http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran- ... SKBN1470OU says:

IranAir has trimmed its planned order from Europe's Airbus (AIR.PA) to 100 planes, partly by dropping superjumbo A380s, the flag carrier's head said on Sunday, confirming an adjustment first reported by Reuters.

"Although the nominal value of the contract for 118 Airbus planes had been announced at $25 billion, the A380 planes have been dropped from this contract, so the value of our Airbus contract will not be more than $10 billion," said Farhad Parvaresh, quoted by the state news agency IRNA.

So the 118 aircraft order is now 100, dropping the 12 A380s as well as another 6 unspecified orders. Reuters had earlier reported the A380s were subject to doubt, and now the head of IR is saying they are dropped. It'll be interesting to read the final order makeup, which should be announced very soon.

So sad the A380 just can't catch a break.

Sad but it's better for Iran Air not to have the A380. Way too much plane for their network.

Miami wrote:

Sad but it's better for Iran Air not to have the A380. Way too much plane for their network.

Dropping the A380 and 748i is a sign that Iran Air is serious about building an efficient, competitive airline. -ir

It's more a sign they don't want to build a big hub. A relief for Emirates.

Miami wrote:

Way too much plane for their network.

Do we know something about their future network ?

The other dropped planes are A330s.

Aither wrote:

Miami wrote:

Way too much plane for their network.

Do we know something about their future network ?

IslandRob wrote:

Miami wrote:

Sad but it's better for Iran Air not to have the A380. Way too much plane for their network.

Dropping the A380 and 748i is a sign that Iran Air is serious about building an efficient, competitive airline. -ir

What are the odds that building its network is going to make it work? Not very good.

It's disappointing but ordering the A380 never made sense in the first place.

Good news for Iran. And one step closer to the Airbus setting a final date for the last A380 built. Maybe we will know by 2017 already.

Well now the idea of dirt cheap Europe-Asia on an A380 that can't be filled is gone...
Good for them realizing very few actually need VLA.

The order has now been finalized according to Reuters

"Iran finalises 100-jet deal with Airbus, first delivery in January - Reuters News

19-Dec-2016 07:24:26

PARIS, Dec 19 (Reuters) - Iran has finalised an agreement
with Airbus to acquire 100 jetliners, the first of which is
tentatively expected to be delivered in mid-January, a senior
official said on Monday.
The deal, split roughly equally between narrow-body and
wide-body aircraft, will be signed in coming days, possibly as
early as Monday or Tuesday, Deputy Roads and Urban Development
Minister Asghar Fakhrieh Kashan told Reuters.
Under the agreement, Airbus will supply four types of
aircraft: its medium-haul A320 and A321 aircraft and the
long-haul A330 and A350, he said, in remarks confirming Iran's
decision to drop the A380 from a draft deal signed in January.
Iran, which last week finalised a deal with Boeing <BA.N>
for 80 jets, has so far reached agreements with foreign leasing
firms to finance a total of 77 aircraft, including 42 from
Airbus and 35 from Boeing, Kashan said in a telephone interview."

Drop Airbus orders, add more Boeing, and hope Congress will not try to stop the deals because at the end of the day they care about the economic benefits more than anything?

Asiaflyer wrote:

The order has now been finalized according to Reuters

"Iran finalises 100-jet deal with Airbus, first delivery in January - Reuters News

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran- ... SKBN1480HJ

Also by Bloomberg, but no breakdown of each type yet.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -customers

Revelation wrote:

It'll be interesting to read the final order makeup, which should be announced very soon.

Iran is playing two western blocks against each other. Something happens and things change. The "final order makeup" will always be a temporary document, subject to change. Don't like it? Sell to some one else..

Seahawk wrote:
Good news for Iran. And one step closer to the Airbus setting a final date for the last A380 built. Maybe we will know by 2017 already.

Aither wrote:

It's more a sign they don't want to build a big hub. A relief for Emirates.

The "big hub" is probably coming, but not until the older aircraft are replaced.

Could be these A380's have dropped due to no infrastructure available to accept them !

sxf24 wrote:

The other dropped planes are A330s.

Interesting. Presuming this means 6 A330ceo are dropped, the A+B order looks to be:

50 737 MAX 8
21 A320ceo family
24 A320neo family
21 A330ceo family
18 A330neo (-900)
16 A350-1000
15 777-300ER
15 777-9s

Interesting to see another airline that ends up operating 773, A35K and 779, something many here are in denial about.

OzarkD9S wrote:

Aither wrote:

It's more a sign they don't want to build a big hub. A relief for Emirates.

The "big hub" is probably coming, but not until the older aircraft are replaced.

I suppose the lack of A380s is a relief for EK, but, overall, having a revitalized competitor in the region with 180 new aircraft (85 widebodies) can't be that much of a relief on top of the recent run of bad form. The (wise) decision to avoid A380 and 747-8 makes for a stronger competitor, one with more staying power.

keesje wrote:

Revelation wrote:

It'll be interesting to read the final order makeup, which should be announced very soon.

Iran is playing two western blocks against each other. Something happens and things change. The "final order makeup" will always be a temporary document, subject to change. Don't like it? Sell to some one else..

What I believe Revelation was referring to was the breakdown of each model. (__ A321s,__A320s, __A330s, A350s) I seriously doubt that Iran is playing diplomatic hardball between the US and Europe for 12 A380s.

Makes more sense this way. They are just now getting new planes, and they are a lot for the start. When will deliveries start for Boeing, AB and ATR?

Aither wrote:

It's more a sign they don't want to build a big hub. A relief for Emirates.

Uh? It's exactly the opposite of that although I suspect that building a transcontinental hub is not their top priority right now.
They have an airport with no growth constraints, in a geographic location that is far more ideal for EU-Asia and N.America-Asia connections than any place in the ME. If this all goes through, the one airline that will suffer is TK and the new IST airport could be dead on arrival.

Revelation wrote:

I suppose the lack of A380s is a relief for EK

Granted this is just my humble assessment, and I realize this is straying slightly off topic, but I'm not so sure it should be a relief for EK. Yes, another strong competitor in the region has to be a concern, but IR can achieve that without the A380. In the contrary, I see this new development of IR not taking the A380 as being somewhat unfortunate for EK. The A380 program is dying a slow death, which means that EK is unlikely to ever get their NEO. They need more operators (or at least diversified orders) to join EK's ranks to have a prayer of Airbus agreeing to further develop the program.

So in the end, IR might still end up being a contender in the region, but not as an A380 carrier. I see it as a relatively lose-lose scenario for EK to the extent that IR can actually manage to be competitive. The way I see it, the only possible win they could have taken from this was with IR potentially sparking the A380 program back to life. IR may have been the last viable hope to accomplish that.

Well it's sad to see both the 747-8i and A380 orders fell through, would have been great to see some new four holers in service with new airlines.

But maybe these will come as small additions later, just like some other carriers have topped up with a few more aircraft after placing a large order.

atcsundevil wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I suppose the lack of A380s is a relief for EK

Granted this is just my humble assessment, and I realize this is straying slightly off topic, but I'm not so sure it should be a relief for EK. Yes, another strong competitor in the region has to be a concern, but IR can achieve that without the A380. In the contrary, I see this new development of IR not taking the A380 as being somewhat unfortunate for EK. The A380 program is dying a slow death, which means that EK is unlikely to ever get their NEO. They need more operators (or at least diversified orders) to join EK's ranks to have a prayer of Airbus agreeing to further develop the program.

So in the end, IR might still end up being a contender in the region, but not as an A380 carrier. I see it as a relatively lose-lose scenario for EK to the extent that IR can actually manage to be competitive. The way I see it, the only possible win they could have taken from this was with IR potentially sparking the A380 program back to life. IR may have been the last viable hope to accomplish that.

That's an interesting, valid point of view. Airbus has said they will not do a NEO just for EK. EK could have had hopes that IR could have been an airline to bolster the A380s case, without ever getting to be big enough to be a serious threat to EK. Another customer that presumably might want A380NEOs would be SQ, but EK has really undermined them financially. It's getting even more difficult to see how an A380NEO ever gets enough sales to gain a viable business case. I'm starting to wonder if NH's A380 order will be its last. It's hard to see anyone else stepping up to the plate in the required time frame.

Mumrik wrote:

Well it's sad to see both the 747-8i and A380 orders fell through, would have been great to see some new four holers in service with new airlines.

But maybe these will come as small additions later, just like some other carriers have topped up with a few more aircraft after placing a large order.

I really doubt it. Both vendors must have made incredibly appealing offers. I think perhaps it's the leasing market that's decided the fate of both four holers. It's clear IR is using leasing heavily, and I doubt any leasing firms want to take the risk of financing an A380 or a 747-8i.

The A380 would have only made sense if IR would have launched routes to the US, where a (less than) daily frequency would have worked for capacity. I always had my doubts with the A380 joining IR's fleet. The 747, however, seemed a better candidate, even if just due to precedent being a 747 operator already.

Perhaps IR can scoop up used ones for a trial period before committing to a firm order. But where to deploy them?

Maybe "someone" (does IR have aviation consultant`s?) told them that sooner or later second-hand A380s will become available, something which might be much more attractive for IR...

Anyhow, this....

Revelation wrote:

Interesting. Presuming this means 6 A330ceo are dropped, the A+B order looks to be:50 737 MAX 821 A320ceo family 24 A320neo family 21 A330ceo family 18 A330neo (-900) 16 A350-100015 777-300ER15 777-9s

... looks like a neat modern fleet.

By the way, found to more pics of IR's first A321:



Source: http://www.aviation-friends-hamburg-for ... ?tid=11510

They have taken off the most interesting planes from the Boeing and the Airbus order. So Iran Air will become Bore Air.

einsteinboricua wrote:

The A380 would have only made sense if IR would have launched routes to the US, where a (less than) daily frequency would have worked for capacity. I always had my doubts with the A380 joining IR's fleet. The 747, however, seemed a better candidate, even if just due to precedent being a 747 operator already.

Perhaps IR can scoop up used ones for a trial period before committing to a firm order. But where to deploy them?

I've never understood why IR would come to a different conclusion than the rest of the world's airlines: The A380 only makes sense on the busiest of international trunk routes otherwise you end up flying empty seats or ones you sell at a loss. The 747-8 has less capacity but also less efficiency and is even more difficult to justify. Given they currently aren't a player on the world's trunk routes, they'd end up with a small sub-fleet that would eat up tons of cash. This is still true if they buy used A380s in the near future. Maybe if they find they have had tremendous success in the next few years, a small sub-fleet of used A380s might make some sense, but by then they should be taking on the A350Ks and 779s which will have better economics.

The only real reason I could see for IR to purchase A380/748 would have been political need.

Otherwise, the 77W-A35K-779 solution seems to me to be far better.

N14AZ wrote:

Maybe "someone" (does IR have aviation consultant`s?) told them that sooner or later second-hand A380s will become available, something which might be much more attractive for IR...

Anyhow, this....

Revelation wrote:

Interesting. Presuming this means 6 A330ceo are dropped, the A+B order looks to be:50 737 MAX 821 A320ceo family 24 A320neo family 21 A330ceo family 18 A330neo (-900) 16 A350-100015 777-300ER15 777-9s

... looks like a neat modern fleet.

By the way, found to more pics of IR's first A321:



Source: http://www.aviation-friends-hamburg-for ... ?tid=11510

Nice! Thanks!

In fact the A380 would have made sense to go to the US especially to LAX. However to get the necessary traffic rights buying US products for those flights might be more helpful.

Aither wrote:

Miami wrote:

Way too much plane for their network.

Do we know something about their future network ?

I think we know enough that trying to compete with the ME3 and TK as a large connecting hub would be suicide. Besides, there will be a fair amount of pax that would not ever want to transit via Tehran.

airbazar wrote:

Aither wrote:

It's more a sign they don't want to build a big hub. A relief for Emirates.

Uh? It's exactly the opposite of that although I suspect that building a transcontinental hub is not their top priority right now.
They have an airport with no growth constraints, in a geographic location that is far more ideal for EU-Asia and N.America-Asia connections than any place in the ME. If this all goes through, the one airline that will suffer is TK and the new IST airport could be dead on arrival.

Take a poll of westerners, who are say traveling from the US, EU to a destination in India (or anything east). Give them a choice of DXB, AUH, DOH, IST or IKA to change planes, My bet is 90+% will choose against Tehran. Just because a deal for inspections has been laid out, does not make Iran a less frightening place to land. There has been nothing but negative news from Iran for almost 40 years. Even if they play nice, it's going to take a generation for people to stop being wary of them. And for Israel, never. If western nations have to make a choice between Israel and Iran, we all know who's going to win that war of words. Iran will never be a power player in the world of mega carriers.

DFW789ER wrote:

Just because a deal for inspections has been laid out, does not make Iran a less frightening place to land.

What exactly makes Iran a "frightening" place to land?

scbriml wrote:

DFW789ER wrote:

Just because a deal for inspections has been laid out, does not make Iran a less frightening place to land.

What exactly makes Iran a "frightening" place to land?

The general public tends to know only what they hear on the news, which is almost always negative. My next door neighbor is Iranian, so I know probably more than many and a lot less in some cases. Israel has said they will not hesitate to take the situation into their own hands if they feel there is a nuke program happening. And we have an incoming president who goes out of his way to condemn Iran, and he himself has threatened to bomb them even if they look at us funny. Those I would say make it a frightening place for many to land.

Would not now, be a decent time for a branding update and/or color scheme update/change?

DFW789ER wrote:

Aither wrote:

Miami wrote:

Way too much plane for their network.

Do we know something about their future network ?

I think we know enough that trying to compete with the [photoid][/photoid]ME3 and TK as a large connecting hub would be suicide. Besides, there will be a fair amount of pax that would not ever want to transit via Tehran.

Most passengers transiting care about the lowest transit/ flight time and competitive/ lowest pricings.

Also IR can gain lots of traffic from Iranians alone, also most Europeans & Asians have no issues with Iran. I can understand Americans being more careful, however unlike Europeans and Asians, they would need a visa to transit.

Iran had around 6M foreign tourists last year alone and we are chisen as the hottest new tourist destination of 2016. Please visit the FB page see youbin Iran 100K foreigners that went/ going to Iran talking about their experiences and etc. Iran is a safe and stable country. Also all european and Asian flights are always full using widebody aircraft. Like 777s 330s 747s 340s and etc.

Also most of these narrow-bodies will be used for domestic flights! We have the biggest domestic network of West-Asia with more than 100 daily flights from THR alone.

DFW789ER wrote:

scbriml wrote:

DFW789ER wrote:

Just because a deal for inspections has been laid out, does not make Iran a less frightening place to land.

What exactly makes Iran a "frightening" place to land?

The general public tends to know only what they hear on the news, which is almost always negative. My next door neighbor is Iranian, so I know probably more than many and a lot less in some cases. Israel has said they will not hesitate to take the situation into their own hands if they feel there is a nuke program happening. And we have an incoming president who goes out of his way to condemn Iran, and he himself has threatened to bomb them even if they look at us funny. Those I would say make it a frightening place for many to land.

Trump can do nothing as long as Iran has China and Russia. He knows that Iran is not Iraq or Afganistan and our response to any invasion will be harsh. Both for Israel and America's allies in the region.

If the US dared to bomb us they would have done so years ago. Iran is already a major regional power.

scbriml wrote:

DFW789ER wrote:

Just because a deal for inspections has been laid out, does not make Iran a less frightening place to land.

What exactly makes Iran a "frightening" place to land?

Just like many outside the US have an incorrect view of Americans (i.e. we're all angry white men carrying automatic weapons and looking to shot any non-white we encounter), many in the US have an incorrect view of Iranians (they're all radicalized jihadis with bombs strapped to their bellies). Neither is correct, but both perceptions will take time to dissipate.

persiangulf93 wrote:

Most passengers transiting care about the lowest transit/ flight time and competitive/ lowest pricings.

Also IR can gain lots of traffic from Iranians alone, also most Europeans & Asians have no issues with Iran. I can understand Americans being more careful, however unlike Europeans and Asians, they would need a visa to transit.

Iran had around 6M foreign tourists last year alone and we are chisen as the hottest new tourist destination of 2016. Please visit the FB page see youbin Iran 100K foreigners that went/ going to Iran talking about their experiences and etc. Iran is a safe and stable country. Also all european and Asian flights are always full using widebody aircraft. Like 777s 330s 747s 340s and etc.

Also most of these narrow-bodies will be used for domestic flights! We have the biggest domestic network of West-Asia with more than 100 daily flights from THR alone.

I think IR will do fine with Iranians, Europeans, Asians, and a fair number of open-minded Americans too.

So, why people are suggesting IR/IKA will be the next EK/DXB? Is that a stated goal of IR/IKA, or is that just a.net members getting way ahead of reality?

atcsundevil wrote:

So in the end, IR might still end up being a contender in the region, but not as an A380 carrier. I see it as a relatively lose-lose scenario for EK to the extent that IR can actually manage to be competitive.

I have extracted this quote, from the larger explanation (admittedly, specifically about the A380) and would like to extrapolate to another tangent; could IR compete against EK?

Ultimately that depends on the Iranian market. EK's package of Dubai, and the generally tourism focused ethos there - is much more appealing, than a stop in Tehran. Unless significant changes were to happen within Iran - I cannot see it attracting connecting traffic enough (or at least enough, to rival EK). EK will lose, in some measure - some of the Iranian market (which is likely lucrative for them) as IR grows.

At present, IR is not a valid alternative to EK, and save for massive improvements to the transit experience in Tehran (adding more 'shopping' which is hard to do with the economy as is), massive improvements to both soft and hard products, changes in policies regarding women's rights (no one wants to put on a chadoor, or a hijab - just to transit), changes in policy to allow alcohol on-board (to attract non-Iranian, connecting traffic - and/or to appeal to non-conservative Iranians...), and changes to policies regarding immigration (the U.A.E.'s stance regionally does not compromise it's ability to transfer passengers from both sides of the 'cold-war', where as, with IR...).

EK has quite a few 'advantages' - and while I do wish IR success, there is quite alot of work to be done before they can compete. I do expect to see them grow domestically, and regionally, first - upgrading and slightly expanding (as many of these new aircraft will go to replace older frames). In future, the growth will remain Iranian focused. Be mindful of the fact that IR serves at the flag carrier of the Islamic Republic, and in many ways is tied to the identity and the standing of the nation (when abroad). The question is not so much how and where IR will be capable of growing - and much more of, how much/far will the Islamic Republic allow it to go/grow? Since the 'easing' of sanctions, the Iranian regime has not demonstrated their willingness to resist assisting in the destabilization of the region (see Yemen, and their involvement in Syria). Its not inconceivable that they could end up returning to a sanctioned state, or with some restrictions on operations. These things do not bode well for an airline that is hoping to grow and tied to that nation.

scbriml wrote:

DFW789ER wrote:

Just because a deal for inspections has been laid out, does not make Iran a less frightening place to land.

What exactly makes Iran a "frightening" place to land?

People may be flashing back to the harrowing airport scenes from the recent movie Argo. -ir

Revelation wrote:

scbriml wrote:

DFW789ER wrote:

Just because a deal for inspections has been laid out, does not make Iran a less frightening place to land.

What exactly makes Iran a "frightening" place to land?

Just like many outside the US have an incorrect view of Americans (i.e. we're all angry white men carrying automatic weapons and looking to shot any non-white we encounter), many in the US have an incorrect view of Iranians (they're all radicalized jihadis with bombs strapped to their bellies). Neither is correct, but both perceptions will take time to dissipate.

persiangulf93 wrote:

Most passengers transiting care about the lowest transit/ flight time and competitive/ lowest pricings.

Also IR can gain lots of traffic from Iranians alone, also most Europeans & Asians have no issues with Iran. I can understand Americans being more careful, however unlike Europeans and Asians, they would need a visa to transit.

Iran had around 6M foreign tourists last year alone and we are chisen as the hottest new tourist destination of 2016. Please visit the FB page see youbin Iran 100K foreigners that went/ going to Iran talking about their experiences and etc. Iran is a safe and stable country. Also all european and Asian flights are always full using widebody aircraft. Like 777s 330s 747s 340s and etc.

Also most of these narrow-bodies will be used for domestic flights! We have the biggest domestic network of West-Asia with more than 100 daily flights from THR alone.

I think IR will do fine with Iranians, Europeans, Asians, and a fair number of open-minded Americans too.

So, why people are suggesting IR/IKA will be the next EK/DXB? Is that a stated goal of IR/IKA, or is that just a.net members getting way ahead of reality?

Iran has a geographic advantage in comparison to DXB/IST. Also Iran is looking at its neighbours and sees the economic benefit that a sucessful carrier and hub brings. It can also be that officals bope to create a better image of Iran and promote tourism. Whatever it is, be sure that Iranians and Arabs are always in competition, especially now that some sanctions ate lifted.

Revelation wrote:

Reuters had earlier reported the A380s were subject to doubt, and now the head of IR is saying they are dropped.

Actually an Iran Air official had confirmed this in September. It shouldn't come as a surprise.

Revelation wrote:

50 737 MAX 8
21 A320ceo family
24 A320neo family
21 A330ceo family
18 A330neo (-900)
16 A350-1000
15 777-300ER
15 777-9s

Good summary.

Interesting to see another airline that ends up operating 773, A35K and 779, something many here are in denial about.

Not different than airlines operating 787-9s and A350-900s.

"Although the nominal value of the contract for 118 Airbus planes had been announced at $25 billion, the A380 planes have been dropped from this contract, so the value of our Airbus contract will not be more than $10 billion," said Farhad Parvaresh

This is either a mistake or they divulged the real packet cost.
12 A380 + 6 A330 is ~ $5.5b
if the packet was previously announced as $25b we are now at $19.5b

$10b would be about 51% of list !?

DFW789ER wrote:

airbazar wrote:

Aither wrote:

It's more a sign they don't want to build a big hub. A relief for Emirates.

Uh? It's exactly the opposite of that although I suspect that building a transcontinental hub is not their top priority right now.
They have an airport with no growth constraints, in a geographic location that is far more ideal for EU-Asia and N.America-Asia connections than any place in the ME. If this all goes through, the one airline that will suffer is TK and the new IST airport could be dead on arrival.

Take a poll of westerners, who are say traveling from the US, EU to a destination in India (or anything east). Give them a choice of DXB, AUH, DOH, IST or IKA to change planes, My bet is 90+% will choose against Tehran.

Though I think the rest of your post is exaggerated, I agree with this part. Most westerners have a negative impression for a number of reasons that be they justified or unjustified this is not the place to talk about it. But it does exist and until then Iran Air cannot have that strong of a hub capacity.

Rajahdhani wrote:

Since the 'easing' of sanctions, the Iranian regime has not demonstrated their willingness to resist assisting in the destabilization of the region (see Yemen, and their involvement in Syria). Its not inconceivable that they could end up returning to a sanctioned state, or with some restrictions on operations. These things do not bode well for an airline that is hoping to grow and tied to that nation.

I was about to reply to this, but I remember we are not supposed to talk about politics here so please refrain from doing so.

Anyway, I don't think we should jump to conclusions. Its for certain that Iran Air will not challenge the ME3 soon for hub status, primarily due to unfortunate negative perceptions abroad, as well as some domestic laws/politics and need for infrastructure and hotel expansion.

Iran Air has to play to its advantages in order to secure its growth and make its name, and wait for the right opportunity (which might be political/reputation improvement or a downturn for the ME3 etc.) to shoot for major hub status. Those advantages are the presence of a large, rich expat population and a culture that puts family in a prominent place. Iran Air should secure this large population as its customer base. If Iran Air can get LAX and JFK (which IMHO is unfortunately unlikely), there is a huge potential as those 2 cities are home to the largest Iranian communities outside Iran, though caution has to be practiced since a lot of those are very anti-IR, especially the Shah loyalists who left after the revolution and their children. Also, if the tourism industry kicks off, Iran's high tourism potential could also be an advantage.

DFW789ER wrote:

And we have an incoming president who goes out of his way to condemn Iran, and he himself has threatened to bomb them even if they look at us funny.

Trump says a lot of things. His actions often don't back up his words.

Revelation wrote:

Just like many outside the US have an incorrect view of Americans (i.e. we're all angry white men carrying automatic weapons and looking to shot any non-white we encounter), many in the US have an incorrect view of Iranians (they're all radicalized jihadis with bombs strapped to their bellies).

Of course, so DFW789ER should really have said "Some Americans might find landing in Iran frightening."

Revelation wrote:

I think IR will do fine with Iranians, Europeans, Asians, and a fair number of open-minded Americans too.

I'm sure they will if they get the planes they need.

Revelation wrote:

So, why people are suggesting IR/IKA will be the next EK/DXB? Is that a stated goal of IR/IKA, or is that just a.net members getting way ahead of reality?

They might be close if they hadn't been subject to those sanctions for so long, but today they have a long way to go. I wish them well.

IslandRob wrote:

People may be flashing back to the harrowing airport scenes from the recent movie Argo.

Really? A film set 35 years ago in the middle of a revolution? I find it hard to believe many people would think that's how Iran is today.

scbriml wrote:

IslandRob wrote:

People may be flashing back to the harrowing airport scenes from the recent movie Argo.

Really? A film set 35 years ago in the middle of a revolution? I find it hard to believe many people would think that's how Iran is today.

Noted, and I find it hard to believe Brexit and Trump, but they happened. Xenophobia reigns supreme these days. -ir

[photoid][/photoid]

IslandRob wrote:

scbriml wrote:

IslandRob wrote:

People may be flashing back to the harrowing airport scenes from the recent movie Argo.

Really? A film set 35 years ago in the middle of a revolution? I find it hard to believe many people would think that's how Iran is today.

Noted, and I find it hard to believe Brexit and Trump, but they happened. Xenophobia reigns supreme these days. -ir

1st. That movie was not filmed in Iran.
2nd. That movie was a fictional joke like "300".
4th. Half of the events shown in the movie were not even true.
5th. That movie is full of anti-Iranian propaganda!
6th. Don't judge a country if you haven't set foot there or spoken with locals.

1 thing your American history books doesn't want to teach you is that the American embassy was full of spies that got help from the Mossad regime to coordinate the SAVAK in imprisoning thousands of Iranians in secret prisons and torture them. These facts are well documented.

Iran is known for its friendly and hospitable people, with your ideology, Jews should be xenophobic as well and never visit Germany, because some crazy Nazi's might still exist...

persiangulf93 wrote:

[photoid][/photoid]

IslandRob wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Really? A film set 35 years ago in the middle of a revolution? I find it hard to believe many people would think that's how Iran is today.

Noted, and I find it hard to believe Brexit and Trump, but they happened. Xenophobia reigns supreme these days. -ir

1st. That movie was not filmed in Iran.
2nd. That movie was a fictional joke like "300".
4th. Half of the events shown in the movie were not even true.
5th. That movie is full of anti-Iranian propaganda!
6th. Don't judge a country if you haven't set foot there or spoken with locals.

1 thing your American history books doesn't want to teach you is that the American embassy was full of spies that got help from the Mossad regime to coordinate the SAVAK in imprisoning thousands of Iranians in secret prisons and torture them. These facts are well documented.

Iran is known for its friendly and hospitable people, with your ideology, Jews should be xenophobic as well and never visit Germany, because some crazy Nazi's might still exist...

You could have avoided going off half-cocked had you simply read my reply carefully. In your haste to rant, you have completely misconstrued my "ideology". -ir

Back to the order.

No Airbus press release today. So there's no way of telling if this new deal is actually already a firm order. Especially after Boeing's "agreement" with Iran also wasn't a firm order yet. It continues to be interesting to see how Airbus and Boeing are handling these deals.

As for the A380s, it had already been reported before, based on Iranian sources, that this part of the larger deal would be options at most. Some sources even said that it was put in by Airbus and not because Iran Air was truly interested in the A380. So no shock there that they won't be included in the final deal. They need their A320s and A321s much harder then the largest of the large planes.

I don't know about this film about Iran 35 years ago, but when I walked by the Iran Air shop in London a few years back, it still had a model of a Concorde in Iran Air colours in the window.

scbriml wrote:

What exactly makes Iran a "frightening" place to land?

Well, if they are unwilling to recognize the sanctity of embassies as sovreign, what guarantee does a lowly airline pax have that they will arrive at their destination unscathed? That perception is a major handicap to overcome.