Saw this in A4A today. So how long until we see a major with service to Iraq? And who will it be? So far they have only opened up 2 airports, but as that relaxes, what should we expect?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-ban-on-commercial-flights-to-iraq

Would be nice to see a UA tag-on from another Middle East destination.

Would be nice to see an IAH-Iraq flight.

I'm shocked this came before Beirut!

Makes me wonder if DL still holds the old PA rights to Baghdad??

Good news for Iraq - another step towards normality and growth. Presumably there could be fairly good demand for service - are we likely to see more than perhaps one new route in the near future?

I wonder though if anyone will actually fly there. Doesn't look like a viable airline right now.

I'm very curious how much demand these routes will generate. ATL-Iraq would be very interesting. Maybe DL could make it work with a weekly A332, assuming there is sufficient demand.

Also, how likely is it that the TSA will approve USA-Iraq commercial pax operations?

[Edited 2012-12-06 12:40:26]

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 7): I'm very curious how much demand these routes will generate.

Presumably there is some government traffic between the two nations, so perhaps one of the legacies can pull the whole "gov employees must fly US flag carrier when available" card and get some traffic that way?

Quoting sulley (Reply 1): Would be nice to see a UA tag-on from another Middle East destination.

  

Maybe UA from IAD? Would seem appropriate.

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 7): Also, how likely is it that the TSA will approve USA-Iraq commercial pax operations?

If the politicians want to see air traffic to Iraq opened up then oretty likely, I would guess.

Quoting mayor (Reply 4): Makes me wonder if DL still holds the old PA rights to Baghdad??

Or from NW? Didn't NW have the rights to fly there once it opened up?

What about security issues?

No US airline serves Saudi Arabia either (yet they serve smaller markets such as KWI, BAH or DOH), and I am sure that security has a lot to do with that.

Really odd that US - Iraq flights will be permitted but not Beirut? Really odd.
Has this got anything to do with American companies winning tenders in the country?

The U.S. spent hundreds of billions of dollars there in fighting a "war" as well in reconstruction of various parts of Iraq's infrastructure. It should surprise no one that the US will allow flights into Iraq as soon as possible.

Given the oil industry, we could see some flights from IAH to Mosul or Bagdad. I really don't see this happening for a while though.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 12): No US airline serves Saudi Arabia either

This could have something to do with it:

"All visas require a sponsor, can take several months to process, and must be obtained prior to arrival.... There have been reports by U.S. citizens that they were refused a Saudi visa because their passports reflected travel to Israel or indicated that they were born in Israel....... Women visitors and residents must be met by their sponsor upon arrival. Women who are traveling alone and are not met by sponsors have experienced delays before being allowed to enter the country or to continue on other flights. "

Saudi Arabia does things in such a way that it would be very difficult to maintain service relying on primarily US based travelers.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_p...s/cis_1012.html#entry_requirements

[Edited 2012-12-06 13:24:16]

If I was any US carrier I would be very careful about operating anywhere like there...

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 15):

Nothing to do with that. KWI or DOH are not touristic hot-spots either for Americans and they have services to IAD with UA.

Actually if you check the largest increases in the very last years in traffic in international city pairs from the US, RUH and JED consistently are in the top places from some large US markets. There are a lot of economic and government US interests in the country (even if there is no official military presence such in BAH), the number of Saudi students in the US has multiplied in the last 2-3 years, Saudi is a large market by itself (almost 30m people) and relatively wealthy... SV flies to JFK and IAD from both JED and RUH (and from my experience, Saudis are expats likely avoid SV when flying to the US, and they rather do a stop-over in Europe) and they have increased frequencies lately.

I am sure that under normal circumstances we could see direct flights with UA to IAD (government traffic and connections in IAD, they serve smaller markets in the region - BAH, DOH, KWI -) to JED/RUH, and even DL from ATL (such as to DXB) or JFK (specially now SV is part of SkyTeam).

Just because the FAA opens up the route doesn't mean people can start flying there... The TSA has to approve, and since they would not approve Delta to fly to Nairobi (which has service from several non-us airlines) due to a credible threat to civil aviation, I cant imagine they would approve flights to Iraq.

Quoting funkywabit (Reply 18): Just because the FAA opens up the route doesn't mean people can start flying there... The TSA has to approve, and since they would not approve Delta to fly to Nairobi (which has service from several non-us airlines) due to a credible threat to civil aviation, I cant imagine they would approve flights to Iraq.

+1

And even if the TSA deems the security is up to TSA "standards", each airline's corporate security has to scout the airport, meet with officials, check the routes to and from hotel, the area around the hotel, credible and not-so-credible threats in the area, what kind of transportation they will use, etc. If there are problems or credible threats to the crews, they won't fly there regardless of what TSA/FAA allow.

Quoting mayor (Reply 4): Makes me wonder if DL still holds the old PA rights to Baghdad??

Quoting tb727 (Reply 11): Or from NW? Didn't NW have the rights to fly there once it opened up?

From what I understand, at a certain point a few years back, it was announced that Northwest got the rights to fly to Iraq, once things settled. Of course, everything NW went to DL. And DL probably holds the old PA rights, as well. So, if ANYONE goes there, it will be DL or nobody.

The Detroit area has the most Iraqi expatriates of any US city......AND it is a DL hub and gateway. DTW-Baghdad on DL is the logical choice all around.....

Quoting FreshSide3 (Reply 20): Of course, everything NW went to DL. And DL probably holds the old PA rights, as well. So, if ANYONE goes there, it will be DL or nobody.

What good are these "rights"? The US government certainly isn't going to stop multiple airlines from flying there, and we all know this is a different Iraqi government ENTIRELY than the one that issued those rights.

Quoting FreshSide3 (Reply 20): The Detroit area has the most Iraqi expatriates of any US city......AND it is a DL hub and gateway. DTW-Baghdad on DL is the logical choice all around.....

Now that would be sweet! and help solidify DTW as the hub it still is and once was

Quoting xjramper (Reply 19):

+1

And even if the TSA deems the security is up to TSA "standards", each airline's corporate security has to scout the airport, meet with officials, check the routes to and from hotel, the area around the hotel, credible and not-so-credible threats in the area, what kind of transportation they will use, etc. If there are problems or credible threats to the crews, they won't fly there regardless of what TSA/FAA






+1, and almost no one would bid a line with Iraq on it. Low man on the totem pole and people on reserve I feel for ya.......

[Edited 2012-12-06 16:32:31]

[Edited 2012-12-06 16:33:38]

The article didnt specifically mention this, but does this mean SFAR 77 is liftted?

Quoting NWADTWE16 (Reply 22): Now that would be sweet! and help solidify DTW as the hub it still is and once was

Quoting FreshSide3 (Reply 20): The Detroit area has the most Iraqi expatriates of any US city......AND it is a DL hub and gateway. DTW-Baghdad on DL is the logical choice all around.....

Yeah I thought I remember it was planned to run a DC-10 from DTW-AMS-BGW then it was possibly going to be a non-stop 787 flight when they arrived but this was 6 or 7 years ago now.

United and Kalitta Air were the other two IIRC?

Quoting tb727 (Reply 25): Yeah I thought I remember it was planned to run a DC-10 from DTW-AMS-BGW then it was possibly going to be a non-stop 787 flight when they arrived but this was 6 or 7 years ago now. United and Kalitta Air were the other two IIRC?

I don't remember UA being part of it, although it may have.......but yes, Kalitta was definitely mentioned.....

Quoting RDH3E (Thread starter): Saw this in A4A today. So how long until we see a major with service to Iraq? And who will it be? So far they have only opened up 2 airports, but as that relaxes, what should we expect?

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 10): Quoting jporterfi (Reply 7): Also, how likely is it that the TSA will approve USA-Iraq commercial pax operations? If the politicians want to see air traffic to Iraq opened up then oretty likely, I would guess.

Judging from BEY which is FAA, but not TSA approved, I'm guessing it won't happen except for charters.

Quoting tb727 (Reply 11): Or from NW? Didn't NW have the rights to fly there once it opened up?

YES!

Quoting tb727 (Reply 25): Yeah I thought I remember it was planned to run a DC-10 from DTW-AMS-BGW

It was announced in 2003, discussed here:

Northwest Files Application To Fly To Iraq (by Neilalp May 8 2003 in Civil Aviation)

I think DL or UA has the best chance of a US carrier doing it. I think we would need to see more European routes (which are still limited now) first to make sense for a US carrier to overfly Euro connections via alliances.

NW was granted rights from DTW
DL does have the PA dormant rights.

Quoting Shuttle9juliet (Reply 16): If I was any US carrier I would be very careful about operating anywhere like there...

Agreed, crew security. My friend P.E. was on 'the" BA flight into KWI, and was used as human shield.

Flight security, TSA approval, crew accommodation, hull liability are issues that come to mind.

Quoting FI642 (Reply 29): Flight security, TSA approval, crew accommodation, hull liability are issues that come to mind.

Agreed - I see it quite a long time away. Europe flights can do the route without keeping the crew there overnight I belive, a big benefit - keeping N. American carriers away for a bit I believe.

Baghdad layovers are going to go even more junior than Lagos!

Quoting FI642 (Reply 29):

IIRC it was DTW-AMS-BGW....

For those who bothered to read before pontificating, the lifting of restrictions only applies to two airports in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. In the near term, the greatest utility of lifting the ban is in allowing US carriers to codeshare with foreign partners who service those points.

Would an american airline be a target for terror attacks by anti-american regimes? Still every now and then you hear attacks against americans.

Quoting FI642 (Reply 29): NW was granted rights from DTW DL does have the PA dormant rights.

But things are different than in 2003 in a few ways.

The Iraqi VFR traffic in DTW has now more options, because Middle Eastern carriers in 2003 were a shadow of what they are today. If TK opens IST-DTW in the near future (very likely at the pace they expand), TK will serve 6 different Iraqi cities only 1 stop from Detroit. Some routes profitable back them in terms of costs (fuel), now would be unprofitable; DL axed AMM and CAI. And I don't think Iraqi VFR from Michigan is particularly high-yielding either.

In 2003, there were sanctions against Saddam Hussein's regime... now there is military, diplomatic and also business traffic from the US to Baghdad. In the unlikely event of a US-Iraq route, I would see more logically an UA IAD-BGW, which also has a better geographical position to connect anywhere in the US.

Quoting FI642 (Reply 29): My friend P.E. was on 'the" BA flight into KWI, and was used as human shield.

What do you mean?

Quoting avek00 (Reply 33): For those who bothered to read before pontificating, the lifting of restrictions only applies to two airports in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. In the near term, the greatest utility of lifting the ban is in allowing US carriers to codeshare with foreign partners who service those points.

The big money is in Baghdad and Basra, anyway. I don't think rest of the other cities in Iraq have that big of a market.

Quoting tonytifao (Reply 34): Would an american airline be a target for terror attacks by anti-american regimes? Still every now and then you hear attacks against americans.

Possibly but then you could say that about operations to Cairo, Jordan and Kuwait where there isn't a whole lot of support for America (American policies rather than the people or country) but you see regular flights to the US.

However, what really gets me is that flights to Beirut are prohibited despite operating for decades without incident and which welcomes a plethora of international European carriers BUT direct flights are still prohibited yet we have a country like Pakistan which is the epicentre of international terrorism and yet the national airline is able to serve three destinations in the USA. And a country like Iraq which is probably the unsafest country in the region (save for Syria perhaps) which is edging nearer direct flights to the States. Whether any American airline will actually fly there is another matter- I personally think it's a long time off.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 33): For those who bothered to read before pontificating, the lifting of restrictions only applies to two airports in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. In the near term, the greatest utility of lifting the ban is in allowing US carriers to codeshare with foreign partners who service those points.

Erbil sounds like the most logical destination right now from a demand standpoint, not sure about Sulaimaniyah. The US State Department has a good sized operation in the Erbil area, not sure if this was one of the driving factors behind this decision.

As to any potential US carriers flying to Baghdad or anywhere else, I say no way. I spent almost eight years over there, and with the US military presence all but gone it would be suicide for an American flag carrier to ever land at BGW. To my knowledge none of the carriers which currently serve Baghdad overnight their crews there, it is basically in and out with 1-2 hour turn times. There is a small hotel adjacent to the airport terminal, but security is still an issue.

And besides, I just don't see the demand for a US carrier. Let Emirates, Etihad, Turkish and Gulf Air assume the risk if someone needs to get in or out of there.

Quoting FreshSide3 (Reply 36): The big money is in Baghdad and Basra, anyway. I don't think rest of the other cities in Iraq have that big of a market.

I wouldn't write off Erbil. It's turning into the Dubai of Iraq. Lots and lots of new development, foreign companies moving in, and infrastructure improvements. It's probably the safest city in the country and the GDP per capita is 50% higher than elsewhere in Iraq. Oil and gas reserves amount to 45 billion barrels as well.

http://gulfnews.com/news/region/iraq...h-spurt-hype-or-for-real-1.1057846

I still don't see any US carriers serving the city, but their European partners certainly will, and have been in the case of Lufthansa and Air Berlin. I could definitely see Air France, British Airways, KLM, and SAS serving the region.

[Edited 2012-12-07 07:03:21]

Quoting B4REAL (Reply 30): Agreed - I see it quite a long time away. Europe flights can do the route without keeping the crew there overnight I belive, a big benefit - keeping N. American carriers away for a bit I believe.

This can be avoided by US carriers if they wished to serve Iraq as a tag-on. UA could do this from KWI or DXB and DL could do the same from DXB.

Of course, the operation would still have to be vetted in case the crew or aircraft did get "stuck" in Iraq.

Quoting raffik (Reply 37): However, what really gets me is that flights to Beirut are prohibited despite operating for decades without incident and which welcomes a plethora of international European carriers BUT direct flights are still prohibited yet we have a country like Pakistan which is the epicentre of international terrorism and yet the national airline is able to serve three destinations in the USA.

This one is a bit strange. However, I'm sure sure the government has its reasons.

I can't imagine a US carrier flying into Iraq anytime soon, even Kurd-controlled Northern Iraq. Far more likely that this is for code-share purposes. The days where a US carrier will fly non-stop to any destination in Iraq with crew overnighting locally are very far off, in my opinion.

If a US flight there is to be in a few years, first and foremost look for it to be a tag-on to another destination such as IST or KWI with a schedule allowing for a quick hop in and out, crew staying onboard at all times and resting at the first stop.

A IAD-KWI / KWI-BGW-KWI / KWI-IAD might actually find some takers among crew.

Quoting mayor (Reply 4): Makes me wonder if DL still holds the old PA rights to Baghdad??

Quoting tb727 (Reply 11): Or from NW? Didn't NW have the rights to fly there once it opened up?

Yes

Quoting tb727 (Reply 25): Yeah I thought I remember it was planned to run a DC-10 from DTW-AMS-BGW

Correct