I have a question about export of aircraft to Iran and sanctions.

Today I note, that a 3rd Danish registered MD80 is being exported to Iran (the 2nd this year).

See https://www.flightradar24.com/OYCGN/265cd300

and

https://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb.main?LC=nav4&page=4

aircraft is MD82 OY-CGN, cn 49901, ln 1766, which is enroute to THR according to links above.

Previously,
MD87 OY-JRU, cn 49403, ln 1404 was exported to Iran, and used as a spares source for ATA Airlines
see http://www.myaviation.ir/details.aspx?id=69626

MD82 OY-JCN, cn 49531, ln 1362, was exported to Iran in may 2020, and is now EP-MDZ

The quoted owner as per Skyliner is Danish Airlease, a company that according to official danish data, ceased ops in may 2019.
Owners of that company have relations to owners of Danish Air Transport.

Now my question is, are there any problems or other implications with regard to the current sanctions.
Since this is american technology, I would think there could be issues with regard to OFAC sanction, which are adhered to many places, also in Denmark.

None if paid via cash and the EU bonded money transfer system .

They are beyond the age limitations and do not include any newer technologies.

This is the first time I've ever seen "MD80" and "technology" in the same sentence.

B757Forever wrote:

This is the first time I've ever seen "MD80" and "technology" in the same sentence.

Also includes “do not include” and “beyond the age limitations” to be fair...!

B757Forever wrote:

This is the first time I've ever seen "MD80" and "technology" in the same sentence.

Check again. Your post was the first to mention both in the same sentence


Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

SueD wrote:

None if paid via cash and the EU bonded money transfer system.

There are brokers in the region that specialise in handling transactions between Iran and the rest of the world. I read about similar issues when Nordic Seaplanes acquired its first Twin Otter from Iran. Handover and transaction was done via a broker in Dubai for that one. AFAIK, Nordic Seaplanes is run by the brother of the owner of Danish Air Transport.

If North Korea can get it's hands on 88 new-build MD500 helicopters, Iran can get a couple 40 year old MD80s.

Junglejames wrote:

B757Forever wrote:

This is the first time I've ever seen "MD80" and "technology" in the same sentence.

Check again. Your post was the first to mention both in the same sentence

Ahh, yes. I meant same discussion.

B757Forever wrote:

Junglejames wrote:

B757Forever wrote:

This is the first time I've ever seen "MD80" and "technology" in the same sentence.

Check again. Your post was the first to mention both in the same sentence

Ahh, yes. I meant same discussion.

I have learned that on a.net, in fact on most online discussion boards, one must be very careful in phrasing those snarky comments, for fear of immediately being out-snarkied because the temptation is too great!

spinotter wrote:

B757Forever wrote:

Junglejames wrote:

Check again. Your post was the first to mention both in the same sentence

Ahh, yes. I meant same discussion.

I have learned that on a.net, in fact on most online discussion boards, one must be very careful in phrasing those snarky comments, for fear of immediately being out-snarkied because the temptation is too great!

Oh it certainly was!!
But to keep everyone happy....

The MD80 must have some sort of....
Technology. Otherwise it wouldn't fly!

Oh wait sorry, still a separate sentence!!

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Junglejames wrote:

spinotter wrote:

B757Forever wrote:

Check again. Your post was the first to mention both in the same sentence

Ahh, yes. I meant same discussion.

I have learned that on a.net, in fact on most online discussion boards, one must be very careful in phrasing those snarky comments, for fear of immediately being out-snarkied because the temptation is too great!

Oh it certainly was!!
But to keep everyone happy....

The MD80 must have some sort of....
Technology. Otherwise it wouldn't fly!

Oh wait sorry, still a separate sentence!!

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

The MD80 has lots of technology, and it's all low...

spinotter wrote:

B757Forever wrote:

Junglejames wrote:

Check again. Your post was the first to mention both in the same sentence

Ahh, yes. I meant same discussion.

I have learned that on a.net, in fact on most online discussion boards, one must be very careful in phrasing those snarky comments, for fear of immediately being out-snarkied because the temptation is too great!

No worries the irony doesn’t phase a Brit

SueD wrote:

spinotter wrote:

B757Forever wrote:

Check again. Your post was the first to mention both in the same sentence

Ahh, yes. I meant same discussion.

I have learned that on a.net, in fact on most online discussion boards, one must be very careful in phrasing those snarky comments, for fear of immediately being out-snarkied because the temptation is too great!

No worries the irony doesn’t phase a Brit

Plenty to be found!
All good fun!

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

B757Forever wrote:

The MD80 has lots of technology, and it's all low...

I thought the MD-80 was fly by wire. In this case, the wires do not have any insulation (control cables).

SueD wrote:

None if paid via cash and the EU bonded money transfer system .

They are beyond the age limitations and do not include any newer technologies.

Thanks for that.
Just out of curiosity, are MD80 specifically mentioned as exempt from US-sanctions of export of aircraft to Iran, or is there a specific age-limit of "Technology" ?

Payment in cash of an amount above DKK 50.000 to a legal entity in Denmark is illegal, and AFAIK, Danish banks will not accept payments directly from, or originating from, Iran due to OFAC sanctions.
I would assume that would be true for any other EU-bank that want to be able to trade/clear USD.

A part from these three MD80s, I haven't yet notice export of a transport cat aircraft directly from an EU-register to Iran.
They always go via UR-, EK-, EX- or similar.

B757Forever wrote:

This is the first time I've ever seen "MD80" and "technology" in the same sentence.

True. Archaic technolgy is still technology though.

VSMUT wrote:

There are brokers in the region that specialise in handling transactions between Iran and the rest of the world. I read about similar issues when Nordic Seaplanes acquired its first Twin Otter from Iran. Handover and transaction was done via a broker in Dubai for that one. AFAIK, Nordic Seaplanes is run by the brother of the owner of Danish Air Transport.

That's interesting.
I wonder if the use of these brokers solely is due to avoid directly breach on sanctions.
If so, the transactions could be still be problematic, since the funds still will originate from Iran.

SueD wrote:

None if paid via cash and the EU bonded money transfer system .

They are beyond the age limitations and do not include any newer technologies.

Thank you! Interesting.
What about MD-90, would they be permissible?

Phosphorus wrote:

SueD wrote:

None if paid via cash and the EU bonded money transfer system .

They are beyond the age limitations and do not include any newer technologies.

Thank you! Interesting.
What about MD-90, would they be permissible?

No one overhauls the D5 engine anymore.

So what commercial airplanes can Iran Air acquire? Could they technically acquire the parked TG A340-600s? I might be wrong, however I believe that the airplanes must be older than 7 years old right?

HANSABEL84 wrote:

True. Archaic technolgy is still technology though.

What does it matter when it comes to MD80s though?

Iran Air has brand new Airbus A330s (and A319s, 320s and 321s for that matter) and brand new ATR72-600s. The technology in these aircraft is far more advanced than any old MD80.

It's all a bunch of hogwash when it comes down to it. If Iran wants to rip off Western aviation tech and computer tech, they already have the planes to do it. I find the sanctions on aviation in Iran to be really on the nose. Let's hope that with the change of US Government, the restrictions will be lifted - as both Airbus and Boeing have plenty to gain.

ClassicLover wrote:

HANSABEL84 wrote:

True. Archaic technolgy is still technology though.

What does it matter when it comes to MD80s though?

Iran Air has brand new Airbus A330s (and A319s, 320s and 321s for that matter) and brand new ATR72-600s. The technology in these aircraft is far more advanced than any old MD80.

It's all a bunch of hogwash when it comes down to it. If Iran wants to rip off Western aviation tech and computer tech, they already have the planes to do it. I find the sanctions on aviation in Iran to be really on the nose. Let's hope that with the change of US Government, the restrictions will be lifted - as both Airbus and Boeing have plenty to gain.

I believe the correct phrase is one A330 and one a321 and a handful of ATRs? I thought only two built for another airline were delivered in the window. I would think the still warm Delta MD80s would be a good buy given the age of some of the older aircraft they fly. I’m not so sure any sanctions will be lifted, wasn’t Iran just flaunting their uranium stockpile in excess of the agreement recently?

ClassicLover wrote:

Let's hope that with the change of US Government, the restrictions will be lifted - as both Airbus and Boeing have plenty to gain.

...and to add, if Iran is to follow with an order/deal similar to the last time that they placed/attempted an order/deal - then both Boeing (to a larger extent) and Airbus - would be very well placed to offer up as many white tails as possible. In reality, the few 'new' aircraft that were able to get through, before the re-installation of U.S. sanctions - were quickly (within a small period, IIRC, 30 days) from Airbus, and were in essence - ready to go.

Iran, may - with the right order, be able to be a savior to Boeing (looking at the MAX, and really, any other white tails to clean up with), and Airbus (especially if Airbus steers them correctly, perhaps to a A220 order (and the range of the A220 here makes this a really fascinating proposition, flexible enough for secondary destinations, nimble enough for domestic operations, and a way of adding to the A220 order book and help that program (along to the impetus of increased production, lower costs and perhaps A225 production) better than waiting for A32XNEOs in the short-medium term.

Speedy752 wrote:

I believe the correct phrase is one A330 and one a321 and a handful of ATRs? I thought only two built for another airline were delivered in the window. I would think the still warm Delta MD80s would be a good buy given the age of some of the older aircraft they fly. I’m not so sure any sanctions will be lifted, wasn’t Iran just flaunting their uranium stockpile in excess of the agreement recently?

Two Airbus A330s arrived in March 2017.
13 ATR72-600s arrived May 2017 to August 2018 (apparently another 7 are in storage at ATR waiting to be delivered, but they are built)
1 Airbus A321 arrived January 2017

Their five A320s and three A319s are all old.

Speedy752 wrote:

I believe the correct phrase is one A330 and one a321 and a handful of ATRs? I thought only two built for another airline were delivered in the window. I would think the still warm Delta MD80s would be a good buy given the age of some of the older aircraft they fly. I’m not so sure any sanctions will be lifted, wasn’t Iran just flaunting their uranium stockpile in excess of the agreement recently?

So, two things here - and my previous post will only be helped by my explaintion so I thank you here - but 'returning' to the past deal is pragmatically, not possible. Iran, seeing the deal essentially 'broken' by the U.S. - continued their production, and stockpiling. A 'new' deal has to be now struck, and a restructuring period needed to negotiate those terms. I see not only now a great urgency to do so, but also, that the needs of partners (and parties not represented directly at these tables) as much more advanced, defined, and pertinent than they were in the past as well. I see a framework to work with, and on the political and business ends - perhaps achievable goals, in 'returning' - but that component, the most crucial, has changed - and how that translates, or, corroborates - into those political and business ends - is also yet to be determined. Admittedly, with one crucial election (on the U.S. side) a more positive outlook is present - that said, the other (in Iran) has yet to pass.

Returning to the pertinent topic - great point. DL has many MD-80s, AA did as well. Past an initial influx, these could serve as decent machines for their capacity to carry some freight/cargo, even at the expense of a full passenger payload. A decent option, especially if taken up at very low prices. Plan out the utilization so that it's not needed as frequently (tack on a few dozen spares, and most of other costs are low - fuel, wages, aircraft costs) et voila - an Allegiant style operation. It may not need to be a long-term solution, but for a low-cost, short-medium term option - why not, right?

I’m surprised it’s going EU to Iran. Usually it’s CIS to Iran.

DL_Mech wrote:

B757Forever wrote:

The MD80 has lots of technology, and it's all low...

I thought the MD-80 was fly by wire. In this case, the wires do not have any insulation (control cables).

The Wright Brothers was also fly by wire - amazing the technology. It also used wing warpage for control.

Boof02671 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

SueD wrote:

None if paid via cash and the EU bonded money transfer system .

They are beyond the age limitations and do not include any newer technologies.

Thank you! Interesting.
What about MD-90, would they be permissible?

No one overhauls the D5 engine anymore.

You mean "no one in the parts of the world, where maintaining correct paperwork is of significance, has current paperwork to do the overhauls of D5 engine anymore".

Iranians managed to fly a large fleet, in the face of sanctions, for decades. All maintenance and overhaul were "illegal" -- at least from FAA/US point of view. You would think, a lack of certification would stop them?

Phosphorus wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Thank you! Interesting.
What about MD-90, would they be permissible?

No one overhauls the D5 engine anymore.

You mean "no one in the parts of the world, where maintaining correct paperwork is of significance, has current paperwork to do the overhauls of D5 engine anymore".

Iranians managed to fly a large fleet, in the face of sanctions, for decades. All maintenance and overhaul were "illegal" -- at least from FAA/US point of view. You would think, a lack of certification would stop them?

No I mean no one in the WHOLE world overhauls the D5 engine on the MD90. Only MRO that did was in Christchurch, NZ. When Delta parked them the MRO stopped. There are no parts, no manuals etc.

Rajahdhani wrote:

both Boeing (to a larger extent) and Airbus - would be very well placed to offer up as many white tails as possible.

I would not count on Iran going to Boeing for new planes. The USA has proven themselves to be an unreliable trading partner where Iran is concerned. It's sad for Boeing, they could certainly use a boost, but politics ruined their chances.

Perhaps there is a market for all those NW DC9s after all!

Boof02671 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

No one overhauls the D5 engine anymore.

You mean "no one in the parts of the world, where maintaining correct paperwork is of significance, has current paperwork to do the overhauls of D5 engine anymore".

Iranians managed to fly a large fleet, in the face of sanctions, for decades. All maintenance and overhaul were "illegal" -- at least from FAA/US point of view. You would think, a lack of certification would stop them?

No I mean no one in the WHOLE world overhauls the D5 engine on the MD90. Only MRO that did was in Christchurch, NZ. When Delta parked them the MRO stopped. There are no parts, no manuals etc.

Again, I'm with you. IAE V2500-D5 is indeed no longer overhauled anywhere in the world. Because the last MRO allowed its paperwork to lapse, once Delta's business was over.
And yes, IAE V2500-D5 is not identical to A-versions, enough to need separate paperwork for correct maintenance procedures. It is not materially different, from what I've been told, from A-versions, as to make it impossible for a shop that knows and works on IAE V2500 (other versions, meaning A-versions) to figure out how to work on it. Would it be legal -- not necessarily. Could it do the job -- possibly.

Iranians had no current support for decades; their fleets flew. They didn't send their engines to overseas maintenance for overhauls. Everything was done in-house, with whatever resources they could scrounge locally, or acquire clandestinely. These are not the type of folks, easily deterred by "no-one in the whole world does this".

Phosphorus wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

You mean "no one in the parts of the world, where maintaining correct paperwork is of significance, has current paperwork to do the overhauls of D5 engine anymore".

Iranians managed to fly a large fleet, in the face of sanctions, for decades. All maintenance and overhaul were "illegal" -- at least from FAA/US point of view. You would think, a lack of certification would stop them?

No I mean no one in the WHOLE world overhauls the D5 engine on the MD90. Only MRO that did was in Christchurch, NZ. When Delta parked them the MRO stopped. There are no parts, no manuals etc.

Again, I'm with you. IAE V2500-D5 is indeed no longer overhauled anywhere in the world. Because the last MRO allowed its paperwork to lapse, once Delta's business was over.
And yes, IAE V2500-D5 is not identical to A-versions, enough to need separate paperwork for correct maintenance procedures. It is not materially different, from what I've been told, from A-versions, as to make it impossible for a shop that knows and works on IAE V2500 (other versions, meaning A-versions) to figure out how to work on it. Would it be legal -- not necessarily. Could it do the job -- possibly.

Iranians had no current support for decades; their fleets flew. They didn't send their engines to overseas maintenance for overhauls. Everything was done in-house, with whatever resources they could scrounge locally, or acquire clandestinely. These are not the type of folks, easily deterred by "no-one in the whole world does this".

And they’ve been banned before to flying to Europe over maintenance and safety issues.

Boof02671 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

No one overhauls the D5 engine anymore.

You mean "no one in the parts of the world, where maintaining correct paperwork is of significance, has current paperwork to do the overhauls of D5 engine anymore".

Iranians managed to fly a large fleet, in the face of sanctions, for decades. All maintenance and overhaul were "illegal" -- at least from FAA/US point of view. You would think, a lack of certification would stop them?

No I mean no one in the WHOLE world overhauls the D5 engine on the MD90. Only MRO that did was in Christchurch, NZ. When Delta parked them the MRO stopped. There are no parts, no manuals etc.

Manuals didn't just disappear once DL parked the MD90; and parts can be reverse-engineered.
As been pointed out, Iranian kept classic aircrafts (707s, 747-200s, 727s) flying for decades after the embargo was placed upon the country; they did it then, they could do it now.

WayexTDI wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

You mean "no one in the parts of the world, where maintaining correct paperwork is of significance, has current paperwork to do the overhauls of D5 engine anymore".

Iranians managed to fly a large fleet, in the face of sanctions, for decades. All maintenance and overhaul were "illegal" -- at least from FAA/US point of view. You would think, a lack of certification would stop them?

No I mean no one in the WHOLE world overhauls the D5 engine on the MD90. Only MRO that did was in Christchurch, NZ. When Delta parked them the MRO stopped. There are no parts, no manuals etc.

Manuals didn't just disappear once DL parked the MD90; and parts can be reverse-engineered.
As been pointed out, Iranian kept classic aircrafts (707s, 747-200s, 727s) flying for decades after the embargo was placed upon the country; they did it then, they could do it now.

And the EU banned certain ones of their planes due to maintenance and safety issues

Boof02671 wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

No I mean no one in the WHOLE world overhauls the D5 engine on the MD90. Only MRO that did was in Christchurch, NZ. When Delta parked them the MRO stopped. There are no parts, no manuals etc.

Manuals didn't just disappear once DL parked the MD90; and parts can be reverse-engineered.
As been pointed out, Iranian kept classic aircrafts (707s, 747-200s, 727s) flying for decades after the embargo was placed upon the country; they did it then, they could do it now.

And the EU banned certain ones of their planes due to maintenance and safety issues

And EU is well within its rights to do so.
In the meantime, Iranian domestic (and regional) travel needs are still large, and still appear to be short on capacity. They failed with domestic manufacturing (JV's) and they hated Tupolev metal that they leased from ex-USSR after 1991. They will continue to look for Western aircraft.

WayexTDI wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

You mean "no one in the parts of the world, where maintaining correct paperwork is of significance, has current paperwork to do the overhauls of D5 engine anymore".

Iranians managed to fly a large fleet, in the face of sanctions, for decades. All maintenance and overhaul were "illegal" -- at least from FAA/US point of view. You would think, a lack of certification would stop them?

No I mean no one in the WHOLE world overhauls the D5 engine on the MD90. Only MRO that did was in Christchurch, NZ. When Delta parked them the MRO stopped. There are no parts, no manuals etc.

Manuals didn't just disappear once DL parked the MD90; and parts can be reverse-engineered.
As been pointed out, Iranian kept classic aircrafts (707s, 747-200s, 727s) flying for decades after the embargo was placed upon the country; they did it then, they could do it now.

Reverse engineering a V2500 is very different than reverse engineering a JT8D. The V2500 has much tighter manufacturing tolerances, much more advanced metals in the rotors, single crystal turbine blades. There is a night and day difference in metallurgy and manufacturing.

Part of this us Iran has a history of... repurposing civilian parts and even aircraft. They can acquire a few aircraft, but Airbus is required to supply parts just in time with old parts returned.

There is another layer to this. People point out escapes, e.g. North Korea helicopters. But do you realize how many parts are needed to train pilots? Does no one recall how quickly the Iranian F-14s were grounded for lack of spare parts after the revolution.

Amateurs talk tactics (individual planes), professionals talk logistics (spare parts).

Almost all Aerospace technology can be dual use (civilian or military). That is the basis behind the sanctions.

We can disagree on if these sanctions should occur or not. But as long as a country commonly proclaims death to me, I support limiting their military.

Lightsaber

Boof02671 wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

No I mean no one in the WHOLE world overhauls the D5 engine on the MD90. Only MRO that did was in Christchurch, NZ. When Delta parked them the MRO stopped. There are no parts, no manuals etc.

Manuals didn't just disappear once DL parked the MD90; and parts can be reverse-engineered.
As been pointed out, Iranian kept classic aircrafts (707s, 747-200s, 727s) flying for decades after the embargo was placed upon the country; they did it then, they could do it now.

And the EU banned certain ones of their planes due to maintenance and safety issues

And? Iranian airlines do not need European or American approval to operate within their own airspace... They would, however, greatly beneficiate from newer aircraft for their domestic operations

HANSABEL84 wrote:

That's interesting.
I wonder if the use of these brokers solely is due to avoid directly breach on sanctions.
If so, the transactions could be still be problematic, since the funds still will originate from Iran.

AFAIK, the issue isn't with selling the aircraft, aircraft over a certain age can still be exported to Iran. The problem would be with the transaction itself, with the US blocking transactions in and out of Iran. A broker who doesn't deal with the US would have no problems bypassing that. He would just take the payment in cash or goods, with a hefty margin on top to cover risk and his profits. It would simply be a deal between a UAE company and a Danish company. Actual handover of the aircraft and the payment would happen in a neutral place close to Iran, like Sharjah or Muscat.