Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Mahan Air Blacklisted By US In Response To Iran  
User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 27251 posts, RR: 60
Posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6780 times:

The US as expected has announced the first in a series of moves to bring further sanctions on Iranian Aviation.

Mahan Air is the announced Airline this time.


The United States announced Wednesday it had added the Iranian airline Mahan Air to their black list of entities covered by the regime of U.S. sanctions against Iran.

I expect there to be calls for Iran Air to be banned from all EU countries also in the coming weeks. I guess its a waiting game.

http://www.lorientlejour.com/categor...ir_sur_la_liste_noire_des_USA.html

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinemhkansan From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 710 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6444 times:

IMHO, Isolation is not the way to deal with these problems. If more Western businesses and travelers had access to Iran, I feel many of these tensions would diminish over time. I feel oftentimes these skirmished are unwarranted and amount to merely burning bridges.

User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 3006 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6411 times:

Oh, because Mahan Air already flew to the United States.
Fine with the sanctions, but adding airlines that have never flown to the US and that likely never will is idiotic.



The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlinemalioil From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2010, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6377 times:

From having ordered the Concorde, to this. Iranian aviation has suffered quite an incredible slump in recent years. I believe when an airline becomes loved by us a.nutters and spotters then they're truly in a fix, as we tend to love the companies that still run decades old rare equipment that no healthy airline, given the choice would fly ! :P

Although I do not want to go into politics, I think if one is going to put economic sanctions on Iran then it is fair if airlines are also put under that umbrella, for they are also businesses. What should never be done is spare parts being banned, as that causes a lot of unnecessary accidents and tragedies. If you don't want IR to fly to the EU then fine, but don't endanger their passengers on routes they are allowed to fly on.

[Edited 2011-10-12 11:22:50]


Flights Booked: BAH-DOH-EDI-LGW-JER-LGW-EDI-DOH-BAH-LHR-EDI-LHR-EDI-LHR-BAH-DXB-HKG-SIN-HKG-DXB-BAH-LHR-EDI
User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6377 times:

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 2):
Oh, because Mahan Air already flew to the United States.
Fine with the sanctions, but adding airlines that have never flown to the US and that likely never will is idiotic.

This was my first response too but perhaps if the sanctions against it include restrictions on American companies who would otherwise do business with it it makes a bit more sense. I'm very unfamiliar with the sanctions regime though so I'm not sure if it works that way.


User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4126 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6317 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 4):
perhaps if the sanctions against it include restrictions on American companies who would otherwise do business with it it makes a bit more sense.

Or it may take the same form as the sanctions in the oil industry: do business with US companies, or do business with Mahan Air; pick one but not both.



I've got $h*t to do
User currently onlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7759 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6263 times:

The airline flies Quds Force personnel between Iran and Syria for military training and facilitated their travel in and out of Iraq. It provides transportation services to Hezbollah, the Lebanese group regarded as a foreign terror organization, the department said

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/12/justice/iran-saudi-plot/?hpt=hp_t1


I am not sure what the status of this force is in Iran.

Assuming that it is part of the Security Forces of Iran, then it is not unreasonable for them to fly these personnel to Syria, (which presumably has consented). It is not clear how they are transporting personnel into Iraq. Do they have equipment suitable for that role. It is also unclear where they are transporting Hezbollah members.

Also AFAIK, no one has actually been convicted yet.


User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 3006 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6104 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 4):
This was my first response too but perhaps if the sanctions against it include restrictions on American companies who would otherwise do business with it it makes a bit more sense. I'm very unfamiliar with the sanctions regime though so I'm not sure if it works that way.

I was under the belief that pre-existing sanctions cover this; Iran Air can not buy a Boeing or Airbus that is newer that 5 years. From what I remember, Boeing got an emergency exemption to supply Iran Air with critical parts that could not be found somewhere else.

Oil companies in Europe are given a choice: work with American companies, or work with Iranian ones. That's why IR has to make stops in some countries on the way back to Iran.



The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlineJAGflyer From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 3569 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5828 times:

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 2):

I agree. It's a totally moot point. Might as well put some tiny airline that flies between dirt strips in Tanzania with a Twin Otter on it too.



Support the beer and soda can industry, recycle old airplanes!
User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2532 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5581 times:

The whole purpose of this is to make life difficult for Mahan as a punishment for their part in "aiding the terror plot". If there are now financial, mx, fuel & ground handling companies that will refuse to handle them as they can then no longer work with any US businesses if they do, then that will be a real PITA for Mahan to work around. How much of that is already covered in the blanket sanctions against Iranian companies I dont know.


Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2935 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5442 times:

Quoting mhkansan (Reply 1):
IMHO, Isolation is not the way to deal with these problems. If more Western businesses and travelers had access to Iran, I feel many of these tensions would diminish over time. I feel oftentimes these skirmished are unwarranted and amount to merely burning bridges.

Spot on !

Sanctions rarely work or have the desired outcome. Generally just punishes innocent people.

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 2):
but adding airlines that have never flown to the US and that likely never will is idiotic.

And another spot on answer

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 7):
Boeing got an emergency exemption to supply Iran Air with critical parts that could not be found somewhere else.

You are kidding right ?
So all you need is an "emergency situation" and all is forgotten. Brilliant.



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4841 times:

Wikipedia gets updated FAST!

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 10):
IMHO, Isolation is not the way to deal with these problems. If more Western businesses and travelers had access to Iran, I feel many of these tensions would diminish over time. I feel oftentimes these skirmished are unwarranted and amount to merely burning bridges.

I agree, the worst way to deal with a problem is to ignore it and that's what the U.S. Gov. is essentially sanctioning.. isolation is a juvenile punishment. But isn't it really all they can do?



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1789 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4134 times:

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 7):
I was under the belief that pre-existing sanctions cover this; Iran Air can not buy a Boeing or Airbus that is newer that 5 years. From what I remember, Boeing got an emergency exemption to supply Iran Air with critical parts that could not be found somewhere else.

I think this is very sensible or you are risking the lives of innocent people that have nothing to do with this political fiasco.



Next Flights: LHR-IAH (744-BA); MSY-ATL (752-DL); ATL-LGA (320-DL); JFK-LHR (744-BA)
User currently offlineLH600 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 164 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2305 times:

Mahan Air flew my grandmother from DUS - IKA.... Threat to security indeed.

User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2218 posts, RR: 24
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2114 times:

Quoting mhkansan (Reply 1):
IMHO, Isolation is not the way to deal with these problems. If more Western businesses and travelers had access to Iran, I feel many of these tensions would diminish over time. I feel oftentimes these skirmished are unwarranted and amount to merely burning bridges.

What you state is true to a point. Iran, however, does not necessarily have a logical foreign policy. They really don't care if they are isolated. They are led by theocrats who consider it their mission to use the state to spread their version of Islam all over, through force if necessary. Their strong support for groups like Hezbollah is certainly evidence of this agenda.

Aside from all that, are sanctions not preferable to outright war? The attempted assassination of an ambassador would most certainly be considered casus belli in many quarters. These sanctions are most certainly tepid compared to what the response could have been (particularly if the Iranian agents had been successful in their plans).

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 2):
Oh, because Mahan Air already flew to the United States.
Fine with the sanctions, but adding airlines that have never flown to the US and that likely never will is idiotic.

State department sanctions aren't specific to aviation operations. They are sanctions on businesses. This is not about banning Mahan Air from US airspace. It's about banning US businesses from dealing with Mahan Air and forcing foreign businesses to choose between doing business with those listed organizations and having access to the US market.

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 12):
I think this is very sensible or you are risking the lives of innocent people that have nothing to do with this political fiasco.

Nonsense. An airline that chooses to fly an aircraft that is not airworthy is risking passenger lives. If the financial troubles of an airline resulted in spares being delayed and an airline flew anyway, risking passenger lives, would you blame the bank?

Quoting LH600 (Reply 13):
Mahan Air flew my grandmother from DUS - IKA.... Threat to security indeed.

Red Herring. Your grandmother may not be a security threat. But those members of the Quds force who were transported by Mahan (reportedly with faked employee identification sometimes) were most certainly threats to the security of other countries. Also, what constitutes a threat to the United States and what constitutes a threat to Germany, and their respective national interests may not necessarily coincide. Case in point: Cuba. Canadians vacation there regularly. Americans aren't allowed to touch the place.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 10):
Sanctions rarely work or have the desired outcome. Generally just punishes innocent people.

Generally, maybe. Targetted sanctions can work. In this case, most of those who fly aren't regular Iranians, who will scarcely be impacted by the sanctions. Also, other airlines can still fly pax to and from Iran. The only impact will be on the Iranian elite who fly, own and operate the airline and the Iranian security complex that uses the airline for covert ops.


User currently offlinehal9213 From Germany, joined May 2009, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1755 times:

As an aviation enthusiast, I must admit, my very first thought after the news of that guy caught in Mexico/NYC and Iran being blamed was: Oooh noooo, my chance to fly 747SP and 707!!! Stupid politics!!!   
Seriously, there was a thread about the chances flying a KLM MD11, what about the Iranian ancient relics? What do you guys predict will the chances be in the next years to be able to fly Iranair or Mahan, in regards of all those sanctions?


User currently offlineAmsterdam From Netherlands, joined Mar 2011, 131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1597 times:

European airlines probably make good money on their Teheran routes.
KLM's load factor on the route is 95%.
So in Europe the airlines don't mind that there aren't any routes between Iran and the USA and Canada.


User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2218 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1490 times:

Quoting Amsterdam (Reply 16):
European airlines probably make good money on their Teheran routes.
KLM's load factor on the route is 95%.
So in Europe the airlines don't mind that there aren't any routes between Iran and the USA and Canada.

And that's not something the US necessarily minds. Far better for European airlines to get business than Mahan.


User currently offlineSolarFlyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 1113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1285 times:

Quoting YTZ (Reply 14):
Red Herring. Your grandmother may not be a security threat. But those members of the Quds force who were transported by Mahan (reportedly with faked employee identification sometimes) were most certainly threats to the security of other countries. Also, what constitutes a threat to the United States and what constitutes a threat to Germany, and their respective national interests may not necessarily coincide.

Why don't they just ban flights from Mahan Air and Iran Air outright in the EU? They sanction the parts, the planes, the fuel, the IATA payment system when it seems sooooo much easier just to revoke landing rights. I would rather they deliver safe parts, at least make the planes safe, and just prevent them from flying into any country that doesn't want quads coming over. Any thoughts?


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7972 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1274 times:

Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 18):
I would rather they deliver safe parts, at least make the planes safe, and just prevent them from flying into any country that doesn't want quads coming over. Any thoughts?

That would make too much sense  



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4126 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1149 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 18):
Any thoughts?

Because Iran would revoke reciprocal rights. Piecemeal sanctions work better (in this instance) because Iran can reciprocate with similar sanctions but it wouldn't affect European airlines (much). Worse case scenario, they may add a stop en-route to pick up fuel if they can't fly it in and can't refuel in Iran...



I've got $h*t to do
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...
Fed Cuts Rates By 3/4 Point In Bid To Calm Markets posted Tue Jan 22 2008 05:52:28 by Wingnut767
US Sends Warning To Iran--Sells Israel Weapons posted Thu Apr 28 2005 15:13:39 by RJpieces
In Response To Johan's Topic posted Sat Nov 24 2001 01:32:46 by ILS
Fiat 500 To Be Sold By Chrysler In US By Year End posted Thu Feb 11 2010 16:49:27 by stasisLAX
White House Plans To Cut Iraq Troops By Half In 08 posted Sat May 26 2007 04:02:14 by Jimyvr
US Soccer Wants To Play In Venezuela posted Tue Oct 3 2006 18:33:47 by Derico
Anyone Want To Join Us In CPH :) posted Fri Apr 29 2005 23:32:50 by Pilot kaz
Response To Far9/11: Celsius 41.11, In Theatres posted Tue Sep 28 2004 22:44:44 by ConcordeBoy
Canada To Play US In World Cup...any Predictions? posted Tue Oct 7 2003 00:17:25 by Iamcanadian
US Army Tries To Recruit Directly In Mexico posted Thu May 8 2003 18:31:11 by Marcus