Maybe the greatest? What?! I have not said that at all, what are you smoking? Most Russian aircraft (that is, the older ones that are still widespread) are somewhat obsolete in terms of fuel consumption/rabge, noise and emission levels and comfort. That has caused many types to be banned from traffic in say Europe becuase they do not meet standards (regarding noise and emissions). That doesn't say much about how fit they are for flying, though.

Furth ermore, as I have said, many Russian aircraft have crappy service records and/or a bad rep. Most of these issues cropped up after the break-up of the USSR and their 90's depression - everything went to hell, pretty much. But, again, when you study statistics regarding air safety in terms of air worthiness/how well the particular machine works and so on, it's a more interesting story. I can't believe I have to repeat this again. You have everything from missile hits to drunk pilots, sleeping ATC, planes that had been taking a good beating for way over their intended service life and whose nuts and bolts were pretty much falling out... Doesn't say much about the integrity of the construction if handled properly. ¿Comprende?

A plane with faulty construction, like the Canadian Dash 8, is a different story. They had multiple incidents with landing gear falling apart during landings (effectively making them crash landings) and stuff. That is a faulty construction, that is a built-in safety issue.

Modern Russian airliners have been thoroughly investigated by EASA and subsequently certified for full traffic operations in European airspace (in other words - they are on par with everything else). Worth mentioning is that many of the bans that EASA put on older Russian aircraft (that I mentioned above) were airline-specific, some small and relatively poor airlines were deemed unsafe. Unfortunately, in Russia the aviation safety authorities hadn't been as strict. The Yak-42 that crashed with Lokomotiv was flown by such an airline - a stupid money-saving measure. This doesn't mean that let's say Aeroflot or Rossiya is less controlled though, since they are obviously certified for operations abroad. It's something that can be relevant when evaluating smallish domestic airlines. BTW, Putin and his entourage flies Russian (Il-96 if I am not mistaken, just an anecdote vs. an anecdote). 

Trevor wrote in #7
sierranev ada25: I said the "737 series" as a whole You completely missed my point, of course the 600, 700, 800, 900 and NGs have splendid records because they are very modern, but the 737 series as a whole has the worst safety record of any airliner today. Don't believe me? About 140 Boeing 737 airframes have been written off after accidents.

And the reason why? Because the earlier series planes have been sold cheaply to poor airlines with crappy standards, simple as that. As I said. It doesn't have squat to do with any inherent unsafety of the 737.

So this is what I mean, again, This Yak-42 crash was due to pilot error, the plane was operated by a poor airline with dubious standards et cetera. This is what brings planes down. Very, very few aircraft today are unsafe to fly if they are handled properly. Actually, I can't even think of a single type. Mind you, the issues with getting a jet airliner to work properly were sorted out in the 1950's. That's a long time ago.

And where did I say that Tupolev has the best record? Or Russian aircraft at all, for that matter? I haven't even mentioned Tupolev anywere (I have flown Sukhoi and Ilyushin).  Why do you imagine seeing propaganda where there is none, Russophobe much? I just pointed out some obvious things. 
Trevor,

Russophobe?  Not quite.....  Re-Reading your "original" post, you make the correlation that Russian aircraft manufacturers RELATIVELY are maybe the GREATEST of all time......  My only "statistical" inference is that the Boeing 737 series regardless of where they fly is that the sheer amount of aircraft produced is NOT even comparable  to any "Soviet" era made aircraft.  Tupolev 154 I think ranks number 1 as a commercial air frame, however, any number I give you will be "chided" as "Western" propa ganda .... so I can't win....

BUT.. ...I leave you recently with a simple story(however you will NOT believe it) when I talked to a "Russian" diplomat in First Class on a flight to Los Angeles, when he advised me that his granddaughter(s) will NOT fly anything but Boeing aircraft....I asked why, he said because they are my "granddaughters"....  Could you imagine Putin if he heard this?  Russophobe? I think not...

sierranevada25: I said the "737 series" as a whole You completely missed my point, of course the 600, 700, 800, 900 and NGs have splendid records because they are very modern, but the 737 series as a whole has the worst safety record of any airliner today. Don't believe me? About 140 Boeing 737 airframes have been written off after accidents.

And the reason why? Because the earlier series planes have been sold cheaply to poor airlines with crappy standards, simple as that. As I said. It doesn't have squat to do with any inherent unsafety of the 737.

So this is what I mean, again, This Yak-42 crash was due to pilot error, the plane was operated by a poor airline with dubious standards et cetera. This is what brings planes down. Very, very few aircraft today are unsafe to fly if they are handled properly. Actually, I can't even think of a single type. Mind you, the issues with getting a jet airliner to work properly were sorted out in the 1950's. That's a long time ago.

And where did I say that Tupolev has the best record? Or Russian aircraft at all, for that matter? I haven't even mentioned Tupolev anywere (I have flown Sukhoi and Ilyushin).  Why do you imagine seeing propaganda where there is none, Russophobe much? I just pointed out some obvious things.