Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Iran Air Aquires Ex-QF 747-300s!  
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10733 posts, RR: 9
Posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 34166 times:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...s-up-three-boeing-747-300s-369994/

These three planes were aquired by Al Sayegh in 2010 for Hadj flights and as of lately still carried basic Qantas livery. They originally carried the registrations VH-EBV, -EBW and -EBY and were built in 1986/87.

120 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3615 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 33843 times:

That will be interesting, a RR powered 747 in Iran Air fleet.

User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 33682 times:

This is great news for Iran Air as they desperately need to replace their aging fleet of 30 year old Boeing 747-200's & 727's as well as Airbus A300's. I am curious however as to how Iran Air intends to purchase spare parts and customized technical publications from Boeing, in light of the existing sanctions in place. The current sanctions prohibit Boeing from providing support for Iran Air's existing Boeing 747's & 727's, so what makes Iran Air think these 747-300's are going to be any different?

Some anetters may recall last month that Iran Air's CEO Farhad Parvaresh officially announced that 50% of the airline would be sold on the Tehran stock exchange before March 19th 2012:

Iran Air CEO: We Will Become Privatized In 3 Weeks (by haveasafeflight Feb 26 2012 in Civil Aviation)

So far it appears that the planned privatization has failed to materialize and the airline remains a national asset. The timing of the acquisition of these 747-300's is interesting however as it comes within approximately 1 week of the planned date of the privatization.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8371 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 33500 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The end of the shah era 747SP's at Iran Air. Amazing how long they have been able to keep flying the 1970's 747 P & W fleet they have.

User currently onlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8363 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 33456 times:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 2):
I am curious however as to how Iran Air intends to purchase spare parts and customized technical publications from Boeing, in light of the existing sanctions in place.

The same way they get the planes in the first place? Through an intermediary third party?


User currently offlineGCPET From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2012, 204 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 33353 times:

How much price is there between a late build 743 and a used early build 744? Maybe Iran could acquire some of the old Qantas 744's in a few years?

GCPET



If it's not Boeing, I'm not going!
User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 33154 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 5):
The same way they get the planes in the first place? Through an intermediary third party?

That might work for the spare parts, but not for the technical manuals (aircraft maintenance manual, wiring diagram manual etc). Boeing does not re-sell customized manuals to third parties or intermediaries as the manuals are customized by Boeing according to the serial numbers of the airplanes and supplied only to the aircraft operator. I understand that Boeing (like airbus) keeps records of all the serial numbers and respective operators, so there is no way that a third party/intermediary could obtain such data.

So without the correct manuals how are Iran Air planning on keeping these aircraft safe to fly?

First pics of Iran Air's new bird in Tehran Airport:

http://www.iranairaviation.com/AviationDetails.aspx?ID=1191


User currently onlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8363 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 32894 times:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 7):
That might work for the spare parts, but not for the technical manuals (aircraft maintenance manual, wiring diagram manual etc). Boeing does not re-sell customized manuals to third parties or intermediaries as the manuals are customized by Boeing according to the serial numbers of the airplanes and supplied only to the aircraft operator.

I'm not familiar with this sort of thing but wouldn't the manuals accompany the airplane, wherever it goes? It would make sense that when QF sold the airplane, the manuals went with it. Isn't that how it works?


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10733 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 32818 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 8):
I'm not familiar with this sort of thing but wouldn't the manuals accompany the airplane, wherever it goes? It would make sense that when QF sold the airplane, the manuals went with it. Isn't that how it works?

It makes no sense to sell a plane without necessary paperworks/manuals. Its potentially dangerous, and I would even argue, illegal. Isnt that the reason Olympic Airways has such trouble selling their A340s?


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10733 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 32489 times:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 7):
First pics of Iran Air's new bird in Tehran Airport:

http://www.iranairaviation.com/Aviat...=1191

Interesting. Wonder why the plane carries the Samair logo, an operator with (again, ex-QF) 737s registered in Slovakia.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 10):
I kind of liked seeing these oldies still in active service. I wish they keep them alive a while longer.
Iran, it seems, has become quite handy at servicing and maintaining older aircrafts, civil and military, even despite the lack of support from the manufacturers. I know it's born from the need, but it's quite remarkable.
Any idea where they'll fly them to? Are the -100 going out?

One can only admire Iran for being able to keep the old 747s in the air with no accident. Iran Air only has one 747-100. Last photo of the plane in action is from Moscow last summer.


User currently offlineJackbr From Australia, joined Dec 2009, 666 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 32349 times:

PTVs in Y for Iran Air then?

User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 32356 times:

I freely admit to being ill-informed, but Australia publicly supports whatever UN sanctions are in force and will usually (and with embarrassment, slavishly) adopt US policy in international relations. More importantly, Australia has a treaty with the US that means that Australia must follow the US on intellectual rights and even without that requirement, obliges Australia to observe restrictions on the export of US technologies normally attached to the purchase of US goods.

This leads me to ask whether the aircraft were sold through third parties who may have turned a blind eye to the various treaties in force.


User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 30394 times:

Quoting na (Reply 9):
It makes no sense to sell a plane without necessary paperworks/manuals. Its potentially dangerous, and I would even argue, illegal. Isnt that the reason Olympic Airways has such trouble selling their A340s?

I understand that Olympic's manuals are outdated by some years.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 8):
I'm not familiar with this sort of thing but wouldn't the manuals accompany the airplane, wherever it goes?

To address your point, the manuals may very well accompany the airplane, however those manuals are valid only so long as the manufacturer, i.e. Boeing does not issue revisions. Sooner or later Boeing will issue mandatory revisions to the manuals which will make all of the previous manuals obsolete and therefore by definition unsafe for continued use.

The point I was making above was that no "front company" or intermediary will be able to obtain from Boeing the customized manuals required for the safe operation of Iran Air's 747-300's as these manuals are only ever supplied to the aircraft operator. That is a problem for Iran Air as Boeing won't sell them due to sanctions. I think this could give rise to serious safety risks if Iran Air continues to operate these airplanes without the mandatory updates to the Boeing manuals.

Forgive me for quoting myself, but if Iran Air are unable to obtain technical and maintenance manual updates from Boeing the following question needs to be asked:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 7):

So without the correct (updated) manuals how are Iran Air planning on keeping these aircraft safe to fly?


[Edited 2012-03-27 13:09:39]

User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3587 posts, RR: 29
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 30162 times:

But Iran is still flying 747SPs and 747-100s. I guess someone must update these manuals too, right? So where is the difference to newer 743s?

User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 29114 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 20):
I guess someone must update these manuals too, right?

Actually I do not believe that is the case.

The models you mention are a different case because they have been originally supplied to Iran Air by Boeing, and Iran Air have come to know these aircraft inside out over a period of 30+ years operating them. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that they don't need the latest versions of the manuals - as standard observation of air safety codes the latest manual revisions available must always be used, but the fact is that Iran Air are unable to buy them from Boeing and are probably getting by on their years of expertise with these particular models (727's as well) and observation of important service bulletins. I understand that one of the key reasons for Iran Air's Boeing fleet being blacklisted from EU airspace is because their manuals are severely outdated:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...s-on-mro-and-airworthiness-344160/
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ns-iran-air-a320s-and-747s-344095/

The 747-300 is a different ballgame however as Iran Air has no experience whatsoever in maintaining and operating this particular model and is unable to receive support from Boeing to assist with becoming acquainted with the model

As stated previously, Boeing does not sell customized manuals updates to third parties, only to the aircraft operator - so therefore it is not possible that "someone" is doing updates.


User currently offlineflylku From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 808 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 28318 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 5):
How much price is there between a late build 743 and a used early build 744? Maybe Iran could acquire some of the old Qantas 744's in a few years?

This week's Trade-APlane had a 747-200 Combi that needs heavy maintenance available for 2.5 million US. There was also a 747-400 for 25 million US. I do not recall where it was in the maintenance cycle.



...are we there yet?
User currently onlinegdg9 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 28282 times:

Quoting GCPET (Reply 6):
How much price is there between a late build 743 and a used early build 744? Maybe Iran could acquire some of the old Qantas 744's in a few years?

I'd be curious of that too.


User currently offlineJAGflyer From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 3526 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 27434 times:

Boeing issues various manuals relating to the plane's mechanical/structural being. Manuals like the aircraft maintenance manual (AMM), illustrated parts catalog (AIPC), structural repair manual, wiring diagrams, etc. The manuals are specific to the plane family (ie. the ones I deal with at my airline are for all 737NGs). However, the manuals are tailored by leasing company. We have 5-6 different AMM cds for the B737NG as we have planes owned by various leasing companies. To me, they are the same stuff but some have different components, parts from different vendors (ie. Honeywell avionics package vs. Rockwell Collins, etc). I'm guessing Iran Air will either use any manual applicable to a B747-300 they can obtain whether or not it's current.


Support the beer and soda can industry, recycle old airplanes!
User currently offlinevhtje From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2009, 373 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 27025 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 14):
I freely admit to being ill-informed, but Australia publicly supports whatever UN sanctions are in force and will usually (and with embarrassment, slavishly) adopt US policy in international relations. More importantly, Australia has a treaty with the US that means that Australia must follow the US on intellectual rights and even without that requirement, obliges Australia to observe restrictions on the export of US technologies normally attached to the purchase of US goods.

This leads me to ask whether the aircraft were sold through third parties who may have turned a blind eye to the various treaties in force.

Does QF get a say in this transaction?

Or have the aircraft already been sold by QF to some 3rd party (leasing company?) rendering QF with no say in this transaction whatsoever?


User currently offlinevaus77w From Australia, joined Aug 2011, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 26630 times:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 19):
The point I was making above was that no "front company" or intermediary will be able to obtain from Boeing the customized manuals required for the safe operation of Iran Air's 747-300's as these manuals are only ever supplied to the aircraft operator. That is a problem for Iran Air as Boeing won't sell them due to sanctions. I think this could give rise to serious safety risks if Iran Air continues to operate these airplanes without the mandatory updates to the Boeing manuals.

Forgive me for quoting myself, but if Iran Air are unable to obtain technical and maintenance manual updates from Boeing the following question needs to be asked:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 7):

So without the correct (updated) manuals how are Iran Air planning on keeping these aircraft safe to fly?

But Mahan operate 744's, wouldn't they have the same issue?


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4515 posts, RR: 18
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 26430 times:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 14):

The 747-300 is a different ballgame however as Iran Air has no experience whatsoever in maintaining and operating this particular model and is unable to receive support from Boeing to assist with becoming acquainted with the model

I defer to 747FE and other experts on this but I believe the -300 is significantly common with the -200, apart from in this case, the engines but Iran Air seems very proficient at keeping anything airworthy !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently onlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13110 posts, RR: 100
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 25276 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 1):

That will be interesting, a RR powered 747 in Iran Air fleet.

That is interesting. Iran Air knows the JT9D. The RB211 is a very different animal.

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 12):
To address your point, the manuals may very well accompany the airplane, however those manuals are valid only so long as the manufacturer, i.e. Boeing does not issue revisions.

Are there really going to be that many revisions for the 743 going forward? There is certainly risk, but for the airframe, I think Iran Air will be ok. The major risk is the engines. Which is about half the maintenance work...

Quoting flylku (Reply 15):
This week's Trade-APlane had a 747-200 Combi that needs heavy maintenance available for 2.5 million US. There was also a 747-400 for 25 million US.

A 744 in need of heavy maintenance was as low as $5million for the Air New Zealand 744 scrapped in mid-2009.


The issue would be how would Iran Air get a hold of a number of them?


Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineB747FE From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2004, 230 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 24699 times:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 6):
Boeing does not re-sell customized manuals to third parties or intermediaries as the manuals are customized by Boeing according to the serial numbers of the airplanes and supplied only to the aircraft operator.

Yes they do, although it's a very expensive service and as you said is probably not available for IR.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 7):
I'm not familiar with this sort of thing but wouldn't the manuals accompany the airplane, wherever it goes? It would make sense that when QF sold the airplane, the manuals went with it. Isn't that how it works?

That's correct!

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 13):
So where is the difference to newer 743s?

There isn't significant differences, other than some upgrades in the cockpit and systems.
Nothing special.

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 14):
The 747-300 is a different ballgame however as Iran Air has no experience whatsoever in maintaining and operating this particular model and is unable to receive support from Boeing to assist with becoming acquainted with the model

Seems to me they are very acquainted with the airframe already, having operated -100/-200 & SP for more than 30 years or so. Again, there is no significant differences between -100/200/300; SR & SP.
The power plant on the other hand is a different story.

Quoting vhtje (Reply 18):
Does QF get a say in this transaction?

No.
They were retired from service with QF and ferried to Marana January 2009 IIRC.
I believe shortly afterwards they were sold.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 21):
Are there really going to be that many revisions for the 743 going forward?

Not many that I know of.


Quoting lightsaber (Reply 21):
The major risk is the engines. Which is about half the maintenance work...

  


Regards,
B747FE.



"Flying is more than a sport and more than a job; flying is pure passion and desire, which fill a lifetime"
User currently onlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2930 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 24112 times:

Are they going to be operating these aircraft, or just using them for spares?


The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 22823 times:

Quoting vaus77w (Reply 19):
But Mahan operate 744's, wouldn't they have the same issue?

Mahan is in fact experiencing serious problems maintaining their 747-400's. It is standard practice to always only use the most recent revision of the manufactures manuals, especially the maintenance manual - so the fact that Mahan Air like Iran Air is unable to obtain these from Boeing certainly adds to their maintenance troubles. I heard a rumor recently that Mahan Air they are looking to get rid of their 747-400's - looks like they bit of more than they could chew...

Quoting B747FE (Reply 22):
Yes they do, although it's a very expensive service and as you said is probably not available for IR.

Are you suggesting that Boeing sells customized manuals to third parties? It would be interesting to see evidence of this

Quoting B747FE (Reply 22):
Seems to me they are very acquainted with the airframe already, having operated -100/-200 & SP for more than 30 years or so. Again, there is no significant differences between -100/200/300; SR & SP.
The power plant on the other hand is a different story.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 20):
I defer to 747FE and other experts on this but I believe the -300 is significantly common with the -200, apart from in this case, the engines but Iran Air seems very proficient at keeping anything airworthy !
Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 17):
I'm guessing Iran Air will either use any manual applicable to a B747-300 they can obtain whether or not it's current.

Unfortunately the above quotes miss the point I have been making which is regardless of the amount of experience an airline has operating a particular model of aircraft, it is standard good practice to always use the latest version of the manufacturers manuals. When the manufacturer issues a revision to a manual, it is mandatory to always use the latest version as critical updates need to be performed. To not do so represents a very serious risk to the safety of the aircraft. So in essence, if you don't have the latest manuals for the airplane you shouldn't be operating it.


User currently offlineRIXrat From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 789 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 22844 times:

Not to change the subject, but who issues maintenance manual updates for the F100? Fokker no longer exists, yet there are loads of them still flying around in scheduled service.

User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 26, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 22359 times:

Quoting RIXrat (Reply 25):
Not to change the subject, but who issues maintenance manual updates for the F100? Fokker no longer exists, yet there are loads of them still flying around in scheduled service.

That would be Fokker Services:

http://www.myfokkerfleet.com


Boeing offers an identical service:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/avi...ance-manuals/customer-changes.html

The difference is that Fokker Services have a long standing agreement with Iran Air and Iran Aseman Airlines (Iran's 2 largest F100 operators) to supply updates to the F100 manuals and actively do so. On the other hand as Boeing is an American company Iran Air is unable to buy from them due to the sanctions. It is possible that new sanctions may effect the fokkers at some point in the future, but for the time being they continue to receive support. Note that both Boeing and Fokker Services only supply the manuals to the registered operators of the airplanes.

Fly Safe
Ali  


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 27, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 22371 times:

Well, Iran can obtain copies of manuals and important information for their Boeing aircraft by bribing someone at a current operator of the same model far cheaper than through any other channel, IMHO, if that is even necessary.

In any case, paperwork does not make a plane safe or unsafe. AF447 crashed with all the paperwork in order as have countless planes and crews.


User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 28, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 21854 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 27):
Well, Iran can obtain copies of manuals and important information for their Boeing aircraft by bribing someone at a current operator of the same model far cheaper than through any other channel, IMHO, if that is even necessary.

I don't mean to be rude but it seems that you haven't read the information on Boeing's website:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 26):

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/avi...ance-manuals/customer-changes.html

Suggesting that bribing someone to provide manuals belonging to another airline is somehow equivalent to utilizing customized manuals designed specifically by Boeing to the exact specifications of each aircraft serial number is pure fantasy. There are simply too many permutations involved in the different customer specifications, configurations and materials, not to mention maintenance, overhaul and upgrade history to make another airlines aircrafts 100% identical. In my opinion any deviation from the exact maintenance specifications ascribed to a particular airplane serial number in the manufacturers manuals, invariably increases the margin of a safety risk.

I am not suggesting that the paperwork in and of itself makes an airplane safe or unsafe. The paperwork is simply a medium by which the manufacturers share information with the operators on how best to maintain their airplanes for safe operation. It is the APPLICATION or NON-APPLICATION of THIS INFORMATION amongst other things that effects the relative safety of an airplane.

If for any reason an operator is unable to obtain updated maintenance information from the manufacturer (i.e. Iran Air and Boeing), and continues to operate the airplane, then those airplanes are not as safe as they could be, relative to aircraft which have updated their maintenance procedures according to the manufacturers latest recommendations. I believe that the manufacturer knows best when it comes to maintaining the aircraft - they built it after all.


User currently offlinelollomz From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 268 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 21361 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 6):
First pics of Iran Air's new bird in Tehran Airport:

http://www.iranairaviation.com/Aviat...=1191

I can't see the link.... can you please post a picture? Thanks.


User currently offlinepenguins From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 337 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 21209 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 27):
In any case, paperwork does not make a plane safe or unsafe. AF447 crashed with all the paperwork in order as have countless planes and crews.

I think that is irrevalent. Think off all the plane crashes over the years and I bet you that 99% of them had proper paperwork and crew training for the day's standards.

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 23):
Are they going to be operating these aircraft, or just using them for spares?

Exactly, because the 747-100,200,300,SP and SR are almost the same, may be the engines don't matter and they need the rest of the plane as spare for their SP's, 200's, 100's (still around?).


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10733 posts, RR: 9
Reply 31, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 21125 times:

Quoting penguins (Reply 30):
Exactly, because the 747-100,200,300,SP and SR are almost the same, may be the engines don't matter and they need the rest of the plane as spare for their SP's, 200's, 100's (still around?).

Possible, even likely, as I think the mileage (Flight hours/cycles) of Iran Airs older 747s might actually be lower than that of these almost 10 years younger ex-QF-birds which must have covered 100.000 hours at least. And they know their own birds better anyway from 35 years working on them. These QF 747s could stretch the lifes of the SPs, 742s and 741 for a few years more. And they get better seats now to upgrade the cabins!


User currently offlineJAGflyer From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 3526 posts, RR: 4
Reply 32, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 20940 times:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 26):

LOL MyFokkerFleet. Sounds like a complete rip of MyBoeingFleet. I use MBF daily (I am an admin for my airline) and it's truly remarkable what kind of information is accessible via that website.



Support the beer and soda can industry, recycle old airplanes!
User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 33, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 20884 times:

Quoting lollomz (Reply 29):

I can't see the link.... can you please post a picture? Thanks.

Here you go  
Iran Air Boeing 747-300 Tehran Mehrabad Airport


Quoting Spacepope (Reply 23):
Are they going to be operating these aircraft, or just using them for spares?

That's an interesting question, does anyone have a definitive answer?


User currently offlinechieft From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 357 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 20776 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I guess they will operate it as the spare part possibilities are very limited.
Especially the RR engines are useless for them as they have never operated this type of engines.



Aircraft are marginal costs with wings.
User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 35, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 20575 times:

Quoting chieft (Reply 34):
I guess they will operate it as the spare part possibilities are very limited.
Especially the RR engines are useless for them as they have never operated this type of engines.

If Iran Air are in fact planning on operating these, why didn't they just buy aircraft with lower hours/cycles?

as na said:

Quoting na (Reply 31):
I think the mileage (Flight hours/cycles) of Iran Airs older 747s might actually be lower than that of these almost 10 years younger ex-QF-birds which must have covered 100.000 hours at least. And they know their own birds better anyway from 35 years working on them. These QF 747s could stretch the lifes of the SPs, 742s and 741 for a few years more.

So if Iran Air's existing 747's have a lower number of flight hours/cycles, what was the point in buying these -300's? Surely they could have purchased similar airplanes with a significantly lower number of flight hours or as other posters have mentioned possibly even 747-400's? This is strange   


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10733 posts, RR: 9
Reply 36, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 20464 times:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 35):
If Iran Air are in fact planning on operating these, why didn't they just buy aircraft with lower hours/cycles?

Its very hard for Iran Air to source aircraft.

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 35):
So if Iran Air's existing 747's have a lower number of flight hours/cycles, what was the point in buying these -300's? Surely they could have purchased similar airplanes with a significantly lower number of flight hours or as other posters have mentioned possibly even 747-400's? This is strange

I bet Iran Air would love to buy a handful of fairly used 744s if the only could.


User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 37, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 20207 times:

Quoting na (Reply 36):
Its very hard for Iran Air to source aircraft.

Fair enough...It just seems odd for them to have bought airplanes that have a potentially shorter operational lifespan than their existing 747-100/200/SP's.

I'm still undecided on this, i.e. whether Iran Air plans to operate these or scrap them for spare parts...? Time will tell I guess.


User currently offlinelollomz From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 268 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 19993 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 33):

Thank you for the pictures, here are two more with the Burkina Faso registrations:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Boein...d=3be5d353826f6b5578a41a9d5b3eed79

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Boein...d=a9df2538100662f07d7d3549c42d1ae0


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 19769 times:

Saudia's 743s are RR powered so there is some expertise of the type in the region


it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineAA909 From Australia, joined Jan 2012, 18 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 19560 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 39):

Saudia's 743s are RR powered so there is some expertise of the type in the region

Saudi Arabia and Iran may be geographically close, but that's about where the closeness ends ... so this is pretty irrelevant, no offense intended.

[Edited 2012-03-28 06:20:58]

User currently onlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2930 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 19527 times:

Quoting chieft (Reply 34):
I guess they will operate it as the spare part possibilities are very limited.
Especially the RR engines are useless for them as they have never operated this type of engines.

True, but unless they got a bunch of RR spares from somewhere, they're going to need to cannibalize 1 maybe 2 aircraft to keep the third oddball alive and running. Right now with no extra engines, one engine failure will ground a whole aircraft indefinitely.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 42, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 19349 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 41):

True, but unless they got a bunch of RR spares from somewhere, they're going to need to cannibalize 1 maybe 2 aircraft to keep the third oddball alive and running. Right now with no extra engines, one engine failure will ground a whole aircraft indefinitely

Any thoughts on why they didn't purchase P&W equipped 747's to maintain continuity with their existing fleet?


User currently offlineairbuseric From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 4269 posts, RR: 51
Reply 43, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 19368 times:

S5-SAW is already having maintenance at IKA, this is ex VH-EBW


"The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going"
User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 44, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 19006 times:

Quoting airbuseric (Reply 43):
S5-SAW is already having maintenance at IKA, this is ex VH-EBW

OK that suggests that they will operate them. Still the RR engines are likely to prove challenging from an overhaul / maintenance point of view. Surely it would have made more sense to go for P&W equipped aircraft?


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10733 posts, RR: 9
Reply 45, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 18601 times:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 44):
OK that suggests that they will operate them. Still the RR engines are likely to prove challenging from an overhaul / maintenance point of view. Surely it would have made more sense to go for P&W equipped aircraft?

If they could have find one, yes! I bet they have searched a lot.


User currently offlineKFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 18097 times:

IIRC, a fairly old 744 now trades for around USD15m.. This seems to be the average price for 85-90 vintage, but I could be wrong too..


The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10733 posts, RR: 9
Reply 47, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 18078 times:

Quoting KFlyer (Reply 46):
IIRC, a fairly old 744 now trades for around USD15m.. This seems to be the average price for 85-90 vintage, but I could be wrong too..

You wouldnt find a 1985 744 for a billion as the first five or so were built in 1988! But for a 1990-built one you are about right with your pricetag.


User currently onlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2930 posts, RR: 1
Reply 48, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 17994 times:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 42):
Any thoughts on why they didn't purchase P&W equipped 747's to maintain continuity with their existing fleet?

No idea, but that's a very good question. We'll just have to see how this plays out. Are there any PW non-freighters available on the market? I know NW bought up the former Swissair ones just for their engines back in the day, the airframes were scrapped.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 49, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 17898 times:

Would it be economically feasible for Iran Air to convert these from the RR equipped engines to GE CF6-50E2's as used by Mahan Air on their 747-300's? It sure would make a lot more sense for the Iranian carriers to be using common engine types.

Just came across the following blog, apparently Iran Air is planning to phase out it's only 747-100: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran-...d=f03f78b219bb5a34cbd3caef65227d04 and two of it's 747-200's: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran-...d=a374ebc502c376d84200a5ae3f0645be
and replace them with their newly acquired 747-300's:

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flying...nizes-its-fleet-despite-sanctions/

I along with others believe that these 747-300's have a significantly higher number of flight hours/cycles than the aircraft they are replacing:

Quoting na (Reply 31):
I think the mileage (Flight hours/cycles) of Iran Airs older 747s might actually be lower than that of these almost 10 years younger ex-QF-birds which must have covered 100.000 hours at least. And they know their own birds better anyway from 35 years working on them. These QF 747s could stretch the lifes of the SPs, 742s and 741 for a few years more.

So if this is in fact the case, where is the logic in purchasing replacement aircraft with shorter lifespans than the aircraft they are replacing?


User currently offlineSXDFC From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 2349 posts, RR: 21
Reply 50, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 17815 times:

I remember reading somewhere that IR can lease airplanes despite the sanctions, however they prefer to own their planes so that they could do the MX work on them. Can anyone confirm?


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently onlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2930 posts, RR: 1
Reply 51, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 17834 times:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 49):
So if this is in fact the case, where is the logic in purchasing replacement aircraft with shorter lifespans than the aircraft they are replacing?

One other possibility is that they need the -100 and -200s as spares sources for the 747 tankers used by the air force.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 52, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 17751 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 51):
One other possibility is that they need the -100 and -200s as spares sources for the 747 tankers used by the air force.

That's not beyond the realms of probability, but still doesn't explain why they bought 26 year old aircraft with fewer remaining cycles than the aircraft they are intended to replace! Surely they could have sourced younger examples or at least airplanes with considerably lower cycles than their existing 747-100/200's?


User currently offlineIR800 From Iran, joined May 2009, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 16870 times:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 24):
Mahan is in fact experiencing serious problems maintaining their 747-400's...
I heard a rumor recently that Mahan Air they are looking to get rid of their 747-400's - looks like they bit of more than they could chew...

Not much relevant to the topic, but their problem is embargo, not maintenance.

Anyway, IR (and other Iranian airlines) don't have so many choices, say, to buy younger P&W powered 400s with lower number of cycles and hours. Even these oldies have taken much effort to come to Iran.

[Edited 2012-03-29 11:37:12]

User currently offlinerdh3e From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1672 posts, RR: 3
Reply 54, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 16584 times:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 24):
it is standard good practice to always use the latest version of the manufacturers manuals.
Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 24):
To not do so represents a very serious risk to the safety of the aircraft

I know in one of your posts you said that boeing tailors every manual specific to serial number. But how different are the manuals really? I mean to the point where there is a significant variance. And really, at this age how much are they changing ?

Sheer curiosity, as I would just assume they probably just photocopy somebody else's manuals for a similarly optioned airplane.


User currently offlineJAGflyer From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 3526 posts, RR: 4
Reply 55, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 16516 times:

Quoting rdh3e (Reply 54):

The manuals are specific to the operator/leasing company. For example, my airline has a fleet of 23 planes all leased from 4-5 different companies (regardless of being first or third tier lease). The main manuals (AMM, AIPC, FIM, FRM, SDS, WDM) are all tailored to the different leasing companies with some parts being specific to variant/line numbers. Generally speaking, a B737-800 is a B737-800 however some have different configurations (avionics, modifications, etc) due to the leasing company ordering the plane with specific specs. I guess you could compare it to a Honda Civic DX and a Honda Civic EX-L. Same car, same parts, however some have different engines, seats, electronics, suspension, etc.



Support the beer and soda can industry, recycle old airplanes!
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7605 posts, RR: 3
Reply 56, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 16483 times:

I suspect Iran Air will to take what they can get.

No point ringing Boeing.


User currently offlineB747FE From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2004, 230 posts, RR: 4
Reply 57, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 16324 times:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 24):
Are you suggesting that Boeing sells customized manuals to third parties?

Embargo issues aside off course, Boeing could provide manual update services to the current owner of those airframes provided the owner pays the fees.
Been there, done that while I was still working in engineering.

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 24):
it is standard good practice to always use the latest version of the manufacturers manuals.

That's correct.

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 24):
When the manufacturer issues a revision to a manual, it is mandatory to always use the latest version as critical updates need to be performed. To not do so represents a very serious risk to the safety of the aircraft. So in essence, if you don't have the latest manuals for the airplane you shouldn't be operating it.

Let's not make a mystery about the manuals. Obviously they have been getting updates for their manuals and SB's for their current fleet, after all it's not exactly ''classified material''

Quoting rdh3e (Reply 54):
And really, at this age how much are they changing ?

Not much.
All mods, airframe & power plant, were done and properly documented by QF.

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 51):
One other possibility is that they need the -100 and -200s as spares sources for the 747 tankers used by the air force.

Perhaps.
I don't remember issues with the airframes, but several of the engines mounted on them at the time of retirement from QF were getting short on cycles and under very frequent repetitive inspections.
And as lightsaber correctly said:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 21):
The major risk is the engines. Which is about half the maintenance work...

Regards,
B747FE.



"Flying is more than a sport and more than a job; flying is pure passion and desire, which fill a lifetime"
User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 58, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 15494 times:

Quoting IR800 (Reply 53):
Not much relevant to the topic, but their problem is embargo, not maintenance.

You need to understand that the maintenance troubles experienced by Iranian airlines are inextricably linked with the embargoes i.e. cause and effect. It's always going to be more difficult to maintain aircraft to the latest safety standards when you are restricted from receiving support from the aircraft manufacturer. Just look at the EU's blacklisting of Iran Air's 747's on safety grounds as an example of this:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...s-on-mro-and-airworthiness-344160/

Quoting rdh3e (Reply 54):

I know in one of your posts you said that boeing tailors every manual specific to serial number. But how different are the manuals really?

The manuals are different insofar as the specifications / characteristics of the individual aircraft serial numbers. This is what Boeing has to say on their website brochure:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/avi...vices/brochures/CustChangeCARD.pdf

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/avi...ance-manuals/customer-changes.html

"Many Boeing maintenance documents are “customized” – which means that these manuals contain information tailored to specific aircraft tail numbers. Boeing provides for the incorporation of customer-originated changes into the following customized manuals: AMM, BCLM, FIM, FRM, PPBU, Task Cards, SSM/WDM, and IPC. This service is offered as a convenience to our customers to provide a means of publishing document changes unique to a particular
customer".

So if an operator wishes to remain aligned with the manufacturers latest aircraft safety standards, customized manuals are really the way to go.

Quoting B747FE (Reply 22):
Yes they do, although it's a very expensive service and as you said is probably not available for IR.

For sure this Boeing service is not cheap and is a real cash cow for the folks in Seattle.

Quoting B747FE (Reply 57):
Let's not make a mystery about the manuals. Obviously they have been getting updates for their manuals and SB's for their current fleet, after all it's not exactly ''classified material''

SB's maybe as they are generic in nature (i.e. issued to an entire model type - not specific serial numbers like customized updates) but with regard to the aircraft manuals, are you saying that Iran Air is receiving customized updates from Boeing?

Quoting rdh3e (Reply 54):
Sheer curiosity, as I would just assume they probably just photocopy somebody else's manuals for a similarly optioned airplane.

To avoid repetition of previous comments, I'll sum up with saying that airplane manuals customized according to the particular airplane serial number(s) by the manufacturer (Boeing, Airbus or whoever) are the equivalent to a tailor made suit - they are made to exact and precise specifications according to the latest safety standards and recommendations for those particular airplanes. There is nothing inherently wrong with an "off the rack" (i.e manuals photocopied from another operator with similar aircraft) but a bespoke solution, built to match specific criteria is far superior.

So to conclude my point, if all of Iran Air's existing 747's have already been blacklisted from EU airspace on safety grounds due to Iran Air's deficiencies with safety-related maintenance, what makes these 747-300's any different? If their "new" 747-300's (which are actually 26 years old) actually manage to gain EU airspace approval isn't it simply a matter of time before they too become a victim of these deficiencies?


User currently offlinea300 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 15162 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 51):
One other possibility is that they need the -100 and -200s as spares sources for the 747 tankers used by the air force.

I doubt that. The air force's 100s have very low hours on them despite that there are very early 1970s vintage (one was actually built in 1969)! It seems that the air force has already parted out an ex-Iraqi 747-200 and a couple of their old 100s for parts. That said, the overhauls are done at the same outfit that does work for Iran Air and Mahan. The latter has also brought a couple of old 747s for parts.



Boland Aseman Jayegah Man Ast.
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7605 posts, RR: 3
Reply 60, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 14941 times:

So which ones have been parted out so far?.

User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12466 posts, RR: 37
Reply 61, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 14958 times:

Just a question that comes to mind about these aircraft; if they were sourced and obtained illegally, i.e. in contravention of international (not just US) sanctions, could they be impounded if they flew outside Iran, e.g. to the EU?

Leaving aside the issue of political sanctions, there is also the issue of airworthiness; if they don't have the correct manuals, there are probably other issues which cause cause them to fail ad-hoc inspections by European airworthiness authorities.


User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 62, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 14672 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 61):
Leaving aside the issue of political sanctions, there is also the issue of airworthiness; if they don't have the correct manuals, there are probably other issues which cause cause them to fail ad-hoc inspections by European airworthiness authorities.

You hit the nail on the head. I think there is a real risk of these airplanes winding up blacklisted alongside Iran Air's older vintage 747's as a result of the safety-related maintenance deficiencies identified by the EU. Time will tell I guess.


User currently offlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2995 posts, RR: 7
Reply 63, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 14581 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kaitak (Reply 61):

Just a question that comes to mind about these aircraft; if they were sourced and obtained illegally, i.e. in contravention of international (not just US) sanctions, could they be impounded if they flew outside Iran, e.g. to the EU?

Leaving aside the issue of political sanctions, there is also the issue of airworthiness; if they don't have the correct manuals, there are probably other issues which cause cause them to fail ad-hoc inspections by European airworthiness authorities.

The answer to that is yes they could be seized by bailiffs acting on behalf of the USA or EU.
Mahran lost a few B744 they were scheduled to get via Blue Sky already.

These won't be seen in Europe any time soon and if any of them does enter service they will be deployed within the Mid East and to Beijing only.

Iranian sanctions are now the strongest and most crippling ever imposed as Iranian banks and credit lines are near completely frozen with EU and US financial organisations.
This cuts far deeper than any industry related sanctions or travel restrictions imposed on specified regime individuals.

Its really is only a matter of time before Iranair are unable to operate into the EU at all because they are unable to collect the fares or pay for any services.


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10733 posts, RR: 9
Reply 64, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 14520 times:

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 63):
The answer to that is yes they could be seized by bailiffs acting on behalf of the USA or EU.
Mahran lost a few B744 they were scheduled to get via Blue Sky already.

A shame that one of those that didnt reach Iran has been scrapped because of the sanctions already.


User currently offlinerb211-524h From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 54 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 14385 times:

Quoting AA909 (Reply 40):
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 39):

Saudia's 743s are RR powered so there is some expertise of the type in the region

Saudi Arabia and Iran may be geographically close, but that's about where the closeness ends ... so this is pretty irrelevant, no offense intended.

But Pakistan has a number of 747-300s with RR engines (ex-CX birds) so I'm guessing they can get the manuals and expertise from there?


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12466 posts, RR: 37
Reply 66, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 14347 times:

Quoting rb211-524h (Reply 65):
But Pakistan has a number of 747-300s with RR engines (ex-CX birds) so I'm guessing they can get the manuals and expertise from there?

But why would PIA risk this?

Looks like the vice on Iran is going to keep tightening; Iran Air is probably going to hobble on as best they can, but it is hard to know how they can carry out the kind of heavy maintenance checks that these aircraft need; could they, if they needed to, carry out C and/or D checks without any involvement from Boeing? Would IR be copied in any ADs - very doubtful, I would think.

I do have some sympathy for IR itself, though certainly not for the Iranian government. I guess the best that can be said is that the strength of the sanctions is going to push Iran towards revolution and backlash against the authorities. How long this will take, given the known repressiveness of the regime, is not possible to predict, but it's hard to see how Iran can continue to function in the medium to long term in the face of these sanctions.


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10895 posts, RR: 37
Reply 67, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 14397 times:

Welcome the new 747-300s to the Iran Air fleet. I hope they will do some good years of service for the airline.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 3):
The end of the shah era 747SP's

I would very much like to be "Last to Fly" the Iran Air 747SP.

Any idea how to find out what will be the last flight? Is there any email where I can contact the airline management or flight ops?

The last Singapore Airlines 747-400 flight will be a HKG-SIN this coming friday. I have many friends on board SQ748 and SQ747 special flights.

I would like to do the same with Iran Air when they will last fly their 747SP. It's a no-brainer as I don't need a visa to enter Iran.

Any suggestions and ideas most welcome. I hope others will take interest to be on the IR 747-SP last flight.

  



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 68, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 14132 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 66):

But why would PIA risk this?

I totally agree. What would PIA's upside be that would outweigh the risks of violating the sanctions against Iran Air?

Unlike Iran Air, PIA maintains active relations with Boeing and Airbus (they currently have a number of 777-300ER's on order) so it just wouldn't make sense for them to take this risk to violate the sanctions.

[Edited 2012-04-03 10:22:28]

User currently offlinesolarflyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 1082 posts, RR: 3
Reply 69, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 13960 times:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 24):
if you don't have the latest manuals for the airplane you shouldn't be operating it.

Ideally yes, but in Africa and Iran this probably happens fairly often.

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 28):
In my opinion any deviation from the exact maintenance specifications ascribed to a particular airplane serial number in the manufacturers manuals, invariably increases the margin of a safety risk.

Yes it does. And one of these 747s might go down because of it.

Quoting SXDFC (Reply 50):
I remember reading somewhere that IR can lease airplanes despite the sanctions, however they prefer to own their planes so that they could do the MX work on them. Can anyone confirm?

I can confirm that they cannot. Anyone that does is violating the sanctions and cannot do business with the US and may be brought up on charges here.

I have read the Treasury sanctions and you cannot sign any contract with an Iranian entity, you can send or receive money, you cannot "invest" new money with an Iranian entity. You can however ask for an exemption/1 time license.

I would be interested to see if they would grant a license to transfer money/manuals in the interest of air safety and civilian life. Knowing the US government, that answer almost certainly is a no. Very unfortunate in my opinion.


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10895 posts, RR: 37
Reply 70, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 13937 times:

The UAE/Dubai want to keep trading with Iran despite the sanctions so I suppose that they will be able to provide spare parts and maintenance to Iran Air for their new 747s.

Quote:
The comments reflect the UAE's aim to continue legitimate trade with its near neighbour even as global sanctions tighten.
While the UAE is not an oil importer, it does still have close links through trade of other goods. Bi-lateral trade between the UAE and Iran is worth about Dh50 billion (US$13.61bn) a year.

http://www.thenational.ae/business/e...t-for-waivers-on-iranian-sanctions

  



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 71, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 13616 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 39):
Saudia's 743s are RR powered so there is some expertise of the type in the region
Quoting AA909 (Reply 40):
Saudi Arabia and Iran may be geographically close, but that's about where the closeness ends ... so this is pretty irrelevant, no offense intended.

Looks like Saudia is phasing it's 747-300's out to be replaced with 777-300ER's, so not sure how much assistance they could provide. However like PIA, they would have no upside that could possibly compensate for the consequences they would face if they were to violate the sanctions in place against Iran Air:

Saudi 747-300 Scrapped - Walnut Ridge Arkansas USA (by my1le Apr 3 2012 in Civil Aviation)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian_Airlines


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 13429 times:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 71):
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 39):
Saudia's 743s are RR powered so there is some expertise of the type in the region
Quoting AA909 (Reply 40):
Saudi Arabia and Iran may be geographically close, but that's about where the closeness ends ... so this is pretty irrelevant, no offense intended.

Looks like Saudia is phasing it's 747-300's out to be replaced with 777-300ER's, so not sure how much assistance they could provide. However like PIA, they would have no upside that could possibly compensate for the consequences they would face if they were to violate the sanctions in place against Iran Air:

Saudi 747-300 Scrapped - Walnut Ridge Arkansas USA (by my1le Apr 3 2012 in Civil Aviation)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_A...lines

Any assistance wouldn't be official, there must be a massive market in secret parts and assistance.

I'm sure Saudi Arabia wouldn't give Iran help anyway, but what sanctions could the West realistically invoke anyway? Stop buying their oil?



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2995 posts, RR: 7
Reply 73, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 13369 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Saudi are NO friends of the Iranian Regimes or Shia's (look at Bahrain) in general
They are a leading advocate of the sanctions.
No help will come from Riyadh

Pakistan is more cordial with Tehran than they are with the western powers. Plenty in the ruling elite are actually hostile !

PIA are operating under restrictions for Mx problems as well


User currently offlineIR800 From Iran, joined May 2009, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13174 times:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 58):
You need to understand that the maintenance troubles experienced by Iranian airlines are inextricably linked with the embargoes i.e. cause and effect.

Right. But I mean that their problem is directly linked to embargo. AFAIK a British court adjudicated on their confiscation because of the violation of sanctions.


User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 75, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13158 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 72):
Any assistance wouldn't be official, there must be a massive market in secret parts and assistance.



When they can't but directly from Boeing & Airbus it is inevitable that spares will be obtained from "unofficial" sources - that's nothing new.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 72):
what sanctions could the West realistically invoke anyway? Stop buying their oil?

On what possible grounds would Saudi Arabia be prepared to violate sanctions and possibly risk upsetting it's cosy relationship with the US to support a few burnt out 747-300's that Iran Air has purchased? It's a no-brainer that the risks are just too high, even if they wanted to help, which like you I seriously doubt. On top of all that, let's not forget that Saudia is itself in the process of phasing out it's 747-300's by the end of 2012, so even in the extremely unlikely case that they were prepared to support these airplanes, it would only be a short term solution leaving Iran Air with a serious headache for the long term in terms of maintenance support.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 67):
I would very much like to be "Last to Fly" the Iran Air 747SP.

Any idea how to find out what will be the last flight? Is there any email where I can contact the airline management or flight ops?

Can we really be sure just yet that Iran Air actually intends to replace their existing 747's with these newly acquired 747-300's which in-fact have a higher number of cycles?

Quoting na (Reply 31):

Possible, even likely, as I think the mileage (Flight hours/cycles) of Iran Airs older 747s might actually be lower than that of these almost 10 years younger ex-QF-birds which must have covered 100.000 hours at least. And they know their own birds better anyway from 35 years working on them. These QF 747s could stretch the lifes of the SPs, 742s and 741 for a few years more. And they get better seats now to upgrade the cabins!

Where is the logic in Iran Air purchasing replacement aircraft with higher utilization cycles than the aircraft they are supposed to replace?


User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 76, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 12538 times:

Iran Air's Public Relations Manager, Shahrokh Noushabadi, recently denied that Iran Air has purchased these airplanes:

http://isna.ir/en/news/91011502520/I...es-reports-on-buying-Boeing-planes

Go figure...


User currently offlinefly707 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 350 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 12414 times:

Why they don't buy new Boeing or Airbus ??


Without mistakes we will never learn
User currently offlineFRAspotter From United States of America, joined May 2004, 2351 posts, RR: 9
Reply 78, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 12396 times:

Quoting fly707 (Reply 77):
Why they don't buy new Boeing or Airbus ??

You're kidding right? They can't buy new (or even used) directly from the US or other allied countries due to the trade embargo's already in place. That's what the previous 76 posts were getting at.



"Drunks run stop signs. Stoners wait for them to turn green."
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26487 posts, RR: 75
Reply 79, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 11965 times:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 2):
The current sanctions prohibit Boeing from providing support for Iran Air's existing Boeing 747's & 727's, so what makes Iran Air think these 747-300's are going to be any different?

Yep. And IR has kept those airplanes in admirable condition.

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 6):
So without the correct manuals how are Iran Air planning on keeping these aircraft safe to fly?

Iran Air has kept a lot of aircraft safe to fly for a long time.

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 14):
The 747-300 is a different ballgame however as Iran Air has no experience whatsoever in maintaining and operating this particular model and is unable to receive support from Boeing to assist with becoming acquainted with the model

Lots of commonality with the -200, which IR has been operating for close to 40 years.

Quoting vaus77w (Reply 19):
But Mahan operate 744's, wouldn't they have the same issue?

AFAIK, those were leased. Sort of like the A320s.

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 23):

Are they going to be operating these aircraft, or just using them for spares?

Almost certainly operate.

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 42):
Any thoughts on why they didn't purchase P&W equipped 747's to maintain continuity with their existing fleet?

Availability.

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 49):
So if this is in fact the case, where is the logic in purchasing replacement aircraft with shorter lifespans than the aircraft they are replacing?

Well, remember that the QF aircraft are high hours but probably lower cycles, because of the nature of QF's operation. IR needs the cycles more than the hours, as their flights aren't that long.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 66):

But why would PIA risk this?

Its not really a risk.

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 68):
What would PIA's upside be that would outweigh the risks of violating the sanctions against Iran Air?

I don't think PIA cares, as long as they get paid.

Quoting fly707 (Reply 77):
Why they don't buy new Boeing or Airbus ??

Because of the stupidity of multiple governments. When they are able to order planes, it will almost certainly be Boeing.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 80, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 11800 times:

Quoting FRAspotter (Reply 78):
They can't buy new (or even used) directly from the US or other allied countries due to the trade embargo's already in place.

Exactly. Interestingly the head of Iran's CAO, Reza Nakhjavani, recently announced that the country's entire fleet is going to be replaced - I'll believe it when I see it:

Iran Fleet To Be Replaced Or Lifespan Extended? (by haveasafeflight Apr 16 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting N1120A (Reply 79):
I don't think PIA cares, as long as they get paid.

I'm not sure about that. PIA has long standing relationships with Boeing and Airbus (amongst others) and has outstanding orders with Boeing for 777-300ER's so I'm really not sure that they would be able to flagrantly violate US sanctions and "get away with it" without repercussions. In my opinion the repercussions far outweigh any upside they would see from providing manuals for these airplanes. If we were talking about millions of dollars, that may possibly be a tempting proposition for PIA, but I don't really think that they can command that sort of money for photocopied manuals, especially since they aren't even customized for Iran Air's Airplanes.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know roughly how much Boeing charges for it's customized documentation service, where it customizes all the documents to the individual airplane serial numbers for the entire fleet of the airline?


User currently offline9MMPQ From Netherlands, joined Nov 2011, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11500 times:

Who says IR doesn't have the manuals ? Any aircraft that is sold is accompanied by its manuals, maintenance logs etc etc etc. Any sale without such documents would be a major headache for all parties involved. Knowing QF i'm sure whichever party bought these birds from them was provided with all the documentation there was. I'd highly doubt the documentation wouldn't have accompanied these birds to Iran. Besides, i doubt IR is such a hack operation saying ''Sure, we'll take those planes & figure everything out ourselves''  .. Those people will have made the effort to ensure safe operations as best they can.

Plus manuals are hardly classified material. A lot of people in maintenance & engineering have easy access & in this day & age a lot of it has been digitized. Know someone in maintenance & engineering ? Chances are they'll be able to provide you with a lot of things. Heck, even I've seen some manuals just because people had an extended interest in systems after getting down with more detailed aircraft in FS2004  .. and i have nothing to do with maintenance & engineering whatsoever. Now such things maybe won't be 100% specific for your particular aircraft & needs but i'm pretty sure you'd be able to go a long way with that.

[Edited 2012-04-18 10:52:24]


I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.
User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 82, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 11190 times:

Quoting 9MMPQ (Reply 81):
Who says IR doesn't have the manuals ?

As far as I am aware no one has suggested during the course of this thread that Iran Air doesn't have manuals for these airplanes.

Quoting 9MMPQ (Reply 81):
Plus manuals are hardly classified material. A lot of people in maintenance & engineering have easy access & in this day & age a lot of it has been digitized.

I don't mean to be rude, but it appears that you have either misunderstood or not read what has actually been said relating to these manuals during the course of this thread. The issue here is that of the customized updates to the manuals to ensure the continued safe operation of the aircraft to which they relate. We all know that Iran Air can't buy anything from Boeing because of sanctions, so that raises serious concerns about Iran Air's ability to maintain these airplanes to the manufacturers latest safety standards, as outlined in the customized manual updates. Now, if Iran Air could receive updated customized manuals from Boeing this wouldn't be an issue, but unfortunately they can't and in my mind that raises questions about the safety of these airplanes RELATIVE to similar airplanes belonging to operators that continue to receive direct support from Boeing.

Forgive me for quoting myself, but it's worth re-touching on what has been said regarding the manuals, instead of what hasn't:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 12):

To address your point, the manuals may very well accompany the airplane, however those manuals are valid only so long as the manufacturer, i.e. Boeing does not issue revisions. Sooner or later Boeing will issue mandatory revisions to the manuals which will make all of the previous manuals obsolete and therefore by definition unsafe for continued use.
Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 12):
The point I was making above was that no "front company" or intermediary will be able to obtain from Boeing the customized manuals required for the safe operation of Iran Air's 747-300's as these manuals are only ever supplied to the aircraft operator. That is a problem for Iran Air as Boeing won't sell them due to sanctions. I think this could give rise to serious safety risks if Iran Air continues to operate these airplanes without the mandatory updates to the Boeing manuals.
Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 28):
Suggesting that bribing someone to provide manuals belonging to another airline is somehow equivalent to utilizing customized manuals designed specifically by Boeing to the exact specifications of each aircraft serial number is pure fantasy. There are simply too many permutations involved in the different customer specifications, configurations and materials, not to mention maintenance, overhaul and upgrade history to make another airlines aircrafts 100% identical. In my opinion any deviation from the exact maintenance specifications ascribed to a particular airplane serial number in the manufacturers manuals, invariably increases the margin of a safety risk.

I am not suggesting that the paperwork in and of itself makes an airplane safe or unsafe. The paperwork is simply a medium by which the manufacturers share information with the operators on how best to maintain their airplanes for safe operation. It is the APPLICATION or NON-APPLICATION of THIS INFORMATION amongst other things that effects the relative safety of an airplane.

If for any reason an operator is unable to obtain updated maintenance information from the manufacturer (i.e. Iran Air and Boeing), and continues to operate the airplane, then those airplanes are not as safe as they could be, relative to aircraft which have updated their maintenance procedures according to the manufacturers latest recommendations. I believe that the manufacturer knows best when it comes to maintaining the aircraft - they built it after all.

Lastly, for anyone thinking that the maintenance of these airplanes will fit snugly along side Iran Air's 747-100/200 & SP's we need to bear in mind that Iran Air has zero experience in operating the 747-300 variant, and on top of that, again has zero experience with the Rolls-Royce RB211 engine. Far from ideal when they are prevented from working with both Boeing and Rolls-Royce.

Here's what Boeing has to say:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/avi...ance-manuals/customer-changes.html


User currently offlinechieft From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 357 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11056 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 82):
Lastly, for anyone thinking that the maintenance of these airplanes will fit snugly along side Iran Air's 747-100/200 & SP's we need to bear in mind that Iran Air has zero experience in operating the 747-300 variant, and on top of that, again has zero experience with the Rolls-Royce RB211 engine. Far from ideal when they are prevented from working with both Boeing and Rolls-Royce.

I think that is exactly the point! Thanks!

The engines could become the weakest point: No experience, no parts. They must build up a complete new spares stock for the engines.

Technically the -300 is basically a -200 with extended upper deck and higher MTOW.

Boeing writes:

747-300 - Moving Forward With Significant Changes

The 747-300 entered commercial service in 1983, and was the first to integrate the most significant changes of the 747 Classics. These changes included an extended upper deck and improved engines with a reduced fuel burn of 25 percent per passenger. In addition, passenger capacity increased 10 percent by extending the upper deck and relocating the new straight stairway to the rear of the upper deck (prior models had a spiral-shaped staircase in the center of the upper deck). Boeing delivered 81 747-300s in passenger, combi and short-range configurations, the last in 1990.

[Edited 2012-04-19 02:25:13]


Aircraft are marginal costs with wings.
User currently offlineFabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 84, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11031 times:

Quoting na (Reply 9):
Interesting. Wonder why the plane carries the Samair logo, an operator with (again, ex-QF) 737s registered in Slovakia.

It was quoted as operated by Al Sayegh before, that is Sayegh Aviation Group, that is Sam Air International parent company.

btw. I think it was not Qantas but Australian Airlines.



The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
User currently offline9MMPQ From Netherlands, joined Nov 2011, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 85, posted (2 years 5 months 20 hours ago) and read 10766 times:

Not being rude here either but please bare with me for a moment as i thing we have 2 things going on...

1st .. the talk about customization is about changes an operator would like to see in its manuals. As your link to the Boeing site shows they call this the ''costumer originated changes'' which if IR would have any requests would need to be reviewed by Boeing before they can be certified and included into that operators manual.

Such customizations aren't necessary for safe operations. Without customizations it just means the operator has to follow the standard Boeing manuals in every way rather then have some of their own adaptations certified by Boeing & included in the manuals. Since IR makes due with whatever they can get their hands on & they know very well their not going to get anything from Boeing they can happily continue with whatever QF had outlined in the manuals.

2nd .. and what you have also touched upon, the revisions to the maintenance manuals. Here i'm thinking about airworthiness directives or service bulletins issued by the manufacturer (should any problems be found) which refer to anything that should be addressed by all operators of a specific type in order to continue safe operations. Those are obviously the problem.

I'm not sure about airworthiness directives ( Could & would you withhold those from a humane point of view ? Whole other discussion obviously ! ) but i do see them not getting any service bulletins from Boeing. Of course as these would be given to other 747-300 operators i just think that somehow some way IR could find a way to obtain them from those operators. I just happen to think that this is possible in a much more discreet or sneaky way without hardly anyone knowing about it.

Now i'm wondering  how many revisions could you still expect on the 747-300 ? The type has been around for some time & QF would have been up to date until these planes left the fleet.

Iran's ability to seemingly make everything work (both military & civilian technology) has always fascinated me & i have a feeling it won't be any different for this aircraft type.

[Edited 2012-04-19 10:23:17]


I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.
User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 86, posted (2 years 5 months 20 hours ago) and read 10673 times:

Quoting Fabo (Reply 84):

btw. I think it was not Qantas but Australian Airlines.

As far as I am aware, Australian Airlines only ever operated 767-300ER's so which airplanes are you referring to?


User currently offlineFabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 87, posted (2 years 5 months 17 hours ago) and read 10540 times:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 86):
As far as I am aware, Australian Airlines only ever operated 767-300ER's so which airplanes are you referring to?

The 737 of Sam Air of Slovakia. It has a customer code of Australian, not Qantas. Maybe they were called different then, Trans Australia or something was it?



The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 88, posted (2 years 5 months 5 hours ago) and read 10273 times:

Quoting 9MMPQ (Reply 85):
2nd .. and what you have also touched upon, the revisions to the maintenance manuals. Here i'm thinking about airworthiness directives or service bulletins issued by the manufacturer (should any problems be found) which refer to anything that should be addressed by all operators of a specific type in order to continue safe operations. Those are obviously the problem.

By default, the airworthiness directives or service bulletins which are applicable to an operators airplane serial numbers are incorporated by Boeing into the updated customized manuals. This provides the operator with a great sense of well being as they know that they are as closely aligned to the manufacturers safety recommendations as possible. Let's not forget:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 28):

I am not suggesting that the paperwork in and of itself makes an airplane safe or unsafe. The paperwork is simply a medium by which the manufacturers share information with the operators on how best to maintain their airplanes for safe operation. It is the APPLICATION or NON-APPLICATION of THIS INFORMATION amongst other things that effects the relative safety of an airplane.

If for any reason an operator is unable to obtain information from the airplane manufacturer, which is critical, or at least relevant to the safe operation of their specific airplane serial numbers, then in my mind the continued operation of those airplanes represents a serious safety risk relative to airplanes kept up to date with the manufacturers latest safety standards, and in the interests of safety for the passengers and crew should not be operated. Period.

Put another way:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 28):
any deviation from the exact maintenance specifications ascribed to a particular airplane serial number in the manufacturers manuals, invariably increases the margin of a safety risk.
Quoting 9MMPQ (Reply 85):
Iran's ability to seemingly make everything work (both military & civilian technology) has always fascinated me & i have a feeling it won't be any different for this aircraft type.

I too am surprised by Iran's ability to maintain, and in some cases upgrade their 30+ year old hardware. But bear in mind that the major factor in this is their FAMILIARITY with the equipment, over the many years of operation and maintenance. Don't forget that Iran received FULL FACTORY TECHNICAL SUPPORT & TRAINING for all of the equipment they purchased before the revolution in 1979, so the technical foundation, and the establishment of best practices for supporting their equipment was cemented in place with the direct assistance of the western manufacturers and they continue to function from that.

When you inject new UNFAMILIAR equipment into the mix, i.e. Rolls-Royce RB211 engines, I don't see how the same level of capability will be there, and think that they will struggle to maintain such equipment to the manufacturers ascribed standards - they have no experience base for this engine type! In light of the new sanctions imposed on Iran Air, how likely is it that they can competently train their technicians on the maintenance of the RB211? It's not like they can call up xyz training provider and book a bunch of their technicians on B1 & B2 training courses - they have been sanctioned!

Time will tell how successful Iran Air are with these airplanes, but I for one question the wisdom of acquiring aircraft types with which they have zero experience, with engines types they have zero experience with, and produced by companies that are prevented from providing them with technical support.

If people's lives weren't at risk I guess it wouldn't bother me so much.


User currently offlineskyhawkmatthew From Australia, joined Oct 2005, 163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (2 years 5 months 5 hours ago) and read 10270 times:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 86):
As far as I am aware, Australian Airlines only ever operated 767-300ER's so which airplanes are you referring to?

There have been two different "Australian Airlines". The second was Qantas' leisure-carrier operation of the early-mid 2000s that did indeed only operate five or six of Qantas' 763s. The first was the late-1980s rebranding of Trans Australia Airlines to Australian Airlines...

Quoting Fabo (Reply 87):
It has a customer code of Australian, not Qantas. Maybe they were called different then, Trans Australia or something was it?

...who subsequently took delivery of several 737-376 and -476 (some of which are still in service: VH-TJ*) before merging with Qantas in the mid-'90s.

[Edited 2012-04-20 01:51:27]

[Edited 2012-04-20 01:52:41]


Qantas - The Spirit of Australia.
User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 90, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 9888 times:

Quoting skyhawkmatthew (Reply 89):

There have been two different "Australian Airlines". The second was Qantas' leisure-carrier operation of the early-mid 2000s that did indeed only operate five or six of Qantas' 763s. The first was the late-1980s rebranding of Trans Australia Airlines to Australian Airlines...

I had forgotten about them, thanks for clearing that up.


User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2654 posts, RR: 4
Reply 91, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 9634 times:

Regardless how they got the 743s, how they're getting the log books, or how they'll maintain them, they have them.

I think once painted, they'll be rather elegant:

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/7513/iran743.png



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineglobalflyer777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 92, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 9528 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 91):
I think once painted, they'll be rather elegant:

Aesthetics are one thing, the safety of the passengers and crews is completely another, and IMHO a far more important aspect.


User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2654 posts, RR: 4
Reply 93, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks ago) and read 9474 times:

Quoting globalflyer777 (Reply 92):

Of course, where do I state it is not?



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineglobalflyer777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 94, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks ago) and read 9429 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 93):
Of course, where do I state it is not?

Your post appears to show a bias towards aesthetics vs maintenance, which in my mind translates into aesthetics vs safety:

Quoting garpd (Reply 91):
Regardless how they got the 743s, how they're getting the log books, or how they'll maintain them, they have them.
Quoting garpd (Reply 91):
I think once painted, they'll be rather elegant:

A fancy paint job is of little use to an airplane if the airline's technicians are unable to maintain it to safe standards.

Iran Air's existing Boeing fleet has been black-listed from entering European airspace on safety grounds related to deficiencies identified in their maintenance program. This is for airplanes that they know inside out and have operated and maintained for 30 odd years. I am genuinely concerned by the prospect of them operating and maintaining aircraft which they have no experience with. No need to go into further detail here as it's all been said above in earlier posts.


User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2654 posts, RR: 4
Reply 95, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 9370 times:

Quoting globalflyer777 (Reply 94):
Your post appears to show a bias towards aesthetics vs maintenance, which in my mind translates into aesthetics vs safety:

No, my comments are in response to the discussions as to how they got the aircraft, how they'll get the manuals, etc.

Do not presume to teach me what I already know. I am fully aware of the safety aspects and I am not down playing them.
But there is little people here can do about it.

So, I moved on to aesthetics.

[Edited 2012-04-22 07:28:56]


arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineglobalflyer777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 96, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 9300 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 95):
So, I moved on to aesthetics.

I think I see the logic - substitute the most important part of aircraft operations, i.e. the part involving the safety of the lives of the passengers and crew, with the least significant part - the paint job 
Quoting garpd (Reply 95):
Do not presume to teach me what I already know. I am fully aware of the safety aspects and I am not down playing them.

You're not exactly down playing them, you're writing about fancy paint jobs instead   I find it interesting, given your claimed awareness of safety issues that you should choose to write about a relatively insignificant aspect of the aircraft (it's livery) and ignore all else.

Quoting garpd (Reply 91):
they have them.

Iran Air may very well "have them" but beyond thinking about the aircraft's paint job, have you considered the possibility that there may be factors at play that impact upon just how long Iran Air "have them" for?

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 63):
The answer to that is yes they could be seized by bailiffs acting on behalf of the USA or EU.
Mahran lost a few B744 they were scheduled to get via Blue Sky already.
Quoting na (Reply 64):
A shame that one of those that didnt reach Iran has been scrapped because of the sanctions already.


That fancy livery isn't going to be much use if the aircraft are impounded, or prematurely wind up on the scrap heap (like the Mahan Air Boeing 747-400 example cited) due to chronic difficulties in maintaining the airplanes as a result of sanctions.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9637 posts, RR: 52
Reply 97, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9122 times:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 12):

To address your point, the manuals may very well accompany the airplane, however those manuals are valid only so long as the manufacturer, i.e. Boeing does not issue revisions. Sooner or later Boeing will issue mandatory revisions to the manuals which will make all of the previous manuals obsolete and therefore by definition unsafe for continued use.

The manuals are typically required to be followed by regulatory agencies to maintain the safety and airworthiness of the airplane. If an airplane is not following the properly prescribed original equipment manufacturer maintenance program, then it does not meet ICAO standards. A regulatory agency (in this case government of Iran) does not have to enforce the minimum ICAO standards for operations. However if they do not, typically airlines that fly under their regulatory oversight are typically banned from operating within certain ICAO members. This is why airlines in countries in Africa, Indonesia, etc are on the EU and FAA blacklists.

What I am saying is that likely if they do not have the proper maintenance program in place because of the various blocks put forth by sanctions, Iran Air may have these airplanes banned from flying to the EU etc.

Maintenance documentation is important because the regulatory agency puts faith in the engineering resources at Iran Air to maintain their airplanes. They will not have full support and will not have the capability to run a maintenance program to the latest Maintenance Steering Group standards. This is obviously clear from the safety record in Iran that the airlines do not follow international standards.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 27):

In any case, paperwork does not make a plane safe or unsafe. AF447 crashed with all the paperwork in order as have countless planes and crews.

A well maintained airplane is not necessarily safe, but a poorly maintained airplane is never safe. Proper maintenance only keeps an airplane as safe and airworthy as it was designed to be. Maintenance can never make an airplane safer than it was when it was delivered.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineglobalflyer777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 98, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9065 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 98):
The manuals are typically required to be followed by regulatory agencies to maintain the safety and airworthiness of the airplane. If an airplane is not following the properly prescribed original equipment manufacturer maintenance program, then it does not meet ICAO standards. A regulatory agency (in this case government of Iran) does not have to enforce the minimum ICAO standards for operations. However if they do not, typically airlines that fly under their regulatory oversight are typically banned from operating within certain ICAO members. This is why airlines in countries in Africa, Indonesia, etc are on the EU and FAA blacklists.

What I am saying is that likely if they do not have the proper maintenance program in place because of the various blocks put forth by sanctions, Iran Air may have these airplanes banned from flying to the EU etc.

Maintenance documentation is important because the regulatory agency puts faith in the engineering resources at Iran Air to maintain their airplanes. They will not have full support and will not have the capability to run a maintenance program to the latest Maintenance Steering Group standards. This is obviously clear from the safety record in Iran that the airlines do not follow international standards.

Totally agree with you. The regulator in question concerning these airplanes is the Civil Aviation Organization of Iran (CAO) headed by Reza Nakhjavani. Running a search through Google will tell you pretty much all you need to know about this outfit. I've made a couple of posts on the following thread which highlight's the CAO's shocking indifference over the investigation (which they are responsible for) into Iran Air Boeing 727 flight 277 disaster which claimed the lives of 77 passengers and crew:

732 Crash In Pakistan (by cabso1 Apr 20 2012 in Civil Aviation)

So whilst some may think that the safety aspects have been over discussed in this post, the fact remains that the safety aspects are far more important than a paint job. For those who disagree, perhaps your time would be better spent playing with a flight simulator, or better still, photoshop  

[Edited 2012-04-22 15:14:02 by srbmod]

User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2654 posts, RR: 4
Reply 99, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8629 times:

Quoting globalflyer777 (Reply 96):
I think I see the logic - substitute the most important part of aircraft operations, i.e. the part involving the safety of the lives of the passengers and crew, with the least significant part - the paint job
Quoting globalflyer777 (Reply 96):
You're not exactly down playing them, you're writing about fancy paint jobs instead I find it interesting, given your claimed awareness of safety issues that you should choose to write about a relatively insignificant aspect of the aircraft (it's livery) and ignore all else.
Quoting globalflyer777 (Reply 96):
Iran Air may very well "have them" but beyond thinking about the aircraft's paint job, have you considered the possibility that there may be factors at play that impact upon just how long Iran Air "have them" for?
Quoting globalflyer777 (Reply 96):
That fancy livery isn't going to be much use if the aircraft are impounded, or prematurely wind up on the scrap heap (like the Mahan Air Boeing 747-400 example cited) due to chronic difficulties in maintaining the airplanes as a result of sanctions.
Quoting globalflyer777 (Reply 98):

So whilst some may think that the safety aspects have been over discussed in this post, the fact remains that the safety aspects are far more important than a paint job. For those who disagree, perhaps your time would be better spent playing with a flight simulator, or better still, photoshop

What does chewing over the same things achieve here? Discuss the safety aspects by all means, but nothing you say here will change a thing. IranAir still has those 743s, they still have the manuals, they will still do whatever they plan to do with them. You can do nothing to prevent that.

All I did was add another subject of discussion to an otherwise repetitive thread.



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently onlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3094 posts, RR: 8
Reply 100, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8467 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 4):
Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 2):
I am curious however as to how Iran Air intends to purchase spare parts and customized technical publications from Boeing, in light of the existing sanctions in place.

The same way they get the planes in the first place? Through an intermediary third party?

While I don't think politics should toy around with the safety of people from another country, I have to wonder whether the third party is Australian or of some other nationality. With the current sanctions Iran has both the UN-sponsored ones and the US/EU ones, it's a tremendous feat how these birds got into Iranian hands.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineglobalflyer777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 101, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 8404 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 99):
Discuss the safety aspects by all means, but nothing you say here will change a thing. IranAir still has those 743s, they still have the manuals, they will still do whatever they plan to do with them. You can do nothing to prevent that.

What makes you think I want to prevent anything apart from an air accident? I am actually of the belief that Iran is chronically short of airplanes and needs to obtain a lot more to have a fleet worthy of a country of that size. So I'm afraid that you've either misunderstood my posts or not bothered to read them correctly.

In my mind, acquiring 3 old QF 747-300's equipped with Rolls-Royce engines, a variant which Iran Air has no experience with, seems fraught with risk relative to them acquiring types with which they have experience maintaining and operating.
That's my opinion. It's also my opinion that flight safety issues are of far greater concern than a paint job.


User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 102, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8044 times:

Quoting na (Thread starter):
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...s-up-three-boeing-747-300s-369994/

These three planes were aquired by Al Sayegh in 2010 for Hadj flights and as of lately still carried basic Qantas livery. They originally carried the registrations VH-EBV, -EBW and -EBY and were built in 1986/87.

Interestingly Al Sayegh is now denying all links to the deal with Iran Air  :

http://www.arabianaerospace.aero/uae...ium=organic&utm_campaign=news_feed


User currently onlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13110 posts, RR: 100
Reply 103, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7746 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting chieft (Reply 83):
I think that is exactly the point! Thanks!

The engines could become the weakest point: No experience, no parts. They must build up a complete new spares stock for the engines.

Technically the -300 is basically a -200 with extended upper deck and higher MTOW.

I've been following this thread without posting more. I really think the airframe could be kept flying safely. As I noted before, I see the risk in the engines. The hardest to acquire life limited part will be the turbine rotor. If any of the engines were nearly 'up on cycles,' that would be the part I worry about.

Quoting 9MMPQ (Reply 85):
Now i'm wondering  how many revisions could you still expect on the 747-300 ?

   Actually, there will be a few. For example, some rather old Pratt PW4000s just had their service life reduced.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 97):
What I am saying is that likely if they do not have the proper maintenance program in place because of the various blocks put forth by sanctions, Iran Air may have these airplanes banned from flying to the EU etc.

Quite possible. However, if they are able to put together enough of a program, they might be allowed. (e.g., with generic manuals) Not the most economic way to service a plane, but it can be done.

Where is Iran going to buy the talent to maintain the Rollers?

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineB747FE From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2004, 230 posts, RR: 4
Reply 104, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7555 times:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 58):
SB's maybe as they are generic in nature (i.e. issued to an entire model type - not specific serial numbers like customized updates)

Really?? "generic in nature"
Actually SB's are very specific to individual airframes, which is why they are identified by customer code, group & variable number.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 103):
I've been following this thread without posting more. I really think the airframe could be kept flying safely. As I noted before, I see the risk in the engines.

I agree on both counts.
Some posters here keep babbling about a new airplane type which is factually wrong in regards to the airframe.
As for the power plant, at the time those aeroplanes left QF, several engines were restricted in cycles & needed very frequent borescope inspections. I can't remember the exact issues but they were not to be taken lightly.

Regards,
B747FE.



"Flying is more than a sport and more than a job; flying is pure passion and desire, which fill a lifetime"
User currently offline9MMPQ From Netherlands, joined Nov 2011, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 105, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7470 times:

Quoting 9MMPQ (Reply 85):
Now i'm wondering how many revisions could you still expect on the 747-300 ?
Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 102):
Actually, there will be a few. For example, some rather old Pratt PW4000s just had their service life reduced.

I'm just really wondering about the airframe itself as it's been around for some time now.

I've never brought up the engines, in fact i'm not even going there as it's very clear the engines on these former QF aircraft will be new to IR.



I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.
User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 106, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7318 times:

Quoting B747FE (Reply 104):

Really?? "generic in nature"

Customized updates to the airplane's manuals are the superior solution with regards to maintaining the airplanes to Boeing's latest recommendations (for those particular airplane serial numbers). If you read some of the earlier posts in this thread you will see that this is a service that Boeing offers it's customers. A Service Bulletin is generic in nature compared to customized documentation from the manufacturer. If you are familiar with customized manuals you will know that the airplane operator name and it's specific airplane serial numbers are included in all the documentation. That simply isn't the case with Service Bulletins - that's my point.

Quoting B747FE (Reply 104):
Some posters here keep babbling about a new airplane type which is factually wrong in regards to the airframe.
As for the power plant, at the time those aeroplanes left QF, several engines were restricted in cycles & needed very frequent borescope inspections. I can't remember the exact issues but they were not to be taken lightly.

Don't get me wrong, I'm aware of the similarities between the 747-200 & -300. However as the -300 is a variant that Iran Air has ZERO EXPERIENCE WITH, they need to be 100% prepared to maintain these airplanes to safe standards. Given the situation with regard to sanctions against Iran Air (especially recently) I'm not sure that they will be able to manage as easily with these as they do with their -200's & SP's. You need to remember that the sanctions are compounding the difficulties for Iran Air in what would otherwise be routine maintenance, so it's bizarre that Iran Air has made things more difficult for itself by acquiring these particular airplanes with these particular engines, both of which they have ZERO EXPERIENCE WITH - that's my point.


User currently offlineSXDFC From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 2349 posts, RR: 21
Reply 107, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7317 times:

Quoting globalflyer777 (Reply 92):

With all due respect, you are blowing this way out of proportion... All he did was create a drawing of what it would look like. Not once did he mention he wasn't interested in safety of those who would fly on her.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7605 posts, RR: 3
Reply 108, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 7314 times:

IMO, Iran Air has three options;

1. Make do and mend with whatever A and B is available.
2. Buy Russian.
3. Close down.

I would tend to favour option 2, if I was their boss.


User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7605 posts, RR: 3
Reply 109, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 7296 times:

Actually, for short haul their is another option.

4.Rekkof, (seems to have gone very quiet).


User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 110, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 7279 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 109):
4.Rekkof

Not sure I understand   

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 108):
I would tend to favour option 2, if I was their boss.

Interestingly Iran Air is the largest foreign (non-Russian) customer for the Tupolev 204 with 30 on order. Over the years there has been a lot of back and forth with conflicting reports relating to this order, so I'm not certain that it will materialize anytime soon if at all:

http://www.payvand.com/news/09/aug/1218.html

Speaking of Iran Air's boss, Farhad Parvaresh, a couple of months back he announced that over 50% of the airline would be privatized on the Tehran stock exchange within a matter of weeks, but this doesn't appear to have materialized or at least there have been no reports to suggest so:

Iran Air CEO: We Will Become Privatized In 3 Weeks (by haveasafeflight Feb 26 2012 in Civil Aviation)


User currently offlineimiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 111, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7039 times:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 106):
Don't get me wrong, I'm aware of the similarities between the 747-200 & -300. However as the -300 is a variant that Iran Air has ZERO EXPERIENCE WITH, they need to be 100% prepared to maintain these airplanes to safe standards.

You're still missing the point. The fact that these 747 are the -300 variants and not the -200 does not matter from a maintenance standpoint and as such they're no different from the 200/100/SP. The level of experience Iran has with the -300 is not relevant. Had these aircraft been equipped with Pratts or even the CF6 there wouldn't be so much of an issue. The aircraft, barring the engines, the -300 and -200 have 98% commonality with parts and the same maintenance programme as the -200 (MSG-2 in Boeing language), which means the following point on which you keep harping,

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 106):
I'm not sure that they will be able to manage as easily with these as they do with their -200's & SP's

is completely false.

Any difficulties that Iran will face in keeping the aircraft airworthy will come from the engines and NOT the airframe as you're suggesting.


User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 112, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 6931 times:

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 111):

Any difficulties that Iran will face in keeping the aircraft airworthy will come from the engines and NOT the airframe as you're suggesting.

If you had read some of the earlier posts you would understand the fundamental point that:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 28):
any deviation from the exact maintenance specifications ascribed to a particular airplane serial number in the manufacturers manuals, invariably increases the margin of a safety risk.
Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 111):
The aircraft, barring the engines, the -300 and -200 have 98% commonality with parts and the same maintenance programme as the -200

The fact that you are inferring that a 2% technical difference is somehow insignificant makes me question the consideration you generally have for the safety of the passengers and crews. A 2% difference (if in fact as little as that) on an airplane like the 747 is HUGE.

There are over 1 million parts to a 747 so to somehow try to suggest that it is safe and acceptable to maintain "98%" of the airplane and not worry about the other 2%, to me, is a recipe for disaster.

To move on to the engines, how exactly do you propose that Iran Air maintains the Rolls-Royce RB211's on these airplanes to safe and acceptable standards in light of the fact that they have zero experience with this engine type and are prevented from receiving from receiving support and purchasing spares as a result of sanctions?


User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7605 posts, RR: 3
Reply 113, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6816 times:

As you know, Fokker closed down some years ago.

Ever since, there have been proposals from a firm called Rekkof, (Fokker in reverse) to re start production of an F70NG or F100NG.

Perhaps Iran can "acquire" a company of the plans and build their own.


User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7605 posts, RR: 3
Reply 114, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6796 times:

Sorry, I meant a copy of the plans.

User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 115, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6666 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 113):

Perhaps Iran can "acquire" a company of the plans and build their own.

That's an interesting thought, and perhaps a few years a go a real possibility, but given the recent ramp up in sanctions against Iran I'm not sure that such a deal would now be allowed to go through, at least not with a "western" company like Fokker or the like.

My guess is that Iran will continue to acquire used Airbus and Boeing aircraft (option 1 as you put it) for the foreseeable future. My only concern with this option is the possibility that they acquire aircraft types or variants equipped with major components (e.g. Rolls Royce RB 211 engines...) that they have no experience with and jeopardize the safety of their passengers and crews as a result.

It is truly a sad and unfortunate situation that the Iranian airlines such as Iran Air find themselves in and I just prey that they somehow manage to keep their airplanes safe for people to fly  .


User currently offlineglobalflyer777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 116, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 6453 times:

Quoting haveasafeflight (Reply 80):
Exactly. Interestingly the head of Iran's CAO, Reza Nakhjavani, recently announced that the country's entire fleet is going to be replaced - I'll believe it when I see it:

Iran Fleet To Be Replaced Or Lifespan Extended? (by haveasafeflight Apr 16 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Looks like he got replaced first   :

Reza Nakhjavani Dismissed As Iran CAO Chief   (by globalflyer777 Apr 24 2012 in Civil Aviation)


User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 117, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6177 times:

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 73):
Saudi are NO friends of the Iranian Regimes or Shia's (look at Bahrain) in general
They are a leading advocate of the sanctions.
No help will come from Riyadh

I think it's safe to say that the Saudi's will not be providing Iran with parts for these 747-300's:



User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7605 posts, RR: 3
Reply 118, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6058 times:

Do you know the reg of the SV B747 or when the picture was taken?.

User currently offlinebgm From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 167 posts, RR: 0
Reply 119, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6025 times:

That's a 747-300 TF-ATJ owned by Air Atlanta Icelandic which operated for Saudia.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bobby Allison



User currently offlinehaveasafeflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 120, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5744 times:

Quoting bgm (Reply 119):
That's a 747-300 TF-ATJ owned by Air Atlanta Icelandic which operated for Saudia

That is correct, however Saudi Arabian Airlines also owns a number of their own 747-300's:

http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/S...Arabian%20Airlines-active-b747.htm

I can't see the Icelanders, or for that matter any other operators offering technical support for these airplanes to the Iranians.

Does anyone have information on Iran Air's planned service entry date for these airplanes?


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...
QF 747-300s And The Transcon Routes posted Wed Sep 10 2008 23:10:19 by Singapore 777
Is This Iran Air's "new" 747? posted Sun Nov 26 2006 18:00:25 by ZakHH
Evergreen Aquires Ex-LH 747 Freighters posted Tue Jun 28 2005 15:08:55 by NA
Kabo Air Crashed Ex Virgin 747? posted Tue Oct 14 2003 18:42:28 by Intheknow
Ex Swissair 747-300s - Two Missing? posted Thu Jun 6 2002 08:10:16 by TR
Virgin Not To Lease Ex-Singapore 747-300s posted Sun Jul 9 2000 17:45:02 by Jet Setter
Where Does QF Fly Their B 747-300s? posted Fri Jan 11 2008 08:23:11 by United Airline
Another EX-UA 744 For Iran Air! posted Sun Aug 26 2007 18:50:53 by Shahram16216
EX-UA 744 For Iran Air posted Wed Jul 25 2007 17:47:21 by Amax1977
Air Canada's (ex) 747-400s posted Sat Mar 31 2007 02:05:37 by WestJetForLife
Evergreen Aquires Ex-LH 747 Freighters posted Tue Jun 28 2005 15:08:55 by NA
Kabo Air Crashed Ex Virgin 747? posted Tue Oct 14 2003 18:42:28 by Intheknow
Ex Swissair 747-300s - Two Missing? posted Thu Jun 6 2002 08:10:16 by TR
Virgin Not To Lease Ex-Singapore 747-300s posted Sun Jul 9 2000 17:45:02 by Jet Setter
Where Does QF Fly Their B 747-300s? posted Fri Jan 11 2008 08:23:11 by United Airline
Another EX-UA 744 For Iran Air! posted Sun Aug 26 2007 18:50:53 by Shahram16216
EX-UA 744 For Iran Air posted Wed Jul 25 2007 17:47:21 by Amax1977
Where Does QF Fly Their B 747-300s? posted Fri Jan 11 2008 08:23:11 by United Airline
Another EX-UA 744 For Iran Air! posted Sun Aug 26 2007 18:50:53 by Shahram16216