CityJet buying up to 25 Russian planes

darka78

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/cityjet-set-to-renew-fleet-in-900-million-deal-1.2390693

I don't think I would be confident flying with those....

What you think about this deal?

Pat Dunne

darka78 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/cityjet-set-to-renew-fleet-in-900-million-deal-1.2390693

I don't think I would be confident flying with those....

What you think about this deal?

There are several good threads running on this topc, this link will steer you to the most recent one http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057507161

Lockheed

darka78 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/cityjet-set-to-renew-fleet-in-900-million-deal-1.2390693

I don't think I would be confident flying with those....

What you think about this deal?

I know there is other topics on this, but why would you not feel confident on a perfectly fine Sukhoi airliner?

darka78

Lockheed wrote: »

I know there is other topics on this, but why would you not feel confident on a perfectly fine Sukhoi airliner?

I wouldn't call them perfectly fine after one of them already crashed in Indonesia.

pepe the prawn

darka78 wrote: »

I wouldn't call them perfectly fine after one of them already crashed in Indonesia.

That was crew error, they ignored terrain warnings because they were having a conversation with prospective buyers who were in the cockpit at the time. CFIT.

Peregrine

darka78 wrote: »

I wouldn't call them perfectly fine after one of them already crashed in Indonesia.

And have you read into the cause of that crash? CFIT, wasn't it?

Is your whole argument based on the plane just being Russian?

darka78

Peregrine wrote: »

And have you read into the cause of that crash? CFIT, wasn't it?

Is your whole argument based on the plane just being Russian?

My fear is based on statistics so far, officially this plane had 26 incidents(we don't know unofficial incidents) and is not even widely used by airline companies. If you like the plane fair enough I don't and I will not use it.

Pat Dunne

darka78 wrote: »

My fear is based on statistics so far, officially this plane had 26 incidents(we don't know unofficial incidents) and is not even widely used by airline companies. If you like the plane fair enough I don't and I will not use it.

Would the numerous "incidents" that have occurred to the 787 Dreamliner and if I think back far enough, the 737, stop you getting flying on a Boeing? Note the recent 777, engine fire in Las Vagas.
Airbus, have had their well documented "incidents" over the years also. Does that stop you from flying their products?
Would you have similar reservations, getting on board an Embraer or an ATR?

All of these manufactures have statical evidence of "incidents" documented against them. Do you have similar reservations against these manufactures, as you appear to have towards Sukhoi?

I for one can't wait to fly on one into LCY

Deagol

Pat Dunne wrote: »

Would the numerous "incidents" that occurred to the 787 Dreamliner, stop you getting on to a Boeing?
Airbus, have had their well documented "incidents" over the years also. Does that stop you from flying them as well?

Would you have reservations getting on board an Embraer, because it is Brazilian, or an ATR because its Italian?

You do realise that someones opinion is just that? They cannot be 'wrong' about it. TBH, I would agree with OP, with no basis other than a bad feeling, I wouldn't be keen on flying in an airliner that is Russian for no other reason than I just don't have any reason to trust them.

And I wouldn't be that mad on going in a 787 until they've proven themselves. Always prefer to fly on a type that's been around a bit and has the bugs shaken out of it. Again, not based on anything other than my gut reaction to incidents etc. I'm normally very logical but when I'm trusting my life with a piece of machinery I can get as superstitious as a voodoo worshiper

de biz

darka78 wrote: »

My fear is based on statistics so far, officially this plane had 26 incidents(we don't know unofficial incidents) and is not even widely used by airline companies. If you like the plane fair enough I don't and I will not use it.

Can you reference the official verified sources citing the 26 accidents please?
No agenda just interested....

Deagol

de biz wrote: »

Can you reference the sources citing the 26 accidents please?
No agenda just interested....

Amazing what you can find if you type into google "Sukhoi Superjet Incidents"

http://www.aeroinside.com/incidents/type/su95/sukhoi-superjet-100-95

Pat Dunne

Deagol wrote: »

You do realise that someones opinion is just that? They cannot be 'wrong' about it. TBH, I would agree with OP, with no basis other than a bad feeling, I wouldn't be keen on flying in an airliner that is Russian for no other reason than I just don't have any reason to trust them.

And I wouldn't be that mad on going in a 787 until they've proven themselves. Always prefer to fly on a type that's been around a bit and has the bugs shaken out of it. Again, not based on anything other than my gut reaction to incidents etc. I'm normally very logical but when I'm trusting my life with a piece of machinery I can get as superstitious as a voodoo worshiper

I am happy to note another persons opinion, however that should not hinder me, or others for that matter in offering their's.

darka78

Deagol wrote: »

You do realise that someones opinion is just that? They cannot be 'wrong' about it. TBH, I would agree with OP, with no basis other than a bad feeling, I wouldn't be keen on flying in an airliner that is Russian for no other reason than I just don't have any reason to trust them.

And I wouldn't be that mad on going in a 787 until they've proven themselves. Always prefer to fly on a type that's been around a bit and has the bugs shaken out of it. Again, not based on anything other than my gut reaction to incidents etc. I'm normally very logical but when I'm trusting my life with a piece of machinery I can get as superstitious as a voodoo worshiper

Thanks Deagol, you summed it up that perfectly and that is exactly how I feel about flying with that plane.

EchoIndia

darka78 wrote: »

Thanks Deagol, you summed it up that perfectly and that is exactly how I feel about flying with that plane.

Considering that only a very small minority of passengers give any thought to the type of aircraft they are travelling on or its safety record (in terms of serious incidents primarily attributable to the design), I doubt that Cityjet's business will be affected by its choice of equipment. By the way you could also have done this search on that site:
http://www.aeroinside.com/incidents/airline/cityjet

smurfjed

I would love to fly it :) Its an interesting choice, the only incidents that would concern me are the belly landing and the jammed stabiliser.


Out of curiosity, how many RJ's do they have and how many pilots will they need :)

ohigg84

I think it will be nice to see them. I really thought that Cityjet would have got the Bombarider CS-100/300.

smurfjed

https://www.cityjet.com/news/cityjet-to-fly-new-aircraft-for-sas.shtml

Actually i would have expected them to have a common fleet based on the CRJ, but as it doesn't meet the London city requirements they obviously need something else.