PDA

View Full Version : Should Boeing and Airbus be selling new Airliners to Iran


tdracer
7th Jul 2016, 16:08
The US Congress is debating legislation that would ban Boeing from selling new airliners to Iran, despite the lifting of sanctions.
"I am extremely concerned that by relaxing the rules, the Obama administration has allowed U.S. companies to be complicit in weaponizing the Iranian regime," Representative Bill Huizenga, chairman of the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee, said in a statement on Wednesday.
While specifically aimed at Boeing, if the legislation passes it would effectively ban Airbus as well due to the amount of US content in Airbus aircraft.

I have mixed feelings - on the one hand I think that improved communication and trade will help bring Iran in tune with the rest of the world - eventually leading to more peaceful coexistence. On the other hand, I don't trust the Iranian leadership - they may well be playing the west for fools and concerns that the new aircraft could be used for nefarious purposes are not entirely unfounded.

West Coast
7th Jul 2016, 16:31
Iran is welcomed back into the fold or it's not, none of this half ass shenanigans

meadowrun
7th Jul 2016, 17:09
Then it should not be welcomed back into the fold. Thought that was a mistake from the beginning.
Iran has not changed.
It is still led by a religious head of state who has publically stated his undying hatred of Israel and continuing desire to wipe it from the face of the earth. They continue to hate The West and all it stands for. If there ever was a State powered by lies, deception and manipulation, Iran is it.

lomapaseo
7th Jul 2016, 17:30
It's a two edge sword.

Money makes friends out of enemies. If they should stab you in the back then just make the sword model obsolete and in time it becomes dull.

DirtyProp
7th Jul 2016, 19:07
I rather sell planes to Iran than Saudi Arabia.
But that's just me....

blue up
7th Jul 2016, 19:30
Just emboss/paint/engrave a US flag into every component? A delicate reminder to everyone on board.

vapilot2004
8th Jul 2016, 00:12
As loma states, it is better to trade with your enemies than go to war.

Outside of one or two overly fearful Democrats, the entire blocking affair is pure partisan politics at work. Had the deal been made by a Republican President, we wouldn't be talking about this right now. These people have but one goal in mind - fight against anything Obama does as President.

rotornut
8th Jul 2016, 01:13
I remember the statement, the "business of America is business" by President Coolidge. So I say SO WHAT!

T28B
8th Jul 2016, 04:41
Should Boeing and Airbus be selling new Airliners to Iran?

Yes, but make sure they make a down payment in cash.

The Germans and French were at each others throats for over a century once King Louis XVI fell. They trade with each other now, and don't go to war with one another now, even though there are still bits of frustration with each other that carry over. See also the Americans and the Japanese after a bitter war in the Pacific.

Can't a bridge be built with the Persians? It's worth the effort, Shirley.

meadowrun
8th Jul 2016, 04:54
Why, Shirley?
Appeasement is a dirty word when dealing with an enemy. Apparently just need a bit of time or another embassy invasion, since memory is failing. Nothing has really changed.

MOSTAFA
8th Jul 2016, 08:55
I agree dirtyprop but would add Israel to your list.

Sultan Ismail
8th Jul 2016, 09:39
In the meantime Iran Air operate their Boeing 747SP (a WMD) to far away places.

ian16th
8th Jul 2016, 10:10
Fools Gold anyone?
Opinion: Large Iran Jetliner Orders Unlikely At Farnborough Air Show | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/opinion-iran-jetliner-illusion?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20160707_AW-05_445&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000974534&utm_campaign=6392&utm_medium=email&elq2=57597665d12a42afa9a6243c3b677da7)

Peter-RB
8th Jul 2016, 14:47
Should Boeing and Airbus be selling new Airliners to Iran?


Yes in my opinion, simply so that they can see the advantage of keeping the Europeans and the US on side as friends, putting it more simply they are nearer to all the trouble and without a doubt the other Arab based Countries in the ME are crapping themselves that Iran will become our new and bestest mates in that part of the troubled middle eastern world.

Plus they have a lot of cheap energy to part with... I dont think they are quite ready to take the tourists from the Costas...but given time it seems a enchanting chance for people to see the possibly oldest "Civilised Country in the World" no doubt some one will disagree but that is my opinion..! :ok:

er340790
8th Jul 2016, 15:25
Yes, but make sure they make a down payment in cash.


The Economist was speculating exactly how Iran Air would pay for same too.

Long-leases paid from future oil production would be my guess, appropriately hedged of course. ;)

But yes, a hefty down-payment might be handy in case it all goes A over T. Again.

ExXB
8th Jul 2016, 16:13
One catches more flies with honey, than with vinegar.

Everything that improves aviation safety is a 'very good thing'™

Cazalet33
8th Jul 2016, 16:54
Airbus should. Boeing shouldn't.

Boeing sold a couple of 747s to Iran, both of which subsequently blew up in in-flight fuel tank explosions.

Perhaps any Airbus sold to Iran should be equipped with SAM-defence arrangements. The USN in the Gulf hasn't gone away you know.

Lonewolf_50
8th Jul 2016, 17:06
Perhaps any Airbus sold to Iran should be equipped with SAM-defence arrangements. The USN in the Gulf hasn't gone away you know. Just can't stop grinding that ax, can you? This is about selling and buying aircraft, not shooting at them.

Cazalet33
8th Jul 2016, 17:21
Don't the Iranians need to replace the ones that blow up or get shot down?

Lonewolf_50
8th Jul 2016, 17:54
Don't the Iranians need to replace the ones that blow up or get shot down? What makes you think they haven't already? It's been thirty years, Caz.

West Coast
8th Jul 2016, 17:56
Why are you feeding a troll? You're giving him exactly what he wants.

piperboy84
8th Jul 2016, 22:19
It's good business and creates bridges between the Iranian and American people, creates jobs and a bunch of other benefits. Those against it are the usual suspects, certain lobby groups , think tank "experts" on sanctions and terrorism and there bought and paid for puppet congressmen., even the ones that "represent" the district Boeing is headquartered in and whose constituents would benefit the most.

Rwy in Sight
9th Jul 2016, 16:57
What makes you think they haven't already? It's been thirty years, Caz.
The anniversary was last week but not thirty years. It happened in 1988 pedantic mode off.

By selling those aircraft needing very long support it obliges the customer and the seller to maintain (at least) good relations.

Cazalet33
9th Jul 2016, 22:12
There's no reason why the US and Iran can't treat eachother in a civilised manner.

Iranians know the malice which The Empire bears towards Iranian democracy and the US freshly remembers the boorish and quite uncivilised behaviour of some revolutionary zealots during the Revolution of Flowers.

Many Frenchmen and Norwegians, et al, remember German behaviour in the 1940s, but within two or three decades they learned to get on with selling stuff to eachother. It's part of being grownups.

One can understand why Westinghouse isn't going to sell Trident missile systems to Iran, but for Boeing to sell some of their most excellent airliners seems quite doable.

If the two major purveyors of airliners can't get their act together, then sooner or later cooler heads in Brazil and Russia and perhaps even China will do so.

tdracer
9th Jul 2016, 23:42
Many Frenchmen and Norwegians, et al, remember German behaviour in the 1940s, but within two or three decades they learned to get on with selling stuff to eachother. It's part of being grownups.


It might be relevant that there was a complete change of German government (rather violently as I recall) before most of Europe was able to get along with them.
OTOH The Iranian government isn't much changed.

Espada III
9th Jul 2016, 23:56
I agree dirtyprop but would add Israel to your list.

What's your beef? How many states does Israel threaten to wipe of the face of the earth?

West Coast
9th Jul 2016, 23:59
One can understand why Westinghouse isn't going to sell Trident missile systems to Iran

As best I can tell they are a bit player subcontracor to LockMart which builds them. That I imagine would be the main reason Westinghouse doesn't sell Trident missiles to Iran.

vapilot2004
10th Jul 2016, 00:11
It should be mentioned that the Iranian people, Persians, not Arabs, are understood to be a reasonable lot and it is their government that the West is at some odds with. Free trade would be one way to force the involved governments to work together on solving issues that separate them and the populations of involved nations (and beyond) would benefit.

vulcanised
10th Jul 2016, 11:41
America always feels the need to create a bogeyman.

Today it's Iran.
.

vapilot2004
10th Jul 2016, 12:34
America always feels the need to create a bogeyman.


Helps keep the muppet brains among us focused, I suppose.

Cazalet33
10th Jul 2016, 13:10
How many states does Israel threaten to wipe of the face of the earth?

Answers, on a postcard please, to The Palestine.

Espada III
10th Jul 2016, 19:33
Cheap answer that is clearly wrong, so why bother posting.

John Hill
10th Jul 2016, 20:18
America always feels the need to create a bogeyman.

Today it's Iran.

Don't forget North Korea.

Cazalet33
10th Jul 2016, 21:04
Iran's 'crime' in US eyes, is to have declared independence from the UK and the US and to have voted for democracy under their PM Mossadeq.

Throwing out the US/UK puppet 'shah' in 1979 and regaining both independence and democracy was regarded as re-offending.

Britain and America should let bygones be bygones and treat Iran's sovereignty with rather more respect than Britain has treated her own.

For sure, don't sell them Hawk missile batteries, but let's sell them good quality airliners, preferably Airbus ones, instead.

Andy_S
10th Jul 2016, 21:15
Throwing out the US/UK puppet 'shah' in 1979 and regaining both independence and democracy was regarded as re-offending.

Is this the "democracy" in which the supreme leader is an ayatollah who no one voted for? Who has a veto on who may and may not stand for election?

Just wondering.

Cazalet33
10th Jul 2016, 21:28
Is this the "democracy" in which the supreme leader is an ayatollah who no one voted for?

I wouldn't describe Frau Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in quite that way.

Not sure who has a "veto" on members of the House of Lords.

I don't even know how many Catholics voted for the Pope or how many Buddhists voted for the Dalai Lama.

Not sure how many ordinary American voters voted for the current PotUS under the "college" system either. Less than a thousand?

What's that got to do with selling airliners? Does the Ayatollah/Monarch/Pope get to choose which engines to buy for the aircraft?

meadowrun
10th Jul 2016, 21:37
Nothing, it should be all about selling any technology to a Theocracy (not a democracy) tied to a very questionable religion with very questionable motives.


After all is said and done they still hate America, they hate the West, they hate infidels, they fund terrorism but they sure as hell want the technology.
Let them go to the esteemed Arabian Aircraft Manufacturing Corp.

Cazalet33
10th Jul 2016, 21:59
a very questionable religion

I would hope that any religion is questionable. Not much of a belief system if it doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny, is it?

Christianity is no better, and we have several god-bothers who wear frocks in the House of Lords. Thank [insert the deity of your choice here] we don't consult the buggers on matters of aviation.

they still hate America, they hate the West, they hate infidels

Have you actually spent much time in Iran over the past forty years? I'm guessing that you haven't. Reality is very different to the Art Bell Show and Faux News.

Iranians don't "hate America". They don't "hate the West". They just don't. They don't even hate "infidels". That's why there's a Gideon's Bible in your hotel room bedside drawer if you visit. I'm guessing that a Talmud would require a special booking on the top floor though.

I'd like to hope that the buggers don't base their choice of airliners on religious grounds. Now that would really worry me. I always get fidgety when the pax address prefixes an ETA statement with the words "Insh Allah"

Eclectic
13th Jul 2016, 17:51
It is very strange that in the never ending Shia/Sunni conflict the West has taken the side of the Sunnis.
The Sunni Saudi Arabians are far more obnoxious than the Shia Iranians. The KSA spends billions exporting its Wahhabi extremism worldwide, yet we don't just sell them Boeing and Airbus products, we sell them our latest military aircraft and the high tech weapons to hang off them. It is to Britain's shame that missiles we make are used by the KSA against schools and hospitals in Yemen.
And remember that KSA has nuclear weapons, made for them by Pakistan, and the delivery systems for them, bought from China.
So the West's hypocrisy over Iran is incredible. We should treat them exactly the same as we treat KSA.

Lonewolf_50
13th Jul 2016, 18:28
It is very strange that in the never ending Shia/Sunni conflict the West has taken the side of the Sunnis.
The Saudis aren't the only Sunnis. If you look at the map of Islam, pretty much everyone is not Shia, outside of Iran, parts of Lebanon, about half of Iraq, and parts of Syria. (Speaking in general terms).
The bulk of Muslims the world over are a flavor of Sunni. (Then you get the Sufis which is a whole 'nother story ...)


The Sunni Saudi Arabians are far more obnoxious than the Shia Iranians.
Mostly agree, but that probably is related to.
The KSA spends billions exporting its Wahhabi extremism worldwide,
Which annoys a lot of people.
yet we don't just sell them Boeing and Airbus products, we sell them our latest military aircraft and the high tech weapons to hang off them. They tend to pay in cash. That helps. IIRC, so did the Shah for Tomcats and Destroyers (Kidd Class). Won't comment further on how low risk it is for them to operate those fancy weapons, as their demonstrated attempts at professionalism hasn't impressed much of anyone.
It is to Britain's shame that missiles we make are used by the KSA against schools and hospitals in Yemen. You didn't shoot them.
And remember that KSA has nuclear weapons, made for them by Pakistan, and the delivery systems for them, bought from China.
Confirmed or rumored?
So the West's hypocrisy over Iran is incredible. We should treat them exactly the same as we treat KSA.
No, the West "we" isn't a unified whole. Also, each nation is its own case when it comes to foreign policy. Nations have interests, rarely friends.


It takes two to tango. The government in Iran needs to want to warm up relations as well.


Late Clinton Administration there was a concerted effort to begin a thaw.
Interestingly enough, during early W Bush administration, we had some common interests due to our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, but things turned sour around the time Mahmoud Achmedinijad took over as president. I won't pretend to guess that I know what the internal struggles were in Iran at the time, but the bellicosity and hard rhetoric increased on both sides around that time. Within a year there was a bit of saber rattling in the Persian Gulf, and some serious tension over how much Iranian influence was leaking into Iraq while our folks were busy trying to deal with the mess in progress of a civil war nobody in our political leadership was willing to admit was underway.


As the nuclear proliferation issue arose again, that became the latest issue to drive us apart, rather than a chance to thaw the iceberg.


None of this happens in a vacuum.

Cazalet33
13th Jul 2016, 19:02
The idea that Iran is going to use A350s or Boeing Dreadliners or Cripple Sevens as a military weapon is simply twitty.

Let's sell 'em stuff. Let's fur up their kids' arteries with shiteburgers (you know the two main brands). Let's get 'em hooked on brain-numbing shite American television programmes. Let's thicken the summertime smog over Tehran with Volkswagens and Audis. Let's rot their children's teeth with German and American sugarwater.

Above all, quite literally, let's sell them Airbusses. Lots and lots of Airbusses, even if the usual suspect simply regards that as a "target rich environment" during Hajj.

ORAC
13th Jul 2016, 19:09
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. The dire state of the Iranian is due to their operating obsolescent Soviet airliners and a handful of other airliners with no spares.

Sell them modern airliners to tie them back into the modern integrated market with on demand spares, do it additional with every other modern market and technology, it binds them in.

The price of an step back back from integration becomes increasingly higher; the consequences of any step back increasingly dire.

Sell.

skydiver69
13th Jul 2016, 20:20
The idea that Iran is going to use A350s or Boeing Dreadliners or Cripple Sevens as a military weapon is simply twitty.

Let's sell 'em stuff. Let's fur up their kids' arteries with shiteburgers (you know the two main brands). Let's get 'em hooked on brain-numbing shite American television programmes. Let's thicken the summertime smog over Tehran with Volkswagens and Audis. Let's rot their children's teeth with German and American sugarwater.

Above all, quite literally, let's sell them Airbusses. Lots and lots of Airbusses, even if the usual suspect simply regards that as a "target rich environment" during Hajj.
Selling the Iranians VWs and Audis would probably help improve the notoriously bad Tehran smog given that even the worst of their engines is a damn sight better than water ever powers most Peykans through the city's streets. :-)

Cazalet33
13th Jul 2016, 20:59
The poor buggahs were still driving Hillman Hunters when I went back just after the Revolution of Flowers. They were still driving the same Hunters a decade after that on my next quite long visit.

VW, however, have a way of disguising their pollution. You just can't see it in the numbers. ;)

vapilot2004
13th Jul 2016, 23:54
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

That's the key argument for the pro side, ORAC, and I tend to agree.

In playing the devil's advocate, I would point out the sale brings powerful commercial interests (Airbus, Boeing) to the decision-making table that would be at odds with the terms of the agreement should Iran be caught using their new aircraft to deliver items to places that are off-limits. This could have the effect of weakening the Western states' resolve to enforce.

meadowrun
14th Jul 2016, 00:07
The spares provisioning exercise for a new fleet type is quite complex. I have been involved in a few of these for our lot.
If Iran were to try to provision in excessive numbers to the norm (given their history in dealing with the West, they might consider that to be prudent for them to do), perhaps some limits on that could be applied by the various governments, right down to specific items.

lomapaseo
14th Jul 2016, 13:08
The spares provisioning exercise for a new fleet type is quite complex. I have been involved in a few of these for our lot.
If Iran were to try to provision in excessive numbers to the norm (given their history in dealing with the West, they might consider that to be prudent for them to do), perhaps some limits on that could be applied by the various governments, right down to specific items.
13th Jul 2016 19:54.

But we're talking commercial aviation. All it takes is a couple of critical parts later found in world fleets to have latent failure conditions,. Any one of which can only be addressed by an upgraded design fix no longer available to Iran.

Stockpiling in this case is of no help. Having friendly business relations is the key.