A Belgian news website is reporting that Brussles Airlines will not be renewing their contract with Cityjet for the operation of 4 Sukhoi SSJ100s. Christina Foersta, Brussels Airline CEO she says although it is a good aircraft, it's downtime is a problem. Apparently the SSJ and has no more technical problems than other types, but when it does have problems they are grounded longer - which seems to suggest it's parts/support that are a problem. Not really surprising for a small subfleet of a rare type, not operated elsewhere in Western Europe.

Brussels Airlines wil af van Sukhoi Superjets (Original)

Brussels Airlines Wants to Get Rid of Sukhoi Superjets (Google Translate English)

Can't be good press for Sukhoi - although did the SSJ have any other real prospects in Western Europe anyway? I also wonder what Cityjet will do with them afterwards. Would they get enough charter business for the whole fleet? I doubt any other operator will be rushing to contract them for scheduled services after what Brussels Airlines have said.

They could go for the A-220 as a replacement. I see very well the Lufthansa Group ordering A-220s for Lufthansa, Brussels Airlines and Austrian. I don't mention Swiss because they fly it already. I'm not saying it will happen, but it can. I won't be surprised if it does. The A-220 is the best suitable replacement I can think of.

American 767 wrote:

They could go for the A-220 as a replacement. I see very well the Lufthansa Group ordering A-220s for Lufthansa, Brussels Airlines and Austrian. I don't mention Swiss because they fly it already. I'm not saying it will happen, but it can. I won't be surprised if it does. The A-220 is the best suitable replacement I can think of.

Do they have to replace them at all? If they are upgrading BRU-BMA to A319, do they really need anything smaller?

One of the stated reasons was not that it was more unreliable.. but due to it being really "unknown" it takes longer then the equivalent embraer/boeing/airbus which are way more routine.

The routine makes it way quicker, spares more available and more available maintenance crew etc etc...

They are not saying it's a bad and unreliable plane.

FlyRow wrote:

One of the stated reasons was not that it was more unreliable.. but due to it being really "unknown" it takes longer then the equivalent embraer/boeing/airbus which are way more routine.

The routine makes it way quicker, spares more available and more available maintenance crew etc etc...

They are not saying it's a bad and unreliable plane.

Finally someone knows how to read...

Poor customer support costs as much as poor reliability. Everything I'm hearing is good design, good (but not great) fuel burn, but bad downtime metrics.

If the downtime is longer that means having to pay more and possibly having crew time out. This quickly becomes more expensive than flying almost anything else.

All planes have issues. Fix them in time to not impact metrics and the airline management will sell the plane for you.

Now that the E2 and A220 are more ready, I'm afraid the window for su-100 sales is over.

Lightsaber

Unfortunately, good aircraft hobbled by poor service is pretty much a cliche when it comes to Russian Aircraft. If it's frustrating as an enthusiast, it must be infuriating for an airline.

I keep hoping that they will 'get it'...to finally understand a good design by itself will not make for a good airliner. Airlines are businesses. They need reliable aircraft and support. Cheap to buy gets old fast if it's expensive to own.

I always thought this was a crazy idea; SN being the only user of those Russian jets in Western Europe, particularly with all the issues between Russia and the EU at the moment. Finally common sense prevails, and they will need to fly Western-friendly planes.

[code][/code]

American 767 wrote:

They could go for the A-220 as a replacement. I see very well the Lufthansa Group ordering A-220s for Lufthansa, Brussels Airlines and Austrian. I don't mention Swiss because they fly it already. I'm not saying it will happen, but it can. I won't be surprised if it does. The A-220 is the best suitable replacement I can think of.

Not disagreeing, but LH group seems to be reluctant in facilitating new aircraft acquisitions for SN and OS. They need to generate better profit first, according to LH Group CEO Spohr.
Gently used A319ceo's are likely though, like the ex SQ A333's for SN.

The performance currently is abysmal. They are operating with all 7 SSJ for Brussels right now and still do not manage to cover 4 aircraft worth (including reserves) of flying.

FlyRow wrote:

One of the stated reasons was not that it was more unreliable.. but due to it being really "unknown" it takes longer then the equivalent embraer/boeing/airbus which are way more routine.

The routine makes it way quicker, spares more available and more available maintenance crew etc etc...

They are not saying it's a bad and unreliable plane.

Maybe you don't use English as a first language. Here's Oxford on the definition of unreliable:

Definition of unreliable adjective from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

unreliable adjective
BrE /ˌʌnrɪˈlaɪəbl/ ; NAmE /ˌʌnrɪˈlaɪəbl/

Add to my wordlist
that cannot be trusted or depended on
The trains are notoriously unreliable.
He's totally unreliable as a source of information.

How do they compare to Interjet? Didn't their CEO say recently they were very happy with them and had great reliability %?

Redwood839 wrote:

How do they compare to Interjet? Didn't their CEO say recently they were very happy with them and had great reliability %?

You can’t really trust anything Interjet’s CEO says because he is also trying to prop up the airline and make it seem like a good investment as it is facing financial issues. He may have said it has great reliability but they have also had multiple planes parked for extended periods of time (and looking at flightradar real quick still appear to have some parked). He also let slip that he was getting them for dirt cheap (although Sukhoi denied it was as cheap as he implied).

DUSZRH wrote:

The performance currently is abysmal. They are operating with all 7 SSJ for Brussels right now and still do not manage to cover 4 aircraft worth (including reserves) of flying.

Their SSJ100's are flying to where they are intented to fly...You call that "abysmal perfomance?

anxo75 wrote:

DUSZRH wrote:

The performance currently is abysmal. They are operating with all 7 SSJ for Brussels right now and still do not manage to cover 4 aircraft worth (including reserves) of flying.

Their SSJ100's are flying to where they are intented to fly...You call that "abysmal perfomance?

If true, 7 aircraft for 4 lines of flying is abysmal. That's like Concorde.

MaverickM11 wrote:

anxo75 wrote:

DUSZRH wrote:

The performance currently is abysmal. They are operating with all 7 SSJ for Brussels right now and still do not manage to cover 4 aircraft worth (including reserves) of flying.

Their SSJ100's are flying to where they are intented to fly...You call that "abysmal perfomance?

If true, 7 aircraft for 4 lines of flying is abysmal. That's like Concorde.

That's Brussels Airlines problem...Nothing to do with the plane.

I too am sad for the poor support. There are 3 things that scare airlines away from new entrants:
1. Unknown dispatch reliability (SSJ is doing well here). See ARJ-21
2. Unknown support (SSJ is failing here)
3. Unknown durability and resale value (Sadly, SSJ isn't even going there due to above. ). See E-190.

There is a reason Bombardier and Embraer are having to sell out. The demands for 1 & 2 are non-negotiable and cost airlines dearly when missed.

The only aircraft that should be used in low utilization duty are old examples kept or purchased to fly only during high RASM times (not low season or a Tuesday) or as low fixed cost spares.

MaverickM11 wrote:

anxo75 wrote:

DUSZRH wrote:

The performance currently is abysmal. They are operating with all 7 SSJ for Brussels right now and still do not manage to cover 4 aircraft worth (including reserves) of flying.

Their SSJ100's are flying to where they are intented to fly...You call that "abysmal perfomance?

If true, 7 aircraft for 4 lines of flying is abysmal. That's like Concorde.

I didn't realize it was that bad! No wonder they are returned.

Better than the ARJ-21, that requires 5 aircraft to fly one line. Seriously unacceptable on both counts.

Industry standard is 18 aircraft to fly 17 lines or better. Any more spares is paying for expensive assets to not earn money. Goal is almost no spares, but we aren't there. It does no good to sell cheap when so many aircraft are required to support service as at some point the maintenance, spare crews, and all the other costs (parking, registration, subscriptions for support software,) overcome any price discount. Since all airframes ate on Western engines and avionics, we have a minimum sales price.

For what it's worth, supporting engines is even more challenging than supporting an airframe. It astounds me that airframers who cannot adequately support a home grown airframe think that they are ready for an indigenous engine. See the Hondajet engine for what happens when someone wises up to they aren't ready for engine field support (it is a high cost for entry into the support market at today's standards, it takes 4,000+ engines in the field to pay for the distribution and technical expertise to support engines globally today).

Lightsaber

MIflyer12 wrote:

FlyRow wrote:

One of the stated reasons was not that it was more unreliable.. but due to it being really "unknown" it takes longer then the equivalent embraer/boeing/airbus which are way more routine.

The routine makes it way quicker, spares more available and more available maintenance crew etc etc...

They are not saying it's a bad and unreliable plane.

Maybe you don't use English as a first language. Here's Oxford on the definition of unreliable:

Definition of unreliable adjective from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

unreliable adjective
BrE /ˌʌnrɪˈlaɪəbl/ ; NAmE /ˌʌnrɪˈlaɪəbl/

Add to my wordlist
that cannot be trusted or depended on
The trains are notoriously unreliable.
He's totally unreliable as a source of information.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nitpicking

NOUN
mass noun
informal
Fussy or pedantic fault-finding.


Or


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pedantic
pedantic
ADJECTIVE
Excessively concerned with minor details or rules; overscrupulous.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's perfectly clear what I meant, the planes aren't breaking down more then other planes, they are not falling out of the skies and SN doesn't find them unsafe. They do however take longer to fix, you can work around that but it takes extra planes / personnel and/or Cost.
That doesn't make them unreliable, it makes them less effective / worthwhile to operate.

Totally unnecessary to put this on me not being from an English country, as everyone understood what I meant. This is just being pedantic and nitpicking while totally not contributing to the thread.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nitpicking

NOUN
mass noun
informal
Fussy or pedantic fault-finding.


Or


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pedantic
pedantic
ADJECTIVE
Excessively concerned with minor details or rules; overscrupulous.

Love it!

lightsaber wrote:

I too am sad for the poor support. There are 3 things that scare airlines away from new entrants:
1. Unknown dispatch reliability (SSJ is doing well here). See ARJ-21
2. Unknown support (SSJ is failing here)
3. Unknown durability and resale value (Sadly, SSJ isn't even going there due to above. ). See E-190.

There is a reason Bombardier and Embraer are having to sell out. The demands for 1 & 2 are non-negotiable and cost airlines dearly when missed.

The only aircraft that should be used in low utilization duty are old examples kept or purchased to fly only during high RASM times (not low season or a Tuesday) or as low fixed cost spares.

MaverickM11 wrote:

anxo75 wrote:

Their SSJ100's are flying to where they are intented to fly...You call that "abysmal perfomance?

If true, 7 aircraft for 4 lines of flying is abysmal. That's like Concorde.

I didn't realize it was that bad! No wonder they are returned.

Better than the ARJ-21, that requires 5 aircraft to fly one line. Seriously unacceptable on both counts.

Industry standard is 18 aircraft to fly 17 lines or better. Any more spares is paying for expensive assets to not earn money. Goal is almost no spares, but we aren't there. It does no good to sell cheap when so many aircraft are required to support service as at some point the maintenance, spare crews, and all the other costs (parking, registration, subscriptions for support software,) overcome any price discount. Since all airframes ate on Western engines and avionics, we have a minimum sales price.

For what it's worth, supporting engines is even more challenging than supporting an airframe. It astounds me that airframers who cannot adequately support a home grown airframe think that they are ready for an indigenous engine. See the Hondajet engine for what happens when someone wises up to they aren't ready for engine field support (it is a high cost for entry into the support market at today's standards, it takes 4,000+ engines in the field to pay for the distribution and technical expertise to support engines globally today).

Lightsaber

Nowadays ARJ is no where requiring 5 planes to fly one line.

Scheduled flying hours of the ARJ fleet was 186 between 1-9 June 2018.
http://www.chengduair.cc/Timetable.asp

hongkongflyer wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

I too am sad for the poor support. There are 3 things that scare airlines away from new entrants:
1. Unknown dispatch reliability (SSJ is doing well here). See ARJ-21
2. Unknown support (SSJ is failing here)
3. Unknown durability and resale value (Sadly, SSJ isn't even going there due to above. ). See E-190.

There is a reason Bombardier and Embraer are having to sell out. The demands for 1 & 2 are non-negotiable and cost airlines dearly when missed.

The only aircraft that should be used in low utilization duty are old examples kept or purchased to fly only during high RASM times (not low season or a Tuesday) or as low fixed cost spares.

MaverickM11 wrote:

If true, 7 aircraft for 4 lines of flying is abysmal. That's like Concorde.

I didn't realize it was that bad! No wonder they are returned.

Better than the ARJ-21, that requires 5 aircraft to fly one line. Seriously unacceptable on both counts.

Industry standard is 18 aircraft to fly 17 lines or better. Any more spares is paying for expensive assets to not earn money. Goal is almost no spares, but we aren't there. It does no good to sell cheap when so many aircraft are required to support service as at some point the maintenance, spare crews, and all the other costs (parking, registration, subscriptions for support software,) overcome any price discount. Since all airframes ate on Western engines and avionics, we have a minimum sales price.

For what it's worth, supporting engines is even more challenging than supporting an airframe. It astounds me that airframers who cannot adequately support a home grown airframe think that they are ready for an indigenous engine. See the Hondajet engine for what happens when someone wises up to they aren't ready for engine field support (it is a high cost for entry into the support market at today's standards, it takes 4,000+ engines in the field to pay for the distribution and technical expertise to support engines globally today).

Lightsaber

Nowadays ARJ is no where requiring 5 planes to fly one line.

Scheduled flying hours of the ARJ fleet was 186 between 1-9 June 2018.
http://www.chengduair.cc/Timetable.asp

Ok, the now need 5 aircraft to fly what should be 2 lines. That is 18.6 hours per day. The E2-190 flies 10 hours per day per Airframe (8 cycles per day per Airframe) or anything less than 10 hours per day doesn't justify a new line.

5 for 2 is better than 5 for 1. Thank you for the update.

Exactly how can that be considered anything but horrible Even with twice the flying time multiple years after certification?

When you come back with a sum over 400 hours for a similar time frame, I will conceed the ARJ-21 is matture enough for profitable flights in China. You do realize Winderoe is flying twice the seat hours in a similar time frame with only 3 E2-195 with lower fixed and far lower variable costs?

The bar for success is high. 5 aircraft for 2 lines is still unacceptable and should be returned. New aircraft shouldn't be bought for flying less than 8.5 hours per day per aircraft vs. 3.7 for each ARJ-21. It isn't worth maintenance for that low level of utilization.

Lightsaber

anxo75 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

anxo75 wrote:

Their SSJ100's are flying to where they are intented to fly...You call that "abysmal perfomance?

If true, 7 aircraft for 4 lines of flying is abysmal. That's like Concorde.

That's Brussels Airlines problem...Nothing to do with the plane.

Take off the goggles

jetblueguy22 wrote:

anxo75 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

If true, 7 aircraft for 4 lines of flying is abysmal. That's like Concorde.

That's Brussels Airlines problem...Nothing to do with the plane.

Take off the goggles

Brussels Airlines has much bigger problems than their SSJ ops., I guess they will also get the axe soon.

The main problem for the SSJ right now I guess is due to 2 things mainly: the first of them is getting someone to fix even the smallest issue outside of their mx bases, the second one is their current extremely restricted MEL, which compounded with the first point results in issues such as the one that happened during May-June.

Lessons should be learned from the SSJ experience for the MC-21 at UAC, and fast.

Wayfarer515 wrote:

.

The main problem for the SSJ right now I guess is due to 2 things mainly: the first of them is getting someone to fix even the smallest issue outside of their mx bases, the second one is their current extremely restricted MEL, which compounded with the first point results in issues such as the one that happened during May-June.

Lessons should be learned from the SSJ experience for the MC-21 at UAC, and fast.

Agreed. Both issues are very Russian aerospace engineering. Russian engineers are used to only the maintenance bases having all the skill sets and all the tools. Western airlines have an expectation that certified mechanics will read the process documents and so they buy the tools and parts to service more anywhere.

As to the restricted MEL, I believe that is an artifact of so many Russian engineers leaving to the west that they lost the talent to create flexible MELs. It takes a bunch of us old cynical engineers to create exceptional dispatch reliability. Or at least I like to think so...

Lightsaber

Wayfarer515 wrote:

jetblueguy22 wrote:

anxo75 wrote:

That's Brussels Airlines problem...Nothing to do with the plane.

Take off the goggles

Brussels Airlines has much bigger problems than their SSJ ops., I guess they will also get the axe soon.

The main problem for the SSJ right now I guess is due to 2 things mainly: the first of them is getting someone to fix even the smallest issue outside of their mx bases, the second one is their current extremely restricted MEL, which compounded with the first point results in issues such as the one that happened during May-June.

Lessons should be learned from the SSJ experience for the MC-21 at UAC, and fast.

And I guess this thead wouldn't even exist if the Superjets weren't half-Russian...

anxo75 wrote:

Wayfarer515 wrote:

jetblueguy22 wrote:

Take off the goggles

Brussels Airlines has much bigger problems than their SSJ ops., I guess they will also get the axe soon.

The main problem for the SSJ right now I guess is due to 2 things mainly: the first of them is getting someone to fix even the smallest issue outside of their mx bases, the second one is their current extremely restricted MEL, which compounded with the first point results in issues such as the one that happened during May-June.

Lessons should be learned from the SSJ experience for the MC-21 at UAC, and fast.

And I guess this thead wouldn't even exist if the Superjets weren't half-Russian...

I have been a fanboy and supporter the SSJ since the very beginning...but slowly I have come to understand that although it is a good airplane its support network, especially outside of Russia, is a POS.

I remember when TACA went to an all Airbus fleet in the mid 90s they had much more worse issues than these...I remember they had a severe computer glitch which was discovered when they began to use them at TNT in Honduras, when they used max break settings the airbii could not retract the landing gears afterwards, this was a nasty bug and not the small and false positive alarms we see in the SSJ, but Airbus response was to send an army of engineers from Tolouse to fix and train Taca's maintenance crews all over Central America. This is where I fail to see any type of similar action either from UAC or from SJI in Venice, and now I think it is too late to do it. That's why I say that this should be a lesson for the upcoming MC-21 and to do some of the things Lightsaber has mentioned already.

Aerospace is very fragmented in Russia.
You have the designing company, the manufacturing company, the marketing company, the financing company, the maintenance company, individual parts suppliers.
When it's time to do the support part, they all look at eachother and nobody does anything.

Wayfarer515 wrote:

anxo75 wrote:

Wayfarer515 wrote:

Brussels Airlines has much bigger problems than their SSJ ops., I guess they will also get the axe soon.

The main problem for the SSJ right now I guess is due to 2 things mainly: the first of them is getting someone to fix even the smallest issue outside of their mx bases, the second one is their current extremely restricted MEL, which compounded with the first point results in issues such as the one that happened during May-June.

Lessons should be learned from the SSJ experience for the MC-21 at UAC, and fast.

And I guess this thead wouldn't even exist if the Superjets weren't half-Russian...

I have been a fanboy and supporter the SSJ since the very beginning...but slowly I have come to understand that although it is a good airplane its support network, especially outside of Russia, is a POS.

I remember when TACA went to an all Airbus fleet in the mid 90s they had much more worse issues than these...I remember they had a severe computer glitch which was discovered when they began to use them at TNT in Honduras, when they used max break settings the airbii could not retract the landing gears afterwards, this was a nasty bug and not the small and false positive alarms we see in the SSJ, but Airbus response was to send an army of engineers from Tolouse to fix and train Taca's maintenance crews all over Central America. This is where I fail to see any type of similar action either from UAC or from SJI in Venice, and now I think it is too late to do it. That's why I say that this should be a lesson for the upcoming MC-21 and to do some of the things Lightsaber has mentioned already.

Many here, myself included, wanted the SSJ to succeed.

It isn't having undue problems.
It is having undue time grounded when there are problems.

If the plane wasn't half Russian and all known operators have had extended grounded aircraft. JetBlue complains about E-190s grounded. The reality it the standard is high reliability with few spare aircraft needed. The expenses to keep aircraft flying are high. The support support for the SSJ hasn't met standard, so Brussels airlines is ending hiring the type. For an airframe begging for customers, the way frames that burn more fuel thrive is known dependability. The SSJ hasn't built that reputation. It must prior to E2-175 or MRJ or it is just done.

Sadly for the SSJ, it is being compared to the ARJ-21.

Lightsaber

In my view the ARJ21 can not be considered a commercial aircraft program.
I think that the MRJ program also has to be careful to offer sufficient support. I'm not too worried about it as Japanese companies can excel in support, but they need to do better than Airbus and Boeing even.

I was able to find parts for a Hitachi airconditioning unit that isn't in production since 20 years at a Hitachi support center.
I was shocked as I didn't expect it at all as the modelnis obsolete and totally different from newer units. And yes, the A/C unit is also still running....

If there could be a contender that A and B should worry about, its definitely the Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation. They know what to do and how to get things done.

Wayfarer515 wrote:

jetblueguy22 wrote:

anxo75 wrote:

That's Brussels Airlines problem...Nothing to do with the plane.

Take off the goggles

Brussels Airlines has much bigger problems than their SSJ ops., I guess they will also get the axe soon.

The main problem for the SSJ right now I guess is due to 2 things mainly: the first of them is getting someone to fix even the smallest issue outside of their mx bases, the second one is their current extremely restricted MEL, which compounded with the first point results in issues such as the one that happened during May-June.

Lessons should be learned from the SSJ experience for the MC-21 at UAC, and fast.

I agree with you 100%, fingers crossed for a better after sale service in the future....

It's so bloody frustrating trying to support the Sukoi. I've long been a fan of Russian aero engineering. I've flown on a couple of old school Russian airliners, the TU-154 and TU-134. I liked them.

The 134 was definitely old school in a lot of ways. For one thing, instead of overhead bins, it had a small shelf...somewhat disconcerting in weather. On the plus side, it had huge oval windows, (at least they seemed huge), and it was quiet. I was expecting it to be very noisy, but was pleasantly surprised when the engines spooled up. They were surprisingly quiet.

I had high hopes for the SSJ. The specs are good but it seems that they just can't get a handle on production rates and most importantly, after sales support.

From an engineering and design standpoint, I think the Russians can compete with the best in the west but I don't have any confidence in their will to support what they sell, and airlines just can't afford to accept that attitude from a supplier.

Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence of that changing.

anxo75 wrote:

Wayfarer515 wrote:

jetblueguy22 wrote:

Take off the goggles

Brussels Airlines has much bigger problems than their SSJ ops., I guess they will also get the axe soon.

The main problem for the SSJ right now I guess is due to 2 things mainly: the first of them is getting someone to fix even the smallest issue outside of their mx bases, the second one is their current extremely restricted MEL, which compounded with the first point results in issues such as the one that happened during May-June.

Lessons should be learned from the SSJ experience for the MC-21 at UAC, and fast.

And I guess this thead wouldn't even exist if the Superjets weren't half-Russian...

The problem on support is precisely due to them being Russian instead of Boeing or Airbus

Was hoping to fly on one BRU-CPH, but that flight has been switched to an A319. Yawn.

c933103 wrote:

anxo75 wrote:

Wayfarer515 wrote:

Brussels Airlines has much bigger problems than their SSJ ops., I guess they will also get the axe soon.

The main problem for the SSJ right now I guess is due to 2 things mainly: the first of them is getting someone to fix even the smallest issue outside of their mx bases, the second one is their current extremely restricted MEL, which compounded with the first point results in issues such as the one that happened during May-June.

Lessons should be learned from the SSJ experience for the MC-21 at UAC, and fast.

And I guess this thead wouldn't even exist if the Superjets weren't half-Russian...

The problem on support is precisely due to them being Russian instead of Boeing or Airbus

No it is not because it is Russian, but because the support is bad.

seahawk wrote:

c933103 wrote:

anxo75 wrote:

And I guess this thead wouldn't even exist if the Superjets weren't half-Russian...

The problem on support is precisely due to them being Russian instead of Boeing or Airbus

No it is not because it is Russian, but because the support is bad.

I mean because it is Russian so their support is bad. Maybe that will improve in the future but probably not now

c933103 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

c933103 wrote:

The problem on support is precisely due to them being Russian instead of Boeing or Airbus

No it is not because it is Russian, but because the support is bad.

I mean because it is Russian so their support is bad. Maybe that will improve in the future but probably not now

You mean support from Safran?

Wayfarer515 wrote:

Brussels Airlines has much bigger problems than their SSJ ops., I guess they will also get the axe soon.

The main problem for the SSJ right now I guess is due to 2 things mainly: the first of them is getting someone to fix even the smallest issue outside of their mx bases, the second one is their current extremely restricted MEL, which compounded with the first point results in issues such as the one that happened during May-June.

Lessons should be learned from the SSJ experience for the MC-21 at UAC, and fast.

Do you mean a restrictive MMEL (= manufacturer), i.e. russian old-school thinking, or the MEL (=operator), i.e. CityJet or SN, which is too restrictive ? Or is it both ?

I am surprised that SJI doesnt get a grip on these issues... I learned that tehy do offer MX training and also seem to have a parts stock in BRU... a lot of SJI guys hail from ATR so they should know a fair bit about line support, no ?

anxo75 wrote:

FlyRow wrote:

One of the stated reasons was not that it was more unreliable.. but due to it being really "unknown" it takes longer then the equivalent embraer/boeing/airbus which are way more routine.

The routine makes it way quicker, spares more available and more available maintenance crew etc etc...

They are not saying it's a bad and unreliable plane.

Finally someone knows how to read...

I made that point in the original post? The aircraft isn’t any more unreliable than others, it’s just that when it has faults they take longer to resolve them.

Cityjet have announced a merger with Air Nostrum, perhaps they’ll be able to retain the Brussels contract with CRJs, which they already operate for SAS. I guess the SSJs will be relegated to charter work unless they can find another customer to lease them. Or they hurry up and get them LCY approved and they can use them on their own routes from there.

jmc757 wrote:

anxo75 wrote:

FlyRow wrote:

One of the stated reasons was not that it was more unreliable.. but due to it being really "unknown" it takes longer then the equivalent embraer/boeing/airbus which are way more routine.

The routine makes it way quicker, spares more available and more available maintenance crew etc etc...

They are not saying it's a bad and unreliable plane.

Finally someone knows how to read...

I made that point in the original post? The aircraft isn’t any more unreliable than others, it’s just that when it has faults they take longer to resolve them.

You did, some others had more trouble reading.

Wayfarer515 wrote:

jetblueguy22 wrote:

anxo75 wrote:

That's Brussels Airlines problem...Nothing to do with the plane.

Take off the goggles

Brussels Airlines has much bigger problems than their SSJ ops., I guess they will also get the axe soon.

The main problem for the SSJ right now I guess is due to 2 things mainly: the first of them is getting someone to fix even the smallest issue outside of their mx bases, the second one is their current extremely restricted MEL, which compounded with the first point results in issues such as the one that happened during May-June.

Lessons should be learned from the SSJ experience for the MC-21 at UAC, and fast.

Would someone be so kind as to explain what "MEL" is?
thanks

AF022 wrote:

Wayfarer515 wrote:

jetblueguy22 wrote:

Take off the goggles

Brussels Airlines has much bigger problems than their SSJ ops., I guess they will also get the axe soon.

The main problem for the SSJ right now I guess is due to 2 things mainly: the first of them is getting someone to fix even the smallest issue outside of their mx bases, the second one is their current extremely restricted MEL, which compounded with the first point results in issues such as the one that happened during May-June.

Lessons should be learned from the SSJ experience for the MC-21 at UAC, and fast.

Would someone be so kind as to explain what "MEL" is?
thanks

Minimum Equipment List

A list of equipment on the plane that has to be functioning in order for the flight to go ahead. As long as everything on the MEL is working OK, the flight is good to go. If anything on the MEL isn't working, the flight is grounded until it's fixed.

The coffee maker isn't on the MEL, but pilots probably wish it was!

seahawk wrote:

c933103 wrote:

anxo75 wrote:

And I guess this thead wouldn't even exist if the Superjets weren't half-Russian...

The problem on support is precisely due to them being Russian instead of Boeing or Airbus

No it is not because it is Russian, but because the support is bad.

The two things are completely linked. What we have is a good aircraft held back by terrible support. Airlines need both good design AND good support to have the confidence to invest their entire business in an aircraft model...and unfortunately, the lack of support for the SSJ, is what is dooming the aircraft sales in the west.

Until Russian aircraft makers can equal the product support of the western airline makers, Russian designs will not be accepted by western airlines.

JoeCanuck wrote:

seahawk wrote:

c933103 wrote:

The problem on support is precisely due to them being Russian instead of Boeing or Airbus

No it is not because it is Russian, but because the support is bad.

The two things are completely linked. What we have is a good aircraft held back by terrible support. Airlines need both good design AND good support to have the confidence to invest their entire business in an aircraft model...and unfortunately, the lack of support for the SSJ, is what is dooming the aircraft sales in the west.

Until Russian aircraft makers can equal the product support of the western airline makers, Russian designs will not be accepted by western airlines.

No, they are not linked. Russia could have a better support and there are/were plenty of non-Russian manufacturers that also had a bad support.

They are linked because an airline needs BOTH a reliable aircraft and after sales service when they buy an aircraft. If they can't get service, they won't buy the aircraft. So...it doesn't matter how good the aircraft may be, crappy service means no sale.

Boeing, Airbus, BBD and Emb have succeeded for decades largely due to their commitment to service. It's not always perfect, but it is way ahead of Sukoi. Despite the SSJ seeming to be a good aircraft, it will never succeed without proper after sales service.

A few western airlines took a chance on the SSJ, and they have been burned by sub par after sales service. I will be surprised if the SSJ gets any more western orders, unless they seriously commit to improving their after sales service.

jmc757 wrote:

Or they hurry up and get them LCY approved and they can use them on their own routes from there.

The trouble is, they only really have one and a half routes from LCY left - Dublin year round and Florence in the summer (on a W pattern from Dublin).

They’ll probably be able to profitably deploy two or three SSJs at LCY, max (although with mx issues that probably means the whole fleet being used!)

JoeCanuck wrote:

seahawk wrote:

c933103 wrote:

The problem on support is precisely due to them being Russian instead of Boeing or Airbus

No it is not because it is Russian, but because the support is bad.

The two things are completely linked. What we have is a good aircraft held back by terrible support. Airlines need both good design AND good support to have the confidence to invest their entire business in an aircraft model...and unfortunately, the lack of support for the SSJ, is what is dooming the aircraft sales in the west.

Until Russian aircraft makers can equal the product support of the western airline makers, Russian designs will not be accepted by western airlines.

I insist...these reports about the "terrible" Superjet support are greatly exaggerated because the aircraft is half-Russian...(Source: a SN ssj pilot)

scbriml wrote:

AF022 wrote:

Would someone be so kind as to explain what "MEL" is?
thanks

Minimum Equipment List

A list of equipment on the plane that has to be functioning in order for the flight to go ahead. As long as everything on the MEL is working OK, the flight is good to go. If anything on the MEL isn't working, the flight is grounded until it's fixed.

The coffee maker isn't on the MEL, but pilots probably wish it was!

Eh? More correctly, and I guess, more relevantly, the MEL tells you what serviceable equipment you need, and what equipment you can dispatch without.

Example: On the ATR, we have 2 AC generators. If one doesn't work, we check the MEL. The MEL will state that you have 2 AC generators, and that you can dispatch with 1 AC generator inoperative. It then goes on to state operational issues. In the case of the missing AC generator, if you get an engine failure on the right engine, you lose the hydraulic pressure to retract the landing gear, and thus you have a payload penalty in order to achieve the minimum rate of climb single engine. Likewise, the ATR MEL covers everything from pitot tubes to wheel brakes and missing gear doors.

The issue with the SSJ, as far as I've understood it, is that it doesn't have a very comprehensive MEL. If, say, one AC generator fails, then they don't have a quick and easy fix as on the ATR. The SSJ MEL will state something like: Minimum installed: 2, Minimum required: 2. They have to get it working again, which means getting spare parts and ground engineers to fix it. A 737 or A320 would perform just as horribly if they had to operate under similar constraints. Even on those extremely common and well supported aircraft, it would still take days to get something fixed if something happens off-base, especially in a minor rural airport such as those flown by the SSJ.

tallis wrote:

jmc757 wrote:

Or they hurry up and get them LCY approved and they can use them on their own routes from there.

The trouble is, they only really have one and a half routes from LCY left - Dublin year round and Florence in the summer (on a W pattern from Dublin).

They’ll probably be able to profitably deploy two or three SSJs at LCY, max (although with mx issues that probably means the whole fleet being used!)

A flight from Cork to LCY might work. Stuttgart too. The destinations page on LCY show that there are a lot of possible routes that might work except for the absence of square footage to accomodate planes at LCY.

Ex-colleague of mine got hired onto the CRJ with a Brussels base by Cityjet. So I guess they’re hoping to keep the contract, just with CRJ instead of Sukhoi.

intrance wrote:

Ex-colleague of mine got hired onto the CRJ with a Brussels base by Cityjet. So I guess they’re hoping to keep the contract, just with CRJ instead of Sukhoi.

I'm not sure SN wants to get rid of SSj's as much as the the users of this forum...What an obsession!