The U.S. (DOT) today fined Emirates $400,000 for operating flights carrying the JetBlue Airways code in airspace in which the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) prohibited U.S. operators from flying.

An investigation by the Department’s Office of Aviation Consumer Protection found that Emirates operated flights carrying the B6 code over parts of Iranian airspace despite the FAA issuing a notice prohibiting operators from flying in that region.

DOT press release
https://www.transportation.gov/briefing ... d-airspace

News story:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN26M76J

Little surprised that B6 has no responsibility in this matter as well. They're the ones that applied for the service and they probably should make sure that whoever is operating on their behalf do it right.

Don't US carriers operate over Iran? Or did this change after January?

Codeshares work in strange ways, whether it's JetBlue applying for a government contract to operate IAD-DXB and having Emirates actually carry the operation, or the DOT docking Emirates for overflying Iran with B6 codes like in this case.

If this is the venture being taken, was anything done about Qatar Airways overflying Iran potentially with AA codeshares?

jetblastdubai wrote:

Little surprised that B6 has no responsibility in this matter as well. They're the ones that applied for the service and they probably should make sure that whoever is operating on their behalf do it right.

Agree. There is responsibility that does go along with a codeshare and all parties should be well aware of them when signing the contracts.

mooseofspruce wrote:

Codeshares work in strange ways, whether it's JetBlue applying for a government contract to operate IAD-DXB and having Emirates actually carry the operation, or the DOT docking Emirates for overflying Iran with B6 codes like in this case.

If this is the venture being taken, was anything done about Qatar Airways overflying Iran potentially with AA codeshares?

thats going to be interesting as AA/QR get back in bed together.

kiowa wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

Little surprised that B6 has no responsibility in this matter as well. They're the ones that applied for the service and they probably should make sure that whoever is operating on their behalf do it right.

Agree. There is responsibility that does go along with a codeshare and all parties should be well aware of them when signing the contracts.

So B6 is responsible for routing Emirates aircraft? Come on...

MIflyer12 wrote:

kiowa wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

Little surprised that B6 has no responsibility in this matter as well. They're the ones that applied for the service and they probably should make sure that whoever is operating on their behalf do it right.

Agree. There is responsibility that does go along with a codeshare and all parties should be well aware of them when signing the contracts.

So B6 is responsible for routing Emirates aircraft? Come on...

No. They are responsible for making sure that Emirates adheres to the agreement, which I'm fairly certain has language requiring the airline to comply with all US DOT laws while operating under the contract. Their liability exposure may be limited, but they do share.

TWA772LR wrote:

Don't US carriers operate over Iran? Or did this change after January?

Banned since January

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... s-airlines

MIflyer12 wrote:

kiowa wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

Little surprised that B6 has no responsibility in this matter as well. They're the ones that applied for the service and they probably should make sure that whoever is operating on their behalf do it right.

Agree. There is responsibility that does go along with a codeshare and all parties should be well aware of them when signing the contracts.

So B6 is responsible for routing Emirates aircraft? Come on...

In this case they are, the US goverment gave JetBlue a contract and JetBlue uses Emirates to operate the flights as a codeshare. So yes they are responsible for the flights because there is a good chance a US Government employee was on that flight.

Even though this involves a codeshare with a US carrier, the DOT may have a hard time collecting it here.

MavyWavyATR wrote:

Even though this involves a codeshare with a US carrier, the DOT may have a hard time collecting it here.

How so? The DOT, and by extension FAA, can likely come up with some harsher penalties if they so desired. They may desire to do that if a carrier operating to the US decides to ignore fines. Sometimes you are better off paying the ticket, no matter how much of a prick the policeman was.

MavyWavyATR wrote:

Even though this involves a codeshare with a US carrier, the DOT may have a hard time collecting it here.

Emirates flies into the US to many different cities, I would say it would be pretty easy to collect ...

Pinto wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

kiowa wrote:

Agree. There is responsibility that does go along with a codeshare and all parties should be well aware of them when signing the contracts.

So B6 is responsible for routing Emirates aircraft? Come on...

In this case they are, the US goverment gave JetBlue a contract and JetBlue uses Emirates to operate the flights as a codeshare. So yes they are responsible for the flights because there is a good chance a US Government employee was on that flight.

The US Government fined Emirates for failing to follow the rules, not JetBlue for failing to enforce a contract.

If JetBlue was responsible for the flights, JetBlue would have been fined.

KFLLCFII wrote:

The US Government fined Emirates for failing to follow the rules, not JetBlue for failing to enforce a contract.

If JetBlue was responsible for the flights, JetBlue would have been fined.

Emirates is not a US operating agency so is not subject to domestic USA rules.

'B6' is an IATA booking code, not an operating agency. It has no relevance to the actual flight; it could equally apply to bookings for a train service. The flightplan filed over Iran would have started with UAE___.

So the DOT had no basis for fining Emirates. However they might have had a case for fining JetBlue, but that wouldn't go well in the current economic climate.

ELBOB wrote:

'B6' is an IATA booking code, not an operating agency. You can't fly an aeroplane anywhere with that code. The flightplan filed over Iran would have started with UAE___.

So the DOT had no basis for fining Emirates. However they might have had a case for fining JetBlue, but that wouldn't go well in the current economic climate.

I fully agree with you. But DOT set the fines so small to start with, there is no point for EK to argue in appeal court considering the lawyer fees. EK might negotiate with DOT to further reduce the fines to $200,000 mark and be done with it. Obviously DOT is to make a precedent and noise about the Iran air space issue. Even if EK repealed the decision, DOT still won by accusing EK flying over the Iran space and make that public. From a PR stand point, EK looses either by pay the fine and hopefully forget about it, or take DOT to court to win the case but to loose business. It is a tricky situation for EK.

ELBOB wrote:

KFLLCFII wrote:

The US Government fined Emirates for failing to follow the rules, not JetBlue for failing to enforce a contract.

If JetBlue was responsible for the flights, JetBlue would have been fined.

Emirates is not a US operating agency so is not subject to domestic USA rules.

'B6' is an IATA booking code, not an operating agency. It has no relevance to the actual flight; it could equally apply to bookings for a train service. The flightplan filed over Iran would have started with UAE___.

So the DOT had no basis for fining Emirates. However they might have had a case for fining JetBlue, but that wouldn't go well in the current economic climate.

My point still stands with regard to the post I quoted: They Fined Emirates for Emirates not following the rules, not JetBlue for Emirates not following the rules, therefore JetBlue wa not responsible for Emirates.

What was the original intention of the 'no flying over Iran' rule ? Was it intended to include codeshares operated by non-US airlines and if so, why ? I'm not employed by a US airline - it all sounds a bit like a petty turf war between different US carriers playing out via the DOT

davidjohnson6 wrote:

What was the original intention of the 'no flying over Iran' rule ? Was it intended to include codeshares operated by non-US airlines and if so, why ? I'm not employed by a US airline - it all sounds a bit like a petty turf war between different US carriers playing out via the DOT

I think other US airlines must have complained. They've been complaining about the ME3 for years. They complained about Emirates flights with B6 code shares being counted as a US airline for government travel.

ELBOB wrote:

KFLLCFII wrote:

The US Government fined Emirates for failing to follow the rules, not JetBlue for failing to enforce a contract.

If JetBlue was responsible for the flights, JetBlue would have been fined.

Emirates is not a US operating agency so is not subject to domestic USA rules.

'B6' is an IATA booking code, not an operating agency. It has no relevance to the actual flight; it could equally apply to bookings for a train service. The flightplan filed over Iran would have started with UAE___.

So the DOT had no basis for fining Emirates. However they might have had a case for fining JetBlue, but that wouldn't go well in the current economic climate.

Emirates, on flights to the US, are subject to US rules. Failure to follow US rules (or failure to pay any fines the US levies) can result in EK’s authority to fly to the US revoked.

Substitute US with any other country or organization (eg EU) and the statements are still valid. That is how international flights work. If you want to play in other people’s sandboxes you have to respect their rules.

If adjusting their flight paths to assure that the codeshare agreements that EK has entered (remember it takes two parties to codeshare, B6 did not put their code on EK’s flights without their permission) is legal is too much of a burden then EK and B6 can drop their codeshare.

ELBOB wrote:

KFLLCFII wrote:

The US Government fined Emirates for failing to follow the rules, not JetBlue for failing to enforce a contract.

If JetBlue was responsible for the flights, JetBlue would have been fined.

Emirates is not a US operating agency so is not subject to domestic USA rules.

'B6' is an IATA booking code, not an operating agency. It has no relevance to the actual flight; it could equally apply to bookings for a train service. The flightplan filed over Iran would have started with UAE___.

So the DOT had no basis for fining Emirates. However they might have had a case for fining JetBlue, but that wouldn't go well in the current economic climate.

Under this logic any local authority has no control over any foreign airline servicing that country. They can't apply any rules to them? Is that what you are saying?

Also, remember the authority that allowed the DOT to fine Emirates was granted the DOT because Jetblue AND Emirates applied for the codeshare relationship and AGREED THE RULES ASSOCIATED with that request. One of which was to follow NOTAMs issued by the FAA. They did not, they get fined. Clear and easy for a fine.

The DOT could rescind the codeshare if that is what they want to get out of the fine.... That is a commercial decision.

ordbosewr wrote:

...
The DOT could rescind the codeshare if that is what they want to get out of the fine.... That is a commercial decision.

Sounds logical as it temporarily plugs the loophole in Fly America Act

davidjohnson6 wrote:

What was the original intention of the 'no flying over Iran' rule ? Was it intended to include codeshares operated by non-US airlines and if so, why ? I'm not employed by a US airline - it all sounds a bit like a petty turf war between different US carriers playing out via the DOT

The intent of the “no flying over Iran” rule is safety. I know it seems like a lifetime ago now but let’s not forget what happened back in January...a Ukraine International 737 was accidentally shot down in Tehran by Iranian forces killing all on board. The FAA banned US airlines from Iranian airspace so US aircraft wouldn’t be shot down (accidental or otherwise) as the airspace was seen as too volatile and unsafe.

These types of bans apply to US codeshares on foreign airlines (as Americans may be on them by purchasing through a US airline). Non-US airlines with US airline codeshares have to either adjust their flight routings or suspend the codeshare.

I'm trying to think as current US is thinking right now.
Using codeshares to prevent airlines to fly over Iran seems a bit complicated. Couldn't they simply ban flight plans to and from the US using Iranian airspace?
Or: Is there something preventing the US from including the Iranian air control authority on some sanctions list, thus preventing any airline doing business in the US from paying any kind of fee to them?
Once again, I don't want to enter the debate whether this is right. I'm just trying to understand how much further the US administration could go on that topic.

According to Simple Flying
“Emirates takes its regulatory compliance responsibilities extremely seriously, and we regret that due to an inadvertent oversight, we had operated a small number of flights in July 2019 which did not comply with the FAA NOTAM. When alerted to the matter, we took prompt corrective action, and have co-operated fully with the DOT during the subsequent inquiry process.”

If they pay within 120 days the fine will be reduced to $200,000

https://simpleflying.com/emirates-iran-dot-fine/

So basically EK has admitted full liability and said sorry. Case closed I think.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

What was the original intention of the 'no flying over Iran' rule ? Was it intended to include codeshares operated by non-US airlines and if so, why ? I'm not employed by a US airline - it all sounds a bit like a petty turf war between different US carriers playing out via the DOT

I think other US airlines must have complained. They've been complaining about the ME3 for years. They complained about Emirates flights with B6 code shares being counted as a US airline for government travel.

What is interesting is there are government contract airfares on Chinese carriers with US codeshare (MU/DL and CA/UA) and no one complained about those.

The thing that needs to be understood is that JetBlue and Emirates bid on and won the government flying corporate contract from DC-Dubai.. This means you have US government officials on a flight that is operated with a JetBlue/Emirates code (emirates jet) flying over Iran who we came very close to going to war with and who is still looking to retaliate for the US drone killing of their General earlier this year.

Ziyulu wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

What was the original intention of the 'no flying over Iran' rule ? Was it intended to include codeshares operated by non-US airlines and if so, why ? I'm not employed by a US airline - it all sounds a bit like a petty turf war between different US carriers playing out via the DOT

I think other US airlines must have complained. They've been complaining about the ME3 for years. They complained about Emirates flights with B6 code shares being counted as a US airline for government travel.

What is interesting is there are government contract airfares on Chinese carriers with US codeshare (MU/DL and CA/UA) and no one complained about those.

Probably because Chinese carriers don't capacity dump to the same degree as the ME3 and if they do, the flights ar usually filled with 75% China originating traffic. Apples and oranges...

eta unknown wrote:

Probably because Chinese carriers don't capacity dump to the same degree as the ME3 and if they do, the flights ar usually filled with 75% China originating traffic. Apples and oranges...

You must be out of your mind. No one dumped capacity like Chinese carriers. Europe to Bangkok for £300 return was a normal fare, that’s £75 a sector, the long leg (Europe to China hub) being routinely 10h. The ME3 wouldn’t dream of dumping on that level.

eta unknown wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

I think other US airlines must have complained. They've been complaining about the ME3 for years. They complained about Emirates flights with B6 code shares being counted as a US airline for government travel.

What is interesting is there are government contract airfares on Chinese carriers with US codeshare (MU/DL and CA/UA) and no one complained about those.

Probably because Chinese carriers don't capacity dump to the same degree as the ME3 and if they do, the flights ar usually filled with 75% China originating traffic. Apples and oranges...

There are two huge differences between the ME3 and the CN3 mostly due to how their governments have acted, China has openly acknowledged that it subsidizes its airlines and has negotiated bilateral where the Chinese airlines are allowed to fly a limited number of flights to a limited number of destinations, which is basically how pre-open skies flying worked. Whereas the ME3 have all signed onto an agreement openskies where they explicitly get unlimited flying and agree not to subsidize their airlines, which they maintain the fascade of executing on

cedarjet wrote:

eta unknown wrote:

Probably because Chinese carriers don't capacity dump to the same degree as the ME3 and if they do, the flights ar usually filled with 75% China originating traffic. Apples and oranges...

You must be out of your mind. No one dumped capacity like Chinese carriers. Europe to Bangkok for £300 return was a normal fare, that’s £75 a sector, the long leg (Europe to China hub) being routinely 10h. The ME3 wouldn’t dream of dumping on that level.

I'm not out of my mind, but I think you misunderstood.
US carriers don't care what Chinese carriers do Europe-BKK... they only care about ex USA traffic.
And when I say dump I mean throwing a few A380's or 773's daily into a market.

dcajet wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Don't US carriers operate over Iran? Or did this change after January?

Banned since January

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... s-airlines

This has nothing to do with what happened in January. EK was fined for flights from last year in July 2019. It is mentioned in the linked articles.

Polot wrote:

The intent of the “no flying over Iran” rule is safety. I know it seems like a lifetime ago now but let’s not forget what happened back in January...a Ukraine International 737 was accidentally shot down in Tehran by Iranian forces killing all on board. The FAA banned US airlines from Iranian airspace so US aircraft wouldn’t be shot down (accidental or otherwise) as the airspace was seen as too volatile and unsafe.

The fine is for incidents from July 2019, well before the 737 was shot down in Jan 2020.

DTWLAX wrote:

Polot wrote:

The intent of the “no flying over Iran” rule is safety. I know it seems like a lifetime ago now but let’s not forget what happened back in January...a Ukraine International 737 was accidentally shot down in Tehran by Iranian forces killing all on board. The FAA banned US airlines from Iranian airspace so US aircraft wouldn’t be shot down (accidental or otherwise) as the airspace was seen as too volatile and unsafe.

The fine is for incidents from July 2019, well before the 737 was shot down in Jan 2020.

A ban was also put in place for the same safety reasons in the middle of last year after Iran shot down a US drone.

EK, when operating to/from the US is subject to the limitations on their Part 129 certificate.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

EK, when operating to/from the US is subject to the limitations on their Part 129 certificate.

So, when EK is flying to the US, can they use the Iranian airspace or no?

Is this prohibition still in effect ? EK's IAD flight (which has a B6 codeshare) frequently flies over Iran till this day

I believe that if Emirates is flying on their own, without a codeshare, even to the US, they do not have to avoid Iranian airspace. That is between them and the Iranians. But if they are on a codeshare with a US carrier, they do. In the Jetblue case, the US DOT has a clear interest in any flight that carries the US carrier code, like Jetblue. When the tickets are sold, and the announcements are made to passengers, both airlines names are used. Since US carriers are prohibited from flying in Iranian airspace, it applies.

I expect Emirates to appeal. Whether or not EK drops the appeal would depend on who wins the election.

Money for nothing.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I expect Emirates to appeal. Whether or not EK drops the appeal would depend on who wins the election.

Not at all. Has more to do with UA.

UA had a huge DOD contract to the Middle East. It included DXB and Kuwait. JetBlue 'won' it, by farming it out to EK and UA lost their minds.

UA has been gunning at B6 ever since. I wouldn't be surprised if they brought this to the DOT's attention.

Until UA goes away or wins the contract back, this will continue.

Varsity1 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I expect Emirates to appeal. Whether or not EK drops the appeal would depend on who wins the election.

Not at all. Has more to do with UA.

UA had a huge DOD contract to the Middle East. It included DXB and Kuwait. JetBlue 'won' it, by farming it out to EK and UA lost their minds.

UA has been gunning at B6 ever since. I wouldn't be surprised if they brought this to the DOT's attention.

Until UA goes away or wins the contract back, this will continue.

Yeah but the US is drastically pulling out of the Middle East so UA isn't that desperate to fight back for that contract given it's much smaller compared to mid-2000S-early2010s

iadadd wrote:

Yeah but the US is drastically pulling out of the Middle East so UA isn't that desperate to fight back for that contract given it's much smaller compared to mid-2000S-early2010s

DXB-US also had DL flying back in the same period to split the market share. I'm not sure if the US military stationed in Bahrain uses commercial flights to get their soldier back and forth or if they use military aircraft, but that would be a sizable amount of traffic alone. With UA no longer in DOH, BAH or KWI, if things funneled through DXB, there might actually be a fairly healthy market to tap into.

Back to the basis of my original post: the implications of US military personnel with a B6 ticket, on an EK A/C flying over hostile territory should concern the DOT as well as the DOD.

iadadd wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I expect Emirates to appeal. Whether or not EK drops the appeal would depend on who wins the election.

Not at all. Has more to do with UA.

UA had a huge DOD contract to the Middle East. It included DXB and Kuwait. JetBlue 'won' it, by farming it out to EK and UA lost their minds.

UA has been gunning at B6 ever since. I wouldn't be surprised if they brought this to the DOT's attention.

Until UA goes away or wins the contract back, this will continue.

Yeah but the US is drastically pulling out of the Middle East so UA isn't that desperate to fight back for that contract given it's much smaller compared to mid-2000S-early2010s

It's still one of the largest mil trans contracts the DOD has.

offloaded wrote:

According to Simple Flying
“Emirates takes its regulatory compliance responsibilities extremely seriously, and we regret that due to an inadvertent oversight, we had operated a small number of flights in July 2019 which did not comply with the FAA NOTAM. When alerted to the matter, we took prompt corrective action, and have co-operated fully with the DOT during the subsequent inquiry process.”

If they pay within 120 days the fine will be reduced to $200,000

https://simpleflying.com/emirates-iran-dot-fine/

So basically EK has admitted full liability and said sorry. Case closed I think.

I operated one of the aforementioned flights in early July last year, the notam was identified in the crew briefing package and operations were advised along with a request for a new flight plan. The request was ignored and we were advised that the notam did not affect our flight. Several weeks later I was notified of our violation and that “disciplinary steps” were being considered, however having retained all correspondence relating to the matter..which was forwarded to the respective “manager” the threat of any direct action being taken against either me or my crew evaporated.

That is very stupid. What authority does the FAA have to tell Middle Eastern airlines which airspace they can use? What if the UAE decides it doesn't like Canada and starts fining any American airline that flies over the country? They should just scrap the deal with Jet Blue because it's not worth it to have to deal with this kind of nonsense.

emiratesdriver wrote:

I operated one of the aforementioned flights in early July last year, the notam was identified in the crew briefing package and operations were advised along with a request for a new flight plan. The request was ignored and we were advised that the notam did not affect our flight. Several weeks later I was notified of our violation and that “disciplinary steps” were being considered, however having retained all correspondence relating to the matter..which was forwarded to the respective “manager” the threat of any direct action being taken against either me or my crew evaporated.

Just curious, was the request denied by EK dispatch or did ATC deny the request? I worked ATC at DXB for years and we would, on occasion, reroute some planes thru Iran (DARAX) simply to offload the overloaded fixes that went through Bahrain airspace. There were no restrictions back then but I'm wondering if local ATC even knows about the restriction. If EK is actually flying to Tehran, then it might not even register to ATC that another EK flight is not allowed to fly over the same fix. ATC would have absolutely no idea about (US carrier) B6 association with the flight.

peterinlisbon wrote:

That is very stupid. What authority does the FAA have to tell Middle Eastern airlines which airspace they can use? What if the UAE decides it doesn't like Canada and starts fining any American airline that flies over the country? They should just scrap the deal with Jet Blue because it's not worth it to have to deal with this kind of nonsense.

The UAE is free to do that. Granted with UAE-US traffic heavily skewed towards UAE airlines and not US airlines it really wouldn’t accomplish that much.

jetblastdubai wrote:

emiratesdriver wrote:

I operated one of the aforementioned flights in early July last year, the notam was identified in the crew briefing package and operations were advised along with a request for a new flight plan. The request was ignored and we were advised that the notam did not affect our flight. Several weeks later I was notified of our violation and that “disciplinary steps” were being considered, however having retained all correspondence relating to the matter..which was forwarded to the respective “manager” the threat of any direct action being taken against either me or my crew evaporated.

Just curious, was the request denied by EK dispatch or did ATC deny the request? I worked ATC at DXB for years and we would, on occasion, reroute some planes thru Iran (DARAX) simply to offload the overloaded fixes that went through Bahrain airspace. There were no restrictions back then but I'm wondering if local ATC even knows about the restriction. If EK is actually flying to Tehran, then it might not even register to ATC that another EK flight is not allowed to fly over the same fix. ATC would have absolutely no idea about (US carrier) B6 association with the flight.

All driven via dispatch, nothing to do with ATC.