Rearguard action against increasingly widespread critisism?(900 words)

Published: 2/2/2001

Reports emerging from the recent board meeting indicate that the national carrier's reluctance to increase the number of Russian aircraft it operates may have been entirely justified. The timing of the statement appears to be less than coincidental, in the face of growing pressure (from producers, the Duma and government) for the national carrier to support domestic producers. While Aeroflot's safety record adheres to international standards, the airline reports that there has been a substantial decline in the performance of aircraft and engines, resulting in an increase in delays for the airline over the seasonal period. These delays are attributed to the deterioration in the quality, speed and price of repairs to Russian equipment - particularly engines; presenting the airline with a maintenance rate equivalent to twice that of the Boeings and Airbuses, despite the 50% higher utilization of the foreign aircraft. Detailing causes of accidents/incidents, the carrier reported the main causes to be failures of aircraft components, particularly engines (62%). 10% of accidents were caused by foreign objects (FODs) in engines, as a result of unsatisfactory conditions on runways/ taxiways and also bird strikes. This is a well-timed dig at Shermetyevo Airport, given that the airline is about to announce the construction of a new terminal at the airport within the next week. The remaining incidents it attributes to human factors. Aeroflot reported that it had particular problems with the Il-96-300s and their PS-90A engines, commenting that the manufacturers had failed to improve quality and service, despite particular requests. These comments are slightly surprising as both Aeroflot and Perm Motors (the engine's producer), appear to have been reasonably happy with what had been substantial improvements in the engines performance on the Il-96-300, marked by considerable increases in the aircraft's availability. Recent reports had suggested that the aircraft was flying 11-12 hours a day, representing a substantial improvement since its introduction to Aeroflot. At that time it was reputed to have only three of the four engines working and only flew for twenty minutes a day. In mid-1999, one Il-96-300 was even reported to have flown 7000 hours with PS-90s on the wing, on the Moscow-Seoul route! Perm for their part, appear incensed by the comments of Aeroflot and have said that while there has been a “slight” rise in problems with the engines (which they, in part, attribute to bird strikes and “improper use of the engine”), they do accept that the unscheduled removal of nine engines last year, was up from six the previous year. The General Director of PMZ and Aviadvigatel, Yury Reshetnikov regarded this as an aberration, which would not be repeated in 2001. It was pointed out that of 32 engine removals (scheduled and unscheduled), five were restored with no faults found. According to Aeroflot, the board recommended that the carrier should take legal action against the both aircraft and engine producers to claim compensation for losses incurred. Relations between Perm and Aeroflot over the PS-90A, since the Il-96-300's introduction to Aeroflot service, can only be characterized as difficult. The airline has, in the past, withheld payments over quality issues related to the engine's operation on the Il-96-300, up to February 1999. The dispute had reportedly been resolved, with the improvement of service and better overall performance from the airline's Il-96-300s. More generally, other operators of the Il-96-300, including UK operator AirRep, appear to be operating PS-90As with a fairly high level of satisfaction. The motivation for a statement at this time therefore, may have more to do with the airline's eagerness to fend off increasing political pressure to buy domestic aircraft; pressure evident in recent statements by government minister, Alexander Dondukov. He suggested that foreign aircraft were “inappropriate for Russian conditions” and that operators were growing to “admire the so far, unfairly treated indigenous designs”. Aeroflot eager to be seen publicly on-side though they are principally motivated by the requirement to make domestic acquisitions to offset customs breaks on the import of western aircraft. It has negotiated a deal, in principle, with Ilyushin Finance to buy six Il-96-300s. The deal, originally agreed in late 1999, remains in limbo in the absence of government guarantees for the leasing structure to fund the aircraft's acquisition. Recent reports indicate that the Dondukov industry restructuring plan, due to be unveiled in early March, will address this particular situation - making it more likely that the orders will be confirmed. Sources suggest that the failure to consummate the deal, to date, has not upset Aeroflot who, despite public statements of support for the industry, would privately rather run an all-western fleet (with the exception of the RR powered Tu-334, which is well-regarded). They believe that such a fleet would better meet the expectations of passengers, both international and increasingly those on domestic routes. Western aircraft are already replacing Russian aircraft on major domestic routes, the most recent being a Boeing 737 on the Moscow-Murmansk route. The airline's longer-term intentions were also publicly highlighted recently, from French sources, reporting that they were negotiating with Airbus for 50 aircraft, but was subsequently denied by both parties. Since the source was within the French government and Airbus has, in the past, been keen to wean Aeroflot from its historic use of Boeings - combined with the possible offsets in A-380 production, it seems likely that discussions have taken place.

Article ID: 2337