PDA

View Full Version : Iran wants direct civilian flights to United States


747FOCAL
26th Jan 2006, 14:28
Their leader must really think America is that stupid. I admit the US government makes some bad decisions, but this would be utter insanity. That would be the equivelent of letting Chinese/Russian nuclear bombers make regular trips over US soil.



Iran wants direct civilian flights to United States
Reuters News 01/26/06
(C) Reuters Limited 2006.

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has asked the United States to allow direct flights between the two countries after a break of more than two decades, a senior civil aviation official said on Thursday.

The request comes as the United States and its European Union allies are pressing for the Islamic Republic to be reported to the United Nations Security Council where it could face possible sanctions for its nuclear programme.

"We sent a letter to the relevant American officials on Wednesday, announcing Iran's willingness to resume direct flights," Nourollah Rezai-Niaraki, head of Iran's Civil Aviation Organisation, told state television.

He said the decision to make the request was taken by hardline Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad due to demand from the large Iranian community living in the United States.

"They have repeatedly complained about wasting time and losing their baggage on connecting flights," the official said.

Iranian airliners have been barred from the United States since the U.S. government broke ties with Tehran after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

An Iranian civil aviation spokesman said Ahmadinejad's decision did not signal any move to try to improve relations between the two old foes.

"I hope American officials do not adopt a political stance in making a decision on this request," said spokesman Reza Jafarzadeh.

The United States and the EU accuse Iran of trying to make nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear programme. Tehran says it needs nuclear technology to satisfy booming domestic electricity demand.

Iran is subject to U.S. economic sanctions imposed in 1996, under the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. Due to the sanctions, Iran has struggled to maintain its ageing fleet of aircraft, mostly U.S.-built Boeing planes bought before the 1979 revolution.

Empty Cruise
26th Jan 2006, 15:45
Direct flights between countries promotes commerce & exchange of ideas through the people travelling. I thought this is what gives democracy & free trade the edge over e.g. communism...

...but there is no need for that when it comes to US-Iranian relations, right?

Mods - move to JB, willlya! :mad:

Empty

Roadtrip
26th Jan 2006, 15:50
Let the Iranians fly to Europe. They can get their "cultural exchange" there. I'm not interested in committing genocide against Jews, fomenting nuclear war, or becoming a facist Islamic theocracy. They've got no ideas I'm interested in.

I see Neville Chamberlain's spirit lives on among the "useful fools."

747FOCAL
26th Jan 2006, 15:50
I don't see where I said the US is better than anyone else in my post. All I said was I feel it is a bad idea. A plane leaving Iran could be carrying a lot more than passengers and normal cargo. But, then again maybe you are right.......Castro is not very fond of the US but there are flights from Miami to Cuba on a regular basis.

If Reuters can carry the story why can't PPRUNE?

MANTHRUST
26th Jan 2006, 16:21
They let us fly over Iran and their controllers are always very polite, unlike some other civilised parts of the globe.
Although on second thoughts maybe 747 thingy has a point, those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere because we were told so by our political masters. Now we know, for sure, that all Iranians are hell bent on the destruction of the west, because we`ve been told so by the same politicians so I guess it makes sense to keep them locked up in their own country.
Now I`m not a fan of George Galloway but I think like George this thread should be sent to Jetblast or room 101.

Suvarnabhumi
26th Jan 2006, 16:27
American hysteria and propaganda to keep Bush and his neo-conservative buddies in power. Weapons of mass destruction anyone?????????

No better than the Iranian hysteria and propaganda r.e. Israel wiped off face of map, nuclear technology etc to keep themselves in power.

I'm not interested in committing genocide against Jews, fomenting nuclear war, or becoming a facist Islamic theocracy. They've got no ideas I'm interested in.


Yeah but you are interested in their Gas and Oil reserves, aren't ya? BillyBob has a god given right to keep that pickup truck running cheap now, hell yeah!

747FOCAL
26th Jan 2006, 16:35
When that oil runs out what will countries like Iran do for money? They will be among the poorest nations in the world. Starving, desperate, soon to be in control of nuclear weapons and among the crankiest people on earth besides you know who. What then? :oh:

Suvarnabhumi
26th Jan 2006, 16:59
When that oil runs out what will countries like Iran do for money?

A) Not have to spend it building up a military to try and prevent their natural resources being stolen by Bush and BillyBob , and

B)A variety of industries/services just like every other country on the planet!

They will be among the poorest nations in the world. Starving, desperate

Give yourself some credit 747FOCAL , you're really not that uneducated, and you even have a passport. Well Done!

soon to be in control of nuclear weapons According to Rumsfeld and Fox news so it must be true just like Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction, and Bin Laden and his massive underground cave complexes in Afghanistan.

Ozzy
26th Jan 2006, 17:06
I think they should start up the direct flights again. Keep yer friends close but yer enemies closer:cool:

Ozzy

2R
26th Jan 2006, 19:21
It would make great business on one way tickets ,not many would return to Iran.
I have met alot of Iranians (Persians) in the west and they never go home .
If the smart ones all leave what will become of those left behind ??
And the ones who leave are so quick to abandon their race ,what will they do when the west is threatened .
Will the west be blamed for their exodus of Persians ?
And what happens when the shallow end of the gene pool left behind has a cheyrnobel ??

colmac747
26th Jan 2006, 19:25
Any truth in the rumour Branson has acquired a Concorde for the sole purpose of Tehran-Washington?

:ouch:

Rollingthunder
26th Jan 2006, 19:30
Some reports indicate Iranair has an aged, clapped-out, jury-rigged fleet. Would they meet FAA mtce requirements and be allowed in US airspace for this reason alone?

LatviaCalling
26th Jan 2006, 20:05
In your dreams! Not with the guy who's running Iran today. The Jewish lobby in the U.S. would kill it automatically before the FAA even get their first request for possible consideration.

Jerricho
26th Jan 2006, 20:08
*Sigh*

And somebody tell me is the IranAir flight 710 to Tehran still operating out of Heathrow??

:rolleyes:

Techman
26th Jan 2006, 21:12
Looks like somebody has a closed mind
How true.

yes, I have a passport and I have been all over the Middle east and Northern Africa. Never in my life besides Mexico have I seen such poor and desperate people. So desperate that they gave up the hope of ever getting on the good side of things several generations ago.
You know, there is a world outside of your hotel room.

747FOCAL
26th Jan 2006, 21:58
I am rarely in my hotel room accept to sleep.

Shopping in Damascus was very interesting. Shopping in Algiers was a little scary. Never been to Iraq but with how much of it is on TV I don't need to go there to see how poor they are. The Iranians I know have told me how poor the average person is there. Look at the palestinians....they hold elections and the winners parade around town in an old beat up tractor.

Capt.KAOS
26th Jan 2006, 22:08
Have you been shopping in Tehran too, FOCAL? And yes they could check in an A-Bomb and drop it over New York approaching JFK, easy as pie.

OneWorld22
26th Jan 2006, 22:22
I have to laugh at this street in Tehran....It's the street where the British embassy is!

I like these Iranians,they have a good sense of humour! ;) :}


http://www.labournet.net/events/0402/sands1.jpg

chuks
27th Jan 2006, 08:10
Bobby Sands ... He was the guy who used to play for Manchester United but came from Belfast, right? Why should that annoy the Brits so much? After all, nowadays they have all these cricketers from places like the West Indies.

In Lagos, Nigeria the street by the American Embassy was re-named Louis Farrakhan Crescent, after one of our failed calypsonian rabble-rousing race-hate mongers. It was taken to be an example of humour on the part of Sani Abacha when he had taken time off from a busy day of ordering people bumped off.

I think the Iranians should get permission to fly, subject to the usual safety requirements. More contact means, arguably, a bit more to balance the lunatic fringe now dominant in both countries. Let our bible-wavers fight it out in 'the market place of ideas' with their Koran-wavers and may the best man win. Meanwhile the ordinary folk can carry on.

In the same way, I think we could do better lifting the embargo against Cuba. What are we achieving by being seen to be so bullying towards such a small island?

Anyone wants to nuke New York, they don't need a 747 to do that. A tramp steamer would do very nicely, as any fule kno.

Paul Wilson
27th Jan 2006, 08:58
Nope, Bobby Sands, was an IRA member who died in Maze (Long Kesh) prison on hunger strike. The footballer you are thinking of is George Best (I think)

The street in Iran used to be called Winston Churchill St., but was changed during the revolution.

airship
27th Jan 2006, 14:25
I don't see any particular problem associated with direct civilian flights between Iran and the USA today. :confused:
Even taking into account the prominence given to the terrorist threat today compared with say, 1996 when the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act came into force or even before this time.
Especially considering that the USS Vincennes (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/cg-49.htm) was decommisioned in 2005... ;) :uhoh:

PaperTiger
27th Jan 2006, 16:37
I don't see any particular problem associated with direct civilian flights between Iran and the USA today.Except that none would ever make it since a majority of the passengers on any flight would doubtless appear on the US no-fly list.
Well, their names would anyway. :O

Panama Jack
31st Jan 2006, 11:40
When that oil runs out what will countries like Iran do for money? They will be among the poorest nations in the world. Starving, desperate, soon to be in control of nuclear weapons and among the crankiest people on earth besides you know who. What then? :oh:


Equal question-- when the oil runs out what will countries like the USA, China and India do??? Desperate, cranky, and in control of nuclear weapons. :ooh:

This petition SHOULD be seriously entertained. The reason ambassadors are sent to other countries are to put a human face on differences and defuse conflicts. Cultural exchange is one of the ways that we all find out that we have a lot more in common than differences. Many leaders of the world justify their own existance by keeping people separated, spreading fear and isolationism.

I have been privledged enough to live in nine different countries, ranging from so-called "democracies," so-called "communist countries", and totalitarian regimes. I have also visited a number of other countries. The common trait I find amongst the citizens of these places is that they care about their families, their friends, and want to live in peace. Many enjoy interaction with outsiders, and the citizen of every single country that I have lived in and visited (including such countries such as the USA, China, Iran, etc.) has grievances with their central government.

Many political watchers have argued that Fidel Castro's government would have collapsed years ago had it not been for the US's antagonistic stance and embargo-- an issue that is not only directed at Communism as the White House would like to think, but threatens national sovereignty in many a Cuban's mind. For this reason it has become a rallying point that Castro has easily drawn on. There are many similar parallels to what is happening in Iran today.

Think about it.

747FOCAL
31st Jan 2006, 13:43
Panama Jack - People share some common natural values like caring for family and friends, but I would not agree that they share all common values. Or how to safeguard their values.

As far as the oil goes??? The USA will be the last country on earth to run out of oil because we protected our natural reserves due to the fact there are/were plenty of oil whorehouses out there willing to sell theirs cheap. Alaska is just firing up with enough oil reserves to last a long time. Hopefully until we find another suitable substitute. All them wheat fields should be going up in value soon. :}

ORAC
31st Jan 2006, 16:32
And if not, there's a lot of tar oil in Canada, and their army and air force ain't very big.... :E

High Wing Drifter
31st Jan 2006, 16:35
The USA will be the last country on earth to run out of oil because we protected our natural reserves due to the fact there are/were plenty of oil whorehouses out there willing to sell theirs cheap.
Its a possibility that most of the oil corporations are sandbagging.

HowlingWind
31st Jan 2006, 17:28
Its a possibility that most of the oil corporations are sandbagging. Possible, but then again a certain Dutch company made an embarrassing disclosure last year that they had overstated reserves by more than 20 percent. And while the Saudis aren't likely to admit it, some energy analysts believe their recoverable reserves are not what everybody thinks.

Panama Jack
31st Jan 2006, 20:02
Wow, 747FOCAL. You have left me absolutely stunned with your comments. :ooh: I never knew that the US viewed the rest of the world as their hoarhouse. I guess Canada with it's natural resources is the U.S.'s convenient little "white slut next door," and Mexico is the "hispanic puta next door."

And as ORAC said, if they don't give it away, the US will just take it. :yuk:

I give both of you the benefit of the doubt that these comments are made somewhat tongue-in-cheek, however, I also keep in mind that within every joke there is a grain of truth.

With respect to remaining oil reserves, the amount that the Saudis have is anybody's guess. I also read an article within the last week or so (I think it was in The Economist that said that reserve estimation is always a tricky business, not the least of which is because of constant changes in technology. It summarized that the the Saudis may actually have much more reserves than they claim. I guess we'll see.

Read that all the wheatfields still cannot provide sufficient eco-fuels to power our society they way we are going. Unless a completely new source of energy is found (ie, Hydrogen fusion), we are in a process of unsustainable development.

747FOCAL
2nd Feb 2006, 15:22
Panama Jack - I think your taking my statements out of context. When I said whorehouse I meant that they are as much a slave to the money it brings as we are to the oil they sell.

West Coast
2nd Feb 2006, 15:27
"And if not, there's a lot of tar oil in Canada, and their army and air force ain't very big"

All Canada is is a bunch of pissed off Americans. Would make it official but the extra star would mess up the flag.

chuks
2nd Feb 2006, 16:07
Canada, last time I visited, sure did seem like another country. Of course, what do I know?

We went to see Niagara Falls since this was a non-negotiable demand from the wife. We rented a big Mercury four-door saloon for the journey, to travel in style from New York City.

Most striking was the return trip, crossing from green and pleasant Canada to Rust Belt upper New York State. If anyone there was in a bad mood, I thought it must have been the deprived and benighted US Americans, than whom the Canadians seemed to be having it much, much better. If one had to guess, one would say that there had been a bit of underinvestment in infrastructure on the part of the USA, so that it sure looked third-rate by comparison.

Too, their leader seemed to be able, despite a funny accent, to string consecutive thoughts together without frightening his listeners with the thought that there was an obvious moron in charge of the most powerful military in the world. But there I go again ...

So Plan A is just to do an oil grab? Cool!

Getting back on thread, sort of, why don't we make it a condition of entry that every Iranian has to bring a barrel of high-grade crude with him on these proposed direct flights?

Oil for Green Cards! Bring TWO barrels and we let you stay. Well, so long as you promise to ride a bicycle and keep your falafel-stained mitts off our SUVs and our wimmin!

What the heck! Let 'em all in! Direct flights from Pyongyang to LA, Havana to Miami, Caracas to Miami (What? No embargo, yet?). Bring us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses ... Oops, sorry! Wrong century, there.

Huck
2nd Feb 2006, 19:02
Wrong century, there.

Not quite, mate. My uncle is Iranian - came over in 1972. One of my favorite people. Several of his siblings are over here as well.

I have also flown with two ex-Iranian airline pilots. Both told incredible stories of how they came to the states and restarted their careers.

I am a big fan of the Iranian PEOPLE - just not their leaders.

I don't see how not allowing direct flights will change anything. Just inconvenience a bunch of travellers - which seems to be our new national hobby....

unwiseowl
2nd Feb 2006, 19:09
The next aircraft to deliver a nuke will be a scheduled 747 without the crews knowledge. It would be so easy. It's so obvious.

Panama Jack
3rd Feb 2006, 03:00
UFO's have been doing that already for the last few decades. That is only one of the conspiracy theories-- I could tell you the others but I would have to kill you. :p

Huck hit the nail on the head. I am also a big fan of people from China, from Iran, and from the USA. However as far as their leaders go-- as far as I'm concerned, stick them all in one big bag and toss it into the river.

chuks
3rd Feb 2006, 09:12
This 'nuke' will be delivered by a scheduled 747 without the crew's knowledge, eh? That is good to know!

If you could narrow this one down a little bit, since there are a lot of 747s out there, that would be very helpful. Or should we, perhaps, just ban all 747 flights? That will make us safe, I suppose?

Just think about the volume of freight that flows into major ports around the world. But this (so far non-existent) nuke must be flown in on a 747. I see ...

Actually, wouldn't it be less risky to have closer links with all these weird little countries populated by people who speak gibberish and wear towels on their heads? To know us is to love us? Err, NO, actually, but I don't plan to let facts derail my wimpy, liberal logic here.

That is to say, we build the damn things (747s) and then sell them to people with the implicit promise that, if they keep to the ICAO rules, they can fill them up with passengers and cargo and then engage in international air commerce. Otherwise, why spend that kind of money on our airplanes?

That Iran might presently be under the sway of some loon with close-set eyes who has lost his razor and his marbles, well... does that mean they have lost any chance of having flights between Teheran and New York? What, we hand out landing rights as if it were a popularity contest?

There must be a way out of this impasse. Are we not reasonable people. (Thinks to himself, 'NO!')? How about woss-name can fly to New York on the first direct flight but only if he shaves and wears a clean shirt and a tie? To be greeted by Laura Bush in a burka. Carrying a cake in the shape of a key and a Bible. No, no ... been there, done that. Okay, ban 'em! Ban 'em ALL! Rip up the runways at Kennedy Airport and plant something biodegradable instead.