A Russian government aircraft just flew from Moscow to Washington, which has to be one of the more interesting flights to operate today. I’ve had several OMAAT readers ask what exactly is going on, so let’s take a look at the details…
In this post:
Russian jet flies from Moscow to Washington
Today (Tuesday, June 27, 2023), a Russian-built Ilyushin Il-96-300, belonging to the Russian government’s fleet, flew from Moscow (VKO) to Washington (IAD). The plane, which has the registration code RA-96018, is roughly 15 years old, and operated with the flight number RSD898.
The flight took a total of 11hr41min, and as you’d expect, it didn’t exactly take a direct routing, given all the airspace restrictions that Russian registered aircraft are subjected to. The aircraft first flew almost directly north, before turning west over Finland and Sweden, and then flying southwest, avoiding Iceland and Canada.
Of course under normal circumstances, a Russian jet would be banned from flying a route from Moscow to Washington, so what was the purpose of this flight, and why was an exception granted?
I’m curious to see when the aircraft returns to Moscow. I’m not sure if they have enough crew and this is a special enough mission that they can return right away, or if it will operate the leg back to Moscow tomorrow.
What was the purpose of this flight?
Why would a Russian government jet suddenly be flying to Washington? According to Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, here’s the explanation:
“A number of information resources have become excited about the Russian plane, which is heading to the United States. No sensations. It will take out Russian diplomats who were ordered by the US authorities to leave the country in connection with the completion of a three-year stay. This is not about expulsion, but about restrictions on the work created by Washington for Russian foreign institutions.”
That reasoning isn’t too surprising. While a Russian government jet would ordinarily be banned from the United States, exceptions are made for these kinds of reasons. This isn’t the first such flight since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and all the restrictions that have been put in place since.
In March 2022, a Russian government jet flew from St. Petersburg to Washington. That flight had a more exciting backstory, as its purpose was to pick up 12 expelled Russian intelligence operatives from the Russian Mission, who were accused of espionage.
Today’s flight raises a question I’d be curious to know the answer to. What’s the reason for sending a government plane, rather than just sending the diplomats on commercial flights (you can connect on Emirates, Turkish Airlines, etc.)? Is it because there are so many diplomats? Is it out of an abundance of caution? Is it because of the state of the relationship between the US and Russia, and just to make a point? Or…?
As an avgeek, I can’t help but wonder what the interior of this jet is like, and what kind of service there is onboard. If anyone has any insights, I’d love to hear ’em! Below is a video I found about Putin’s plane, which is the same type of aircraft.
Bottom line
An Ilyushin Il-96-300 belonging to the Russian government has just flown from Moscow to Washington. As you’d expect, the routing was far from direct, as the flight avoided the airspace of the European Union, Canada, etc.
As it turns out, this flight is operating to transport Russian diplomats who have to leave the country after a three year stay.
What do you make of this unique Moscow to Washington route?
(Featured image courtesy of Dmitry Terekhov)
The aircraft carried on to New York after Washington.
Perhaps UN business ?
Maybe the two missing Russian Generals, one with the Nuke codes came here? Perhaps the plane wasn’t picking anyone up - maybe dropping off
As a "diplomatic" flight, the US must allow it.
The same for US embassy staff in Moscow or St Petersburg. As a security precaution, the US would provide a charter or government jet flying in and out of Russia. Best way to control the diplomatic pouch as well.
How do you think the US should respond if Russia uses a nuke in Ukraine?
How exactly is the opinion of a travel blogger relevant in that context?
They didn't fly over Finland and Sweden they flew to the north of them. Your comment made me look at the picture again wondering why they'd fly over a NATO country.
That soviet junk is a hazard to the population of the Free world, just as most of the Venezuelan commercial fleet was banned to fly to/over the US (even before the sanctions) on grounds of being the oldest fleet in the world (a hazard to the ppl on the ground). There should be no exception, just as it wasn't able to fly over Finland, Sweden and the rest of the free world.
Here come the trolls! Mmm, 'soviet (sic) junk'. How about mentioning 'US junk' for balance? Anyone remember the Boeing 737 MAX? Definitely was a hazard 'to the population of the Free (!) world'. BBK, I don't think you fly at all; those who do are rarely so ignorant.
BBK shows up in the comments ad nauseam. Internet troll from a basement in Kansas.
Why would it be Soviet (sic)? Are you referencing the fact that the OP didn’t use a capital on Soviet, or were you insinuating the IL-96 was not a Soviet jet programme?
The use of (sic) is generally to denote an error by the original poster. So I think you are likely the troll (perhaps even Russian misinformation troll) here, trying to suggest they made an error. They did not. Soviet doesn’t need capitalization...
Why would it be Soviet (sic)? Are you referencing the fact that the OP didn’t use a capital on Soviet, or were you insinuating the IL-96 was not a Soviet jet programme?
The use of (sic) is generally to denote an error by the original poster. So I think you are likely the troll (perhaps even Russian misinformation troll) here, trying to suggest they made an error. They did not. Soviet doesn’t need capitalization and the programme was, in fact, Soviet founded. First flight in 1988 and all….
Separately, the whataboutism is also famously GRU (Russian foreign service, not Sao Paolo). The Max is relevant here, how?
I think being overly sanctimonious, comrade, is not useful for your handlers. It outs you for the misinformation troll you are.
You could have been much more effective here by keeping your commentary more restrained. Like if you had just said “the IL96s safety record isn’t half bad actually and certainly better than the first year of the 737 max” you would have accomplished your objective without being so obvious.
You guys…so sad.
While the first flight did occur in 1988, during Soviet Union, it is wrong calling this plane soviet, Russian would be more appropriate. Calling it a hazard for the population is nonsense as non of the planes have ever been in any accident. Therefore, remark that 737MAX was bigger hazard is valid and relevant when replying to a comment that IL-96 is hazard.
FYI the Ilyushin Il-96-300 wasn't introduced until 1992 after the fall of the USSR and is still in production today.
Do you know when the "Air Force One" 747s we built? 1990! They are 33 years old. Why should a jet the is being used to fly the Russian President be any less safe, apart from being a fraction of the age?
Loving the comments
Interesting and qualitative content
Plus no credit card sign up tie in
I’m getting my money’s worth.
Thanks, Lucky
If they fly commercial, I'm sure some of their diplomatic pouches will go missing.
AirTags might last pickup those tags somewhere in Virginia, LOL.
My first guess was southwest lost luggage being delivered. 2nd guess was Vlady needing a vacation break but since he can't show his face he was probably just chilling in cargo.
Nothing new here. Same thing happened a few months ago.
The interior of that plane is likely well appointed. I salute you comrade.
On Russian aircraft, Krug is considered a soft drink -- just like all beverages under 50% alcohol.
Usually these diplomats have a ton of belongings that need to be trucked home which is easier to do on a chartered flight versus on commercial.
I can’t imagine there would be any meeting between governments happening here or in Russia, so can more or less assume the reasoning provided is at least directionally accurate
to which reknown aircraft could it be compared to ?
O! M! G! Two governments are doing government things with one another!
Loving the comments
Still interesting and qualitative content
Plus no credit card sign up tie in
I’m getting my money’s worth.
Thanks, Lucky
And do they serve Klug ? We know they do…..
But what does the interior look like