Mar

24

Fly The Friendly Blue Sky of Mahan


Posted by at 8:59 pm on March 24, 2008
Category: BISIran Sanctions

Blue Sky 747-400The Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) issued a Temporary Denial Order on March 17, 2008, against Balli Group PLC and other related U.K. companies, the Armenian air carrier Blue Airways (a/k/a Blue Sky), and Iranian air carrier Mahan Air (which BIS erroneously calls “Mahan Airways”). The TDO arises out of the apparent lease (or sub-lease) of Boeing 747s to Mahan. These aircraft, which had once been in the United Airlines fleet, had been leased by Balli Group subsidiaries initially to Blue Airways and then sometime in 2006 had been leased by the Balli subsidiaries (or subleased by Blue Airways) to Mahan.

The TDO states that Balli had told BIS that the aircraft were not going to be leased or subleased to Mahan, although “open sources” showed that the aircraft, “identifiable by serial number and tail number were under the control of Mahan Air. The TDO also noted that Balli had refused to comply with an order to return the aircraft to the United States pursuant to section 758.8(b) of the Export Administration Regulations. (I can imagine the bemusement of the British companies when a U.S. agency demanded that they should return aircraft owned by them without compensation to the United States. I don’t think they said “no,” rather they probably said “not bloody likely.”)

Although the TDO doesn’t describe the “open sources” that it refers to, it appears that the arrival of the Blue Sky 747s in Tehran was first noted by Iranian “plane spotting” website www.iraviation.com, and then picked up on a large U.S. aviation-enthusiast forum www.airliners.net. The website www.airfleets.net also picked up the transfer of the aircraft. All this goes to show what should be fairly obvious: it’s really hard to hide a 747.

Permalink

Bookmark and Share

Copyright © 2008 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


One Comment:


This TDO is a perfect example of why the secrecy cult within BIS works against BIS: If the TDO had identified the equipment and preferably even the tail numbers, folks in the air repair and aircraft parts biz would be better able to guard against selling any parts or providing any services that would help keep them flying. Whatever the merits of the policy behind EAA 12(c) on the licensing side or even in VDs, one wouldn’t think that the subjects of a TDO or DO should be the beneficiaries.

Comment by Mike Deal on March 25th, 2008 @ 12:45 pm