turbofan1960 From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 122 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 14994 times:
In what appears to be a further tightening in the restrictions facing Iran's airlines, one of the last remaining European companies that had been supplying fuel to Iran Air has announced that it will not be renewing its contract to supply fuel to the carrier. This is also likely to impact Mahan Air.
With Iran Air's European fuel lines virtually dry, this surely will have significant impact on its European routes. I would have thought that ICAO would have been able to prevent this from happening...?
as739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 5819 posts, RR: 23 Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 14740 times:
Wnbob From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 160 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 14706 times:
As long as EU and the Russian and China stop selling to Iran, they will come around.
turbofan1960 From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 122 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 14339 times:
Quoting as739x (Reply 1):
What and why would the ICAO do?
ICAO has a significant remit in all civil aviation matters.
In addition, there are numerous conventions and treaties relating to civil aviation protocol (Chicago & Geneva conventions to name a couple) whereby Iran Air could possibly have grounds to launch an appeal against the latest decisions by European fuel companies to refuse to renew their fuel services contracts.
as739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 5819 posts, RR: 23 Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 14256 times:
Still doesn't answer the question, why?
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
tharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1778 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 13243 times:
Quoting bill142 (Reply 5): Given that ICAO is a UN body, they would have to participate in enforcing any UN sactions on a nation.
I don't think there are any UN sanctions that would obviously apply to the purchase of aviation fuel for civilian airliner use.
SolarFlyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 395 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 13213 times:
Quoting turbofan1960 (Reply 3): ICAO has a significant remit in all civil aviation matters.
ICAO is like the WTO, its an international body but basically seeks to remove artificial restrictions and barriers. So in the same way WTO promotes Free Trade without barriers for all nations, ICAO, generally promotes free and safe travel. I support that vision as well though you could also say no business has to sell anything to Iran unless they want. Its hard to promote the entire airline industry as a whole while blackballing IranAir over a regime they actually have no control over. So it puts ICAO in a tough spot. Similarly, it begs the question as to whether safe civilian air travel is something you should sanction or a privilege you can take away because you don't like what someone is doing.
tu204 From Russia, joined Mar 2006, 904 posts, RR: 19 Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 12796 times:
Ok, So why don't Iran launch riciprical action and stop fueling European carriers flying to Iran?
Oh, and tell me again why European fuelers are refusing to fuel Iranian civilian aircraft?
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11113 posts, RR: 63 Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 12698 times:
They'll just go via somewhere else now. I don't think Mahan Air are affected by this; friends flew them into THR recently and they were fueled at BHX for a non stop flight to Iran in the A310.
prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6016 posts, RR: 55 Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 12626 times:
There are no UN sanctions on fuel supply to Iranian airlines.
ICAO doesn't sell fuel, oil companies do.
The Austrian oil company OMV has maintained a contract with Iran Air covering fuel supply in Vienna. It has expired and was not renewed.
But: US businesses shall not make any business with any foreign company which makes business with Iranian companies. Therefore OMV can choose whether they want to make business with Iran Air OR US companies or foreign companies doing business in the USA. It's either/or, not both.
A likely factor in this new development: OMV has significant oil exploration and production activities in Libya, which are shut down at present due to the civil war. They therefore are facing a severe shortage if they don't go and buy oil on other markets. This step will make them able to do business with for instance other European oil companies (BP, Shell etc.). European oil companies with activities in the USA, which therefore always had to obey to the US trade rules with Iran.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
oneworld77 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 238 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 12525 times:
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 11): But: US businesses shall not make any business with any foreign company which makes business with Iranian companies. Therefore OMV can choose whether they want to make business with Iran Air OR US companies or foreign companies doing business in the USA. It's either/or, not both.
Is this correct. So USAir, United, American, Delta who fly into LHR are breaking the laws of their own government by doing business with the BAA since they do business with Iranair?
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22024 posts, RR: 51 Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 12480 times:
There is nothing the UN/ICAO should or could do.
There is no inherit right to operate airplanes to any country, let alone receive services such as fuel.
Air rights are bilateral issues between nations, while things like ground services or fuel are civil decisions. No company can be compelled to do business with anyone, and smartly must comply with regulations which might actually bar them doing business with people such as Iran Air.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
SolarFlyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 395 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 12428 times:
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 10): There are no UN sanctions on fuel supply to Iranian airlines.
That is great point. Only the US is pushing this.
Quoting tu204 (Reply 8):
Ok, So why don't Iran launch riciprical action and stop fueling European carriers flying to Iran?
Oh, and tell me again why European fuelers are refusing to fuel Iranian civilian aircraft?
They already price their oil in Euros and not dollars. What they should do is price it using a neutral countries currency. The Swiss Franc would be ideal. This would be bad for the dollar and the euro while boosting the politically neutral Swiss currency. Right now, everyone has to buy Euros first in order to get the oil. They are one of very few nations in the world not to sell oil in dollars.
prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6016 posts, RR: 55 Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 12317 times:
Quoting Reply 11): Is this correct. So USAir, United, American, Delta who fly into LHR are breaking the laws of their own government by doing business with the BAA since they do business with Iranair?
BAA does not do business on US soil, and therefore they do not have to obey to US legislation.
But European oil companies such as BP and Shell have large operations on US soil, so they have to obey.
That's the difference.
If BAA bought an airport on US soil, then I don't know what would happen. Then it would at least be more complicated. But as an employee in a European oil company I have only attended a one day training course in US trade rules with rogue states (Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria).
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
UAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2225 posts, RR: 13 Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 12224 times:
Quoting turbofan1960 (Reply 3): ICAO has a significant remit in all civil aviation matters.
In addition, there are numerous conventions and treaties relating to civil aviation protocol (Chicago & Geneva conventions to name a couple) whereby Iran Air could possibly have grounds to launch an appeal against the latest decisions by European fuel companies to refuse to renew their fuel services contracts.
Iran Air has no grounds to launch anything and ICAO nor any other international organization would waste their time dealing with such rubbish. Iran refuses to comply with International law and as such has isolated itself from the rest of the civilized world. When the people of Iran have had enough they will do what it takes to compel their government to join the rest of the world in the 21st Century, until then they will be forgotten and left behind.
Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 7): ICAO is like the WTO, its an international body but basically seeks to remove artificial restrictions and barriers. So in the same way WTO promotes Free Trade without barriers for all nations, ICAO, generally promotes free and safe travel. I support that vision as well though you could also say no business has to sell anything to Iran unless they want. Its hard to promote the entire airline industry as a whole while blackballing IranAir over a regime they actually have no control over. So it puts ICAO in a tough spot. Similarly, it begs the question as to whether safe civilian air travel is something you should sanction or a privilege you can take away because you don't like what someone is doing.
Iran Air and the regime are one in the same. If the regime wants their airline to operate among the worlds airlines they will have to work withing the norms of the civilized world. As long as Iran continues to defy the world the world will continue to push Iran away.
Quoting tu204 (Reply 8): Ok, So why don't Iran launch riciprical action and stop fueling European carriers flying to Iran?
Oh, and tell me again why European fuelers are refusing to fuel Iranian civilian aircraft?
They could do it today if they would like. They however will not because they want the Western money that comes in on those Western airlines. The reality is that Iran needs the European carriers far far more than the European carriers need Iran.
The basic thing is that non-US oil companies have a choice. They can either:
1. Have normal business activities on US soil like oil exploration, production, refining, sale, export, import US oil, buy foreign oil from US oil companies, buy oil from non-US companies doing business in the US. And obey to the same rules as all US oil companies must obey to.
or
2. Enjoy the privilege to sell to Iran.
Not both.
It seems to me like one European oil company - Austrian OMV - has made the decision to switch from 2 to 1. Very likely a pure business decision which they estimate will increase their business performance in the current situation with one of their important suppliers out of the market.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
MarcoPoloWorld From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 600 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 11979 times:
Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 7): Similarly, it begs the question as to whether safe civilian air travel is something you should sanction or a privilege you can take away because you don't like what someone is doing.
I tend to ask the same question too. Don't forget that people traveling thses routes include the whole range from the journalist to the VFR vising back home for her mother's funeral. One would think that there would be more effective ways to punish a particular goverment, if that's the stated objective.
prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6016 posts, RR: 55 Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11592 times:
Quoting Reply 16): BTW - rogue states is a pejorative term and has died out (except for Fox News and the UK gutter press) with G W Bush's political career.
I didn't know that. What are they then called in English language nowadays?
In the oil industry we call them "OFAC countries" ( = [US-] Office of Foreign Assets Control). But I didn't expect the average a-nut to know that.
So I translated the Danish language "slyngel stater" which becomes "rogue states" in English.
If there is a better or more widely used English term today, then I am more than happy to learn. Thanks in advance.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
SolarFlyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 395 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11503 times:
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 15): Iran Air and the regime are one in the same. If the regime wants their airline to operate among the worlds airlines they will have to work withing the norms of the civilized world. As long as Iran continues to defy the world the world will continue to push Iran away.
Truly that post is one of the finest displays of American Jingoism since GWB Jr. was in the oval office.
1) To imply that defying the US or some grouping of the EU is somehow be considered the "Civilized" world is total garbage and extremely arrogant. There is nothing more civilized about the US vs. Iran or almost any other nation.
2) It implies that they are not civilized for being defiant which is a weak argument at best
3) To state that IranAir is the same as the national government is just flat incorrect
Let's also not forget the shoot down of an Airbus A300 with 297 Civs on board from IranAir in 86-87. I don't the track record of the US vs IranAir is really anything to be proud of quite frankly.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10445 posts, RR: 20 Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11444 times:
Quoting tu204 (Reply 8): Ok, So why don't Iran launch riciprical action and stop fueling European carriers flying to Iran?
One must imagine since Iran can do this at any point but chooses not to, that these flights are of benefit to Iran?
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11113 posts, RR: 63 Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 10999 times:
Quoting bwaflyer (Reply 20): bmi have not been able to uplift full fuel loads on the daily departure from IKA, and therefore fuel stop on both directions.
Why are they stopping inbound to IKA when that is normally easy on the fuel and shouldn't be a push for a regular 321? Are they not able to tank enough leaving even to reach somewhere like GYD, EVN or TBS?
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10445 posts, RR: 20 Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 11016 times:
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 15): Iran Air and the regime are one in the same.
Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 22): To state that IranAir is the same as the national government is just flat incorrect
Ok, educate us.
Wiki says:
Quote:
The airline is wholly owned by the Government of Iran
25 bwaflyer: Flights stop in TBS on the way over to IKA to fuel up as much as possible aiming to land at IKA at max landing weight. If fuel is refused in IKA, the
26 Lufthansa: Just on a technical note here how IR could work around this. http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=THR-LHR,+THR-ARN Iran Air, if you go to their website (haven
27 777way: Apart from flying Iranain expats and some cargo, I cant think of any other reason, that would be beneficial.
28 Quokka: I am also confused by this. EK operates flights to IKA and Iranian aircraft are regularly seen in DXB. EK also operate flights to, and have offices i
29 777way: ^ Is there something about EK that you chose them? what about all the rest also flyint to Iran and the US at the same time.
30 Quokka: It is an airline that I am more familiar with, having flown with them many times, and my question does not reflect like or dislike of EK - just the q
31 prebennorholm: If EK was running their own US based subsidiary in the USA, then they would have a problem also serving Iran. I do not remember every detail in that
32 blueflyer: To the best of my knowledge, the prohibition against dealing with companies that also deal with Iran is specific to the oil industry at large. The sa
33 Quokka: Thanks for clearing that up, otherwise it just didn't make sense.
34 Lufthansa: So I'm interested... How can they do this by avoiding refuelling in Europe and make at east LHR, ARN and FRA work? (I include ARN because of the huge
35 debonair: In the past Hamburg was THE refueling point in Europe and ALL flights were re-routed to HAM (LHR,ARN,CPH,LHR etc.). But I haven't seen any of those f
36 flyingalex: I think the Swiss National Bank would not be very happy with this course of action. The Swiss Franc is currently trading at 15-20% above its ten-year
37 lh526: Guys, as emotional as this topic is, please stay on topic and discuss further political issues in non_av, thank you! On behalf of the A.net Moderator
38 JoKeR: Some flights now being rerouted via BEG. http://exyuaviation.blogspot.com/2011/03/iran-air-to-belgrade.html
39 turbofan1960: I hope you are correct, however I can't see Mahan Air being exempted from this over the longer term. The saga over their 747-400's (currently grounde
40 Eagleboy: Oh yeah, because the US govt always follows international law............... Like so many sanctions this will affect the people of Iran more than it
41 Revelation: Sanctions on international aviation probably don't impact the guy in the street very much. Note how in the Egyptian situation the Mubarak regime did
42 Burkhard: Isn't it as simple that OMV now, due to the missing deliveries through own contracts, has to purchase fuel from companies who have to respect the uni
43 LJ: KL doesn't get fuel at IKA as far as I know (they refeul at ATH). However this has probably more to do with another diplomatic row between The Nether
44 Lufthansa: So after they control that oil why would they let Austrian oil companies sell it to iran?
45 qualitydr: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_state Frankly, all terms can become pejorative (or otherwise) in context. "Rogue State" had a basic use definition,
46 Gonzalo: Hi people. I'm going to do maybe the dumbest question of the week here, but I don't understand, why all the big deal about this, and all the talking a
47 LazialeMKD: Iran Air is having a fuel stop at BEG according to this article: http://exyuaviation.blogspot.com/2011/03/iran-air-to-belgrade.html
48 Burkhard: Why must all media get everything wrong by purpose. The sanction is by the US, not the EU, but EU-bashing is popular in Serbia, who cares for facts?
49 SolarFlyer22: Because we have a lot of free time to debate things in a forum. I think it's interesting because it relates to the larger question of do you sanction
50 LazialeMKD: For me it doesn't make sense not to allow commercial airliner to get a fuel on the airport where they land. Better just cut that route and don't allo
51 turbofan1960: In many cases air routes are bilateral as per the terms set out in the Chicago & Geneva conventions, I'm not sure it's in Iran's or Europe's best
52 Lufthansa: It is ultimately the goal with this kind of thing but the way its done has two advantags... the first is the legislation is general and therefore eve
53 garpd: If they do that, they might start loosing all flight rights to Europe altogether. It's a never ending tit for tat match.
54 airbazar: Oh yes they do. They manage retail concession at BOS, PIT, and BWI, just off the top of my head. Maybe more.
55 JoKeR: Check your facts first please.... what gave you the impression that EU-bashing is popular in Serbia? Second, what's that got to do with the topic at
56 readytotaxi: Hypocrisy and politics make good bedfellows.
57 tu204: Ok, you are right. It is a never ending tit for tat match. Obviously the fueling companies and Iran Air have a contract and one of the parties does n
58 PEET7G: IR732 (op by EP-IBC) from ORY to IKA just took off from BUD heading for IKA. Anyone know that if it was a fuel stop or medical diversion? It might be
59 Thrust: Honestly, I can't say I'm incredibly surprised by this. I always figured it was only a matter of time. Looking at this as somebody with not a real in-
60 PEET7G: Yepp, it looks like BUD is the new fueling place for IR. IR764 (op by EP-IBK) from AMS to IKA just took off from BUD after refuelling... Edit: ...and
61 Amsterdam: I don't know if you've seen the news the last 2 years, but it's quite obvious they are pissed at their government, but for more important reasons. An
62 777way: So its two new fuel stations Budapest and Belgrade?
63 PEET7G: I was monitoring today's operations and I think it is only BUD now (maybe because of lower fuel prices mentioned in the above article) for example EP
64 lightsaber: Pejorative term? Sure. It was inventended to be so. Died out? I prefer it over 'states of concern.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_state Joe sixp
65 turbofan1960: Unfortunately, due to the restrictions they face on spare parts and maintenance this is a real danger. Lets pray for the passengers sake.
66 flyingalex: If you mean UAE, I couldn't agree more. EK, EY, QR et al. could stand to gain quite a lot from a suspension of direct flights between Iran and Europe
67 turbofan1960: I've heard rumors that some UAE fuel companies have also suspended fuel supplies to Iranian airlines. If this is indeed the case then I don't see how
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 122 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8320 posts, 
From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 395 posts, 
From Russia, joined Mar 2006, 904 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11113 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6016 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 238 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
