Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Iranian Airliners Refused Fuel...?  
User currently onlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 834 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 13327 times:

The BBC news site is stating that Iranian airliners are being refused fuel in the UK, Germany and the UAE

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10511420.stm

Sounds a bit unlikely to me - you end up with aircraft grounded at your airports!

46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRaffik From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 1716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 13139 times:

I've just read this too. Looks like it will spark off some tension in the Middle East. Disgraceful


Happy -go- lucky kinda guy!
User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 13100 times:

Its very much happening. I am not so sure about grounded aircraft at those airports. If they have any sense they will not send the aircraft there in the first instance.

Quoting Raffik (Reply 1):
Looks like it will spark off some tension in the Middle East. Disgraceful

The tension is already there, lets be honest, thats why these new sanctions have come in. I am not saying they are right or wrong but I dont think it can spark off much more tension, although I guess anything is possible.


User currently offline2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1074 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 13002 times:

I am surprised that something like this took so long.

The one international sanction that could quickly and easily be applied to most countries - that would have a significant affect - would be the denial of flights to and from the countries (with some allowed for people to get home).


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12946 times:

As the article mentioned, it could be down to the individual countries.

Quoting Raffik (Reply 1):
I've just read this too. Looks like it will spark off some tension in the Middle East. Disgraceful

   I agree, this does nothing but hurt the local population. When has it worked with Cuba, etc?



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineoa260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 27106 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12915 times:

On a purely aviation point of view it would be sad to not see Iran Air in European skies because of this.

User currently offlineSyeaphanR From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12892 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I strongly suspect there will be reciprocal refusal of fuel by Iran to airlines from countries involved.

Looks like travel to and from Iran is going to be a complicated business; roundabout routings through "Iran friendly" nations!


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25737 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12850 times:

Quoting Raffik (Reply 1):
Disgraceful

Who says any vendor has to sell you Jet-A if they don't feel like it?

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 3):
I am surprised that something like this took so long.

The one international sanction that could quickly and easily be applied to most countries - that would have a significant affect - would be the denial of flights to and from the countries (with some allowed for people to get home).

   Yes me to. Long time ago would have hoped refusal of landing rights would have occurred for Iranian airlines.

Only decades ago such action was often step one in any sanctions regime. I well recall Soviet, Polish, South African, Libyan, etc carriers being banned from various places.

[Edited 2010-07-05 09:22:32]


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinetharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1865 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12697 times:

If this is actually happening, then it should be obvious from flight data, no? We should see planes grounded, flights canceled, or planes having to make diversions to other countries to get fuel.

So, do we see these things? Let's establish the facts over what is happening, first.


User currently offlinegr8circle From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 3116 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12602 times:

When one country allows planes of another country to land at their airports, shouldn't there be an accompanying obligation to provide all required ground support and services? If you don't want to do that, don't give them permission to land in the first place....I think it's quite unprofessional and unethical on the part of the vendors who are denying the services....in the US, there is apparently a clear law banning the sale of petroleum products to Iranian companies....what seems to be happening in Europe is a situation where individual oil companies are inventing their own rules....

Also, aren't these oil companies under some sort of a contract which would spell out the circumstances under which they can refuse to provide A-fuel to a carrier? Are they acting within their contractual rights in this case?


User currently onlineUAEflyer From United Arab Emirates, joined Nov 2006, 1117 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12591 times:

The UAE officially deny this issue
http://gulfnews.com/business/aviatio...g-fuel-to-iranian-flights-1.650524


User currently offlineoa260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 27106 posts, RR: 60
Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 12505 times:

The daily said that "another trend that should be worrying Moscow" is the possibility that Tehran "will effectively end cooperation in the civil aviation sector."

State-owned Iran Air has Tupolev and Ilyushin airliners in its fleet. However, last month, in apparent retaliation for the Russia's support of the U.N. sanctions, Iran banned its airlines from using Tupolev Tu-54 jets on domestic and international routes.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Sec...s-Irans-S-300s/UPI-80011278091069/

I didnt know Iran had banned the use of TU154s .


User currently offlineA380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1116 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 12397 times:

Quoting gr8circle (Reply 9):
When one country allows planes of another country to land at their airports, shouldn't there be an accompanying obligation to provide all required ground support and services? If you don't want to do that, don't give them permission to land in the first place....I think it's quite unprofessional and unethical on the part of the vendors who are denying the services....

Agreed. I remember flying to Tozeur in Tunisia and there were two Iraqi airways 747 there. It was in 2000 and they had been there since 1991. There was one SP. They both had no engines left. They did look like strange white elephants. But then, they got stucked abroad because their country invaded another sovereign country. "Trapping" airplanes by not refuelling them is another story. It's not like Iran invaded any country this time.


User currently offlinetharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1865 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 12396 times:

One thing to keep in mind, is this US policy does not appear aimed at aviation in particular. These are the consequences of a general limit on selling refined products to Iran.

from the BBC article

"The US sanctions prohibit the sale or provision to Iran of refined petroleum products worth more than $5m (£3.3m) over a year."

The article also mentions diversions for the sake of refueling. Surely somebody can bring up some examples.


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12515 posts, RR: 35
Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 12358 times:

I've heard that IR (and presumably Mahan Air) will make technical stops in Turkey, although this begs the question - is not Turkey bound by the same sanctions?

IR has a flight to/from LHR today; I wonder if they were affected by this and how they got around it; a 747 might just have sufficient fuel capacity to fly from IKA to LHR and back (even the IR ones)?


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10905 posts, RR: 37
Reply 15, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 12351 times:

Quoting tharanga (Reply 13):
"The US sanctions prohibit the sale or provision to Iran of refined petroleum products worth more than $5m (£3.3m) over a year."

This is to be expected due to the latest round of sanctions imposed on Iran.

“The law signed by Mr. Obama imposes penalties on foreign entities that sell refined petroleum to Iran or assist Iran with its domestic refining capacity. It also requires that American and foreign businesses that seek contracts with the United States government certify that they do not engage in prohibited business with Iran.” (July 1, 2010).

 



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinetharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1865 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 11810 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 14):
I've heard that IR (and presumably Mahan Air) will make technical stops in Turkey, although this begs the question - is not Turkey bound by the same sanctions?

These particular sanctions are US sanctions, not UN sanctions. A company that sold more than the limit of refined products to Iran would have trouble doing business in the US.

So either the company doing the refueling in Turkey thinks it will not cross the limit, or it does not plan on doing business in the US, so it doesn't care anyway.


User currently offlinebeeweel15 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 11737 times:

Quoting gr8circle (Reply 9):
When one country allows planes of another country to land at their airports, shouldn't there be an accompanying obligation to provide all required ground support and services? If you don't want to do that, don't give them permission to land in the first place....I think it's quite unprofessional and unethical on the part of the vendors who are denying the services....in the US, there is apparently a clear law banning the sale of petroleum products to Iranian companies....what seems to be happening in Europe is a situation where individual oil companies are inventing their own rules....

No the countries dont have to provide ground services. From what I have been reading here no one questioned did Iran Air pay their bill. If you dont pay your bill you dont get service. Here at JFK airport if you dont pay your bill you dont get service it is as simple as that. Several years ago a NW DC10 made an emergency landing in Tehran and they had to pay for the fuel and service before anything was done.


User currently offlinecokepopper From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1187 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 11599 times:

Quoting tharanga (Reply 8):
If this is actually happening, then it should be obvious from flight data, no? We should see planes grounded, flights canceled, or planes having to make diversions to other countries to get fuel.

So, do we see these things? Let's establish the facts over what is happening, first.

Official: Iranian Planes Denied Fuel in UK, Germany, UAE

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news...el-in-UK-Germany-UAE-97800669.html


User currently offlineJU241 From France, joined Jun 2009, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 11335 times:

hello to fellow A.Netters (my first message here)

I hope the thread does not escalate and sticks to aviation issues.

My comment: Wow, this is going to hurt.
On the other side, it's also a high-profile sanction, so could prove effective in the long term (without any political considerations or justifications which don't belong here).
The question is how much does the Islamic republic rely on airlines for international trade, image-building purposes (remember the short-lived Tehran-Caracas route) and so on.

[Edited 2010-07-05 11:14:55]

User currently offlinetharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1865 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 10947 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 21):
To what extent do countries have discretion in imposing these restrictions?

As I've said, any company can do whatever they like, so long as they don't mind losing the ability to do business in the US. I think the US policy operates on the company level, not the country level.

Quoting cokepopper (Reply 18):
Official: Iranian Planes Denied Fuel in UK, Germany, UAE

We've known since the first post what the Iranian officials are saying. I'm just asking for some flight data actually showing diversions and the like, so we can see what practical effect this is actually having.


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10905 posts, RR: 37
Reply 21, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 11014 times:

Apparently this "no fuel for Iranian planes" sanction will be applied by the EU countries.

" It remains to be seen how closely U.S. allies will follow the new oil sanctions; they will be under tremendous pressure to do so. The European Union has already signaled that it will follow Obama’s lead. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/wo...3&sq=iran%20new%20sanctions&st=cse

The law signed by Mr. Obama imposes penalties on foreign entities that sell refined petroleum to Iran or assist Iran with its domestic refining capacity. It also requires that American and foreign businesses that seek contracts with the United States government certify that they do not engage in prohibited business with Iran.

 

[Edited 2010-07-05 11:38:54]


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10905 posts, RR: 37
Reply 22, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 10229 times:

Why would they want to block civilian passenger aircrafts from flying by refusing to refuel them?

Be it any country, this is something I don't understand. We are not talking about military aircrafts or anything related... this is just a bunch of civilians that need to fly for some reason or other, business, visiting family, tourism or whatever else.



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 10096 times:

Please keep the political comments out of this thread. If users continue to inject politics into this thread, it will be locked. We do not allow political comments in Civ-Av.

User currently offlineLJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4461 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9624 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 21):
Apparently this "no fuel for Iranian planes" sanction will be applied by the EU countries.

I reckon it will be busy in Turkey if this will materialise... Needless to say one can expect that EU airlines won't be refuelled in Tehran, making it extra busy for refuellers in Turkey

Quoting tharanga (Reply 20):
We've known since the first post what the Iranian officials are saying. I'm just asking for some flight data actually showing diversions and the like, so we can see what practical effect this is actually having.

They didn't seem to have a problem at AMS yesterday, but it's worthwhile watching the on time performance of those flights into European airports.


25 AvroArrow : Possibly a simple answer in a complex situation. What company does IR and other Iranian airlines use for fuel in the affected countries? Do they have
26 DRAIGONAIR : Friend of mine is flying from Dusseldorf to Bangkok with Mahan Air (via Iran). Will these flights proceed? What equipment do they fly on with that rou
27 SOBHI51 : A question comes to mind. How many western Airlines use TEH airport? Also how many use Iranian airspace as flyover?
28 RobertS975 : That will improve the safety of the airline!
29 LAXintl : Quite a few -- but the bigger question is how many millions $$$ does Iran make on such annually. Sure they are free to retaliate, but they would also
30 AR385 : So, I assume Iran will respond in kind. How long until European Union airlines are denied flying rights into and above Iran´s territory? Furthermore,
31 Raffik : I think you misunderstand the situation. It is not about a company choosing who it does business with. We are talking about a US government manipulat
32 Post contains links LAXintl : I understand. A business decides whom it does business with. Very similar to the situation in the cruise industry. No one is stopping Caribbean cruis
33 Raffik : Some would call it blackmail but I am sure you'll tell me it isn't!
34 vv701 : It is not official that Iranian planes have been denied fuel in the UK, Germany and the UAE as this correctly quoted headline suggests. What it is sa
35 LAXintl : No you are right, I would not really call it blackmail. Consumers and nations do it everyday. You dont like the regime in Mynamar, you dont buy stuff
36 racko : Iran Air Germany denies these reports, stating that their flight from FRA today was refueled and left without any problem.
37 beeweel15 : Hello people from what I get from the article is that the fuel bill has to be paid and they are making it look political. If any of you went to a gas
38 Post contains links CV880 : Newer headline on the subject http://www.reuters.com/article/idAFLDE66418N20100705?rpc=44 Ironic that BP purchases Oil from Iran, but the Feds obvious
39 Post contains images rwy04lga : It isn't blackmail, it's extortion! Either being a good choice.
40 HomaDreaming : As an Iranian American I am deeply saddened for whats happening to Iran air and millions of innocent Iranian passengers but this is an Aviation thread
41 DLPMMM : It is called sanctions. They are used to pressure foreign governments to change their policies. Sanctions generally are meaningless and don't work un
42 AFGMEL : One thing that confuses me, this fuel is not being sold to Iran, but being sold to the airline which presumably will burn the fuel on the way back. I
43 SOBHI51 : Do not see why Iran will allow that if both countries refuse to refuel IR planes. When civilians are the people who will suffer then that is wrong in
44 rwy04lga : You mean like killing thousands of civilians in tall buildings?
45 HomaDreaming : well...Turkey will continue its relations with Iran and from what Im gathering on Farsi websites Iranian carriers are even considering fueling there
46 srbmod : Since some of you are ignoring my earlier message about political posts, this thread is now locked. Any posts that appear after this one will be delet
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Fuel Stop For Airliners? posted Thu Nov 5 2009 07:38:16 by A380900
Which Airliners Can Dump Fuel? posted Sun Jan 7 2007 04:24:53 by T773ER
FAA Proposes New Fuel Tank Systems For Airliners. posted Wed Nov 16 2005 03:13:47 by TinkerBelle
737-700 Fuel Too Cold? posted Mon Apr 5 2010 01:24:10 by thegooddoctor
Oman Air Reads Airliners.net: Links On Twitter posted Wed Mar 31 2010 10:47:28 by PlaneHunter
Dugan MD80 Fuel Reduction Mod Test Results posted Wed Mar 24 2010 14:28:22 by pfletch1228
Airliners.net Banned From Use At Airline posted Fri Mar 19 2010 20:58:14 by sunking737
Fuel Spill At LGA posted Wed Feb 24 2010 17:11:51 by B6A322
Thomas Cook Fuel Leak Turin. posted Mon Feb 22 2010 07:56:12 by wexfordflyer
789 - Heavier, Less Fuel = More Payload & Range posted Sat Feb 20 2010 06:38:23 by JerseyFlyer