IranAir Refused Refuelling In Europe

acabgd · Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:11 pm

I know this has been discussed before (I've seen a thread regarding strange IR routing), but there is an AFP article about Iran Air being refused fuel in several European countries.

Fair-use excerpt:
'Iran said on Tuesday some Western companies were refusing to refuel its planes in Europe and warned it would "confront" such measures, which it deemed illegal under international law. The cancelled contracts had hit Iran Air flights departing from destinations such as Amsterdam, London and Stockholm as they were now forced to make lengthy fuel stops either at an airport in Germany or one in Austria where Total of France and OMV of Austria are still providing fuel for the airline.'

More at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101019...1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDaXJhbnNheXNldXJv

cloud4000 · Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:18 pm

Yes, the US has threatened European energy companies with penalties if they do business with Iran. Many of these companies have withdrawn from operations in Iran, which, I guess, includes selling jet fuel to Iran Air. It's part of a sanction regime to bring Iran's nuclear program under heel.

I think this is counterproductive, as it only hurt common Iranians, not the government. Iran can retaliate I suppose by banning overflight rights to European and American airlines, but who really knows what this will lead to.

Of course this is also good news for Iran's competitiors in the region, who might beef up operations to Iran to take advantage.

goldenstate · Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:20 pm

Difficult situation for Iran. On the one hand, they could make these problems disappear very easily. On the other hand, the resulting loss of credibility at home would probably bring down the government.

Interesting intersection of aviation interests and the larger geopolitical picture.

BasilFawlty · Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:46 pm

Today:
IR 710 LHR-IKA will make a fuel stop in HAM.
IR 760 CPH-IKA will make a fuel stop in GOT
IR 764 AMS-IKA will make a fuel stop in VIE.

acabgd · Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:02 pm

I'm really sorry to hear this. In no way do I support gov't of Iran, but I always thought of aviation as of something more noble. If there was an emergency situation with an American airliner above or near Iranian airspace I'm sure the Iranians would do everything to safely bring the aircraft down to one of their airports and would treat the pax and the crew with respect.

I'm not saying it's not the same the other way around, but refusing to fuel the aircraft borders on madness.

goldenstate · Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:24 pm

I believe NWA diverted a DC-10 to THR some years back due to a problem during AMS-BOM.

No idea how it went for them though.

Revelation · Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:30 pm

Quoting acabgd (Reply 4):
I'm not saying it's not the same the other way around, but refusing to fuel the aircraft borders on madness.

It would beat the alternative which seems to be air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Hopefully IranAir was given some advance notice.

bwaflyer · Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:36 pm

For the last couple of weeks, the Iranian authorities have been restricting uplifts at IKA. bmi have been refuelling in TBS, GYD, AMS and PRG amongst others.

elmothehobo · Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:43 pm

Quoting goldenstate (Reply 5):
No idea how it went for them though.

They landed, sat on the ground and then took off again. IINM there was some haggling over buying additional fuel, the flight crew ended up paying for it.

shankly · Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:22 pm

I can see what will happen already. A US/Western European airliner is en-route and has to make an emergency diversion to Tehran....cue international stand-off and uncomfortable few days for pax and crew until diplomats do their stuff

elmothehobo · Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:28 pm

Quoting shankly (Reply 12):
I can see what will happen already. A US/Western European airliner is en-route and has to make an emergency diversion to Tehran....cue international stand-off and uncomfortable few days for pax and crew until diplomats do their stuff

It's happened before, in 2006 specifically with that NW DC-10 that was mentioned earlier.

Iran isn't going to hold an aircraft that had an inflight emergency. If anything they'll help them out and parade their aid on the news, highlighting the 'benevolence of the Islamic Republic' in the face of 'Continued Zionist attacks.'

dispatchguy · Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:28 pm

Quoting acabgd (Reply 4):
If there was an emergency situation with an American airliner above or near Iranian airspace I'm sure the Iranians would do everything to safely bring the aircraft down to one of their airports and would treat the pax and the crew with respect.

For US carriers that overfly Iran, landing in Iran is reserved for only the most dire of contingencies - where the controllability and continued flight of the aircraft is in question. For the standard contingency - say loss of pressurization, or a single engine failure where the controllability of the aircraft is not in question, US carriers will divert to the Persian Gulf, and land at one of the many fields over there, where the locals are more friendly (as at least to US interests), and any local maintenance is trained to handle the aircraft, and the source of the parts is without question (what I mean by that is that with the embargo, my guess is that if an airline needs a part in Iran, their chances of getting an FAA or EASA approved part is probably rather slim).

Quoting goldenstate (Reply 5):
I believe NWA diverted a DC-10 to THR some years back due to a problem during AMS-BOM.

No idea how it went for them though.

Once the NWA/KLM agreement came into play into what 1993, 1994? for places like Tehran, the plan is KLM will act as NWA's handling agent. I remember when UA had Flights 1 and 2 that went RTW, in an Ops Manual bulletin, the THR station manager for LH, and his station, was UA's handling agent when/if they had to divert into Tehran.

burnsie28 · Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:22 pm

Quoting goldenstate (Reply 5):
I believe NWA diverted a DC-10 to THR some years back due to a problem during AMS-BOM.

No idea how it went for them though.

Yes the it took something like 6 hours to negotiate the price, the Iranians wouldn't provide any food or water to the crew nor passengers and only after much haggling as well would let the pilots get off the plane to inspect the aircraft. The crew ended up paying for fuel at a price about 4 times higher than normal cost of jetfuel IIRC.

shankly · Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:54 pm

Quoting elmothehobo (Reply 14):

It's happened before, in 2006 specifically with that NW DC-10 that was mentioned earlier.

Iran isn't going to hold an aircraft that had an in flight emergency. If anything they'll help them out and parade their aid on the news, highlighting the 'benevolence of the Islamic Republic' in the face of 'Continued Zionist attacks.'

You are correct, it has, but not in the context of an on-going civil aviation fuel embargo. You are correct, Iran won't "hold" a civil aircraft, the Iranians are after all generally a civil, hospitable and honourable people.

What they might however do is a very thorough job on the paperwork in particular the passenger manifest and travel documents, airline and aircraft procedures and documentation and of course security....perhaps a bit like the TSA, but without the legendary TSA cheery smiles and welcome

spudsmac · Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:36 pm

Quoting acabgd (Reply 4):
If there was an emergency situation with an American airliner above or near Iranian airspace I'm sure the Iranians would do everything to safely bring the aircraft down to one of their airports and would treat the pax and the crew with respect.

Sure. If you say so. I say that they will detain them and call them "Western Spies"

flyorski · Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:49 pm

I see this as a largely symbolic move, as sanctions overall tend to be.. It does not really affect the gov. but rather disrupts travelers and Iranians abroad traveling home. That said its simply a political move, and like almost all political moves is useless at affecting any real change.

AirbusCheerlead · Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:55 pm

I don’t really see the point of refusing to sell fuel to the Iranian Airlines. All they archive is making the trip of Iranians from abroad (over 600’000 in US/Canada/EU) as well as of those few Iranians visiting those countries more difficult.

flyorski · Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:00 pm

Quoting AirbusCheerlead (Reply 17):
I don’t really see the point of refusing to sell fuel to the Iranian Airlines

I believe its just symbolic and is not designed to have any real practical effect on the country.

axelesgg · Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:01 pm

IranAir is not allowed to refuel at ARN or CPH so they fly via GOT to refuel now, so GOT has now a daily IranAir A300 or A310.

kaitak · Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Quoting goldenstate (Reply 5):
I believe NWA diverted a DC-10 to THR some years back due to a problem during AMS-BOM.

No idea how it went for them though.

I recall that event; I think Khatami was president at the time, so the regime was more benevolent; it was also long before the current nuclear crisis.

Quoting dispatchguy (Reply 11):
and any local maintenance is trained to handle the aircraft, and the source of the parts is without question (what I mean by that is that with the embargo, my guess is that if an airline needs a part in Iran, their chances of getting an FAA or EASA approved part is probably rather slim).

I realise that the current problem is due to sanctions, but I believe that IR 747s are now banned from the EU; I'm just wondering if part of the reason for this is that parts being used on IR 747s are fake, or not up to approved standards? We know that fake parts is a major problem in the US, but if Iran can't get parts, it will presumably get them via unapproved/illegal sources, where the danger of fake parts of probably greater?

While I don't like to see aviation being used as a political tool, I support these sanctions; for FAR too long, Iran has been obstructing, obfuscating and playing for time; sanctions like this will hurt the Iranian economy (along with others); now is the time to incentivise co-operation by Iran in a manner which will cause them more pain; at all times, Iran has the power to ease the pain for itself by complying; no one is saying it can't have nuclear power. They just want to know more about the programs and Iran's deceitfulness and obstructionism only highlights suspicions that it intends to develop nuclear weapons.

bombayhog · Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:18 pm

Quoting kaitak (Reply 20):
I realise that the current problem is due to sanctions, but I believe that IR 747s are now banned from the EU

I saw an Iran Air 747 in HAM a couple months ago. Did they ban them since then?

HMUcfm56 · Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:58 pm

Quoting bombayhog (Reply 21):
I saw an Iran Air 747 in HAM a couple months ago. Did they ban them since then?

Yep...blacklisted.
IR might enter the european airspace with 14ea A300, 8ea A310 and 1ea B737.

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

glideslope · Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:25 pm

Will the Madness ever end!!! We need Solar Aviation, and we need it NOW!.

lychemsa · Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:56 pm

Interesting that they are allowed to refuel in Austria and Germany.

lh600 · Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:07 am

ridiculous...

Why GOT but not ARN?

HAM but not AMS?

CPH-R · Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:10 am

Quoting lychemsa (Reply 24):
Interesting that they are allowed to refuel in Austria and Germany.

Even more interesting they're allowed to refuel at GOT but not ARN.

Quokka · Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:04 am

This all highlights the absurdities of the sanctions. You allow Iranian aircraft to land, passengers may deplane and board, presumably food is taken on board, but not fuel. We buy oil from Iran but won't sell it back to them. In another thread people were waxing indignant that politics and trade shouldn't be mixed in a spat between Canada and the UAE (sure the circumstances are different) but here politics and trade are confusingly interwoven.
It is different if IranAir were not paying the fuel bill. But if they are able and prepared to pay, and you have let them land (for which the normal commercial charges are no doubt applied) then it is pure humbug to say "you can't buy fuel". If these countries are really serious they should be consistent and just tear up the bi-laterals. Ah, but then they might lose more money than Iran does and we can't have that.

lh600 · Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:31 am

Quoting Quokka (Reply 28):
This all highlights the absurdities of the sanctions. You allow Iranian aircraft to land, passengers may deplane and board, presumably food is taken on board, but not fuel. We buy oil from Iran but won't sell it back to them. In another thread people were waxing indignant that politics and trade shouldn't be mixed in a spat between Canada and the UAE (sure the circumstances are different) but here politics and trade are confusingly interwoven.
It is different if IranAir were not paying the fuel bill. But if they are able and prepared to pay, and you have let them land (for which the normal commercial charges are no doubt applied) then it is pure humbug to say "you can't buy fuel". If these countries are really serious they should be consistent and just tear up the bi-laterals. Ah, but then they might lose more money than Iran does and we can't have that.

Couldn't have said it better.... This is wrong.

MD-90 · Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:27 am

Quoting dispatchguy (Reply 11):
For US carriers that overfly Iran, landing in Iran is reserved for only the most dire of contingencies - where the controllability and continued flight of the aircraft is in question.

Then why did the NWA DC-10 land there? Does anyone know how dire their fuel situation was?

nycflyer · Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:16 am

Quoting AirbusCheerlead (Reply 17):
I don’t really see the point of refusing to sell fuel to the Iranian Airlines. .

You really don't see the point? The point is pretty clear: to hurt Iranian state-owned companies, as punishment for Iran's illegal (by international law) nuclear program. Because Iran Air is state-owned, revenues from that company could go to the nuclear program.

Quoting AirbusCheerlead (Reply 17):
All they archive is making the trip of Iranians from abroad (over 600’000 in US/Canada/EU) as well as of those few Iranians visiting those countries more difficult .

No one is forcing Iranian VFR pax to fly Iran Air. They can just as easily go non-stop on any major European airline, or via one of the Gulf states.

[Edited 2010-10-19 21:17:55]

Quokka · Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:34 am

Quoting NYCFlyer (Reply 31):
The point is pretty clear: to hurt Iranian state-owned companies

Except it is more of an inconvenience than a real hurt. Really hurting them would be if you point blank said no-fly. This seems to be a bit like wanting your cake and eating it. We'll accept your landing fees but not your fuel money. It appears to be posturing. It allows some countries to say we are imposing sanctions, while at the same time still make money.

Whether revenue from IranAir "could be used" is speculative: it rests upon the assumption that IranAir makes a profit and what happens to that profit. The revenue "could" just as readily be "used" to fund hospitals and schools. The fact is, we don't know.

SKAirbus · Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:46 am

Quoting cloud4000 (Reply 1):
Yes, the US has threatened European energy companies with penalties if they do business with Iran. Many of these companies have withdrawn from operations in Iran, which, I guess, includes selling jet fuel to Iran Air. It's part of a sanction regime to bring Iran's nuclear program under heel.

I find it a shame how the US government still find it appropriate to bully its European counterparts to accept its own ideologies.

I by no means support the Iranian government's approach to foreign relations but at the same time I am a humanist and believe that the population should not be punished for the government's actions. As such why should Iran Air aircraft be denied fuel? Sanctions are already taking their toll with Iranian airlines flying very old and unsafe aircraft. If they were allowed to purchase new Boeing or Airbus aircraft, the safety of the passengers would be much improved..

Terrible how governments gamble peoples' safety like this...

planesmith · Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:59 am

Quoting goldenstate (Reply 2):
On the one hand, they could make these problems disappear very easily.

Yes - all the USA has to do is stop arming Israel.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
It would beat the alternative which seems to be air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.

What right does the USA have to do that!!!

RyanairGuru · Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:04 pm

Quoting NYCFlyer (Reply 30):
You really don't see the point? The point is pretty clear: to hurt Iranian state-owned companies, as punishment for Iran's illegal (by international law) nuclear program. Because Iran Air is state-owned, revenues from that company could go to the nuclear program.

But if we're *seriously* trying to hurt Iran why not just stop buying oil from them??? We are, in effect, *giving* the Iranian government money. It's utter madness. Incidentally the same would have applied to Iraq: had we (the west) not bought oil from the country post-1991 there is virtually no chance that Sadaam would have been still around in 2003: the country would have gone bankrupt long before.

Quoting planesmith (Reply 33):
Quoting goldenstate (Reply 2):
On the one hand, they could make these problems disappear very easily.

Yes - all the USA has to do is stop arming Israel.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
It would beat the alternative which seems to be air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.

What right does the USA have to do that!!!

Stop arming Israel and we would have solved half the Middle East's problems in one fare swoop. In a sense it really is that easy (that and withdraw US troops from Saudi Arabia).

As for airstrikes on Iran. I take it you realise that such actions would totally illegal under International law? (as the situation currently stands).

elmothehobo · Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:17 pm

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 34):
Stop arming Israel and we would have solved half the Middle East's problems in one fare swoop. In a sense it really is that easy (that and withdraw US troops from Saudi Arabia).

There are no US forces of any substance in Saudi Arabia (other than units training, military representatives). It's a tiny number. Units stationed in Saudi were withdrawn between 2002-2005. They have been moved to Qatar, Bahrain,and Tampa, FL.

Severnaya · Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 34):
Stop arming Israel and we would have solved half the Middle East's problems in one fare swoop.

What an utter nonsense, you sound like Israel is responsible for all of the problems in the Middle East. Total wrong and total off-topic.

Quoting lychemsa (Reply 23):
Interesting that they are allowed to refuel in Austria and Germany.

Again the joke called the "EU". Why don't their member states enforce one policy? Speaking with one voice is much, much more powerful.

PanHAM · Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:34 pm

Quoting Severnaya (Reply 36):
Again the joke called the "EU". Why don't their member states enforce one policy? Speaking with one voice is much, much more powerful.

The member states Germany and Austria are ot even involved here. The fuel vendors contracted by IR at the tech stops have no business in the USA and hence do not care about sanctions by the US. As long as IR has traffic rights in the 2 countries mentioned and providing fuel to IR is not part of the UN sanctions, the governments have no right to prohibit that or interfere in any other way.

Simple as that.

Severnaya · Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:04 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 37):
The fuel vendors contracted by IR at the tech stops have no business in the USA and hence do not care about sanctions by the US.

I see, thanks for explaining that.

Revelation · Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:04 pm

Quoting Quokka (Reply 31):
Except it is more of an inconvenience than a real hurt. Really hurting them would be if you point blank said no-fly. This seems to be a bit like wanting your cake and eating it. We'll accept your landing fees but not your fuel money. It appears to be posturing. It allows some countries to say we are imposing sanctions, while at the same time still make money.

I suppose, but on the other hand this current step allows for future escalation to a future no fly policy.

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 32):
I find it a shame how the US government still find it appropriate to bully its European counterparts to accept its own ideologies.

It seems to me in this case EU counterparts are coming along on their own.

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 32):
I by no means support the Iranian government's approach to foreign relations

Nor does your elected government.

Quoting planesmith (Reply 33):
Yes - all the USA has to do is stop arming Israel.

It's pretty clear to me that the current regime in Iran (you know, the one that recently violently squashed democracy rallies) would still want nuclear weapons even if the US was not supporting Isreal.

While it's clear to me that US support of Isreal is a destabilizing factor, it's also clear to me that many of Isreal's neighbors use Isreal as a bogeyman to divert their public's attentions away from their own problems, such as theocracies that border on dicatorships (or in some cases dictatorships that border on theocracies), graft and corruption at all levels of government, and true lack of opportunity for the common man and even more so the common woman.

Quoting planesmith (Reply 33):
What right does the USA have to do that!!!

About the same right as Iran and Syria have to destabilize Lebanon.

[Edited 2010-10-20 06:07:50]

planesmith · Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:28 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 39):
it's also clear to me that many of Isreal's neighbors use Isreal as a bogeyman

I think the difference between Israel and all it's neighbours - including Iran - is that they aren't trying to destroy to an Arab state - Israel managed to gain statehood only through the support of the USA - it seems that the USA supported terrorism in those days, Palestine has used the same methods that the Irgun etc devised - and the USA has continued tp arm them with highly sophisticated weapons that Israel is happy to use against anybody who upsets it and has funded their nuclear program - something of a dual standard going on here - perhaps this is why they're held in such poor regard throughout the Middle East.

SA7700 · Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:57 pm

This thread will be moved to the non-aviation forum as it has veered into a new direction, where not all posts are necessarily of a civil aviation nature. Please keep the forum rules closely in mind when posting in this thread as this topic is of a sensitive matter for some users.

Thank you for your co-operation in this regard.

Rgds

SA7700

Asturias · Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:18 pm

Quoting Severnaya (Reply 35):
Again the joke called the "EU". Why don't their member states enforce one policy? Speaking with one voice is much, much more powerful.

While the EU doesn't have anything to do with this or the member countries in particular, I find it completely out of touch to approach the EU as some sort of a federation! It is not a federation and EACH country can do as it pleases.

It is a political CO-OPERATION and regardless, foreign policy is not a common part of the EU. Independent sovereign states make up the EU. Why is it so hard for Americans and Russians to understand this? It's like I'm talking moonspeak here!

asturias

64947 · Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:26 pm

I've got a simple temporary solution.
Deny refueling to ALL airlines of said countries in Iran that deny IranAir refueling in their home countries.
Tit for tat works better than you think.

Sabena332 · Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:39 pm

Quoting LH600 (Reply 24):
ridiculous...

Why GOT but not ARN?

HAM but not AMS?

I've read somewhere some weeks ago that they get fuel at airports where Total (a French oil company) is the dominating fuel supplier but not at airports where Air BP is the dominating fuel supplier. I have absolutely no clue if this is indeed the reason. Can anyone confirm this or does anyone have more information regarding this?

Patrick

TheCol · Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:20 am

Quoting Tu204 (Reply 42):

That would probably work out better for the West than it would for Iran. Just think about all those pissed off people out of work when they get cut off from the portion of the civil aviation industry that they were still allowed to do business with.

[Edited 2010-10-22 21:24:08]

Yellowstone · Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:52 am

Anyone know how this relates to second freedom rights? Iran and most EU countries are IASTA signatories, which means that they are supposed to grant each other first and second freedoms of the air. The second is the right to land for fuel and maintenance without disembarking passengers.

PanHAM · Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:52 am

It certainly does not interfere with any of the freedom's of the air. It is simply so that at certain European airpors, IR does not find a fuel supplier who would fill up their aircraft. Since fuel suppliers are private companies, the state's cannot force them to get into a contract with a company if they do not want to, or fear problems with other countries if they do.

It is indeed so, that Total, a French company with little or no interests in the USA (or the necessary French Government backing) does not care and willfully supplies IR. Others observe the US sanctions, which seem to be harsher than the UN sanctions and do not fuel up IR.

ltbewr · Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:37 pm

This is more about USA politicans using symbolic pandering for the Jewish, pro-Israeli and anti-Islamic world voters by causing this inconvnience to the airline and in turn Iran. PSA (Puegeot) has an office in the USA for parts sales and makes cars in Iran, yet we don't sanction them? This is just war by other means against Iran without actually bombing them.

prebennorholm · Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:59 am

Quoting lychemsa (Reply 23):
Interesting that they are allowed to refuel in Austria and Germany.

Quoting LH600 (Reply 24):
Why GOT but not ARN?

Where they can refuel is not related to the country. It is related to the oil companies present in the specific airport.

US oil companies, and European oil companies which are doing business in the USA, they have to obey to the US sanctions against Iran and cannot sell fuel to Iran Air.

Iran Air can refuel in European airports where the fuel provider is a non-US oil company which does not make business in the USA.

N1120A · Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:34 am

Quoting acabgd (Thread starter):
'Iran said on Tuesday some Western companies were refusing to refuel its planes in Europe and warned it would "confront" such measures, which it deemed illegal under international law.

They are illegal, Iran isn't making that up.

Quoting cloud4000 (Reply 1):
Iran can retaliate I suppose by banning overflight rights to European and American airlines, but who really knows what this will lead to.

That MIGHT happen, but I see this being dealt with.

Quoting goldenstate (Reply 5):
I believe NWA diverted a DC-10 to THR some years back due to a problem during AMS-BOM.

No idea how it went for them though.

It went fine.

Quoting bwaflyer (Reply 7):
For the last couple of weeks, the Iranian authorities have been restricting uplifts at IKA. bmi have been refuelling in TBS, GYD, AMS and PRG amongst others.

That makes some sense.

Quoting elmothehobo (Reply 8):
IINM there was some haggling over buying additional fuel, the flight crew ended up paying for it.

Given the culture, I'm guessing that most Iranian fuel purchases come after haggling.

Quoting shankly (Reply 9):
I can see what will happen already. A US/Western European airliner is en-route and has to make an emergency diversion to Tehran....cue international stand-off and uncomfortable few days for pax and crew until diplomats do their stuff

I highly doubt that.

Quoting dispatchguy (Reply 11):
where the locals are more friendly (as at least to US interests)

The locals couldn't be friendlier. The government might not be, but don't bring the local people into this.

Quoting dispatchguy (Reply 11):
and any local maintenance is trained to handle the aircraft

Iran Air is renowned for its maintenance and has significant experience with both Boeing and Airbus aircraft.

Quoting dispatchguy (Reply 11):

Once the NWA/KLM agreement came into play into what 1993, 1994? for places like Tehran, the plan is KLM will act as NWA's handling agent. I remember when UA had Flights 1 and 2 that went RTW, in an Ops Manual bulletin, the THR station manager for LH, and his station, was UA's handling agent when/if they had to divert into Tehran.

Makes sense.

Quoting burnsie28 (Reply 12):
The crew ended up paying for fuel at a price about 4 times higher than normal cost of jetfuel IIRC.

Quoting burnsie28 (Reply 12):

Yes the it took something like 6 hours to negotiate the price

Quoting burnsie28 (Reply 12):
the Iranians wouldn't provide any food or water to the crew nor passengers and only after much haggling as well would let the pilots get off the plane to inspect the aircraft.

Source?

Quoting spudsmac (Reply 14):

Sure. If you say so. I say that they will detain them and call them "Western Spies"

I say you will lose in that pool.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 19):

I recall that event; I think Khatami was president at the time, so the regime was more benevolent; it was also long before the current nuclear crisis.

Khatami being president had nothing to do with the relative "benevolence" of the regime, and neither does Ahmadinejad. Also, this is hardly a "crisis."

Quoting lychemsa (Reply 23):
Interesting that they are allowed to refuel in Austria and Germany.

Likely Total controls the fuel market there.

Quoting LH600 (Reply 24):
ridiculous...

Why GOT but not ARN?

HAM but not AMS?

It is ridiculous, but I think looking in to who the fuel supplier is will tell you.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 28):

Then why did the NWA DC-10 land there?

Um, because it was broken?

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 45):
Anyone know how this relates to second freedom rights? Iran and most EU countries are IASTA signatories, which means that they are supposed to grant each other first and second freedoms of the air. The second is the right to land for fuel and maintenance without disembarking passengers.

It definitely applies. If they aren't sold fuel, it defeats the whole purpose of the second freedom.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 46):
Since fuel suppliers are private companies, the state's cannot force them to get into a contract with a company if they do not want to

Actually, they can. Eminent domain is a powerful tool.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net