Hacker News Reader

Comment by ElBarto | Hacker News Reader

A potentially interesting tidbit from Norwegian's Wikipedia page:

> Diversion to Shiraz, Iran December 2018

> A Norwegian Boeing 737 MAX suffered an unspecified technical failure over Iran in December 2018. The pilot made a precautionary landing at Shiraz Shahid Dastgheib International Airport without incident. Spare parts required to make the aircraft airworthy were not available in the world outside the United States, which has prohibited exports of technology to Iran. Two months later, the almost-brand-new aircraft remained stranded in Shiraz and subject to seizure by the Iranian government.[86]

> On 22 February 2019 the plane was ferrried from Shiraz to Stockholm as DY8921

View on HN

A good podcast episode about that: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/06/692155923/epis...

That seems like a disincentive to buy American aircraft.

If you're a reasonably sized international airline, it seems like a reasonable possibility that you'd have to (or want to) land in a territory that the US in unfavourable toward. Why take the risk?

In the Iran case, there are similar sanctions from the EU, so the Airbus A320 family are also out of the question.

And if you want something the size of the best selling variants of the A320 family and 737 MAX you have essentially no choice.

And whats more, even the Russian jets are 'not russian enough' so Iranians could buy them[0].

"The US approval for the transaction was needed, as Sukhoi aircraft contained more than 10% (22%, according to state news RIA) of American-made parts."

[0] https://www.aerotime.aero/ina.hladyshava/22228-not-russian-e...

Maybe, but in the specific case of an Norwegian airline, it seems less likely there would be a 'mismatch' of interests, with the rest of Europe, compared with the US.

And I thought Europe were lifting their Iran sanctions? They're trying to get a non USD payment system sorted so they can continue trade after the US pulled out of a deal.

https://www.gtreview.com/news/mena/analysis-will-europes-new...

> In the Iran case, there are similar sanctions from the EU

Nope, since the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran, Europe has no sanction against firms that commerce with Iran. However, since USA pulled out of the agreement, USA threatens european firms that commerce with Iran. The agreement is however still in place.

This is somewhat true, but to be fair there are only a few countries the US and it’s allies don’t do business with - as long as you don’t land in Iran or North Korea you’d be in pretty good shape.

Not so sure about that. The US Government lists 13 places as “Do not travel” and 15 as “reconsider travel”. Looking at the list, it doesn’t seem unreasonable advice. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/...

Many of those countries are friendly (extremely so) to the US. For example, the US is perfectly happy to ship aircraft parts (and even fully functional military aircraft) to Afghani buyers; they just give non-binding advice to US citizens that traveling to a war zone is maaaaaybe not the safest idea.

A travel advisory is something completely different than economic sanctions.

The grandparent comment was talking about landing in Iran or North Korea. I assumed this was about travel rather than economics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com