Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
persiangulf93
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:42 am

Re: Iran deals might be in jeopardy

Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:13 pm

Please read - Broad article with facts regarding the matter!

https://financialtribune.com/articles/e ... ates-jcpoa
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20969
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Iran deals might be in jeopardy

Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:24 pm

Dutchy wrote:
neomax wrote:
Trump can definitely block Boeing but I would be very surprised if the EU doesn't support Airbus.


American components can probably be blocked.

I'd like to know how any engine could be delivered without turbine blades. Last I looked, all three engine vendors either made the blades in the USA or outsourced to US vendors.
Note:. CFM turbine high blades are made by GE.

Personally, financing will be the issue, not the threat of this ban.


Lightsaber
I cannot wait to get vaccinated to live again! Warning: I simulated that it takes 50%+ vaccinated to protect the vaccinated and 75%+ vaccinated to protect the vac-hesitant.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20969
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Iran deals might be in jeopardy

Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:27 pm

persiangulf93 wrote:
Please read - Broad article with facts regarding the matter!

https://financialtribune.com/articles/e ... ates-jcpoa

That link assumes Iran is in compliance. Aircraft cannot be banned as long as Iran complies. So the aircraft can be banned unless Iran proves they are in compliance (last I looked, if access is difficult, that was proof of non-compliance).

However, I think this is mid-term election fluff.

Lightsaber
I cannot wait to get vaccinated to live again! Warning: I simulated that it takes 50%+ vaccinated to protect the vaccinated and 75%+ vaccinated to protect the vac-hesitant.
 
User avatar
persiangulf93
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:42 am

Re: Iran deals might be in jeopardy

Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:36 pm

lightsaber wrote:
persiangulf93 wrote:
Please read - Broad article with facts regarding the matter!

https://financialtribune.com/articles/e ... ates-jcpoa

That link assumes Iran is in compliance. Aircraft cannot be banned as long as Iran complies. So the aircraft can be banned unless Iran proves they are in compliance (last I looked, if access is difficult, that was proof of non-compliance).

However, I think this is mid-term election fluff.

Lightsaber


According to the IAEA and EU Iran is in full compliance. That Trump think Iran is not compliant to the "spirit" of the deal is just a lame excuse to show his distaste of the agreement. As long as the IAEA confirms Iran's compliance I see the sales going through.
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13725
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

Re: Iran deals might be in jeopardy

Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:46 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
neomax wrote:
Trump can definitely block Boeing but I would be very surprised if the EU doesn't support Airbus.


American components can probably be blocked.

I'd like to know how any engine could be delivered without turbine blades. Last I looked, all three engine vendors either made the blades in the USA or outsourced to US vendors.
Note:. CFM turbine high blades are made by GE.
Somebody asked in this thread what engines could be used in order for an Airbus to be delivered to Iran, in case of a new ban. The answer should be obvious: Unless you wanna reengine an A320 with Russian PS-90 engines, you can't deliver them in case of another ban with any of the engines offered, be it CEO or NEO.

And this goes beyond the engines too. Think of the avionics used as well. I did a Google search and noticed that the A320 has US companies such as Rockwell Collins, GE Aviation Systems, Panasonic Aviation Corporation, Honeywell, etc. as suppliers. Therefore, in order to be compliant with a possible ban on US designed components, you'd have to completely redesign the aircraft, using nothing but its existing airframe as the base.
Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a question is an answer. - Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 208
 
Eyad89
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Iran deals might be in jeopardy

Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:32 pm

Iran could still get their planes even if US wouldn't export any of the Airbus parts. Couldn't they buy/lease frames registered under other airlines? Something similar to how QR took in a few LATAM A350s? I am pretty sure a few airlines or leasing companies could give away a few frames if Iran Air is willing to pay. US can't block that.
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13725
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

Re: Iran deals might be in jeopardy

Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:39 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
Iran could still get their planes even if US wouldn't export any of the Airbus parts. Couldn't they buy/lease frames registered under other airlines? Something similar to how QR took in a few LATAM A350s? I am pretty sure a few airlines or leasing companies could give away a few frames if Iran Air is willing to pay. US can't block that.
Actually, they can. Not just the engines, the avionics, IFE, etc. all have US components.

Wet leases however are on the edge of being a potential violation of an export block the US may impose (but not impossible, see e.g. TA wet leasing Irish registered A320s to CU). It could be therefore subject to interpretation. And I dunno with second hand aircraft, but if you suggest that an airline picks up those orders only to lease them back or immediately resell them to an Iranian airline in order to circumvent a ban, I don't think that would be worth the risk. If you lose business to the US as an international airline, you potentially lose a lot of money.
Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a question is an answer. - Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 208
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20969
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Iran deals might be in jeopardy

Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:38 am

jupiter2 wrote:
persiangulf93 wrote:
The Airbus deal between IR and Airbus may be financed by Airbus themselves.
https://en.mehrnews.com/news/130336/Air ... -purchases

Do you think Airbus would do this if they weren't confident the deal going through?


More likely an indication that they are finding it hard to get a financial institution to finance the deal and being exposed to a potential embargo on delivery.

Not unheard of for a manufacturer to finance a deal, Boeing do it as well, but not sure they would expose themselves to a large order.

Vendor financing is rarely a good sign. In this era of faster loss of aircraft value, it is only profitable to vendor finance popular models.

Now Boeing or Airbus financing say 1 of 5 aircraft is a profit center. But look at Boeing having to do contortions to transfer WN 717s to DL. I'm convinced that deal was done so everyone was better of every month (WN didn't have to do a huge one time charge, Boeing didn't have to write off instantly hundreds of millions of 717 value, and DL received planes at a low monthly fee). WN even had to pay for the cabin and paint conversion... Yeah... Vendor financing of a whole order isn't a good sign...

Lightsaber
I cannot wait to get vaccinated to live again! Warning: I simulated that it takes 50%+ vaccinated to protect the vaccinated and 75%+ vaccinated to protect the vac-hesitant.
 
User avatar
persiangulf93
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:42 am

Re: Iran deals might be in jeopardy

Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:16 am

lightsaber wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:
persiangulf93 wrote:
The Airbus deal between IR and Airbus may be financed by Airbus themselves.
https://en.mehrnews.com/news/130336/Air ... -purchases

Do you think Airbus would do this if they weren't confident the deal going through?


More likely an indication that they are finding it hard to get a financial institution to finance the deal and being exposed to a potential embargo on delivery.

Not unheard of for a manufacturer to finance a deal, Boeing do it as well, but not sure they would expose themselves to a large order.

Vendor financing is rarely a good sign. In this era of faster loss of aircraft value, it is only profitable to vendor finance popular models.

Now Boeing or Airbus financing say 1 of 5 aircraft is a profit center. But look at Boeing having to do contortions to transfer WN 717s to DL. I'm convinced that deal was done so everyone was better of every month (WN didn't have to do a huge one time charge, Boeing didn't have to write off instantly hundreds of millions of 717 value, and DL received planes at a low monthly fee). WN even had to pay for the cabin and paint conversion... Yeah... Vendor financing of a whole order isn't a good sign...

Lightsaber


It is a good sign when no one else is willing to finance it due to a certain bully. Airbus did this to get the financing issue resolved and deliver planes. In case of DL/WN - they had no international banking restrictions on them, Iran does. Cases differ and in this case there wasn't really another option, except for domestic financing - which most probably will be back-up.
 
User avatar
cougar15
Posts: 1449
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 6:10 pm

Re: Iran deals might be in jeopardy

Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:13 am

Have there not been ´ways and means´ to get around such issues for years, or how did all the A340´s end up in Iran?
some you lose, others you can´t win!
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: Iran deals might be in jeopardy

Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:15 am

persiangulf93 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:

More likely an indication that they are finding it hard to get a financial institution to finance the deal and being exposed to a potential embargo on delivery.

Not unheard of for a manufacturer to finance a deal, Boeing do it as well, but not sure they would expose themselves to a large order.

Vendor financing is rarely a good sign. In this era of faster loss of aircraft value, it is only profitable to vendor finance popular models.

Now Boeing or Airbus financing say 1 of 5 aircraft is a profit center. But look at Boeing having to do contortions to transfer WN 717s to DL. I'm convinced that deal was done so everyone was better of every month (WN didn't have to do a huge one time charge, Boeing didn't have to write off instantly hundreds of millions of 717 value, and DL received planes at a low monthly fee). WN even had to pay for the cabin and paint conversion... Yeah... Vendor financing of a whole order isn't a good sign...

Lightsaber


It is a good sign when no one else is willing to finance it due to a certain bully. Airbus did this to get the financing issue resolved and deliver planes. In case of DL/WN - they had no international banking restrictions on them, Iran does. Cases differ and in this case there wasn't really another option, except for domestic financing - which most probably will be back-up.


It's not really, it's a sign of desperation.

I admire your enthusiasm for the cause, but if there does happen to be an embargo, reality most likely leave you disappointed. Having said that though, I hope and I would say most people on this forum would hope, that there is no embargo and that it's just a bunch of politicians blowing a lot of hot air.
 
USAirKid
Posts: 743
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:42 am

Re: Iran deals might be in jeopardy

Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:44 am

LTU932 wrote:
Eyad89 wrote:
Iran could still get their planes even if US wouldn't export any of the Airbus parts. Couldn't they buy/lease frames registered under other airlines? Something similar to how QR took in a few LATAM A350s? I am pretty sure a few airlines or leasing companies could give away a few frames if Iran Air is willing to pay. US can't block that.
Actually, they can. Not just the engines, the avionics, IFE, etc. all have US components.

Wet leases however are on the edge of being a potential violation of an export block the US may impose (but not impossible, see e.g. TA wet leasing Irish registered A320s to CU). It could be therefore subject to interpretation. And I dunno with second hand aircraft, but if you suggest that an airline picks up those orders only to lease them back or immediately resell them to an Iranian airline in order to circumvent a ban, I don't think that would be worth the risk. If you lose business to the US as an international airline, you potentially lose a lot of money.


I could also see any company that assisted in circumventing a ban to have issues in buying future airplanes that have US parts. That isn't a good thing if you want to be a going concern as an airline or a lessor. That'll take out Airbus and Boeing, and I wouldn't be surprised if Bombardier and Embrarer has US parts as well.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13995
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Iran deals might be in jeopardy

Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:20 am

superjeff wrote:
The problem is the U.S. is saying that Iran has already breached the agreement. Based on that, the U.S. can walk. . .


Does the US have jurisdiction to claim that?

DocLightning wrote:
There is *something* that Airbus could do, but it would take decades: adopt a policy of not using any US designed or manufactured parts in any future AIrbus types. However, for other products with shorter design cycles (like cars), this might be a project that would only take 5-10 years. That would reduce the impact that American political instability would have on trade in other countries. Our politicians should keep that in mind.


Which is probably why such a ban won´t happen. Making it too risky to have US partners in the future, and the times that much technology was only available from US companies is long gone, is not a good policy. RR, MTU and such are probably rooting for that to happen.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13725
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

Re: Iran deals might be in jeopardy

Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 am

USAirKid wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if Bombardier and Embrarer has US parts as well.
Don't be, because if they're e.g. using the GTF as an engine, then they are using US parts in their aircraft. Plus the avionics. So it's 99.9999% likely that they are using US parts as well.
Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a question is an answer. - Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 208
 
WIederling
Posts: 9622
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Iran deals might be in jeopardy

Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:26 am

lightsaber wrote:
So the aircraft can be banned unless Iran proves they are in compliance.


Wrong. IMU the US would have to prove noncompliance.
Especially as they are the sole party alleging such.
( What they berate is not part of the treaty anyway.)

Telling to see that the US signs treaties but continues to sabotage behind the scenes
in a wide spectrum effort to frustrate the treaties objective.

( in context amusing to see that girly US ambassador to the UN giving
us the Randy Boeing moral superiority talk on Jerusalem)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13647
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Iran deals might be in jeopardy

Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:01 pm

DocLightning wrote:
There is *something* that Airbus could do, but it would take decades: adopt a policy of not using any US designed or manufactured parts in any future AIrbus types. However, for other products with shorter design cycles (like cars), this might be a project that would only take 5-10 years. That would reduce the impact that American political instability would have on trade in other countries. Our politicians should keep that in mind.


Peugeot has been building cars in Iran for decades. There's probably not much/nothing US made in any given French car, and it would be easy to replace anyway for the market that Iran is. The problem of course is that Peugeot wants to enter the US market.

LTU932 wrote:
Eyad89 wrote:
Iran could still get their planes even if US wouldn't export any of the Airbus parts. Couldn't they buy/lease frames registered under other airlines? Something similar to how QR took in a few LATAM A350s? I am pretty sure a few airlines or leasing companies could give away a few frames if Iran Air is willing to pay. US can't block that.
Actually, they can. Not just the engines, the avionics, IFE, etc. all have US components.

Wet leases however are on the edge of being a potential violation of an export block the US may impose (but not impossible, see e.g. TA wet leasing Irish registered A320s to CU). It could be therefore subject to interpretation. And I dunno with second hand aircraft, but if you suggest that an airline picks up those orders only to lease them back or immediately resell them to an Iranian airline in order to circumvent a ban, I don't think that would be worth the risk. If you lose business to the US as an international airline, you potentially lose a lot of money.


US sanctions work by bullying companies that have business in the US.

You should be able to set up a Chinese company to funnel aircraft to Iran.

The problem would be the ability to do this for a number of aircraft before export to that Chinese company are made illegal. Maybe set up a company for each aircraft ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
Egerton
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 am

Re: Iran deals might be in jeopardy

Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:07 pm

History has shown the UK that sanctions are a double edged sword. For instance, from Wiki "in the Iran Iraq war a near-total financial and trade embargo was imposed by the United Nations Security Council on Ba'athist Iraq. They began August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, stayed largely in force until May 2003 (after Saddam Hussein's being forced from power)"

The result was that long standing UK business ties were cut off, and UK exports and thus UK jobs suffered on a substantial scale, leading to some factories closing for ever. These missing UK exports were instead supplied by the Japanese and others. The world learned from this. Next time round against Russia, the sanctions were on military goods and on banks. ('Better banks not tanks'.)

The consequences for export jobs and the ineffectiveness (because there are always alternatives) of any trade embargo or trade sanctions not backed up by a banking equivalent is well proven. Another failed trade embargo or trade sanction was applied by UK against the white dominated Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe now). These little history lessons appear to be lost on the White House.

If a banking embargo is applied on the UK and Europe to reinforce trade sanctions on Iran, there will be a full scale trade war. Bear in mind that the City of London does more financial stuff than Wall Street, New York. This makes it unlikely that Iran will be hit by effective trade sanctions, in spite of the rhetoric.

All that is actually happening in the real world is a growing feeling that the White House cannot be relied upon, in spite of its apparent diplomatic and military power. Trust which has been earned over many decades is being squandered. Sad and alarming at the same time.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9622
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Iran deals might be in jeopardy

Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:55 pm

Aesma wrote:
Peugeot has been building cars in Iran for decades.


Not.
Iran Khodro produces under license in Iran.
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 9622
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Iran deals might be in jeopardy

Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:03 pm

Egerton wrote:
The result was that long standing UK business ties were cut off, and UK exports and thus UK jobs suffered on a substantial scale, leading to some factories closing for ever.


The US at the time was rather vocal about them and their "coalition of those willing from being paid" now reaping all the monetary benefits from rebuilding Iraq. ( Rather in your face depraved: first you burn down other peoples places and then take their money for rebuilding. double whammy.)
Whatever.
Being incapable to do the job required rebuilding power stations and such went to Germany.
But they managed to foist a CDMA mobile network in Iraq when every neighbour used GSM infrastructure.
Murphy is an optimist
 
superjeff
Posts: 1387
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:14 am

Re: Iran deals might be in jeopardy

Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:41 am

tommy1808 wrote:
superjeff wrote:
The problem is the U.S. is saying that Iran has already breached the agreement. Based on that, the U.S. can walk. . .


Does the US have jurisdiction to claim that?

Of course the U.S. can claim that. The U.S. is a party to the Agreement, as well as a sovereign country.


DocLightning wrote:
There is *something* that Airbus could do, but it would take decades: adopt a policy of not using any US designed or manufactured parts in any future AIrbus types. However, for other products with shorter design cycles (like cars), this might be a project that would only take 5-10 years. That would reduce the impact that American political instability would have on trade in other countries. Our politicians should keep that in mind.


Which is probably why such a ban won´t happen. Making it too risky to have US partners in the future, and the times that much technology was only available from US companies is long gone, is not a good policy. RR, MTU and such are probably rooting for that to happen.

best regards
Thomas

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos