tzlk to me about aeroflot

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
9,230
Location
down in the park
How is that airlane rated?

If and when I take an airplane, it's going to Asia from Europe and back. Going by way of Moscow might make sense to save time. I never considered the airline before, but just yesterday seen a big poster in Brussels airport.

The only Russian plane in the inventory is a small Sukhoi Superjet 100-95B, the rest seem to be Boeings and Airbus.
 
Highest accident/fatality rate of all airlines. Maintenance is substandard and I'm surprised they can operate in the USA. Fly at your own risk.
 
Ditto. I heard their accident rate is ten times what we have in the U.S. It probably doesn't get a whole lot of press because they don't fly as much as the U.S. does.
 
Agree with above, I heard a guy tell a story about an Aeroflot flight, Boeing, he said it was raining outside the plane. And also raining inside.

Take Lufthansa or SAS as 1st and 2nd choices from the continent. British Airways would be a good choice from the islands.

International air fares are regulated, so the price should be the same.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
Highest accident/fatality rate of all airlines. Maintenance is substandard and I'm surprised they can operate in the USA. Fly at your own risk.


Interesting. They're currently rated as one of the safest airlines.

Quote:
Airlineratings.com recently awarded 148 airlines with its top seven-star rating for safety. They include Aeroflot, Aer Lingus, Air Berlin, Air Canada, Air New Zealand, Alitalia, ANA, Avianca, BA, Cathay Pacific, Delta, Emirates, Etihad, Flybe, Germanwings, Kuwait Airlines, LOT, Qantas, SAS, Saudia, Singapore Airlines, Thomas Cook Airlines, Transavia, United, US Airways, Virgin Atlantic, Vueling


JACDEC puts them at #35 for 2015, better than a number of carriers such as American Airlines and Air France.

JACDEC

AirlineRatings.com gives them a 7 out of 7 safety rating.

AirlineRatings

Ask the pilot seems to agree.

Quote:
Based in Moscow, the Aeroflot that exists today operates about 120 aircraft and transports 14 million passengers annually. Since 1994, it has had only two serious accidents, one of them at the hands of a subsidiary.


Ask The Pilot
 
My personal experience was good. Aircraft was in top shape, pilot knew his business.
 
I once took a Paris-Tokyo flight which was operated by Air France, via Moscow. Paris-Moscow with Air France plane, no problem.
Moscow-Tokyo was Aeroflot (outsourced by Air France...no wonder it was cheap, I was young and naive at the time).
The flight was delayed because of some plane issue, waited for hours in Moscow airport, then we were brought to a hotel by military guys, our passport confiscated. Hotel was cheap and guarded by armed guards, we weren't explained anything since they hardly spoke English (and I don't speak Russian). Waited like 36h guarded by armed guards before finally taking the plane to Tokyo. Wasn't a pleasant experience, but at the end all went well.

Now I stay away from aeroflot...
 
Originally Posted By: Tech819
Check it out for yourself

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/accidents.htm

That list isn't weight-averaged. They don't list the number of accidents per million passenger miles. If they did, Aeroflot may not look that good. I would expect the popular carriers to have more accidents than the small obscure carriers.
 
International airfares are not regulated and haven't been in years.
Aeroflot today is as safe as any other airline. I wouldn't hesitate to book with them, although my wife might which is the reason that we've never transited through Moscow.
You can book some cheap flights to wherever connecting through Moscow.
There is plenty of information out there on the safety culture of every airline. I myself would avoid a couple based in the US and one based in France. There are many others I'd prefer not to fly if I had a choice, but sometimes there is no choice if you really want to get to some destination. A dangerous airline is still safer than either ocean or land surface travel.
If the OP can find a good fare on Aeroflot, then he should book it with no worries.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
International airfares are not regulated and haven't been in years....


Don't know if that was directed at me or not, my meaning was that the fares are regulated....

Originally Posted By: fdcg27

...Aeroflot today is as safe as any other airline. I wouldn't hesitate to book with them, although my wife might which is the reason that we've never transited through Moscow.
You can book some cheap flights to wherever connecting through Moscow.
There is plenty of information out there on the safety culture of every airline. I myself would avoid a couple based in the US and one based in France. There are many others I'd prefer not to fly if I had a choice, but sometimes there is no choice if you really want to get to some destination. A dangerous airline is still safer than either ocean or land surface travel.
If the OP can find a good fare on Aeroflot, then he should book it with no worries.


Perhaps it is, my story occurred in the 90s.
 
I did intend to reply to your post and correct the misimpression that international fares are regulated.
While that would make old-school carriers very happy, it isn't the case these days for most of the world's routes.
Capacity is often regulated between city pairs and so are airport slots. Slot availability is sometimes used to de facto ban a carrier from operating a route they have rights to fly.
Still, international fares are not generally regulated these days, which explains why Aeroflot can be a cheap option along with Icelandic and Norwegian and the thousand pound gorilla Emirates and its two smaller Middle Eastern cousins as well as Turkish. These carriers use their cost advantages to offer lower than typical fares on a variety of international routes. This also forces other carriers to fare match at least a portion of their seats.
This is to various extents killing the legacy carriers.
 
I wouldn't hesitate to book either. Although the IL-86 is gone. Always wanted to fly one of those.
frown.gif
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
I did intend to reply to your post and correct the misimpression that international fares are regulated.
While that would make old-school carriers very happy, it isn't the case these days for most of the world's routes.
Capacity is often regulated between city pairs and so are airport slots. Slot availability is sometimes used to de facto ban a carrier from operating a route they have rights to fly.
Still, international fares are not generally regulated these days, which explains why Aeroflot can be a cheap option along with Icelandic and Norwegian and the thousand pound gorilla Emirates and its two smaller Middle Eastern cousins as well as Turkish. These carriers use their cost advantages to offer lower than typical fares on a variety of international routes. This also forces other carriers to fare match at least a portion of their seats.
This is to various extents killing the legacy carriers.


Thanks, I guess I should update my brain from the late 90s when I worked in reservations at United....
 
Originally Posted By: SEMI_287
I wouldn't hesitate to book either. Although the IL-86 is gone. Always wanted to fly one of those.
frown.gif



that's what sparked my interest, but when I got home to check their inventory they only use the small sukhoi as a bit of an exotic.
 
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: SEMI_287
I wouldn't hesitate to book either. Although the IL-86 is gone. Always wanted to fly one of those.
frown.gif



that's what sparked my interest, but when I got home to check their inventory they only use the small sukhoi as a bit of an exotic.


The modestly named Suhkoi Superjet is operated to a couple of US destinations by Mexican carrier Interjet, so any American with a yen to fly something Russian would have that option.
The old and neat stuff is gone from Aeroflot's inventory, but there are still flights operated with some of the old Soviet-era designs operated by smaller carriers in Russia and the CIS countries.
These aircraft are reportedly very tough and easy to maintain in safe condition.
Wish I had caught an IL-62 CUN-HAV on Cubana when that was an option. Would have been an interesting and cheap day trip. This aircraft was very similar to the Vickers VC-10, an aircraft that I wish I'd flown TATL during its brief service life with BOAC.
 
Old Russian iron is very interesting to me. IL-86/96/62 and Tu-152 would be an interesting ride. Maybe a Tu-102 to spice things up, I'm even dumb enough to climb in a Tu-144. Well, maybe not to fly in one.
wink.gif
 
As an interesting aside, are you aware that the last flying TU-144 was owned by an American company and flown for NASA, Boeing and Rockwell in a high-speed research role?
This was back in the late nineties and it cost the operator a mere $315MM to buy and have refurbed to flightworthy status. Considering the nature of the aircraft and the work required to put it back in the air, that was probably a bargain price.
Based upon what I've read of the operational history and failure modes of this aircraft, I don't think I'd want to fly in one were that even possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top