28

Are there any reasons other than political why Russian jets don't sell?

For a case study, let's compare Sukhoi Superjet and Mitsubishi Regional Jet. Despite being delayed several times, Mitsubishi has secured more orders than Sukhoi. Similarly, Embraer and Bombardier aircraft sell much more than the Sukhoi Superjet. Many new airlines continue to go to with Embraer and Bombardier. Despite promising lower running, maintenance, purchasing costs, why doesn't this aircraft secures orders?

Rodrigo de Azevedo
  • 1
  • 1
  • 9
  • 28
anshabhi
  • 11,490
  • 15
  • 76
  • 137
  • 3
    Very similar – Pondlife Dec 17 '15 at 15:28
  • 10
    They aren't nearly as good? Sometimes you just get what you pay for. – Ralph J Dec 17 '15 at 15:58
  • 4
    There is a lot to be said for sticking with an aircraft you already have trained maintenance personnel, spare parts, and pilots for... – Ron Beyer Dec 17 '15 at 16:13
  • 23
    Reliability reputation aside, you really can't ignore the political reasons. To put it mildly, Russia has strained its relationships with many of the other countries that buy a lot of airplanes lately. When you're buying an aircraft that you'll likely be operating for a decade or two, the risk of your parts supply chain suddenly being embargoed if the situation escalates further is not a good one. Along those same lines, Boeing, Airbus, and Embraer are probably less likely to stop existing over the next couple of decades than most of the Russian manufacturers. – reirab Dec 17 '15 at 17:53
  • 1
    There are two kinds of reputation, to make matters worse. Even if Sukhoi establishes a good operational record for, say, ten years, as an operator you'd still not enjoy being marked as 'flying Russian aircraft' in the news or Internet discussions. – Pavel Dec 17 '15 at 18:07
  • 9
    One might as well ask why Lada sells much less cars than Toyota despite having lower costs. – Peteris Dec 17 '15 at 21:28
  • Note that Bombardier and Embraer aren't European or American (unless you're taking "American" to mean "from anywhere in the Americas") – David Richerby Dec 24 '15 at 21:02
  • Was waiting for someone to point that! Even Japan isn't American or European.. – anshabhi Dec 27 '15 at 12:08
  • @RonBeyer: Which, of course, explains why Russian airlines are buying up Boeings and Airbusses as fast as they can get their hands on the necessary cash, and scrapping their Ilyushins and Tupolevs and Yakovlevs... – Vikki Nov 16 '19 at 23:54

3 Answers3

40

If you take out the political angle (which is by far, the most important), there are a number of reasons for this.

  • Basically, the Russians have a serious image problem. Russian (and Soviet) aircraft have a reputation for poor quality, reliability and safety issues. This will take a long time to fix. In contrast, Japanese have no such problems (In fact, the MRJ boasts of 'legendary Japanese reliability')

  • It is not easy to make airlines switch from an existing aircraft. Most airlines have a huge system built around the aircraft they operate (In fact, quite a few regional carriers operate only a single aircraft type). It would take enormous amount of investment in time and money to shift to a new aircraft and it would take a large incentive for them to put their eggs in a new basket.

  • US is probably the most important market at present and operating there gives other airlines a lot of confidence to buy the jet. If you see the orders for MRJ, most are from US (In fact, almost all orders are from either US or Japan). The Superjet, in contrast, hasn't even applied for FAA certification as far as I know.

  • Promising and delivering lower costs are completely different things. Airlines are more prone to believe companies that have a proven track record of manufacturing civil aircraft than a newcomer.

  • The Superjet is the first airliner to be developed in Russia since the end of cold war. As such there are questions about its industrial capability and quality control processes. Mitsubishi, on the other hand is engaged in a number of aircraft projects (it makes more than a third of 787 structure).

  • Sukhoi has to build a supply chain and support system from scratch (Superjet has a number of foreign components). Again, in the extremely cost sensitive airline industry with tight schedules, there is a perception that the Russian aircraft will not be supported as well as their western counterparts (For example, Boeing boasts of a >99% dispatch reliability for 737)

aeroalias
  • 100,255
  • 5
  • 278
  • 429
  • 4
    The quality is not just an image problem - the comments from friends that have flied on Sukhoi Superjets are rather one sided; no matter if their flight and operational cost properties meet expectations, the plane interior build quality simply isn't that good, even economy-class fliers of the first world feel that it's inferior to other (incl. much older) planes and would prefer airlines that use something else than the Superjets. – Peteris Dec 17 '15 at 21:23
  • 4
    Quality control is really hard - even Boeing dropped the ball with the 787. It's not really a surprise that Sukhoi struggles too. – MSalters Dec 17 '15 at 23:22
  • 3
    @Peteris, interior build is not an essential characteristic of the plane. Different airlines may order different cabin layouts with more or less leg room, cheaper or better materials, etc. There are some plane characteristics that make flight uncomfortable no matter what, for instance noisy engines. But as far as I recall, SSJ engines are quite usual in noise. – IMil Dec 18 '15 at 12:45
  • 2
    Image and trust are huge - passengers (even frequent fliers) are often nervous aboard aircraft, but they've learned to trust the Airbus and Boeing brands. – Jon Story Dec 24 '15 at 13:11
  • 2
    @JonStory And, yet, a huge number of shorter distance flights within the US and Europe are on planes made by companies such as Embraer, Bombardier and Fokker. It's clearly not necessary to fly Airbus or Boeing to maintain customer confidence. – David Richerby Dec 24 '15 at 21:06
  • 2
    Well for one thing, in Europe the vast, vast majority of even shorter routes are on 737/A320 series aircraft: but there's also the point that Embraer, Bombardier etc have become trusted. Russian and Chinese manufacturers (rightly or wrongly) are generally considered less high quality. It's brand perception, and it isn't always logical. Still, most people would choose a Boeing over a Bombardier – Jon Story Dec 24 '15 at 21:08
  • 2
    @JonStory nah. Passengers see that a reputable airline is using the craft, and that's good enough. (The reputable airline has it's reputation, for one, because it chooses good airplanes.) – RonJohn May 20 '17 at 21:16
8

I think reputation has a lot to do with this, I'm sure there are Russian aircraft out there that have outstanding safety records, but media has focused on some high-profile accidents as well as shoddy/corrupt government.

Also, certification is probably the other barrier, the bigger the aircraft the more expensive it is to certify it for various civil aviation authorities. I think EASA and FAA have lots of rules/ standards worked out among themselves, but I don't think the Russian authority is well integrated.

user1296193
  • 147
  • 4
-3

Interesting question: I remember having read long time ago, that Russian-built airliners tended being underpowered respect to their western counterparts, this resulting in slow climbing and other operational difficulties for air-traffic controllers.

Also, the USSR airplanes' instruments were metric; besides pilots say that feet are a bit more accurate in estimating height for things as precission landings, one meter is around three feet, also a mile is a minute of arch, no match between a km and arches, some problems resulted, for example, in places where metric units were used for fuel. For those having a local way for measurement, it's easier adapting to using it plus another more universal system than the reverse, from the general to the private, habitudes are hard to change

A Mars probe crashed when somebody mismatched metric and 'imperial' units in the software, an airliner had to make an emergency landing in an abandoned airstrip, this won the pilot an award, as he managed the no engine, gliding approach at a too high level, by sliding on the side. The reason of this commercial jet running out of fuel was a mismatch between fuel supply units.

They said also that USSR jet engines were more fuel thirsty than their counterparts, perhaps due to the lack of access to the rare elements used for high temperature and stress alloys, this limiting the efficiency of engines.

Urquiola
  • 1,631
  • 17
  • 21
  • 5
    The incident you refer to is known as the Gimli Glider, which was an Air Canada Boeing 767. Furthermore, you might want to use the occasional . or newline to make your answer more readable – Sanchises Dec 24 '15 at 12:12
  • 1
    Those "British units" were U.S. gallons, which aren't the same as British gallons, which aren't used any more (except that car fuel consumption is always quoted as miles per gallon, even though fuel is sold by the litre). – David Richerby Dec 24 '15 at 21:08
  • 5
    Using feet for landings is really not important: 500feet/150metres, 50 feet/15 metres... in an aircraft you're travelling fast enough that you're only accurate to 10 feet/3m at the best of times, and even then only for a moment. "100, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10" is not really much different to "30, 15, 12, 9, 6, 3". That's not to say that changing wouldn't risk problems, but once people are used to it, it's just as accurate. – Jon Story Dec 24 '15 at 21:27
  • 3
    @JonStory And the feet-vs-metres thing can't be anything like a deal-breaker, since there are plenty of Airbus and Boeing planes in service with Russian and Chinese carriers. – David Richerby Dec 25 '15 at 16:31
  • As far as I know, most modern airliners have the ability to display either metric or imperial units, anyway. – reirab Jan 03 '16 at 20:28
  • @JonStory The problem is not so much landing as altitudes. Altitudes that are even multiples of 1,000 or 500 feet are convenient. Using metric would mean either than the numbers are nasty or that the vertical separation is much more (or much less.) Multiples of 150 or 300 would be annoying to deal with. – reirab Jan 03 '16 at 20:33
  • That's still nonsensical. The altitudes wouldn't necessarily match up exactly but you can easily use 300m of separation just as well as we currently use 1000ft. You fly at FL 80 and I'll fly at FL 83 instead of 260 and 270. Again if we used mixed it could be a nuisance, but not if everyone in one airspace used the same scheme. – Jon Story Jan 03 '16 at 20:38
  • About measuring units, I was told about the convenience of feet over fractions of meter some 25 years ago by a former jet fighter and then airline pilot, but situation may have changed – Urquiola Jan 05 '16 at 22:08
  • @Urquiola, multiples of 10 are slightly easier than multiples of 3, but you can quickly learn those too if you use them. But it's totally irrelevant regarding plane types—no matter what plane you fly, you fly in metres in China (and some other Asian countries) and in feet anywhere else. Except Russia where you currently fly in metres below transition, but in feet above. In either case, your plane will display what you need. – Jan Hudec Feb 03 '17 at 19:08