Preparations to ready the An-148 jetliner for acceptance, and for the initial period of operation, began several years ago. We started determining the airliner's technical characteristics in February 2008. At our request, changes were made to the radio equipment and arrangement of the passenger cabin.

We settled on a 68/75 seat layout: 60 economy-class seats and eight in business class, with the possibility of quickly converting to a 75-seat all-economy configuration. at the moment, all four aircraft received by our airline are outfitted with the 68/75 arrangement. We chose passenger seats from the Akko firm. This is a Russian company based at Sheremetyevo. In choosing the supplier, we were guided by considerations of quick repairability. However, no need for them to be repaired has yet arisen. In order to serve business-class passengers, it was decided to locate a second toilet at the front of the passenger cabin, an extra flight attendant's seat and additional galley equipment. It must be said that our joint work with the developer and manufacturer in terms of defining the concept of the optional equipment and determining its cost caused great difficulties. Why was this? Naturally, everyone wants to sell for a slightly higher price, but we wanted to purchase for a slightly lower price. It transpired that the OEM had presented quite a lot of functions as options to be selected by the customer at extra cost, but the prices of those options turned out to be quite high. Guided by the aim of saving money, we had to make do without many interesting options. We came to an agreement by September 2009 on the main concepts of the optional equipment and its cost. The airline was simultaneously preparing for the first deliveries. We formed a working group at the demand of the maintenance depot. Headed by the chief engineer, this group included specialists from the departments involved in of this aircraft type's entry into service. The company that built the jetliner was providing relevant technical documentation to us. Great help was provided by Ilyushin Finance Co., which presented us with the An-148 operating manual.

When we embarked upon practical work, it proved difficult to make progress. Primarily because it was unusual for us because we decided to operate the aircraft not based on a maintenance schedule but rather by an MRO program. Composing that program was an all-new territory for us, because previously we worked with Soviet aircraft which require a different approach to maintaining airworthiness. Once we received the raw data, we started composing the MRO program. Our colleagues who service foreign-made aircraft like the Boeing 737-500, 767-300 and the Airbus A319/320, assisted us. With their experience of working on foreign aircraft types, we created the MRO program for the An-148. It turned out to be entirely appropriate and we are currently using it in practice.

I will talk separately about how the maintenance personnel were trained. A specialized An-148 zone was established at the line maintenance shop. Great care was taken in selecting its staff. But it has to be said that we had some choice. At the time we had just started to intensively retire our Tu-154, Tu-134 and Il-86 aircraft, and technical personnel were being freed up. We made choices of the personnel based on criteria which we had formulated for ourselves, proceeding from the technical characteristics of the An-148. Subsequently, time showed that this approach in selecting personnel was the correct one. Highly qualified staff started working for the new shop. We have no problems with the skills of the technicians and engineers. The only difficulty was to change the thinking of the shop specialists from the concept of scheduled maintenance to on-condition maintenance. Now, six months later, we have overcome this difficulty and are working normally.

The first group was formed with 12 avionics specialists and 12 airframe and engine specialists. Conversion training was carried out at the Antonov personnel training center. I think that the standard of training at the center is acceptable and quite good. The Antonov specialists had enough experience to carry out the training. We also taught the next group there, consisting of 35 people - 17 airframe and engine specialists, and 18 avionics specialists. Now we have 59 certified specialists on this type. Another group of 22 currently is undergoing conversion training at our St. Petersburg center. We think that this number will be sufficient to carry out line and light maintenance of our six-aircraft fleet.

While the first group was being trained, the necessary equipment was being purchased. In total, we spent around 40 million rubles from our own budget on acquiring equipment and implementing the first stage of conversion training (the training costs of the very first group were covered by the lease agreement with IFC). In the future, we will send our personnel to a training center in St. Petersburg, because training works out to be more expensive in Kiev due to the travel expenses.

This is how we approached the acceptance of the first aircraft: on September 25, 2009, Rossiya's technical commission was summoned to the Voronezh VASO plant to take delivery of the first An-148 aircraft, registration no. RA-61701. The acceptance process took some time. Initially, there was a lack of understanding between the factory and the airline. For our part, we strictly followed the program which had been prepared beforehand and approved by the chief engineer of the Rossiya maintenance base, which is quite a substantial document. This program is something like an operational register on how to go about the aircraft acceptance process. It includes a walk-around inspection, full fuelling to check for any leaks in the fuel tanks, an engine run-up, testing the deployment and retraction of the landing gear and equipment power-up tests.

Initially we encountered incomprehension from the plant workers, who were expecting that we would work in accordance with their in-house documents, which were different from ours. But during the work, over the course of the month, we came to understand each other. We understood what we wanted from the plant, and the plant understood that our demands were fair. Overall, in time we found a common language.

Suffice it to say that when the first aircraft was being accepted, there were 150 issues on which we had different views. But when the third aircraft (registration no. RA-61703) was being accepted, there were only 38 such deviations. I can gladly note that the plant took our remarks into consideration.

On November 5, 2009, the RA-61701 aircraft flew to Pulkovo Airport, and on December 21, it began revenue operations. We received the second aircraft on December 30, 2009, and the third on April 16, 2010. The second and third aircraft started revenue flights far more quickly than the first one. as of May 20, 2010, we have flown 915 hours on these three aircraft, performing 710 landings.

So far our aircraft have mainly been flying the St. Petersburg - Moscow route, which has been having its effect on the regularity of operations. In terms of passenger services, Moscow is the highest priority destination, and several airlines service this route, competing with one another. We have had instances when flights have been delayed, including for technical reasons. We have now been cleared to return to the base airport on a scheduled flight with an unserviceable APU. But I think this is only the start of the path which we need to continue on.

We need to work with Antonov and the aviation authorities on expanding the MMEL (minimum equipment list). We have had issues regarding the functioning of the landing gear retracting and lowering system - on two occasions the landing gear moved more slowly than normal. We carried out an investigation and localized the landing gear fault. There was a post-landing engine shutdown incident while taxiing at Samara's Kurumoch airport. The cause of this was that the aircraft met a snow flurry head on (probably from a snowdrift next to the runway). After this the engine started normally and since then has been working on the RA-61702 aircraft without a single removal. In terms of working with industry representatives, they are currently fully represented in Pulkovo. Antonov has two specialists here, VASO has a team of 11 people and Motor Sich has two. There is not much that needs to be said about the Voronezh plant: we have known its team for a long time, we have been working with their personnel for many years, they are the same people who worked with us on the Ilyushin Il-86 aircraft.

In terms of the work of the Motor Sich team, the two specialists sent to us on detachment are very qualified and skilled people. We would like the engine manufacturer to have a greater inventory of spare parts at their disposal at Pulkovo than they currently have.

We sometimes have to obtain some necessary items from the plant's warehouse in Zaporozhie, Ukraine, which is not always acceptable in terms of time. Once we had to ask VASO for urgent help, and at our request they quickly sent a replacement engine starter system from their warehouse, which allowed us to promptly prepare the aircraft for its next flight. We believe that more rhythmical work would ensue if the Motor Sich representatives had more parts at Pulkovo.

I will say a few words about Antonov's customer support service. I will stress that they created a good aircraft. Everyone praises it: the pilots, the passengers and the engineers. It is a decent aircraft, but it needs to be supported. I think that the level of Antonov's support needs to be further improved. During last winter, which was unusually cold, with temperatures keeping at -20 degrees C. and below, pipes in the aircraft's tail froze. Rapid decisions were taken on this problem, but a service bulletin has yet to be issued. Among positive examples, I can note that we have established a clear system of presenting information: we compose letters and data sheets for technical inquiries. I would like the decisions on these to be taken more quickly.

As regards documentation, it was nice to hear reports that an electronic version of the paperwork is ready. Moreover, the V ASO representatives have a complete set of detailed drawings. They help us in our work. When we need to order a certain part, we look at these drawings and make our order.

Based on Rossiya's experience, we have carried out a comparative analysis of the labor intensity of maintenance on the An-148 and Boeing 737. It shows that the An-148 developers still have things to work on. It probably makes sense to reduce the labor intensity of transit checks after every landing, and also of daily checks.

It is good that we and Antonov have mutual understanding on the fact that the aircraft should be flying as much as possible, and spend as little time as possible on the ground. We must continue to eradicate the old school of servicing aircraft, and more actively adopt new approaches to ensuring airworthiness.

In conclusion I want to speak about the six-month-long work on this aircraft. I will say again that the An-148 is a good aircraft, everyone likes it. But we should work further on improving its operational support. Airlines are commercial organizations and they need to earn money, to use their fleets for transporting passengers, and spend less time on repairs, maintenance, spares, etc. What should be done here? During the initial stage of the An-148 operation, some teething problems came to light, which need to be eliminated as soon as possible. But this is only possible through our joint efforts. I sincerely ask the industry to help us in this.

The industry representatives at Pulkovo need to be supplied with full technical kits whose content should be based on the experience of operating problems. Also, as the launch operator of this type in Russia, our airline would appreciate external financing of spares purchases. And the MMEL needs to be expanded as much as possible, to eventually become as elaborate as those for the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320.