Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Iran ‘stops Fuelling European Jets’  
User currently offlineLH600 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 164 posts, RR: 1
Posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 16986 times:

It looks like the Iranians are retaliating.

http://www.thegulfonline.com/pages/article.aspx?aid=3494


Does anyone know which airlines are being affected? What fuel stops are they making?

What are the current EU-Iran flights by European carriers?

33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2629 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 16884 times:

Sounds like a good way to isolate your country.


arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8968 posts, RR: 76
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 16869 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting LH600 (Thread starter):
Does anyone know which airlines are being affected? What fuel stops are they making?

Pretty much all airlines from Europe, so I heard. We flew FRA-IKA-FRA and had the fuel on board for both flights,so no fuel stop required.

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineairbuseric From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 4253 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 16680 times:

KLM is not fueling in IKA anymore for quite a while now. The blue MD-11's make a nonstop AMS-IKA flight, on return they do not refuel and fly IKA-ATH (refuelling) -AMS. You can't board the KLM MD11's from ATH iirc, it's just the technical stop.


"The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going"
User currently offlinejamesontheroad From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 541 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 16640 times:

I believe BD have been stopping for fuel on their LHR-IKA-LHR route for some time now - although I don't recall where (possible on the return leg).

User currently offlinesantos From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2007, 739 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 16619 times:

BMI also as they currently stop in PRG to refuel!
They route is actually LHR-EVN-IKA-EVN-PRG-LHR

[Edited 2011-05-20 13:45:16]

User currently offlineLH600 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 164 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 16518 times:

Why EVN-PRG?

Surely they have enough fuel with just one stop in PRG.


User currently offlineoa260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 26853 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 16449 times:

Quoting airbuseric (Reply 3):
You can't board the KLM MD11's from ATH iirc, it's just the technical stop.

Thats a shame imagine being able to get on that from ATH-AMS  


User currently offlinesantos From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2007, 739 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 16436 times:

Quoting LH600 (Reply 6):
Why EVN-PRG?

Surely they have enough fuel with just one stop in PRG



I got this info from Airline Quality reviews:
"The plane refuelled in Prague which led to us missing a connection in London"
"Our plane made unscheduled stops in Armenia and The Czech Republic to refuel to and from Tehran, without informing of this beforehand"

http://www.airlinequality.com/Forum/brit_mid_2.htm

I'm sure it's on BD website too now.


User currently offlinelhr380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 16414 times:

Quoting LH600 (Reply 6):
Why EVN-PRG?

Because they fly to EVN and have to stop there.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11615 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 15958 times:

AZ also divert their FCO-IKA flight into ESB (Ankara) each way.

OS stop in GYD on the return flight, but it's not publicised and their flight times appear as 7:00 out and 7:15 back, which makes me wonder if they are stopping both ways now.

Quoting lhr380 (Reply 9):
Because they fly to EVN and have to stop there.

EVN is the tech stop though, PRG isn't. So far as I'm aware BD don't have LHR-EVN or EVN-IKA traffic rights on the LHR-IKA route, they certainly don't ticket individual sectors on it, but they do hold separate LHR-EVN rights which they fly as a terminator flight. A stop in PRG shouldn't come into the equation for any of these, it's not a scheduled stop so obviously it had to divert for some reason that day.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinemrskyguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1214 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 15929 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 1):
Sounds like a good way to isolate your country.

Just another cog in the wheel.. Iran's been isolated for decades.



"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee." -- Gunter's 2nd Law of Air
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 14878 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 1):
Sounds like a good way to isolate your country.

That was my first thought as well. But think about it.. it's really not that strategically inane as I at first thought it was.

By not providing European airlines with fuel anymore, they eliminate the operative advantage from the European carriers who, up to that point, didn't have to make a fuel stop. Of course there's a chance the situation will escalate, and maybe have the entire Iran Air fleet banned from European skies. A step which would be answered with a complete ban of European airlines from Iran which would rid them of precious foreign exchange.

But are they really that dependent on foreign exchange? Turkey, Venezuela and Brazil are very strong trade partners with Iran and even worse, so is China. And certain North Korean industries are likely to have a very strong interest in the renmibi.

By doing this, Iran is mitigating the losses Iran Air would make as more passengers would prefer a non-stop flight as opposed to the fuel stop flights Iran Air is currently operating. But it will also increase fares for flights to Iran, impede trade and hurt the Iranian people. But not everybody loses. I would imagine that TK and EK will go out as the beneficiaries of this quarrel, as they remain unaffected by the ban.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19414 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 12956 times:

Quoting something (Reply 12):
A step which would be answered with a complete ban of European airlines from Iran which would rid them of precious foreign exchange.

Not really, it would just had the win to neutral airlines like EK, QR, and other mid-east airlines not in Iran.

But I do see the complete banning of nonstops bilaterally.


User currently offlinesantos From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2007, 739 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 12813 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 10):
So far as I'm aware BD don't have LHR-EVN or EVN-IKA traffic rights on the LHR-IKA route,

BD does have traffic rights on the LHR-EVN route, otherwise i'm not sure if a A321 would make it all the way to IKA non stop...


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11615 posts, RR: 60
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 11373 times:

Quoting santos (Reply 14):
BD does have traffic rights on the LHR-EVN route, otherwise i'm not sure if a A321 would make it all the way to IKA non stop...

It would yes, but it wouldn't still have enough juice to make it back out again to a 'friendly' airport. As an airline what you don't want to have is a plane stuck in Tehran with insufficient fuel to leave. But flying a route and having traffic rights to sell tickets on it are two different things; bmi fly LHR-EVN-LHR nine times a week but only ticket on the two flights which terminate in Yerevan and I don't believe they are allowed to pick up or set down any passengers.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10677 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
Not really, it would just had the win to neutral airlines like EK, QR, and other mid-east airlines not in Iran.

Well, if only ''neutral'' carriers were to remain viable alternatives between Europe and Iran, fares would skyrocket as only a handful of providers would get all the traffic to themselves. That would increase fares which would reduce traffic flow. Also, I believe the airlines are paying a good amount of money for landing rights, ground handling, fuel etc. Their currency is already worth next to nothing (100 000 Iranian Rial are not even 6 British Pound) and while they'd still have their ways to get their hands on money that can buy you things, strengthened sanctions and the discontinuation of this flow of money would certainly have an impact on the country.

It would also put Iran in a very fragile situation. Iran isn't many steps away from their last partners being forced to cut ties with them. Which I hope will as soon as possible be the case. But everything beyond this point belongs in another forum.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinebj87 From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8360 times:

This has been going on for a couple of weeks now. I made a thread about it a while back but it go deleted for some weird reason.

Anyhow, it is surprising it took them this long to implement this measure. I had thought they would have done this months ago when the US started pressuring European companies to not deliver to Iran Air.

I guess many airlines will have to make tech stops now because they cannot haul enough fuel for the return trip. I wonder how long this situation is going to last. Both parties involved are very stubborn so this is probably going to be a long term thing.


User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8161 times:

Quoting bj87 (Reply 17):
Both parties involved are very stubborn so this is probably going to be a long term thing.

I think ''stubborn'' is an inept vocabulary to describe the US' stance on this. Iran is a totalitarian regime that deprives its people of the most basic human rights and to bring things to an international scale, could very well soon be in possession of nuclear weapons. Apparently North Korea has already sold capable missiles to them and if anything, it should only be a matter of time until they've enriched enough uranium-235 to equip the missile's warheads with said.

Until the current regime's impeached things will only deteriorate from here on. Ahmadinejad's support may be withering, but as long as the Ayatollah's have a say in things, nothing will change. It's gonna be a long way coming.

How nice a place the world would be without religions.. one must wonder.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19414 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7500 times:

Quoting something (Reply 16):

Well, if only ''neutral'' carriers were to remain viable alternatives between Europe and Iran, fares would skyrocket as only a handful of providers would get all the traffic to themselves.

Egyptair
Emirates
Qatar
Etihad
RAM

With that much competition, I think fares will stay down.


User currently offlineSolarFlyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 990 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7211 times:

Quoting mrskyguy (Reply 11):
Just another cog in the wheel.. Iran's been isolated for decades.

The standard of living in Iran is pretty high from what I saw in the recent past. You can't drive an oil exporter into the ground economically when its $110 a barrel.

Quoting something (Reply 12):
By doing this, Iran is mitigating the losses Iran Air would make as more passengers would prefer a non-stop flight as opposed to the fuel stop flights Iran Air is currently operating. But it will also increase fares for flights to Iran, impede trade and hurt the Iranian people. But not everybody loses. I would imagine that TK and EK will go out as the beneficiaries of this quarrel, as they remain unaffected by the ban.

The national flag carrier is the real loser but I just don't think anyone cares because the planes are so old anyway. Expats fly Qatar, EK or TK. It is cheaper, better and safer. The only thing I can see the sanctions "working" on is in driving Iran Air into a marginal, unsafe and unreliable airline.

I'm surprised they did not cut off the refills sooner. No point in refueling someone else if they don't refuel yours. When you are already sanctioned that heavily, there is almost nothing left to lose anyway. They do get O&D traffic to India as well. IKA has a decent number passing through to their home country. THR does not.


User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2688 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7028 times:

IMO, Iran Air is fighting a losing battle. Eventually their entire fleet is going to be old to fly anymore...they are limited on spare parts...I'm not even sure of the youngest aircraft in their fleets. Noise restrictions, which I assume will allow for less and less tolerance overtime, are eventually probably going to prevent most of their planes from flying anywhere. I think they have already been shut out of most of Europe. The one thing I could see them having on their side is possibly oil, but the rest of the world does not need Iran for oil, at least solely right now.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11615 posts, RR: 60
Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6238 times:

Quoting Thrust (Reply 21):
Eventually their entire fleet is going to be old to fly anymore...they are limited on spare parts...I'm not even sure of the youngest aircraft in their fleets.

A 2003 produced A320-200.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
With that much competition, I think fares will stay down.

Indeed, there is a lot of competition in this market. You also have;

Pegasus
Atlasjet
Azerbaijan Airlines
Armavia
Georgian Airways
Aeroflot
Belavia
Kuwait Airways


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2688 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5458 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 22):

Just one thought....what use is that? Just one new A320 from 2000? This essentially means they have not ordered a new plane since 2003. What exactly is the average age of their fleet? I know they are flying 747s that are near or coming up on the age of 30. I also don't know how old their A300s are...are they originally built in the 1970s? As for their Fokkers, I don't know of their age either. But if I had to place an average fleet age on Iran Air from what I know, I would say it would have to be at least 20. But I'm asking if that's correct or not.

[Edited 2011-05-21 12:19:33]


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11615 posts, RR: 60
Reply 24, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4572 times:

Quoting Thrust (Reply 23):
Just one thought....what use is that? Just one new A320 from 2000? This essentially means they have not ordered a new plane since 2003. What exactly is the average age of their fleet?

Even longer in fact, I believe their last order for new aircraft were two A300-600Rs which they were allowed to buy back in 1994, and before that they were allowed to buy a handful of Fokker 100s in 1990. Aside of that everything comes to them second hand; hence the A320s have mostly come from Iberia/Vueling via a third party in central Asia and a bunch of 'new' A300-600s form Lufthansa in the same way.

You are right about the fleet age, it's an average of 21-22 years IIRC. I suppose technically they have a current large order for Tupolev aircraft to replace most of these old frames, but I'm skeptical as to whether they will ever receive them as they were only really interested in the option with Western engines... which is a no-no under sanctions. Plus Tupolev as a 'brand' of aircraft has taken a beating form the high profile crashes of Tu-154Ms, so it's unlikely public confidence would be behind them.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
25 bwaflyer : When the Iranian authorities were limiting uplifts at IKA, bmi were operating LHR-TBS/EVN/GYD-IKA, filling the tanks to max landing weight. With a fue
26 BuyantUkhaa : why not at OTP? Just checking gcmap, and via ATH it is 13.2% longer than non-stop, whereas via OTP is only 1.5% longer. Or is fuel that much cheaper
27 IslandRob : Amen. I mean, right on.
28 Fly-K : And apparently that order was only allowed as compensation for the shooting down of an Iran Air A300B by the USS Vincennes in 1988. No order of Ameri
29 Aesma : So, what's the difference with China, exactly ? Totalitarian regime : check. Deprive its people of human rights : check. Nuclear weapons : China has
30 davs5032 : The difference with China is that China doesn't wish to eliminate millions of innocent "non-believers" from the planet.
31 blueflyer : You absolutely can when that oil exporter doesn't have anywhere near enough domestic refining capabilities to meet a huge local demand. It just takes
32 wnbob : So... they are saying no to tourism... and anybody who has any business with them, "sorry mate, now it's gonna inconvinience you further to do busines
33 LuftyMatt : Good point. The main difference is the West want to trade with China, and vice versa.
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...
KLM Stops Serving Meals In European Y posted Tue Dec 11 2001 00:21:44 by Lufthansa747
US & European Merger Identities? posted Mon Jan 10 2011 12:02:27 by LhrRampRats
Crash In Northwest Iran posted Sun Jan 9 2011 09:39:11 by david_itl
European Airlines To Manila posted Fri Jan 7 2011 21:03:25 by jetblue777
Iran Air - Fuel Bans In Europe Question posted Sun Jan 2 2011 05:32:49 by Yirina77
Dassault Falcon 2000EX Sold To Iran posted Mon Dec 27 2010 00:37:35 by turbofan1960
PIA Back To Iran posted Fri Dec 24 2010 10:27:42 by 777way
Ryanair, London European And The One-Eleven posted Tue Dec 21 2010 08:40:56 by skipness1E
TP Adds 6 New European Routes. posted Mon Dec 13 2010 10:48:07 by santos
AirAsia X To Continue European Expansion In 2012 posted Thu Dec 2 2010 13:59:13 by Cassi