      1. -1
        1 November 2015 09: 25
        Quote: onix757
        1) Abroad is not only EU requirements

        Yeah, you might think the rest of the world is not interested in Kyoto and other protocols!
        Still as interesting - increasing the environmental friendliness of all that is possible is the global BOOM.
        And then, the number of countries where the plane can be sent and its environmental friendliness are important for any carrier - not only EU planes fly to the EU.
        Quote: onix757
        2) The issue is decided by the introduction of its own rules for them.

        This is, again, a global trend. And the tendency, to be honest, is that the environment needs to be protected.
        Quote: onix757
        In order to defend the domestic aviation industry, one needs will, desire and eggs

        First of all, you need to understand that a modern aircraft is very complex and very expensive - in order for its production to be profitable, sales are needed not of regional, but of world level.
        "Regional manufacturers" are financially unable to afford to produce modern aircraft.
        1. 0
          1 November 2015 09: 41
          Yeah, you might think the rest of the world is not interested in Kyoto and other protocols!

          No, they are not interesting if they see a major player in the global aviation market as a supplier.
          And then, the number of countries where the plane can be sent and its environmental friendliness are important for any carrier - not only EU planes fly to the EU.

          For any carrier from third countries that do not have influence in the global aviation market, they are important. The rest create rules and make them play see above.
          1. 0
            1 November 2015 09: 55
            Quote: onix757
            see in the supplier of a major player in the global aviation market.

            It is not entirely clear exactly how objective prohibitions and large expenditures on exploitation are linked by the image of a "big game". I think if there is a dependence here, it is only inversely proportional to your logic.
            Quote: onix757
            For any carrier from third countries that do not have influence in the global aviation market, it is important.

            And this "any carrier" will most likely buy a used aircraft.
            1. 0
              1 November 2015 10: 13
              It is not entirely clear exactly how objective prohibitions and large expenditures on exploitation are linked by the image of a "big game". I think if there is a dependence here, it is only inversely proportional to your logic.

              "Objective" bans are created under the influence of large aircraft manufacturers (today A and B), in order to prevent "stray" people from entering their market. Previously, the USSR itself created bans, but now we use strangers.
              And this "any carrier" will most likely buy a used aircraft.

              Well, if we are without claims on a major aviation manufacturer (which is so), then they do so, they buy BU-trash.
              1. 0
                1 November 2015 10: 58
                Quote: onix757
                "Objective" bans are created under the influence of large aircraft manufacturers (today A and B), in order to prevent "stray"

                What is it like?!
                Boeings are not allowed into the EU, and Airbases are in the USA ?! ))))
                And for carriers, what matters are the problems of these companies, their total turnover significantly exceeds the turnover of aircraft manufacturers!
                Do you understand?
                International carriers rule over national manufacturers and in no case vice versa.
                1. 0
                  1 November 2015 11: 52
                  Boeings are not allowed into the EU, and Airbases are in the USA ?! ))))

                  Boeing and Busik with the collapse of the Union half the world in clients. Do you understand which market? There is no great reason for them to bite, because they get along well, complement each other and share profits.
                  And for carriers, what matters are the problems of these companies, their total turnover significantly exceeds the turnover of aircraft manufacturers!

                  Carriers really have little to do with manufacturers 'problems, which does not negate manufacturers' interest in carriers, who in turn are gentlemen sharing the market.
                  International carriers rule over national manufacturers and in no case vice versa.

                  And who are international carriers? Yes, there are mergers and acquisitions in the west, but in most cases the controlling stake remains with the national government, which in turn is subject to political and economic influence.
          2. 0
            1 November 2015 10: 34
            Quote: onix757
            No, not interesting

            Even as interesting, you can sell your quota to a country that pays good money for it
        2. +1
          1 November 2015 09: 45
          First of all, you need to understand that a modern aircraft is very complex and very expensive - in order for its production to be profitable, sales are needed not of regional, but of world level.

          Yes, you at least make a spaceship, in the world they will not buy it without patronage. Nobody just lets anyone into their market. We gave our market and now we are on the verge of markets A and B and are waiting for the bone to be thrown.
          1. -2
            1 November 2015 09: 58
            Quote: onix757
            in the world they will not buy it without patronage

            Without whose patronage?
            Private carriers are not interested in "patronage" - when buying aircraft, they are guided primarily by their own benefits.
            1. 0
              1 November 2015 10: 19
              Without whose patronage?

              States or groups of states manufacturing aircraft.
              Private carriers are not interested in "patronage" - when buying aircraft, they are guided primarily by their own benefits.

              Private carriers (read a trifle) uses the rules of the game that the state will establish. For example, the state will say that from today used A and B will cost as new and immediately all the benefits will come to naught.
              1. 0
                1 November 2015 14: 00
                Quote: onix757
                States or groups of states manufacturing aircraft.

                So you might think the heads of these states collect carriers from around the world in a circle and say what they should buy and when. And at the same time and what kind of cars to drive and in which house to live. Well, it's funny, well, it's not so simple!
                Quote: onix757
                Private carriers (read a trifle) uses the rules of the game that the state will establish.

                First of all, they use the rules of international law and the rules of doing business.
                If the state begins to twist the nuts excessively, the business goes either to another sphere or to another country.
                And do not think that you can just take it and make the business work in a way that is beneficial only to the state.
                If this is not beneficial to the business, it will simply go bankrupt.
    2. 0
      1 November 2015 08: 57
      Strange, but for some reason I thought that the airlines themselves buy aircraft - and not necessarily from the "generous west" and who will sell cheaper))

      The question of barrage duties on air junk was never resolved by the DAM cabinet
    3. +1
      2 November 2015 01: 04
      Do you think the world market for regional aircraft is so large that it is strongly interested in Russian aircraft? Yes, it has long been divided between Brazilian and Canadian manufacturers, and the fact that Russia managed to SLEEP with the Superjets is already happiness! will not be able to recoup production, only an emphasis on the domestic consumer will be able to reverse the situation with the production of aircraft in a series (250-300 pieces is ALREADY a lot for us today!)
  30. +2
    1 November 2015 08: 59
    We must end with charter companies. And also with contractors, subcontractors, subcontractors and other parasites. If this is done away with, it will only be better for everyone.
    1. 0
      1 November 2015 09: 31
      Quote: Valga
      We must end with charter companies.

      Nobody is forcibly planting anyone in them, people voluntarily choose cheap carriers and infa for all of them from the fleet to the statistics of disasters is freely available.
      And to put an end to "parasites" is possible only by giving up the Russian "maybe"!
  31. +5
    1 November 2015 09: 03
    Right people who speak out about the potential causes of the disaster. This terrible tragedy that claimed the lives of our compatriots. Eternal memory to them, the land rest in peace ....
    However, this is a reason to stir up the public consciousness for solving such an important problem in Russia as ensuring flight safety. this is a grandiose topic about which one can and should talk, or even better, SOLVE it using all available means. I think that many people understand that the main reason for the accidents of aircraft in Russia is associated with the very system of organizing air transportation. Everyone understands and knows that not a single small shop or private shop selling anything will NEVER be able to compete with large retail chains. Large retail chains (in this case, this is just a comparison) will always offer better quality products, more favorable prices, and provide the best service guarantees and maintenance. Since in Russia today the capitalist economic model of economic development is used, this rule of the market economy can be extended to any type of activity, including air carriers. So why is this happening? Let's try to figure it out ..)))) The point is probably much greater saturation (large companies) with capital, a network of sales and services ramified across cities and regions, a single center of management and planning .... These are at least several main components. "Unified control and planning center" don't you think it smelled familiar? Yes it is - the Soviet management style. Wow !! So it turns out that under "that antediluvian socialism" we used the most advanced economic models of development !!! What a surprise . The conclusion suggests itself. Until Russia is restored, in one form or another, the "old" and it is already "new" air transportation system that includes absolutely all the necessary components (aircraft are only part of this system), nothing will change in terms of air transportation safety. The Constitution of the Russian Federation states that the source of power is the PEOPLE. So PEOPLE, it's time to do something about it. How would and to whom it would be "unpleasant".
    1. 0
      1 November 2015 09: 35
      Quote: tracer
      The constitution of the Russian Federation states that the source of power is the PEOPLE.

      He - the people delegate power to the elect in the election, and this ends his role, and the chosen one starts a business game with his environment, which is his real pillar
  32. +6
    1 November 2015 09: 07
    Air Carrier - there should be only 1-one (such as the Soviet "AEROFLOT") with Unified flight rules, uniform regulations and maintenance - as in the Civil Aviation of the USSR). The aircraft fleet should also be purely domestic: TU-334, Tu-214, TU-204, IL-96-400 (in the passenger version) - on which the VVP flies, and so on. For EVERYTHING (in Civil Aviation) only ONE STRUCTURE should be responsible (and not dozens, as it is now). All Rape (in other countries) Foreign BU-AVIA-KHLAM (Airbus, Boeing), which is now in the RF Aviation Park - Under PRESS (on LOM).
    1. +1
      1 November 2015 09: 34
      Quote: F. Vastag
      Air Carrier - there should be only 1-one with Unified flight rules, unified regulations and maintenance

      Here is the fact that transportation rules and services should be the same for everyone and should be controlled by the state - this is absolutely true.
      But how many companies / owners will be on the market is absolutely irrelevant if they all work according to general rules.
      1. 0
        2 November 2015 06: 12
        Quote: F. Vastag
        For EVERYTHING (in Grazhd. Aviation), only ONE STRUCTURE should be responsible (and not tens, as it is now).

        Quote: Down House
        But how many companies / owners will be on the market is absolutely irrelevant if they all work according to general rules.

        By combining both your proposals, there will be a way out of the impasse. You need a single service or structure for controlling air traffic, and not only, but for all traffic in the country. If you look, now in the country there are several hundred government agencies for all types of transport, which they’re not responsible for anything, but only regularly collect money for nothing, and those leaving do not know where. It’s better to be alone, but with which both the prime minister and the president can ask.
    2. -3
      1 November 2015 09: 52
      Even in the USA and France they cannot make dominating the presence in the sky of their aircraft giants on their territory! Companies in the United States massively exploit different types of aircraft with live Boeing.

      Plus, and this is the main thing, the domestic is not taken at all not because of the harmfulness, but because of the market. For even take Il:
      - operation in Aeroflot is completely unprofitable. In other words, if you go to IL-96 have by a third raise ticket prices for Boeing / Airbus.

      - service efficiency is extremely low, simple for a similar breakdown of a Boeing and 96 differed by more than 5 times! In other words - more downtime, more loss, more expensive ticket!

      - the production itself, now only Sukhoi makes 30-40 boards per year. The rest of 1-2 and then not every year. Many hundreds of aircraft, hundreds of new service centers across the country are needed.
  33. +5
    1 November 2015 09: 28
    Ha, capitalism rules. At the head is profit and superprofit. The main thing is loot, the rest is nothing. And like children. Who will allow you to have one airline? At least to the state. Antitrust code will immediately run up, such as breaking the law. And in Kamchatka we raised the price of gas three times in two months - and this is within the framework of the law. it turns out.
  34. +2
    1 November 2015 09: 29
    Dear ones, maybe you still need to wait for the conclusions of the commission of inquiry, and listen less to various "specialists" who, as a rule, have no direct relation to either maintenance or flight operations. I share and understand the emotional state of compatriots, but our industry alone cannot produce competitive aircraft in sufficient quantities in a short period of time. The fact is that such aircraft are just beginning, with great difficulties, to enter the market. Dear, understand - the plane itself is just iron, and without normal after-sales support and built-in service systems and supply of spare parts, it will never become a successful project. Whatever opinion we have about its comfort and reliability. The indicator of the cost of an aircraft operation hour is very important for an airline; it consists of many indicators. Believe me, no kickbacks will be able to influence the decisions of the airline's management, to operate a particular model of an aircraft if it is not able to recoup the operating costs, this is just a road to nowhere. Air transportation is a very tough business, and an aircraft is a means of production. Here you also need to clearly understand that airlines do not buy aircraft, they lease them and the cost of this lease does not depend very much on the size of the carrier - the lease rate is also a market, only between lessors and it is basically the same.
    1. 0
      1 November 2015 10: 27
      the authorities have many levers of pressure on the business and I think that they would find something to force all these small companies to merge into two or three large companies, which would also act according to the laws and regulations that do not allow the use of old aircraft. That is, it is not difficult to prohibit the purchase (or lease) of used aircraft at all, just as it is not difficult to prohibit the operation of aircraft older than a certain wear and tear on its territory.
      the author may be wrong in some approaches to the problem, but in general, everything is true.
      1. +1
        1 November 2015 11: 39
        Yes, you finally understand that the aviation business is unprofitable in itself. Even with the current state of affairs, just think about it, 9% of the country's population uses air transport. By themselves, restrictions on the age of airplanes in an airline will only make tickets more expensive. We are now looking at the operational history of the crashed aircraft, but we don’t see the reasons why it was leased by this or that airline. But this may be not only obsolescence of the aircraft, it may be due to the economic problems of the airline returning the aircraft to the lessor. Unification of its fleet or change of business model. For example, the transition from scheduled to charter flights, or to someone specifically this model did not fit. So it’s impossible to blame everyone for everything in any way, here it is necessary to resolve it very carefully.
  35. -1
    1 November 2015 09: 30
    It seems that the author is not of this world - I forgot, probably, that everything determines the possibility of making a profit. The state-owned enterprise also, to say nothing of a private trader. Who will pay for a state-owned enterprise if it is inefficient and unprofitable? State budget? And how long will the unprofitable enterprise support the budget, and then who will fill this budget? And then what will happen to the state, which will spend the budget on unprofitable firms when it falls apart?
    Based on this, a simple question is how much / will foreign and domestic aircraft cost, how much will it work, how much will it cost to service it at different airfields, and train and support pilots. Evaluate the ratio of the costs of designing / creating an aircraft at the Boeing, Airbus level with the need to reimburse this money spent, make a profit and invest in the development of technologies.
    The economy is primary, no one forgot? The author does not remember.
    1. +1
      1 November 2015 09: 36
      Profit is a conditional concept, since it all depends on the "mood" of the state. You can create conditions for making a profit (even on old YAKs), but you can, on the contrary, bend it.
      1. +2
        1 November 2015 10: 16
        You forget about external competition, we are no longer as closed as under the Union. Foreign companies fly to us in large numbers, there is a choice. To do as you say, you need to close the borders and fly only within the country, entrusting any one company to fly abroad, subsidizing it at the same time. All this has already happened, TsUMVS Aeroflotv, etc. Meanwhile, the state does not take VAT from Russian airlines, only for international flights, so as not to make them uncompetitive in comparison with foreign ones. And for domestic transportation, take out and put 18%, and then we say our companies are fucked up, such prices are tearing.
      2. 0
        1 November 2015 12: 25
        Quote: onix757
        You can create the conditions for profit (at least on the old Yak), but you can on the contrary rot.

        Gorgeous, is it like issuing an order - should everyone make a profit next month? Issue an order - do aircraft manufacturers sell aircraft cheaper? And what kind of bucks will they pay salaries, purchase components, develop equipment? For airlines - stop servicing aircraft because it's expensive? And raise ticket prices, by itself?
        Accidentally did not forget - the crisis in the yard? The filling of the budget from oil and gas dollars collapsed, and this is at least 50% of the budget. The dollar jumped, incomes on the contrary, those wishing to fly abroad and generally fly became smaller. Travel agencies collapsed that year, in this airline. This is a crisis.
  36. 0
    1 November 2015 09: 34
    But this requires a tough political will of the Russian leadership.


    Something needs to be changed in the country and this requires a tough stance by the authorities. But you need to change a lot and, first of all, responsibility for your affairs with hard demand, regardless of ranks and ranks! The stable that the country has been converted into over the past 20 years must be thoroughly cleaned of the accumulated shit!
  37. 0
    1 November 2015 09: 35
    The author’s anger is fair and I share it, but seriously:
    The state airline will always be more expensive. Take, for example, the Vostochny cosmodrome or a construction site in Sochi, or the Elbrus processor, or IL-96. These are wonderful products, but insanely expensive. Well, state-owned enterprises lose to private ones. Fuel consumption on IL is 2 times higher than Boeing. And abroad, such rules are not allowed there with our avionics and engines. Even if you do everything according to their rules. they will still come up with new ones and cut us off. The Soviet Union did not care about fuel consumption and the economic efficiency of air transportation, Russia cannot afford that. And if you create only the aircraft body, and put everything else imported, then the engine and avionics are the most important thing.
    But to oblige oil producers to send 10% of oil for processing to aviation kerosene for domestic aircraft would not be bad.
    1. +2
      1 November 2015 10: 49
      Quote: Geosun
      But to oblige oil producers to send 10% of oil for processing to aviation kerosene for domestic aircraft would not be bad.

      Or ".. As reported in early February 1999, RAO" Gazprom "ordered one Tu-156 aircraft for 104 passenger seats for air transportation of workers working on a rotational basis.

      At the same time, negotiations were under way with Gazprom and Lentransgae to work out options for operating the Tu-156 on cryogenic fuel and creating the necessary infrastructure for gas liquefaction. For the Tu-156, the design documentation is being revised in accordance with the new requirements of Gazprom, with its planned completion at the end of 1999. Earlier, Gazprom demanded a cargo-passenger plane, now it is only a passenger car.

      The first flight of the Tu-156 should take place in 2001.

      An agreement was reached with Gazprom on advancing the work being carried out, the cost of which was previously estimated at 100 billion rubles, or approximately over $ 10 million. Now this amount is being overestimated, it is clear that it is, in the opinion of the chief designer of ANTK im. Tupolev Vladimir Andreev, will increase. NK-89 engines, created on the basis of NK-8-2U for operation on kerosene and liquefied natural gas, have successfully passed bench tests at the stand in Samara. According to some reports, the NK-89 engine also successfully completed the entire flight test program of 100 flights.

      In mid-February 1999, it was reported that technical problems at the Aviation Scientific and Technical Complex (ANTK) named after Tupolev to create the world's first commercial aircraft Tu-156, operating on liquefied natural gas (LNG), does not exist. The documentation for the construction of the first sample worked out by 70%.

      According to the chief designer of this aircraft, Vladimir Andreev, intensive negotiations were underway with Gazprom on lending to this work: the preparation of a contract for the supply of Tu-156 aircraft with engines running on liquefied natural gas (LNG) was at the final stage. "http://aftershock.su/?q=node/302166
    2. 0
      3 November 2015 17: 39
      Quote: Geosun
      Fuel consumption on IL is 2 times higher than Boeing

      And where did you get these numbers? There are facts that suggest that Boeing’s economy is not higher than IL96-300. And the opposite opinion is imposed and paid by the same Boeing. The government family is not without a freak. The bribe rules the ball.
  38. +1
    1 November 2015 09: 58
    You have to wait for the results before blaming the plane. The model is very popular by the way and tenacious. The overwhelming majority of accidents with him is a pilot's mistake (9 from 13 with human casualties, the pilot’s mistake, intentional crash or gross violations of maintenance / pre-flight training).
  39. +1
    1 November 2015 10: 01
    Compare IL96 and A320 is strong. I don’t understand how to compare and propose replacing planes of two completely different classes and destinations. Further, to revive the aircraft industry is not 1 year, and not 5, but all 10-20. And then, at first, the hated Boeings and Airbases will be better for you, both in terms of security and in terms of operating costs. And before that? Do you offer to fly old carcasses?
    The problem is not the planes, the problem is the airlines. When coffins fly without maintenance, because there is savings. When pilots are forced to continue flying with malfunctions, to fly through a thunderstorm, because fuel is consumed, and this is a fine and a loss of bonus. When some homeless companies cannot even afford dispatching services. These are the "businessmen" that should be tried for attempted mass murder.
  40. +3
    1 November 2015 10: 02
    To everyone who advocates tough actions against the so-called air junk, I will ask one question: in which of the latest catastrophes is the equipment specifically to blame?
    It is the equipment, its failure or violation during maintenance. For those who like to draw analogies with road transport, I also suggest recalling the most resonant car crashes associated with failures. Only one comes to mind where the brakes failed on an overloaded KAMAZ. Technique is now only to blame for a quarter of events, the rest one way or another, unfortunately, is done by man.
  41. 0
    1 November 2015 10: 03
    Quote: Geosun
    And if you create only the airplane’s body, and put everything else imported, then the engine and avionics are the most important thing.

    I am very glad that I saw our Russian Superjets at Sheremetyevo Airport yesterday. It is very joyful for me that this is the first car after the collapse of the USSR was created and lifted into the sky. The aircraft is small, a direct competitor to Ambyer and General Electric. Others say that they say FUU, Boeing helped create the plane. Where are they looking .... Guard .... Avionics, the engines are all according to "theirs" and not "ours". I would like to remind such citizens what is most important in air transportation. So the most important thing is to get a stable profit. Deliver passengers and cargo to different parts of the world. And these points are Airports. Russian airports in quantitative comparison with the world's minuscule. In addition, the idea of ​​making a profit from transportation itself implies constant visits to airports located anywhere in the world. So all these airports are standardized (electronic support, maintenance, technical service, etc.) for the main types of aircraft. These "basic types" are Boeing and Airbus products. Hopefully there is no need to explain that a "competitive" aircraft must contain the most wear parts and adhere to standards from "well-known manufacturers". Otherwise ... Sorry, such costs were only within the USSR and then within the Union. This is why the latest passenger aircraft must and will contain the equipment and component standards most common in this type of business. Even with all this, foreign "independent" organizations will in every possible way hinder the spread of our modern and promising aircraft under the most far-fetched pretexts. Nobody needs competitors.
    1. 0
      1 November 2015 20: 06
      Quote: tracer
      So all these airports are standardized (electronic support, maintenance, technical service, etc.) for the main types of aircraft. These "basic types" are Boeing and Airbus products.

      But what, our domestic planes do not fly to foreign airports? Even if you do not take passenger air transportation. Under the Union, Aeroflot also flew around the world by no means on Boeing, and did it have problems at foreign airports?
      Quote: tracer
      Such citizens would like to remind what is the most important thing in air transportation. So the most important thing is to get a stable profit. Deliver passengers and cargo to various points of the globe.

      Here, in the first place should be transport safetybut it’s worth writing about profit at the very end. Boarding a plane, I want to think about the fact that I will safely reach my destination, and not about the fact that I got on an expensive attraction with an unpredictable end.
  42. +5
    1 November 2015 10: 04
    Quote: Enot-poloskun
    And now we are fixated on making a profit! It is not right.

    A classmate worked for a while in a small airline (just a few Mi-8s).
    He had to argue with the leading "effective manager" about flight safety, the frequency of maintenance and the legality of minor repairs.
    In response, as a result I heard: "Don't bother us to earn money!"
    The next day, quit ...
  43. 0
    1 November 2015 10: 11
    Quote: tracer
    The author’s anger is fair and I share it, but seriously: The state airline will always be more expensive

    Sorry, but you never noticed that good things are always more expensive. And this applies to everything, even cosmodromes. Well, there are no good and cheap Mercedes, even though you burst. It happens cheaply, only a plastic bucket on plastic wheels is made in India. You have to pay for all the good.
  44. 0
    1 November 2015 10: 12
    The nature of the destruction suggests that the pilots still brought the aircraft to the horizontal.
    But because of the unacceptably high vertical speed, the plane simply "folded". IMHO.
    1. 0
      1 November 2015 15: 41
      And why wouldn’t it be so super-economical, semi-plastic and as light as possible. I suspect that with backup and protection of control systems there were entirely economical solutions. All for profit.
      1. 0
        1 November 2015 18: 05
        Quote: asher
        And why wouldn’t it be so super-economical, semi-plastic and as light as possible. I suspect that with backup and protection of control systems there were entirely economical solutions.



        The design of ANY aircraft manned by humans is not designed for such overloads - it makes no sense.

        And do not judge the design of aircraft for civil aviation by the level of their education - from the outside it looks ridiculous.
  45. +4
    1 November 2015 10: 13
    But this requires a tough political will of the Russian leadership.
    Author Roman Skomorokhov
    1. 0
      1 November 2015 16: 31
      The trouble is that these liberal ghouls do not fly these planes and do not float on these old troughs. The tragedy of "Bulgaria" - 122 people died. Most of them are children. Question to Putin: after that, at least one new ship is sailing on the Volga ?! Of course, there are no new ships, they "modernize" the old ones, just like the planes ...
  46. +3
    1 November 2015 10: 18
    Quote: Stas157
    Quote: Turkestan
    Do you think that 18 years of operation is OLD JUNK ???
    WELL. WELL.

    This is the opinion of the former A321 operators, Saudis, Turks, Syrians, who got rid of this "junk", obviously in order to get themselves something newer!
  47. +9
    1 November 2015 10: 18
    R. Skomorokhov's article is in great demand. Readers of "VO", money that people can profit from kills all living things. So grief happened in our country, today is a mourning day. I grieve too. In all my life, I have not stolen a penny from the state. And I have been working for over 50 years. He started as Chief Designer at NII-33, created civil and combat systems, was in hot spots, headed the USSR Ministry of Radio Industry's GU for 12 years, built and brought dozens of enterprises of the country to design capacity. When the collapse began, I was transferred to the rector of the Academy. But I personally asked Marshal Shaposhnikov and his associates not to create private air carrier companies based on the leasing of foreign aircraft. Then they were offered them for free. This is what we have now. From the Ministry of Radio Industry of the USSR, I was responsible for the work of the 303th detachment in Vnukovo, which provided the transportation of the first persons of our country. And I know how the work on the implementation of all routine maintenance was organized and monitored. And this will not be done in private companies. Their task is to get money (I don't understand why, you can't take it to the grave with you), and not to ensure the safety of flights and the safety of the lives of our citizens. I have the honor.
    1. +1
      1 November 2015 10: 39
      It would be nice if it were people like you who led the reorganization of the entire industry. We also hold onto such people. Thanks you.
    2. +2
      1 November 2015 13: 45
      Russian Railways goes the same way. Economists rule. The main thing is money, profit at all costs. Trains will soon fall. The fare is already avionic.
      1. +2
        1 November 2015 15: 49
        It’s not economists who rule, but don’t understand who. Economists flee this madhouse as soon as they can, those that remain dream of leaving at the first opportunity. Everywhere the hand of Moscow and many boys - managers. Even such large units such as wheelsets and other spare parts for cars cannot be elementary. No accounting at the enterprises. There are amorphous settlement centers, sort of serving a dozen other enterprises. And economists are 50% working on paper circulation with these RCCs, and the remaining time is raking the consequences of fragmenting enterprises into small pieces. And the trains, yes, as soon as you see private locomotives, private passenger cars (freight and so do not understand anyone), private sections of roads - write a will before the trip.
  48. +5
    1 November 2015 10: 25
    Forgot Soviet ads ?:
    "FLY BY AEROFLOT AIRPLANES"!
    "STORE YOUR MONEY IN THE SAVINGS"!
    And that's it! The rest of the LITTLE, together with the roofing SPONSORS of all ranks, CHECK YOURSELF and ASAP! 2-3 air carriers and banks and no more !!!! Enough to feed the parasites from "BerdichevAViA" and "Mukhos ... KInter" bank !!!!!
  49. +2
    1 November 2015 10: 29
    I fly with Aeroflot and S-7 planes. Although more expensive, but one life, I do not want to save. The brother recently flew Utair from Novosibirsk to Moscow, almost turned gray. The old A-320 seems. The plane held together and rattled the entire flight. Shabby cladding ...

    Why not create an air bank and lease domestic planes out of it? Or come up with some other measures? Joint plane with the same Boeing to do. What kind of garbage were Hyundai and Kia before. Bought someone else's licenses. And now. There would be a will
    1. -1
      1 November 2015 11: 32
      do not speak for UTair — one of the best companies I have been flying for them all my life (our company) —a about old planes is generally nonsense that you have to fly away for 70 years (then it’s old)
      1. +1
        1 November 2015 12: 12
        I tell you what I heard. I spent an extra hour in the port, as the plane of your wonderful company was late. About 70 years without comment. Hope the aviation leadership is more sane
      2. 0
        1 November 2015 15: 52
        Quote: complete zero
        all my life I fly on them

        And such a short life!
    2. +2
      1 November 2015 15: 51
      Airplanes and the entire Ural Airlines service system leave similar impressions.
  50. -8
    1 November 2015 10: 31
    In general, I will share one more "opinion of an amateur".
    1. For any airline, the primary issue is the cost of operating an aircraft and you can't just take and force it to use "our planes" - if they are uncompetitive, the company will simply go bankrupt and the owner will simply invest in a more profitable enterprise, and you simply will not fly anywhere.
    2. Only relatively large companies can afford new and high-quality airplanes (and by the way asking for this, the corresponding money for transportation). And this is not a matter of "greed", but of elementary profitability: to use new aircraft, a large volume of traffic is needed, otherwise it is easier and more profitable to invest in another business.
    3. Only "world leaders" can afford to produce new aircraft - they are too complex and expensive, dozens and even hundreds of firms around the world (including ours) are involved in their production.
    4. From all this, the following comes out: our manufacturers are not "world leaders" - their aircraft are not allowed to enter the world markets (noise and environmental friendliness) and they are not profitable for world carriers, and our regional transportation is too insignificant to be able to recoup the development. production of truly new and modern aircraft.
    5. It seems to me one way out, a departure from the Soviet system of civil aircraft manufacturing.
    We need to stimulate, first of all, the manufacturers of individual components (for example, those who are already engaged in the production of parts for the same Boeing), and only in this case it is possible to make a profitable production of "their own aircraft".
    Why? Because component manufacturers will already have a profitable production of components for thousands of Boeing aircraft and can easily pull a couple of hundred domestic aircraft.
    The struggle of individual loners (such as any AN) is initially doomed to failure.
    6. And yet, of course, many patriots may be unpleasant that "our planes" do not fly, but they are not "yours" for a long time, but of private business.
    And you, as passengers, should no longer care who owns the name of the aircraft.
    Well, what difference does it make to you whether the Sukhoi is made from imported components or Boeing is made from domestic components?
    First of all, you are living people, the main thing for you is to fly comfortably and land safely.
    1. +4
      1 November 2015 10: 36
      Quote: Down House
      From all this, the following is obtained: our manufacturers are not "world leaders" - their aircraft are not allowed to enter world markets.

      keeping our planes out is a war of markets and has nothing to do with leadership, even if they fly on solar energy they’ll come up with a different thread
      Quote: Down House
      And yet, of course, many patriots may find it unpleasant that "our planes" do not fly, but they are no longer "yours" - they are of private business.

      translate
      Quote: Down House
      It seems to me one way out, a departure from the Soviet civil aviation system.
      We need to stimulate, first of all, the manufacturers of individual components (for example, those who are already engaged in the production of parts for the same Boeing), and only in this case it is possible to make a profitable production of "their own aircraft".

      will a Boeing allow you ?!
      1. -1
        1 November 2015 11: 14
        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
        keeping our planes out is a war of markets and has nothing to do with leadership, even if they fly on solar energy they’ll come up with a different thread

        Fairy tales.
        1. The USA cannot close its market to Airbus, and the EU to Boeing. Not everything is as simple as you think.
        2. And not simply because the turnover of airlines is much more money than the turnover of aircraft manufacturers and it is the carrier, not the State, that decides "which aircraft to buy or not to buy".
        Carriers is an international business, it is always partially OVER the State!
        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
        translate

        What is it?
        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
        will a Boeing allow you ?!

        And what do you think the Boeing can ban ?!
        1. +1
          1 November 2015 12: 18
          Quote: Down House
          And what do you think the Boeing can ban ?!

          at a time, there is no license, no details, if you put non-licensed details, the manufacturer will withdraw from service
          Quote: Down House
          What is it?

          what they wrote
          Quote: Down House
          1. The USA cannot close its market to Airbus, and the EU to Boeing. Not everything is as simple as you think.

          Well, they turned us around, it’s still a lot easier, that doesn’t unite as a common enemy
          1. +1
            1 November 2015 13: 10
            Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
            Well, they turned us

            Nobody touched, the engines did not meet the standards, if you please bring them into line with the standards, they did just that on the Tu-204, only they don’t use it on international flights, or like the former Red Wings used
            1. 0
              1 November 2015 13: 26
              Quote: sa-ag
              Nobody touched, engines didn’t meet the standards, if you please bring them into line with the norms

              That's it!
              For some reason, supporters of the "conspiracy theory" definitely do not want to accept the fact that foreign companies (and this is by the way not only BIA) fit into these very norms!
              Therefore, one cannot talk about any "turno" - the rules are the same for everyone.
              1. +1
                2 November 2015 16: 14
                And freon from my former refrigerator was destroying the atmosphere
          2. 0
            1 November 2015 14: 04
            Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
            at a time, there is no license, no details, if you put non-licensed details, the manufacturer will withdraw from service

            What are you speaking about?
            Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
            what they wrote

            I wrote that any big business is international. You think that "our plane" - and it is half assembled from imported components, and the owner has triple citizenship.
            1. 0
              1 November 2015 14: 24
              Quote: Down House
              I wrote that any large business is international.

              not any and not about sub contractors
              1. +1
                1 November 2015 15: 45
                Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                not any and not about sub contractors

                Large - almost always international.
                You can ask about the owners of "our" business at your leisure, almost always the owner is an offshore company and this is a worldwide practice.
                1. +1
                  2 November 2015 16: 17
                  The global practice of robbing the country. Why on earth did a company suddenly become the owner of an enterprise? Only fraudulently supported by the government of this country.
                  1. 0
                    3 November 2015 09: 17
                    And how is a spy different from a scout? It's the same here.
  51. +2
    1 November 2015 10: 43
    For some reason, everyone forgot about TU 144. Yes, it may be a little expensive, but now with new technologies it is very important for our country. I know I flew about 750 km as a passenger. on all types of aircraft, both ours and not ours. The best of all TU 000 and fast and comfortable. Airbuses are the slowest from Chita 204 9h. but on the carcass 9.30 7.30. And Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, Blagoveshchensk. I flew from Blagoveshchensk on Il8 brilliance in 62 in comfort, although I was an old man. But on the Airbus upon arrival in Moscow, the butt, excuse me, is like that of a macaque. So we need to think about long-distance and high-speed flights so that our people do not feel overwhelmed. And God rest the souls of the dead, innocent people.
    1. 0
      1 November 2015 16: 52
      Everyone forgot about the Tu-144 for the reason that it was not brought to fruition. And there were defects. The wing tanks were constantly sweating kerosene.
      1. 0
        1 November 2015 17: 46
        Let's not forget about the Tu-144!
        It’s just that time is changing and today, using the experience of the TU-144, it is necessary to build a modern aircraft!!!
        Fortunately, they are starting to talk about this, even if not loudly yet.
    2. 0
      1 November 2015 17: 39
      Quote:"But on the Airbus upon arrival in Moscow, the butt, excuse me, is like that of a macaque."

      In general, you think correctly! However, it is not correct to put very subjective feelings of comfort at the forefront! Seats in the cabin, layout, etc. the airline orders it, so the airline can at least put a swimming pool in the cabin and any seats at all, even trimmed in gold! This has NO bearing on the flight characteristics of the aircraft AT ALL!
      As for the flight time, if you carefully read the technical information. characteristics of the TU-204, Il-62, A-320, B-737 and even B-767, B-777, Il-96, A-330... then you will understand that the cruising speed of these machines is comparable, because the laws of physics no one canceled! And the different times of your flights are explained by different air corridors, schedules, and you won’t believe it - the intensity of the headwind at the flight level.
  52. 0
    1 November 2015 11: 00
    And all the same, our officials will need to radically change the situation in civil aviation regarding the timely replacement of the aircraft fleet, the termination of the admission of outdated models and aircraft maintenance technology to the line. They ruined their aircraft because of the screeching of our damned Gibgels and began to buy used ones from abroad, and the West rejoices at this.
  53. 0
    1 November 2015 11: 02
    Quote: Streich
    But on the Airbus upon arrival in Moscow, the butt, excuse me, is like that of a macaque.

    Ugh, what are you doing with it in Airbus? I'm just embarrassed to ask. I, too, flew no less than you, and probably much more, but I didn’t notice such a feature. Could it be some kind of allergic reaction?
  54. 0
    1 November 2015 11: 02
    the problem is complex, but the main thing is that in the nineties we accepted the conditions dictated by the West (we switched to their standards), one of them was the training of Civil Air Fleet pilots in the USSR, in order to “sit in the left seat” we had to fly for a bunch of years, unlike the West - where more emphasis is placed on automatic control (AC) and not on the skill of the pilot... and our old cars are more reliable (they are simpler), the same IL 62 (and I don’t even remember plane crashes with it) or the IL 18 - a generally reliable car. ..and all this talk about old planes is nonsense... engines, elements subject to loads and everything connected with hydraulic systems and rudders are changing... and everything is like new.
    1. 0
      2 November 2015 01: 29
      Not everything - there are also electronics (control panels, trajectory control system, autopilot, landing approach, etc., etc. AND THIS all also requires replacement and repair) And this is a lot of money.
  55. +1
    1 November 2015 11: 03
    When comparing the state of affairs in civil aviation under the Union and in the Russian Federation, one should not forget that in the USSR much, including airplanes/helicopters, was designed for transporting citizens to and from vacation spots, as well as for the use of aviation in the national economy of the country. GA was subsidized, remember how much the ticket Moscow - Leningrad cost: 15 rubles with an average salary of 120 rubles. Based on the tasks and capabilities, aircraft were created, and competition could only be between domestic design bureaus. Here, too, you need to understand that, due to objective reasons, domestic aircraft and especially engine building have been developing in the wake of the defense industry for a very long time. And only towards the end of the Union’s existence were attempts made to catch up with Western manufacturers of civilian AT. Unfortunately, the collapse of the country coincided with the transition to new types of aircraft, which, due to objective reasons, never took place. And this is one of the reasons why the industry was unable to produce a large number of new aircraft and spare parts for them, which would undoubtedly have kept it afloat during the transition to a market economy. Instead, the industry began to extend the lifespan (including on paper) of old types of aircraft, which ultimately led to its decline.
  56. 0
    1 November 2015 11: 04
    This is called primitive capitalism, which was exchanged for the USSR. The gum and jeans were probably worth it...
    And this period will last for a very long time. Be patient if your passion for consumerism has not yet disappeared.

    Do you want three airlines per country? What will change? There have never been domestic aircraft, and there never will be. There will be a small-scale fruit of globalization called a dry superjet. Ugh! They can’t even say it in Russian.
    1. 0
      1 November 2015 15: 52
      Quote: Governor
      There have never been domestic aircraft, and there never will be.

      They don’t exist because no one needs them today.
      Because everyone always wants to vacation in countries with a different climate and culture, but our planes are not allowed there because they do not comply with modern international standards.
      And also because they are more expensive to maintain.
      Therefore, we need to make normal, modern, quiet and environmentally friendly engines to begin with, and capitalism-USSR has nothing to do with it at all.
  57. +3
    1 November 2015 11: 08
    When I started flying a Boeing, I found a small stainless steel sign in the cockpit. There was a reminder on it that the plane was built with money from an international financial company and is its property and is leased. Conclusion: there is a huge amount of money floating around and it will be difficult to “jump” from the needle of international imperialism. We need a tough command decision and complete suppression of the resistance of our corrupt people, who make good profits from this scheme. The system needs to be changed.
  58. +1
    1 November 2015 11: 09
    Quote: Stinger
    I am ready to subscribe to all three points of the author’s conclusions. But this unfortunately will not happen. Our army is led by traders in furniture, energy and nanotechnology, Chubais, etc. But for some reason they don’t want to work as pilots. Dangerous for health.

    After the army, the furniture dealer will “raise” the domestic civil aviation industry.
  59. +2
    1 November 2015 11: 22
    Wrote by an amateur, very far from aviation. 1 . One company (Aeroflot) has expensive tickets due to ineffective management and lives off royalties and state support. So, for information, Transaero flew to the Maldives for 80000, and Aeroflot for 2400000! 2 I agree in principle 3 Domestic aircraft. IL-86 - kerosene consumption 10 t/h! Takeoff only because the Earth is round, for comparison, the B767 with the same passenger capacity and twice the range - consumption is 5 t/h! "Sibir" operated the Tu-204, they refused because something broke on every flight (Trans had the same problems), the planes were more under the fence because the technical support at the plant was so poor (on Friday we work until 16:00, Saturday from Sundays are weekends) all planes have different designs! And the engineer arriving from the factory brings a bunch of documentation because he himself cannot understand where to go. You say the presidential Il 96 doesn’t break down? So excuse me, what kind of coating does he have and how they lick him...
    1. -1
      1 November 2015 11: 51
      He compares the Il96 and A320. Il96 and A320!!! After that you don't have to read any further.
  60. -1
    1 November 2015 11: 23
    But this requires the strong political will of the Russian leadership
    And the "CHUBAIS" have wow, political will... They have no problems with the engines on board, and what do they care about slaves. The problem is that if it is an airplane, then it must be equally reliable, whether it is a public one use, or at least board number 1. But unfortunately with us, if you are an official, you are already a god, but what’s above. A mess emerges. Civilians suffer, die. It’s a shame. It’s a pity, but events show that there is money in Russia and profit is still in first place, and the situation is not going to change. I am not an oppositionist, I am for Putin, I was born and raised and live in Russia (then the USSR), but with such an attitude towards Russian citizens, you can’t drag me on a tractor rope into airplane! I hate this lawlessness, which means that hatred arises in me for the leadership, for corrupt individuals for whom their own interests of profit are more important than human lives - it’s scary! Something like this! The kingdom of heaven to all the departed! It’s a pity for the prematurely lost people!
    1. 0
      1 November 2015 13: 15
      Quote: GYGOLA
      I'm not an oppositionist, I'm for Putin

      “Don’t make excuses, not at the military registration and enlistment office” (C) Masyanya :-)
  61. -1
    1 November 2015 11: 23
    At a minimum, they must pay very serious money to the families. For bungling you have to pay in rubles.
    Unless of course it's a terrorist attack.
  62. 0
    1 November 2015 11: 27
    in 1996 (if I remember) a 747 exploded over Atlanta - when finding out the reasons, it turned out that fuel vapors exploded in the central tank (located in the center of the airframe) and there was also air conditioning under it))))) so when they began to check ALL Boeing 747s, they discovered that the electrical wiring of the fuel pumps JUST PASSING THROUGH THE TANK on 40 percent of the planes is WORSE and has damaged insulation... this was apparently done from a great mind (electrical wiring through the tanks)))) - here you have “reliable” Boeings
    1. +2
      1 November 2015 11: 57
      After this, work was done on all Boeing aircraft (and not just the 747) to eliminate such cases. Procedures for working with the fuel system with low fuel residues were introduced into flight operation of all Boeing aircraft. The Federal Aviation Administration has developed specific requirements for the design and operation of fuel systems (SFAR 88). And the problem never happened again. And it wasn’t the wiring in general that was the problem, but the sparking of the pump’s electric motor commutator (submersible type), which, with little fuel left in the central tank, turned out to be exposed due to the fact that the plane gaining altitude had a large pitch angle. Scuffs in the wiring were discovered later during routine inspections.
      1. 0
        1 November 2015 13: 03
        most likely you are right... but it doesn’t change the essence (since such cases are not excluded on the same Boeings that some comrades pass off as the standard) - our aviation industry has never BEEN lagging behind in such an area as safety
        1. +1
          1 November 2015 13: 51
          Anything could happen, for example, replacing a wing at one hundred and twenty!!! the first Tu-154 already built, due to errors in the selection of material (B95) for its manufacture. Nobody makes a standard out of anything; there were enough mistakes on both sides.
  63. +2
    1 November 2015 11: 32
    If we begin to revive, then we must start from scratch, with the restoration of the education system, which has been completely destroyed. “Soviet” developments and specialists are coming to an end, and what is replacing it does not stand up to any criticism. I judge from the Almaz-Antey air defense concern, from which I recently quit (I think it’s no better in other industries). “People with diplomas” (it’s difficult to call them anything else), who come from universities to positions as engineers and designers, do not even have a secondary education. What we once studied in physics in the eighth grade baffles them. When you show them what will burn out during the start, they shrug their shoulders in bewilderment and make sure that they never get to the start at all. It seems that their main salary is paid by the Pentagon or the CIA.
  64. +2
    1 November 2015 11: 43
    Everything that is happening in our country and with the plane tragedy in particular... was described more than 100 years ago by K. Marx in his bestseller "Capital", it is clearly and clearly written there... nothing will stop the capitalist for the sake of super-profits.
    1. 0
      1 November 2015 13: 58
      Here we rant, criticize, ridicule, but they don’t care and won’t change anything, it’s scary.
  65. 0
    1 November 2015 11: 49
    It is necessary, first of all, to liquidate the so-called MAK, “privatized” by the Pleshakov family, Transaero, their family airline seems to have failed, due to the fact that the dollar has jumped and the exploitation of foreign scrap metal has risen sharply, by the way, these are the points of application for inexpensive targeted lending - aircraft factories, and VASO Poghosyan generally spread rot, giving away the money received for development with additional interest.
  66. 0
    1 November 2015 12: 03
    Yes, everything in the article is correct. And it was not for nothing that Comrade Stalin did not unite railway, air, sea, river and road transport into one People's Commissariat. And Comrade Stalin’s transport security issues were dealt with not by transport workers - but by those who were supposed to deal with such issues - the NKVD and the NKGB.
    The only thing is that even under the USSR no effective measures were developed against transport accidents.
    The Lokomotiv team crashed in Russia.

    In the USSR the teams broke up:

    - On January 5, 1950, during the third approach in difficult weather conditions, a Li-2 plane crashed in Sverdlovsk (now Yekaterinburg). 8 hockey players of the USSR Air Force team died, as well as a coach, a doctor and a massage therapist.

    - On August 11, 1979, over the city of Dneprodzerzhinsk (Ukraine), a Tu-134 plane flying from Tashkent to Minsk collided with a plane flying from Chelyabinsk to Chisinau. 178 people (165 passengers and 13 crew members) were killed, including 17 members of the Pakhtakor football team from Uzbekistan, which was playing in the major league at the time.

    Even IL-62s fell in the USSR.
    The Il-62 crash near Moscow is a major aviation accident that occurred on the night of Friday, October 13, 1972 in the Moscow region on the shore of Lake Nerskoye. The Aeroflot Il-62 passenger plane was performing an international passenger flight from Paris to Moscow with an intermediate landing in Leningrad, when, completing this flight, upon landing at Sheremetyevo Airport, it crashed into the ground and was completely destroyed. 174 people died in this tragedy, which at that time made this the largest aviation disaster in the world.

    The Il-62 crash near Moscow is an aviation accident with human casualties that occurred on the night of July 5-6, 1982. The Aeroflot Il-62 aircraft, tail number USSR-86513, operating flight No. 411 on the route Sheremetyevo - Dakar - Freetown, crashed in the vicinity of the village of Mendeleevo, Moscow Region. All 82 passengers and 8 crew members were killed.

    The accident rate for other types of transport, well, maybe except for automobiles, was no better under the USSR. In Russia - Bulgaria, under the USSR - Nakhimov (sea) and A. Suvorov (river).

    Unfortunately, no one has yet figured out how to 100% prevent traffic accidents.
  67. 0
    1 November 2015 12: 04
    it’s always like this until a roast rooster pecks on the forehead, but in general we’re building tanks, ships, building fighter planes, but civil aircraft, to my shame, are still very limited, and then according to Western patterns, and for our aircraft designers, it’s time to start from old stereotypes and design principles and it’s high time to think about the system for rescuing passengers in the event of an aircraft accident, it will be a revolution, of course, but it is necessary...
  68. +1
    1 November 2015 12: 08
    Why be surprised? The time of militant amateurism: Aeroflot was destroyed, Zhelezka was destroyed and, as a special case, these same “specialists” are now destroying the Moscow Metro.
  69. +1
    1 November 2015 12: 09
    Most recently I flew the A-321. I haven't had a worse flight in a long time. Terrible cramped conditions and poor service will be remembered for a long time. In comparison, the flight on the IL-86 was remembered for its pleasant comfort. I think that IL-96 should be even more pleasant for the consumer. Regarding the sacramental question of why we have Boeings and Airbuses all around us, it’s even pointless to answer. Profit and complete disregard for the interests of passengers.
  70. +1
    1 November 2015 12: 10
    [quote=nov_tech.vrn]First of all, it is necessary to liquidate the so-called MAK, “privatized” by the Pleshakov family, Transaero, their family airline, seems to have failed, due to the fact that the dollar has jumped and the operation of foreign scrap metal has risen sharply.

    Many people write different things about MAK, but who would at least once go to their website and read what it does. And then I would assess the degree of its influence on the state of affairs in our civil aviation. People don’t realize that both us and “them” have aircraft airworthiness standards harmonized with each other, and back in 94. The main tasks of the IAC are: determination of uniform standards for the use of CIS airspace, certification of aircraft and investigation of aviation accidents. In terms of conducting investigations, they are a completely independent office.
  71. 0
    1 November 2015 12: 23
    In Russia (until 1917), ALL RAILWAY TRANSPORT belonged to the state! And this is not without reason. Yes, the shipping companies were private, but if you dig deeper, there was only one owner - the Old Believers. And the nascent aviation was also state-owned!! Don't forget the best of your history.
  72. +1
    1 November 2015 13: 00
    the article is correct. They have long been talking about the collapse of our aircraft industry. It is clear that this is beneficial to “our friends” from the West. How tired they are! But we have someone playing along with them! And where is our vaunted FSB? Where is he looking? I would like to ask the head of this service this question.
  73. +1
    1 November 2015 13: 14
    Now the West has imposed an economic blockade on us, but no one thought that they might stop supplying spare parts for foreign aircraft.
    Judging by how events are developing in and around Syria, this is quite possible. VASO has such a sad experience of banning foreign suppliers from supplying components for new aircraft.
    All these figures, like Levitin, Khristenko, Okulov, are temporary workers, lining their pockets, to the detriment of the country. It is no secret that when buying or leasing used aircraft, for example from the USA, which are stored for years, parked in the desert, after the end of their safest operation, the owners pay large bribes to the buyer. Levitin, for example, while being the Minister of Transport of Russia, was at the same time a co-owner of the Aeroflot company. He had a personal interest in preventing Russian aircraft manufacturers from producing and selling aircraft. Remember how Aeroflot, which ordered the Il-96-300 from VASO, then behaved defiantly and impudently, refused to accept the ordered aircraft from the plant, presenting far-fetched quibbles to the manufacturer. And yet, he didn’t accept it!!! And no one shook hands with the presumptuous airline executives. And the plant suffered big losses! There are no guarantees that, having stolen in Russia, these officials will not leave tomorrow for Israel or the United States, as Kozyrev did. Putin also made his contribution to this ugly matter. After the failure of the front landing gear control cylinders of the Il-96-300 at Helsinki Airport, he, without understanding it, slashed from the shoulder, punished VASO, removed the director, V.A. Salikov, although the plant, by regulation, did not have the right to inspect BLMZ products ( UG151), manufactured on special order, for the presidential air squad. And V.A. Salikov soon died in a car accident. But he gave his whole life to the plant, came to it as a teenager, after technical school, and went from foreman to director...
    As for non-competitiveness. The main reason is the higher fuel consumption of domestic aircraft engines. But we are an oil-producing state! Why not provide Russian aircraft operators with benefits for the purchase of fuel, in accordance with legislation? Russia is a huge country, the opposite ends of which have an expensive opportunity to move from the regions of Siberia and the Far East, the Urals, to the central regions. In the structure of ticket prices, the cost of fuel takes up a very significant part. By operating foreign cars, Russian airlines make good profits. Why not centrally direct part of this profit to the development of the domestic engine industry? After the collapse of the USSR, the aviation industry did not receive proper funding from the state for 20 years; the necessary research and development work was not carried out, without which it is not possible to improve and design new products. It is no coincidence that our military aviation today is the best in the world, while the domestic civil aircraft industry is in a dire state. Such aircraft factories as Saratov and Samara are idle, Smolensk has been repurposed, life is barely glimmering in Voronezh, only thanks to orders from the military.
  74. +2
    1 November 2015 13: 17
    There are excellent, reliable aircraft, IL-96, Tu-334, Tu-204, which can be modified when purchasing new ones, there are even new, more reliable and economical engines, but these aircraft will never begin to be purchased until the state takes care of the interests of domestic aviation. Airbuses and Boeings bought the bureaucrats wholeheartedly and are pushing their old used junk.
    And what saddens me most is that there are no prospects.
    Firstly, Serdyukov was appointed “industrial director for the aviation cluster”
    Secondly, if they now push through a law on the limitation period for the operation of aircraft, they will suddenly rush to buy Airbuses and Boeings again, but they will not even look at our aircraft, and all our money will go to the Western economy.
    At the same time, Transaero was bankrupt, Aeroflot has no more competitors, and all sorts of Kagalymavia fly with at least 5 accidents in 4 years, they use rubbish and no one says a word to them, until the next disaster.

    We need a law, at least 70% of the aircraft fleet must be equipped with domestic aircraft. And not with screwdriver superjets, but just with planes of the level of Il96, Tu334 and others.
    Then the aviation industry will rise and there will be jobs and billions will stop flowing into the Western economy and, most importantly, aviation will develop and move into the future.
    A strong aviation industry means a strong country.
  75. 0
    1 November 2015 13: 19
    what I believe that in this particular case it is too early to draw conclusions about who exactly is to blame. After all, the plane could have been shot down by bandits. And what? They see a Russian plane flying: “Get a rocket, plane, because Russia is successfully bombing our friends, the ISIS fighters in Syria.” So, I think we need to figure it out first. And there will always be time to punish. The main thing is to identify the true culprits.
  76. 0
    1 November 2015 13: 20
    But there is strong political will. They should close websites, torrents, jail them for insulting the feelings of believers, fight the 5th Column. How about building airplanes? Who needs it? You can make money in the Kremlin and hang noodles on your ears with ORT.
  77. +1
    1 November 2015 13: 26
    The prosecutor's office will someday deal with these enemy lobbyists. With the help of aircraft junk they rob and kill our citizens! In the interests of foreign aircraft manufacturers, they destroy our enterprises and then dare to consider themselves Russians.
  78. 0
    1 November 2015 13: 35
    Russia needs a fleet of new domestic aircraft. It is Russian aircraft manufacturers who should feed themselves by updating the aircraft fleet, and not officials involved in contracts for the supply of aircraft junk from the generosity of the West.

    But this requires a tough political will of the Russian leadership.

    In the meantime, we see in Russian civil aviation the SNOUT of His Majesty the market, idolized by our lib..als, which will decide and regulate everything itself! A market that doesn’t care about the loss of people, which allows any business scumbag to create airline companies where the main thing is not the safe transportation of air passengers, but the maximum profit, without giving a damn about safety! And for this purpose, not only are small batches of junk airline flying coffins used to transport air passengers, but they also save on literally everything - on the timely repair and maintenance of “aircraft equipment”, training and education of pilots and maintenance personnel! This same market allows any kind of bureaucratic riffraff who love to trend at all angles about their concern for the people to allow the activities of such offices and everything is always in order with them - and they have all the certificates, and documents and regular control are carried out...! So, with such a system, air travel in Russia for people will be akin to playing Russian roulette!
  79. +1
    1 November 2015 13: 49
    From an article by Olga Bozhieva, published in Moskovsky Komsomolets, 27.10.2011/90/XNUMX, on the occasion of the XNUMXth anniversary of G.V. Novozhilov, “The Broken Wings of the Motherland”:
    "...—So you're hoping for something else.

    — I hope... I’ve been an optimist all my life. Aviation in Russia cannot be destroyed. One way or another, she will get through. It just takes time. And I feel sorry for him.

    I recently saw a TV story: a pensioner built a plane himself, flew it, fell and broke his leg. In a country where even pensioners build airplanes, it is impossible to kill aviation. She has always been our favorite child. Whether a country can build airplanes has always been used to judge the level of technical development it is at, since aviation brings with it metallurgy, chemistry, other sciences, technologies... And we have always built airplanes. And they sold them.

    “Now “effective managers” are trying to build and sell them. And you, with your experience and intelligence, are an advisor. Why?

    — When the company was corporatized, the general designer, who had previously been the responsible head of the enterprise, lost his powers. He began to report to the general director. And solving technical strategic issues without the right to sign a financial document is like an “immaculate conception.” Fighting for power has become useless, especially when you are already 80 years old.

    — As long as a person has a sharp mind and health allows it, fighting for power is not a sin. I think there would be people who would support you.

    - No... We should have fought earlier. There are mistakes that cannot be corrected later. They influence all subsequent events. I understand this now.

    ...But what, apparently, I will never be able to understand is why Russia no longer needs Russian-made aircraft?”
  80. 0
    1 November 2015 13: 53
    Unfortunately, all of our effective managers are essentially enemies of the people. In the pursuit of short-term profit, strategic industries, and non-strategic ones too, were ruined. And most importantly, they ruined the personnel.
  81. 0
    1 November 2015 14: 13
    It is necessary to stop with the wide variety of air carriers in Russia, ideally to return to one state airline, which was Aeroflot for many years.

    This is stupid, no one does this, all these problems are solved in other ways. All over the world, in every country there are one or two largest air transportation companies that dictate the rules of the game in the market, including in terms of quality and safety. In addition to them, there are various small “low-cost airlines” that do not reach their standards, but they take advantage of the cheapness or the convenience of the route. Passengers have a choice. The state should only monitor a certain lower level of security, we have problems with this. You can buy almost everything and everyone, we see the result.
    But producing airplanes is a completely different matter. Here the government's help is very necessary.
  82. +1
    1 November 2015 14: 16
    I will make a few of my own, albeit not professional, comments, generally agreeing with the article and the author’s conclusions.
    1. Creation of a monopoly in the form of 1 state. airlines seems unreasonable. Rather, it is necessary to talk about putting the air transportation market in order. It is necessary to have several large and responsible airlines in Russia, not necessarily state-owned ones. A trifle, with a small park, to be kicked out of the market.
    2. It is necessary to revive multi-stage training of flight personnel, modeled on the USSR. Today, graduates of aviation schools often sit in the co-pilot's seat of a long-haul airliner (Tu, Arbuz...) This is unacceptable, since the guy simply does not have normal flying experience.
    3. It is simply necessary to permanently ban the operation and maintenance of aircraft, which is called “Due to Condition”!!! Operation must be exclusively “according to regulations” and nothing else!!!
    3. A clear and transparent state program for the development of the domestic aircraft industry and the operation of domestic aircraft is necessary! Such a program should provide for preferential leasing, direct support for aircraft manufacturing enterprises, advertising all over the world, aggressive STATE policy to promote our aircraft, etc. The main thing here is not direct profit, but flight safety and the development of our air transport. This is what Americans and Europeans do, and they do it ABSOLUTELY right!
  83. The comment was deleted.
  84. +1
    1 November 2015 14: 28
    In the USSR, small aviation was quite developed and operated successfully, serving local airlines. Those 350 airlines into which the Soviet Aeroflot was initially divided, having received operator certificates, were in no hurry to operate local airlines. They captured only the most tasty morsels - long-distance routes, preferably foreign ones.
    Previously, at distances of about 50 km, it was possible to fly on the An-2, L-200 Morava. Moreover, sometimes it was even possible to choose where it was better to get off, between the two final unpaved airfields, the distance between which was about 12-15 km. The plane served as an air taxi.
    Today, such local airlines simply do not exist, with rare exceptions.
    From one regional center to another, you have to fly through Moscow or St. Petersburg, while making a huge detour, the length of which is an order of magnitude greater than the distance between the start and end points of the passenger’s route. This is very profitable for the airlines, but not for the passenger, but no one asks him and he has absolutely no rights in this regard...
    And here, no one considers how much excess fuel airlines burn, although it could be used with greater efficiency.
    1. +1
      1 November 2015 14: 51
      Did everyone just get their Operator's Certificate and rush to fly abroad? First of all, look at who owns the local airports, I dare to assure you, they are all state unitary enterprises. And all over the world it is mostly municipal property. EVERYTHING, not just local transportation, was dated back to the state under the Union. By the way, you can look at the example of Alaska or Canada, how airlines flying between local national towns are supported by the money of the same state, otherwise everything would dry up there, like ours. We do not need to deny everything that is foreign, but learn to use reasonable measures, we are accustomed to cutting everything off from the shoulder.
  85. +1
    1 November 2015 14: 59
    This is what the comrades should be in prison for, this is for the collapse of the Russian civil aircraft industry and the purchase of our aircraft. Heads must be cut off mercilessly.
  86. 0
    1 November 2015 15: 12
    Airplanes have not been flying abroad for more than 8 years (I don’t remember exactly) .. They are being written off for mothballing .. All sorts of airlines like “Kagalymavia” come, buy these planes, set up a parade, and “fly away!”
    All airlines need to be checked and travel agents should be prohibited from selling travel packages abroad only in Russia. What is it like for relatives to get a seriously ill person or a corpse from there and the money is not small!!!!!!!!!!!
  87. GAF
    0
    1 November 2015 15: 20
    [quote=Monster_Fat]The whole problem is money. Or rather, in the greed and complete immorality of the owners of the aviation market in Russia.
    In fact of the matter. Small private companies, whose main concern is profit, violate the main requirement of ensuring flight safety: a unit that has worked out the resource established by the technical regulations, for example, 500 hours, regardless of its condition!!! must be replaced with a new one or one that has passed diagnostics after the cap. repair, with a certificate of fitness for a nth number of hours.
  88. +1
    1 November 2015 15: 20
    There is no “will” because there is no one to demonstrate it...
  89. +1
    1 November 2015 15: 24
    In the USSR there was no air transportation market as such. There was MGA and Aeroflot. No one thought about efficiency and economics; the state dated, but actually supported this industry. Hence the own evolution of aircraft manufacturing development. Aircraft manufacturers paid virtually no attention to fuel efficiency or economics in general. And if they did, it was not in the context of the economy, but with the goal of increasing the same flight range. An example is the Il62 and Il62M, where the range was increased not by improving fuel efficiency, but by adding a tank to the keel. The market began, and it became clear to all airlines that they had to count money and earn it.
    But how can you do this if your aircraft fleet consumes many times more fuel and the crews on the planes are 4-5 people instead of 2-3, and in terms of take-off weight, all other things being equal, they are higher (which means increased airport and air navigation fees), and also in terms of noise he is not allowed into Europe. So everyone rushed for foreign cars. As a result, our aircraft factories lost their sales market. And lacking funds, they were unable to offer adequate models to the market, with the exception of the not indisputable Superjet.
  90. -1
    1 November 2015 15: 28
    As for Aeroflot’s lack of patriotism in purchasing foreign aircraft, many contracts were concluded back in 2007-2010, then there was no MS-21 (in fact, it still doesn’t exist now, the first flight of the prototype was in 2016, then another year and a half for testing and inspection), the Superjet 100 also began to be produced relatively recently. So what did Aeroflot need to fly? As for the Tu-204, the capacity of the aircraft plant does not allow it to satisfy the demand; they produced a maximum of 5 aircraft per year, and not only Aeroflot wants to buy it, and that it was necessary not to buy Boeings and Air Forces, waiting 15-20 years until all the ordered Tu-204 Will the plant deign to supply 154? And at this time, flying a Tu-30M whose age by that time would have exceeded XNUMX years? I don't think so.
    And as for old imported aircraft, this is far from the case; large airlines such as Aeroflot and Transaero have many new aircraft.
    1. 0
      1 November 2015 16: 40
      Then there were projects of various design bureaus, which have not yet been implemented because they did not give money for it. - They hoped for their uncle... Some even sent their offspring “over the hill”, bought real estate there, most large companies came under foreign jurisdiction... An epiphany came in the case of investors in Cyprus.
      If there was political will, it was possible and necessary to restore the production of domestic aircraft.
      But they didn’t do this.
      1. 0
        1 November 2015 17: 06
        Quote: Bison
        Then there were projects of various design bureaus, which have not yet been implemented because they did not give money for it. - They hoped for their uncle... Some even sent their offspring “over the hill”, bought real estate there, most large companies came under foreign jurisdiction... An epiphany came in the case of investors in Cyprus.
        If there was political will, it was possible and necessary to restore the production of domestic aircraft.
        But they didn’t do this.

        This is the problem, different design bureaus tried to grab a piece of the pie and riveted different projects, but the country needs 3 types of aircraft (short-medium-long-haul



        y) that would occupy 3 niches.
        As a result now:
        Short haul: Superjet 100
        Medium-haul: MS-21 and Tu-204SM
        Long-haul: Il-96-400 there are no orders for a passenger modification, we are going to develop a new aircraft together with the Chinese.
        1. 0
          1 November 2015 20: 21
          Lt. Air Force stock

          I work as an air traffic controller at one of the international airports in the Volga region.

          I haven’t even seen your “Short Haul: Superjet 100”!
          I wish I could see what kind of “beast” this is!

          The city is regional.
          And they fly on the Yak-42, Yak-40, Embraer-190 (195), Embraer-145 and various small foreign cars of VIP and business class.
          1. +2
            1 November 2015 21: 15
            Saratov, apparently? So you ask your boss at the airport why even AFL can’t get through to you, and you have to go to court.
            1. 0
              2 November 2015 13: 49
              Cook

              Saratov. Saratov.

              The ATC Center is not subordinate to Saratov Airlines LLC and is a state institution within the State Corporation for ATS of the Russian Federation.

              Therefore, the question is in the wrong place.
          2. 0
            1 November 2015 22: 22
            Quote: aviamed90
            Lt. Air Force stock

            I work as an air traffic controller at one of the international airports in the Volga region.

            I haven’t even seen your “Short Haul: Superjet 100”!
            I wish I could see what kind of “beast” this is!

            The city is regional.
            And they fly on the Yak-42, Yak-40, Embraer-190 (195), Embraer-145 and various small foreign cars of VIP and business class.

            100 Superjet 100 aircraft have already been produced. Aeroflot has 21 aircraft, Red Wings 4 aircraft, Yakutia Airlines 2 aircraft, Gazprom Avia 10 aircraft, etc. I don’t know why they don’t fly to you.
            1. 0
              2 November 2015 13: 46
              Lt. Air Force stock

              It’s good that they were produced, but here’s a little analysis of their operation:

              “The first attempt to analyze the statistics of flight accidents of the Sukhoi SuperJet 100, made by Aeroflot, was not in favor of the Russian new aircraft industry. Superjets accounted for 40% of all incidents with equipment failures at Aeroflot. Moreover, the airline has ten aircraft in total of this type, that is, 8% of the park.
              As Kommersant reports, from the document “On Aeroflot Flight Safety in 2012”, it follows that the statistics of incidents with the airline’s aircraft has changed for the worse: their number has increased from 60 to 95, while the number of incidents assessed as “complex” situation" increased to nine (four - a year earlier). Moreover, the majority of incidents related to aircraft failures were recorded on SSJ-100 type aircraft - 24 events, which amounted to 40% of their total number. The vulnerabilities turned out to be air conditioning systems (nine cases), and aircraft control systems (seven). But six incidents caused by failures in the landing gear retraction/release system are of particular concern; the document calls them the most serious incidents.

              Note that this document is the first serious attempt to analyze the statistics of Superjet flight accidents. However, as Kommersant reports, Aeroflot representatives said that the SSJ-100’s shortcomings “are not systemic.” The aircraft manufacturing company, Sukhoi Civil Aircraft, reports that all the problems with the SSJ-100 that Aeroflot encountered during its operation have already been resolved and assumes continued cooperation, up to 99% involvement of all Superjets by Aeroflot.

              Author of the news: Yana Varaksina

              (website www.tourprom.ru, article “Aeroflot” is dissatisfied with “SuperJets” dated 06.02.2013/XNUMX/XNUMX)

              But Armenia, Indonesia, and Iran refused to purchase.
              By the way, our Transaero also refused to buy them at one time.
              1. 0
                2 November 2015 13: 57
                Here's some more food for thought:

                “The fact that the head of the Federal Air Transport Agency Alexander Neradko is concerned about a “significant increase in the number of incidents” with the Sukhoi Superjet 100 (SSJ100) became known from an information message posted on the website of the Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC). A representative of the Federal Air Transport Agency told Vedomosti that at the beginning On December 2013, Neradko wrote to the MAK an appeal on this matter. In it, Neradko asked “to take effective measures to eliminate failures of the wing mechanization control system,” a representative of the Federal Air Transport Agency clarified: over the past two years, 15 such incidents have been recorded. MAK, as follows from his message , redirected the official to the airliner manufacturer - UAC.

                The IAC has the authority to certify aircraft, says a lawyer who teaches aviation law at a Moscow university. It is unclear what actions Neradko expected from the committee. The representative of the Federal Air Transport Agency does not say this. An IAC representative did not answer calls. It is unclear whether the correspondence will have legal consequences for the developer of the SSJ100 - Sukhoi Civil Aircraft (SCAC, part of the UAC).

                Nevertheless, the GSS responded to the official’s reproaches. The number of incidents involving the SSJ100 is increasing due to the growing number of aircraft in service with airlines, the SCAC said in a statement. The company has made temporary changes to the aircraft's flight manual and completed certification of new versions of the flight control system and avionics software, which is "in the process of approval by Russian aviation authorities."

                Airlines began operating the SSJ100 in 2011. Now three Russian carriers have such aircraft: Aeroflot has 10 aircraft, Moskovia and Yakutia have two each, according to information from the Federal Air Transport Agency website. “Despite the presence of childhood diseases, the SSJ100 is a modern aircraft that our country really needs,” Aeroflot CEO Vitaly Savelyev said earlier. An airline representative declined to comment further. It was not possible to contact a representative of Moscovia; The press services of Yakutia and UAC did not respond to requests.

                It is unknown how many total incidents with the SSJ100 have occurred since 2011. The latest include two incidents that occurred on December 5th. The Aeroflot airliner was unable to take off from Anapa airport due to problems with the reverse. Another Aeroflot SSJ100, flying from Magnitogorsk to Moscow, was forced to make an emergency landing in Chelyabinsk due to a landing gear malfunction. Commenting on these incidents, Neradko stated that “there are objective reliability indicators and, of course, they are still far from the reliability indicators of aircraft that have been in operation for a long time,” but “new foreign-made aircraft also have their flaws” (quote from ITAR- TASS). At the same time, he urged not to escalate the situation.

                The most serious “design defect” is a “problem with the slats” of the SSJ100, a manager at one of the UAC enterprises told Vedomosti. “It has not been resolved yet, but it is being resolved, and the prospects are visible,” he says, emphasizing that this does not interfere with the operation of the aircraft. According to the Federal Air Transport Agency, 100 incidents occurred with the SSJ15 slats.

                “We are not talking about a critical increase in incidents with the SSJ100, due to which the airworthiness certificate could be suspended,” emphasizes the manager of the UAC enterprise. Incidents with the Sam-146 engine also do not call into question the safety of operation of the SSJ100, says a source close to the management of NPO Saturn. According to Vedomosti’s interlocutors, things will not come to the point of revoking the certificates.

                (article “Why the Sukhoi Superjet 100 breaks down (MAK and Rosaviation are finding out why the number of incidents with the Sukhoi Superjet 100 is growing. Airlines are operating more and more of these aircraft - hence the growth, the manufacturer explains) dated 04.02.2014/XNUMX/XNUMX, authors Irina Mokrousova and Alexey Nikolsky, website vedomosti.ru)

                So not everything is as good as Poghosyan says.
  91. 0
    1 November 2015 15: 51
    The co-pilot of the Russian Airbus 321 that crashed in Egypt, Sergei Trukhachev, complained about the technical condition of the airliner before takeoff.

    This was stated by his ex-wife Natalya, writes RIA Novosti.

    According to her, his daughter called the pilot before the flight.

    “I complained before the flight that the technical condition of the plane left much to be desired,” she told the TV channel.
    1. 0
      1 November 2015 16: 35
      Since the time of the “Mozhaisky plane” there has been an “unshakable” rule in aviation: “Blame everything on the equipment - they’ll sort it out later!”
      In “defense of Mowgli,” there are isolated cases when equipment suddenly failed and the crew did not have time to counter the failure. There is always some noise, warning alarms, abnormal movement of instrument needles, etc. Ie. technology gives people a chance to make the necessary decision, and here the skill of the crew plays a decisive role, which has recently ceased to be enough
  92. +1
    1 November 2015 16: 52
    In addition to Khristenko, there are also working women workers in Russia who are drawn to the Westerners without feeding them bread, I mean Medvedev, Nabiulina (like the previous Ministry of Finance she became a prize-winner among the Westerners for the collapse of the country’s economy), the country’s would-be economists. And most importantly, Putin stands on their own positions, without thinking about the development of the country
  93. +1
    1 November 2015 17: 24
    Using data from London-based insurance consultant Ascend, BusinessWeek ranked the deadliest and safest planes based on the number of fatal crashes. The rating included aircraft models that are in operation around the world in quantities of 100 or more. The ranking did not take into account plane crashes related to terrorism.
    So, the Boeing 737 JT8D is recognized as the most dangerous passenger aircraft in terms of the number of accidents. There is one fatal aircraft accident per 507 flight hours. The lower this number, the higher the risk of an accident. This is the average for the last five years. Years of production of the liner: 500-1967. Number of models in operation (at the end of 1988): 2008 units. The oldest version of the Boeing 517 family, the JT737D, is still operated by airlines in poor countries. The almost 8-year-old Boeing 30 JT737D, operated by the Kyrgyz airline Itek Air, crashed near Bishkek in August 8. 2008 people died in the disaster.
    2. IL-76
    One crash per 549 flight hours.
    Years of production: from 1974 to the present day
    Number of aircraft in service: 247.

    This cargo model is most often found in airline fleets in the former Soviet Union, the Middle East and Africa. In 2003, an Ilyushin Il-76 operated by Iran Revolutionary Guard crashed, killing 275 people.

    3. Tu-154
    One plane crash per 1 flight hours.
    Years of production: from 1971 to present
    Number of aircraft in service: 336.

    The Tu-154 is also used by most airlines from the former Soviet Union and neighboring countries. A Tu-154 of the Iranian airline Caspian Air, en route from Tehran to Yerevan (Armenia), crashed on July 15 this year, killing 168 people. This was the fourth plane crash involving a Tu-154 in Iran since 2002.
    6. Tu-134
    One plane crash per 1 flight hours.
    Years of production: 1964-1986
    Number of aircraft in service: 223.

    The Tu-134, comparable in size to the DC-9, is widely used by airlines in the former Soviet Union and the Middle East. In terms of noise level, the engine of this airliner does not meet Western European standards, so the Tu-134 flies mainly to domestic destinations in Russia. In August 2004, a Volga-Aviaexpress Tu-134 crashed, killing all 43 people on board.

    14. Boeing 767

    One plane crash per 14 flight hours.
    Years of production: 1982 to present
    Number of aircraft in service: 867

    15. Boeing 737 NG

    One plane crash per 16 flight hours.
    Years of production: 1997 to present
    Number of aircraft in service: 2583

    16. Boeing 747

    One plane crash per 17 flight hours.
    Years of production: 1970 to present
    Number of aircraft in service: 935

    17 Airbus A330

    No fatal accidents during 2008
    Years of production: 1993 to present
    Number of aircraft in service: 577

    18 Airbus A340

    No fatal accidents
    Years of production: 1993 to present
    Number of aircraft in service: 341

    19. Boeing 777
    No fatal accidents
    Years of production: 1995 to present
    Number of aircraft in service: 742
    1. +1
      1 November 2015 21: 18
      The 737 JT8D is the 737-200. In Russia there are only a couple of them on Sakhalin near Aurora.
  94. +1
    1 November 2015 18: 01
    "...Our readers, who are familiar with the sky, I think, will not be much against my opinion. The essence of it is that the airline (if it is one) is obliged not only to sell tickets and pay for fuel and dispatcher services, but and train specialists: pilots, engineers, technicians. That is, take care of the trouble-free operation of their equipment. Maintain and repair them in a timely and efficient manner. Improve repair and maintenance bases.

    And most importantly, in time to update the fleet.

    With the destruction of civil aviation, the civil aviation industry collapsed, and aircraft factories and design bureaus were closed. Our VASO, a huge aircraft manufacturing plant, is in a state of “more dead than alive”..."
    These words can be applied to any sphere of life and activity in modern Russia, no matter what the pernicious hand of shit...cracy touches - it turns into a means of momentary enrichment, and then into decay (their corpses turn into gold).
    Used spare parts, used equipment, used.. used.. questionable specialists + effective managers + outstanding services to the authorities and family...
    I never fly “our” planes and never will...if I have to
    Aviation is one of the most complex industries and particularly dangerous areas of activity, along with others, incl. education, medicine, upbringing, etc., etc....
  95. +1
    1 November 2015 18: 02
    Dear Roman! I haven’t read the comments above. I am sure that 95% of the readers agree with you on all points, but I have had a question for a long time and there is no answer to it. So, the question itself is: why do liberals sit in our government, especially in its economic part, and SHIT in an open country? Why doesn’t our Duma think about us, ordinary citizens of Russia? Why can’t we change the colonial constitution imposed on us in the “wild 90s”? Why are we still investing OUR money in the US economy? request How do you think? Maybe it’s time to ask our elected representatives these questions? and how long will the mockery of our education and healthcare continue? so there are questions, but with answers.... what
  96. 0
    1 November 2015 18: 21
    I am sure that our planes are no worse than American and European ones. Comfort and other show-off are organized in the course of production. This is not the reason for the Russians to constantly risk their lives on ancient flying aircraft-cemeteries of foreign manufacture.
    I totally agree.
    But in order to turn to the domestic aviation industry,
    We need strong political will from the Russian leadership.
    Which, as a rule, is expressed in uncompromising promises from high stands “right now and start “import substitution!”... from European to Chinese.
    So far, our President has the political will to take a tough position towards the United States and Geyrope, in the interests of Syria - but There is no such will in relation to our own bureaucrats from the government! And while this is SO - the aviation industry can smoke bamboo, because it “does not shine” request
  97. 0
    1 November 2015 18: 37
    No one will be able to force a private airline to purchase domestic aircraft until they are actually at the level of Western ones, and this, unfortunately, does not exist and is not expected in the near future.

    Tu204 is more dead than alive, MS 21 will go into commercial operation no earlier than in 3-4 years. There is no long-range aircraft, except for a joint project with the Chinese, which, if released, will not be released earlier than in 10 years. What to fly on?
    The industry has practically collapsed. The school of designing civil aircraft, which in the USSR was already lagging behind the West, has been practically lost. Many factories remained abroad: Tashkent, Antonov with a design bureau and a plant. There has never been a domestic engine for long-haul aircraft. The most important thing is that the continuity of generations in the aircraft industry has been disrupted, the middle generation is almost all gone, the old people are retired and dying, who will teach the youth?
    We need to invest a lot of money in resuscitating all this, starting with personnel training. An impossible task in modern conditions.
  98. +1
    1 November 2015 19: 31
    Ahead of everything for our air carrier are kickbacks from all these Boeings and Aerobuses and sellers from the secondary market of the aircraft fleet. And our government, with its monetarist philosophy, is completely incapable of making decisions in favor of domestic producers. For him, “money” and the market are above all. Here is the result.
  99. 0
    1 November 2015 19: 37
    But instead of the normal development program for the domestic aircraft industry, for some reason they rushed to buy Boeings and Airbuses. Naturally, second-hand.

    Naturally. But all this is a typical consequence of Putin’s economy. We are achieving our goals, but we will buy aircraft after they are used by Turkey and Lebanon.
  100. 0
    1 November 2015 19: 53
    Here's another IMPORTANT point!!!
    The lost airliner had foreign registration!
    Aircraft information
    ModeS
    4CA9BF
    Registration
    EI-ETJ

    Source: http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/ei-etj/ (flightradar24).
    For the sake of understanding, an HONEST aircraft in Russia must have the registration prefix RA, then the number ...
    In general, they were being clever, hiding...
    1. 0
      1 November 2015 20: 24
      olegfbi

      So what?

      The plane was purchased in Leasing, and with such a transaction the registration numbers do not change.

      Change of registration occurs only after full payment of money for the aircraft.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"