Sanctions on aircraft parts compromise airline safety of the sanctioned

[StringJunky]

Iran has just lost a plane with 66 on board. It says it is unable to buy parts to maintain their planes properly due to US sanctions. Is this not pushing it too far on civilian aircraft?

Quote

Iran has suffered several plane crashes in the past few decades. Tehran says U.S. sanctions have long prevented it from buying new aircraft or spare parts from the West.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iran-airplane/domestic-passenger-plane-with-66-on-board-crashes-in-central-iran-idUKKCN1G2070

 

[koti]

28 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Iran has just lost a plane with 66 on board. It says it is unable to buy parts to maintain their planes properly due to US sanctions. Is this not pushing it too far on civilian aircraft?

 

However unjust the consequences may be, isn’t this what sanctions are all about? Poland is getting billions of EU funds withdrawn due to tampering with supreme court, constitutional tribunal, etc. This withdraw of funds will affect everyday people at the end - thats what sanctions are supposed to be.

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, koti said:

However unjust the consequences may be, isn’t this what sanctions are all about? Poland is getting billions of EU funds withdrawn due to tampering with supreme court, constitutional tribunal, etc. This withdraw of funds will affect everyday people at the end - thats what sanctions are supposed to be.

What if that plane crashed, say, in a densely populated area of W. Europe and killed people on the ground as well?

[koti]

56 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

What if that plane crashed, say, in a densely populated area of W. Europe and killed people on the ground as well?

I think the case would be the same even if the plane crashed and kilked the legislator who imposed the sanction. 

Edit: I need to add that I think this is one of those things which never have a good solution. Whatever way you choose you always have a shitty outcome. Im not familar with the exact reasons why Iran had the sanctions imposed on them but I presume it was not something trivial. Plus couldn’t they source the parts somewhere else or manufacture them themselves? Shouldn’t it be Iran’s government responsibility to deal with the consequences of the sanctions? 

Edited February 18, 2018 by koti

[Endy0816]

What motivates a company to fly a plane they haven't been able to maintain?

[zapatos]

On 2/18/2018 at 3:18 AM, StringJunky said:

Iran has just lost a plane with 66 on board. It says it is unable to buy parts to maintain their planes properly due to US sanctions. Is this not pushing it too far on civilian aircraft?

 

IMO it is Iran who is acting unethical by putting a plane in the air that they cannot properly maintain. Other countries are under no obligation to supply non-humanitarian goods.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

IMO it is Iran who is acting unethical by putting a plane in the air that they cannot properly maintain. Other countries are under no obligation to supply non-humanitarian goods.

imo every country would do the same. Air transport is too important.

[zapatos]

7 hours ago, StringJunky said:

imo every country would do the same. Air transport is too important.

That's scary. You think planes in the UK would be allowed to keep flying if they were not safe?

[DrP]

37 minutes ago, zapatos said:

That's scary. You think planes in the UK would be allowed to keep flying if they were not safe?

An airline would be shut down...  but in a time of war....  where the country has no spare parts or supplies...  they might just take the risk.

If the engineers in Iran say "no sir, you can't fly that plane today without the ugimeflip being replaced" I can't imagine their superior saying "oh, OK then, we'll ground the plane until sanctions have been lifted and we can get the spare parts". They are more likely to say "get it ready the best you can - the plane takes off in 2 hours". More so in a country like Iran than in the UK or US I would suspect.

Does Trump own any airlines? He can make his own policy now so it wouldn't matter to him anyway. Quids in for the old boys - great stuff eh?

[MigL]

When the Shah was still in power in the 70s, Iran was ( still is ) a rich country, and a favorite of the US. They were the only other country allowed to buy the Grumman F-14, the most advanced weapon system available at the time, able to track up to twenty targets, and achieve firing solutions for up to six, independent, beyond visual range targets with its loadout of Phoenix missiles.
That would be equivalent to any country buying the F-22 today. It will not happen.

But you know, even with the embargo after the revolution, and further embargos following ( for nuclear ambitions ), quite a few of those F-14, as well as F-5e, which have even been built as modified local versions, are still flying today. They built their own spares, and have an aerospace industry.

I find it strange that they would source their airliners from the US. Why not Airbus with RR engines ?
Or Ilyushins with Aviadvigatel engines ? Aeroflots planes aren't falling out of the sky.

Or are they just trying to garner sympathy, by blaming their poor upkeep on the US led sanctions ?

[CharonY]

52 minutes ago, MigL said:

Or are they just trying to garner sympathy, by blaming their poor upkeep on the US led sanctions ?

I think before we enter conspiracy theories we can consider some other aspects (although one could of course consider that the tragedy has been spun for most negative effect). From what I understand the US sanctions have left them with no abilities to buy new planes. I may be reading it wrong, but it seems also include provision to sanction third parties that sell aviation parts to Iran.

Once the sanctions had been lessened Iran ordered planes from Boeing as well as Airbus and ATR, though due to potential issues with the Boeing deal they are actually considering Russian planes.