Subject: INFO- Discussion on Aeroflot and how bad is it- REALLY ?
Date: 95-05-07 17:48:22 EDT
From: cntrspy@iapps.org (Executive Protection Associates)
Sender: owner-bodyguard-l@netcom.com
Reply-to: bodyguard-l@netcom.com
To: bodyguard-L@netcom.com

= =   Excerpts from a discussion on flying Aeroflot.  Althought the author 
makes a case for improving conditions, it is still my PERSONAL opinion to 
AVOID Aeroflot at all costs.  Most of the Russians that I know refuse to fly 
Aeroflot and instead opt for carriers to the CIS such as FinnAir.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Youngs rule about flying with Aeroflot is:
>> 
>> DON'T
>> 
>> You only have one life, and saving a few bucks isn't a good bargain
>> 
>No, it is not that bad.
>
>Its been very interesting reading all of the Aeroflot bashing that has been 
>going on in the group. I have flown Internationally on Aeroflot (Il-76) from

>Washington, DC to Moscow and return as well as internally from
Roston-na-Donu 
>to MOscow (Tu-134) and a few other places. Agreed the aircraft is now as 
"nice" 
>inside and I wish the engines weren't so loud, but then again I know this 
and I 
>take a set of ear plugs. The cofee and tea service on the international 
flights 
>is great.
>
>In addition to flying these aircraft, I have visited a good number of
aircraft 
>plants in Russia, such as the Ulyanosk plant, the Saratov Aircraft Plant, as

>well as avionics and engine plants, not to mention some of the military 
>facilities such as the Mig plant in Niznhy Novgorad and sever helicopter 
plants 
>as well.
>
>What I read from many detractors here are blanket statements that it is not 
>save to fly any former Soviet airline. These people are not backing up their

>statments with any fact. In fact, investigation by the U.S. FAA
inconjunction 
>with the Aviation Register of the Interstate Aviation Committee (MAK) has 
shown 
>that safety standards of the internationally certified airlines in Russia
meet 
>the necessary levels for international certification. Prior to the finding, 
>U.S. government employees were banned from flying on Russian airlines for 
>several months.
>
>There is a recent article in Conde Nast Traveler that rips the FAA/MAK study

>apart. Having read the Conde Nast article in detail, I would accuse the 
>reporter who wrote it of have a predetermined stry line and twisting the
facts 
>to meet what he or his editor already believed. I haven't seen a story with
so 
>much bias since reading Washington Post articles about Reagan's Strategic 
>Defense Initiative in the late 1980's. 
>
>I've spoken personally to several members of the FAA team that conducted the

>investigation as well as to the chief of the Aviation Register and other 
>Russian officials involved in the process. Unlike most other, I've also read

>the full investigation.
>
>There are currently many steps going on to improve aviation/airline safety
in 
>Russia and the former Soviet Union. Just next week the Russian American 
>Coordinating Group for Air Traffic Control (RACGAT) will be meeting in San 
>Rafel, Calif. to work on ATC, communications and air route improvement in
the 
>Russian Far East. In addition, Rosaeronavigatsia has received the authority
it 
>needs to credibly do its job in modernizing and managing Russian airspace,
and 
>the new air code is being worked on by the Yeltsin government.
>
>All in all, Yes, I will fly Aeroflot again, even though I'd rather get 
>Transaero tickets. However, I will be careful about which of the 400 or so 
>airlines in the CIS I'd fly. Also, those of you that blast Aeroflot, try
using 
>more descretion. Most of the crashes we've seen in the Western press and
wire 
>services lables as Aeroflot were not. They were other regional or even small

>local domestic carriers.
>
>
>

- -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hall, C.O.O. Executive Protection Associates, Inc.
Providing Worldwide Investigations, Due Diligence Investigations,
Protective Services, and Privacy/Offshore Services to the Fortune
500, High Technology Industry, and the Entertainment Industry
Since 1977. Moderator the Bodyguard's List/ Bodyguard-L-request@netcom.com
++  Opinions expressed are those of the poster and not of EPAI, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------



----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
From owner-bodyguard-l@netcom.com Sun May  7 17:47:57 1995
Received: from mail2.netcom.com by mail03.mail.aol.com with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA234323277; Sun, 7 May 1995 17:47:57 -0400
Return-Path: <owner-bodyguard-l@netcom.com>
Received: by mail2.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)
	id OAA23457; Sun, 7 May 1995 14:22:48 -0700
Received: from shell1.best.com by mail2.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)
	id OAA23445; Sun, 7 May 1995 14:22:45 -0700
Received: from cntrspy.vip.best.com (cntrspy.vip.best.com [204.156.129.183])
by shell1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with SMTP id OAA19208 for
<bodyguard-L@netcom.com>; Sun, 7 May 1995 14:23:12 -0700
Message-Id: <199505072123.OAA19208@shell1.best.com>
X-Sender: cntrspy@best.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 07 May 1995 13:21:57 -0700
To: bodyguard-L@netcom.com
From: cntrspy@iapps.org (Executive Protection Associates)
Subject: INFO- Discussion on Aeroflot and how bad is it- REALLY ?
X-Mailer: <PC Eudora Version 1.4>
Sender: owner-bodyguard-l@netcom.com
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bodyguard-l@netcom.com

