Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Iran To Add 10 New Airplanes To Civil Air Fleet  
User currently offlineglobalflyer777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 16755 times:

The newly appointed head of the Civil Aviation Organization of Iran (CAO), Hamidreza Pahlevani, has announced that 10 new passenger planes will be added to the national fleet in the next few months. Pahlevani also said that two passenger planes have already joined the Iranian civil air fleet:

http://presstv.com/detail/2012/08/13...-add-10-new-planes-to-civil-fleet/

Does anyone know what type of airplanes have been added?

With the lack of airline capacity, airlines in Iran will need significantly more than 10 additional airplanes to meet demand.

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineLV From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 1992 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 16726 times:

Wasn't there a thread on here recently about a company in one of the former Soviet countries buying used Airbus planes and then reselling them to Iranian airlines in a way that very thinly got around the sanctions in what could be best described as a gray area?

User currently offlinevaus77w From Australia, joined Aug 2011, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 16361 times:

According to Iran Air Aquires Ex-QF 747-300s! (by na Mar 27 2012 in Civil Aviation)?threadid=5423982&searchid=5458073&s=iran+air+QF#ID5458073 Iran Air supposedly purchased 3 used 747-300s (ex-QF aircraft). However I'm not sure they are operational yet, they do not appear under Iran Air on airfleets or wiki.

User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10654 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 16247 times:

They were able to secure much of LHs A300s through whatever third party a few years ago, they have aquired an old ex-LH A340 and a German AF A310 recently, they bought those old QF 743s a few months ago, so this announcement shouldnt be too much of a wonder.

User currently offlineGCPET From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2012, 204 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 16048 times:

I think some old 767's wouldn't go a miss for Iran's Civil Fleet? Very versatile aircraft which isn't too expensive these days!

GCPET



If it's not Boeing, I'm not going!
User currently offlinejumpjets From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2012, 793 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 15819 times:

I do wonder about the mixed state of sanctions against Iran as applied to air travel.

Iran isn't allowed to buy Airbus/Boeing aircraft on the open market, but Iran Air is allowed to fly to EU destinations - I don't know about US cities.

The EU seems happy to allow increasingly old, and presumably as time goes by potentially less safe aircraft into EU airspace - wouldn't it make more sense to allow them new more reliable and safer civil aircraft? Or is it the US content of Airbusses that stops the sale of Airbus planes to Iran?

Personally I think its a wonder how Iran Air keeps flying as well as it does.


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8696 posts, RR: 43
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 15457 times:

Quoting jumpjets (Reply 5):
The EU seems happy to allow increasingly old, and presumably as time goes by potentially less safe aircraft into EU airspace - wouldn't it make more sense to allow them new more reliable and safer civil aircraft?

We're talking about politically motivated sanctions, which are almost traditional at this point. The kind of sense that you're talking about was, IMHO, never a consideration. What has been applied is a strict limitation on the aircraft that Iran Air may fly to the EU, just A300s, A310s and a single 737 are allowed as per April 2012.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinejumpjets From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2012, 793 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 15279 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 6):
We're talking about politically motivated sanctions, which are almost traditional at this point.

Totally agree - but it all seems a bit of a hotch potch to me.

The EU has sufficient reservations about Iran to ban the selling planes to them but insufficient concerns to ban Iran Air from the EU.

In the absence of access to new planes or access to supplier parts the EU slowly but surely whittles down the number of planes deemed safe enough for EU airspace. So in effect by degrees applying theoretically non-political sanctions against Iran Air.

I am not advocating either increasing or reducing the sanctions, there are much better minds than mine to think that through - I'd just like to see a sensible consistent approach - ands if possible the return of the Iran Air 747SP [ If they still have one] to LHR  


User currently offlineSLCGuy From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 12128 times:

My guess is these aircraft are being routed though different countrys, just like all the military parts for aircraft that have been diverted to Iran before this.

[Edited 2012-08-13 11:35:00]

User currently offlinevio From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 1401 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 9632 times:

Well, what about Soviet planes, like the TU-204 for example... or the IL-96?... or the Sukhoi-100... Are there sanctions regarding these airplanes as well? (Maybe the Su-100, since it's very "western" in its components.) I must addmit, I don't know how these sanctions work in detail. Obviously, Iran is restricted on a lot of things that it can purchase from the West...but that's probably the extent that I know...


Superior decisions reduce the need for superior skills.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6530 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 9015 times:

Quoting jumpjets (Reply 7):
The EU has sufficient reservations about Iran to ban the selling planes to them but insufficient concerns to ban Iran Air from the EU.

I don't think the EU has bans against selling aircraft to Iran. It's a specifically US sanction, but since every plane out there has US content (including Tu-204 with the newer engines)...



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5406 posts, RR: 30
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8627 times:

I've always thought the sanctions against US aircraft parts was purely out of spite. It is a penalty directly against the Iranian flying public, putting them in danger every time they fly and does nothing to harm or change the will of the government.

By now, Iran is either making replacement parts or getting them through back channels. I flew on an Iranian MD-83 and it didn't crash even once.

Part of the problem getting Russian airliners is that there just aren't that many of them and production is too slow to even fill their domestic orders. Even the ones that are available aren't allowed to fly in Russia anymore.

On the other hand, there are tons of good, used western airliners which have years of safe flying left in them which would suit Iranian airlines just fine...but we can't be soft on those darned Iranians.



What the...?
User currently offlinesolarflyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 990 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7864 times:

Quoting vio (Reply 9):
Well, what about Soviet planes, like the TU-204 for example... or the IL-96?

This is my question as well. Its almost like the Russian don't want to make anything but fighter planes anymore. Sukhoi 100 excluded. They were great at transport aircraft too.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 11):
Part of the problem getting Russian airliners is that there just aren't that many of them and production is too slow to even fill their domestic orders.

Yeah its a shame. The TU204 could easily be made out of non-US made parts and its shame the Russians don't build them and offer an alternative to the Boeing/Airbus Duopoly.

I think ultimately it will be China that fills the void. Could be 15 years away though.


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2011 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5935 times:

Couldn't some of the Russian airlines sell their TU-204s to Iran, as they seem keen to reequip with western planes?

Anyway I'm sure the Iranians have no problem getting parts for their planes, perhaps Standard Chartered Bank helps then (satire)



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlinekeegd76 From UK - Northern Ireland, joined Aug 2009, 108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5868 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jumpjets (Reply 5):
The EU seems happy to allow increasingly old, and presumably as time goes by potentially less safe aircraft into EU airspace

Er, no it doesn't. Haven't you heard of the Black List:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air-ban/list_en.htm



Nothing comes down faster than a VTOL aircraft upside down.
User currently offlinejumpjets From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2012, 793 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5849 times:

Quoting keegd76 (Reply 14):
Er, no it doesn't. Haven't you heard of the Black List:

Yes I have - please see post 7

Quoting jumpjets (Reply 7):
In the absence of access to new planes or access to supplier parts the EU slowly but surely whittles down the number of planes deemed safe enough for EU airspace. So in effect by degrees applying theoretically non-political sanctions against Iran Air.


User currently offlinesolarflyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 990 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5365 times:

Quoting keegd76 (Reply 14):
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air-ban/list_en.htm

Does the EU actually deny parts for their Airbus planes and then turn around and blacklist them as unsafe? It looked like the document had some A300 exceptions. It would really be a moral low to deny EADS parts to blacklisted airlines purely for political reasons. They are basically admitting via the blacklist that civilian lives are in danger in those planes and if they are not willing to sell parts to fix their own product, its pretty sad day in the EU.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6530 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5205 times:

As I said it's US sanctions. If they want a non US part there shouldn't be a problem, but lots of parts (including ones that tend to need replacement like avionics) are US build. So the political blame is on you.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5151 times:

Quoting jumpjets (Reply 7):
The EU has sufficient reservations about Iran to ban the selling planes to them but insufficient concerns to ban Iran Air from the EU.

The entire Iran Air fleet with the exception of the A310s and A300s is blacklisted and as such not permitted to fly in the EU.

Quoting jumpjets (Reply 7):
it all seems a bit of a hotch potch to me

These strict sanctions are imposed by the government of the United States. No US based company is allowed to deal with companies that entertain trade relations with sanctioned Iranian enterprises. Which is why Iran Air still manages to buy fuel, source spare parts or even whole aircraft - as long as the Iranian market is more lucrative to that particular company, they'll deal with them and ignore the USA and vice versa.

It's arguable that an economic sanction levied upon Iran Air is jeopardizing the security of innocent civilians and is as such counterindicate; however, the ban is justified by claims that the Iran Air fleet has been and is being utilized on behalf of the Iranian regime to transport weapons and material for the Iranian nuclear program. Some aircraft are supposed to exude atomic radiation even.
On another note, as an international corporation Iran Air enables Iran to obtain foreign currency and to earn money.

Regrettably, the desires of aviation enthusiasts and the travelling public find little to no consideration on any political agenda. Especially when they have the sweet side effect of supporting one's own economic interest (ie. the EU airlines still flying into Iran).

Personally speaking, the short-sightedness and ineffectiveness of these sanctions are symptomatic for US foreign policy. They have symbolic value at best, demonstrating to Israel and the American public that the USA doesn't support oppressive regimes. The fact that the US will support any dictator to reach a common goal is just as overlooked as the fact that contrary to their desired effect - weakening the Iranian regime - these and other sanctions only make it easier for despots to perpetuate the notion of American being an evil, imperialist oppressor of the rest of the world and thus, in fact support these regime's domestic political agendas. Discussing the ridiculousness of the Iranian nuclear program would definitely digress too far off topic at this point, but it is a mere pretext for foreign governments to excersize said sanctions.

So back to the actual topic at hand.. I would be quite delighted to see 743s and A343s in Iran Air colors visit Europe though they're obviously by no means worthy replacements of the 741, -2s and -SPs.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinesolarflyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 990 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4761 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 17):
As I said it's US sanctions. If they want a non US part there shouldn't be a problem, but lots of parts (including ones that tend to need replacement like avionics) are US build. So the political blame is on you.

I see. The blame is on our side of the atlantic for sure. If the EU is providing their parts then that explains the A310 and A300 exemptions.

I have not heard of IranAir being used to transport radioactive materials but it'd be easy to detect since that materials leaves a trace. It's quite a moral conundrum if thats true. I am surprised Airbus doesn't produce a alternative parts for customers not wanting to deal with the USA. That would probably be more than Iran anyway. I know they have alternatives for the honeywell electronics.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26376 posts, RR: 76
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4648 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 11):
I've always thought the sanctions against US aircraft parts was purely out of spite. It is a penalty directly against the Iranian flying public, putting them in danger every time they fly and does nothing to harm or change the will of the government.

Yep. Its stupid. Boeing would make a fortune in Iran. IR has the money to reequip with brand new planes and has always stated a Boeing preference.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 13):
Couldn't some of the Russian airlines sell their TU-204s to Iran, as they seem keen to reequip with western planes?

A lot of TU-204s have RB211 power, no?

Quoting something (Reply 18):
the ban is justified by claims that the Iran Air fleet has been and is being utilized on behalf of the Iranian regime to transport weapons and material for the Iranian nuclear program.

Yeah, which are ridiculously thin. Sort of like the "explanation" for the USS Vincenses shoot down of the IR A300.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinerj777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1787 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4464 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 17):
So the political blame is on you.

OK, I think we'd better be careful or we're going to lose this thread to politics. (And slander about Americans)


User currently offlineaxelesgg From Sweden, joined Jan 2010, 186 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4378 times:

Well, if Air Koryo (national carrier of North Korea) managed to purchase two TU-204, american engines or not, why would it not be possible for IranAir?

User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4339 times:

Quoting axelesgg (Reply 22):
Well, if Air Koryo (national carrier of North Korea) managed to purchase two TU-204, american engines or not, why would it not be possible for IranAir?

Well for one the demands of the two carriers are very different. Air travel in the DPRK is, to my knowledge, limited to a few dozen flights a week, mostly to Beijing, and only required two or three aircraft. Even that requirement took years to fulfill. Iran actually has a well-established, in demand air travel system. I would surmise the Russians are simply incapable at the present time of meeting the demand for frames required by the Iranians.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5406 posts, RR: 30
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4269 times:

Quoting luckyone (Reply 23):
I would surmise the Russians are simply incapable at the present time of meeting the demand for frames required by the Iranians.

That's my take on it as well. I think it's a supply problem. Iran has plenty of Russian/Soviet airliners flying so they're not shy about buying them...if they can get them.

My only flight on a Tu 154 was on Iran Airtour. Wiki says they are supposed to get 5 of the 35 Tu204's on order for Iran Air. Iran Air is also supposedly interested in the Superjet.



What the...?
25 a300 : Very few actually, mostly for Air Cairo. At least one operated in TNT colors. Most have PS-90.
26 a300 : The original PS90As on the Tu204 are not optimal for the hot and high Iranian airports (includes the main hub: Tehran-Mehrabad). The RB211 has not be
27 TUGMASTER : Only 6 A300/A310 aircraft are EU exempt EP-IBA/B/C/D/K/L and one of the 310's , cant remember if K or L had an accident in the hangar a while back, wh
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...
Lufthansa To Add 4,000 New Jobs posted Mon Jan 3 2011 03:13:00 by Robffm2
UAL To Add SHV Service To DEN posted Tue May 29 2012 08:58:24 by sldispatcher
Wizz Air: To Add New 320 And New Routes At BUD posted Tue Oct 14 2008 09:09:13 by Pe@rson
Royal Air Maroc To Add New African Destinations posted Fri Dec 7 2007 07:19:24 by Bambicruz
New Spirit CEO To Guide Air Fleet Transition posted Thu May 25 2006 22:55:51 by KarlB737
Iran Air. What To Expect With New President? posted Wed Jul 6 2005 01:29:09 by Boeing777/747
Air Canada To Add New Destinations Out Of YYC posted Fri Nov 19 2004 00:50:07 by Fiedman
Mahan Air (Iran) To Add Philippines posted Mon Feb 23 2004 19:09:01 by Airmale
Air Pacific To Add New Aircraft posted Fri Nov 22 2002 13:39:53 by Gulfair
Direct Air To Add 8 Additional RFD To PGD Flights posted Mon Jan 30 2012 08:25:54 by KarlB737