Dec. 11, 2016: Iran and Boeing reached an agreement on the 80-airplane order that includes 50 737 MAX 8s, 15 777-300ERs and 15 777-9s.
The final contract still has unspecified contingencies before it can be booked as firm orders, Boeing said. One of those contingencies is clearly President-Elect Donald Trump, who criticized the larger Iran-US-allies deal of which the Boeing order is a part.
Airbus has 116 orders pending that could also be upended if Trump, upon taking office, vitiates the deal.
Boeing’s mix of aircraft changed slightly from the original news in June. The original mix included 40 737 MAXes and six 737NGs. Also included then were four 747-8s.
The US House of Representatives passed a bill to prevent any US-sourced financing for the Boeing purchases. The Senate hasn’t acted on the bill and President Obama vowed to veto it. The legislation doesn’t kill the Boeing deal, per se–just US-sourced financing, leaving open non-US financing.
But President-Elect Trump said he opposed the Iran nuclear deal, which involves the US and five allies. Trump vowed to cancel the agreement, which would kill the Boeing order. It probably would kill the Airbus order, because of the US content in the Airbus airplanes.
Interesting to note that Boeing’s statement mentions jobs relating to the order. I don’t ever recall anything like that in a Boeing order announcement before.
Obviously trying to head off Trump at the pass.
The deal will be done. Ignore any posturing to the contrary.
Those 15 777-300ER would be a godsend of the production line as it slows down to the changeover to the 777X. It is of course an ideal plane for their heavy fleet, except for the little problem that Tehran is at least 3000ft and reaches into mid 90F in summer, probably can get by without needing max range.
So after sending cash of a few billion or so $$ so IRAN can support terrorism ( not a ransom you understand ) now we can sell them a few airplanes to assist in delivering weapons to the terrorists and/or refit to fly into major buildings around the world ?
Brilliant economics –
I suppose we will have to pay for the strapped down nuke warhead in the cargo bay as well.
Follow the money – ooops – with cash its nearly impossible.
What part of ‘ death to the infidels /usa/israel ‘ we dont believe ?
I feel your grasp of geopolitical issues is a tad awry, it was Saudi Arabians (15/19) who flew into buildings not Iranians and that didn’t seem to stop the sale of arms/ aircraft and political favour to that country by any US and for that matter any Western European administration (to my albeit limited knowledge). So DonS, by your reasoning we should be supporting Iran against the Saudis. Is that right?
Personally I feel that it’s quite handy to have Tehran dependant for spares and somewhere to land, etc. The US has done a particularly fine number on foreign customers of the F 35,who will be totally unable to maintain or use them unless Washington actively wants them to.
But you have to admit that there is a dreadful stench coming from this deal.
and who is funding ISIS /ISL/dazesh/ and Hezbollah ?
And who is using civil aircraft to ship arms and money to terrorists ?
And what brand of planes were used in 911.
No problem hiring and training drivers for planes you own. A bit more difficult for planes you do not own . .
Iran supports hezbollah.Iran and ISIS are mortal enemies.
The US almost certainly gave Isis some support in the early days of the Syrian revolution.
I am even more confused now. Grubbie has answered some of your rant but you now seem to be inferring that Iran hired Saudis to fly aircraft on their behalf through Al Qaida. I don’t think that is likely. You seem to suggest all terrorism starts and stops with Iran, please be assured it has many homes.
Ignoring the stench (ha), this deal is very timely in keeping the B77w line running a tad longer. And adding to the comment further up the thread, this is a done deal.
GEEEEZE- reading way too much in what I said.
perhaps I should have just said
IMHO- we should NOT provide our sworn enemies with the means to kill us using our technology, finances, and manufacturing capability !!
1) Iran is a major financier of terrorism and related groups.
2) Iran is very open re death to america and israel
3) Iran is committed to developing nukes and lonbg range missiles
4) Iran can deliver nukes in other than missiles, be it trucks, airplanes, boats, etc
5) No problem training suicide types in any number of organizations
6) 911 did not use Saudi Airplanes – and arguments that a branch of Saudi govt financed 911 jackers is just that.
7)Not talking about most of the Iran population, but the Mullahs have their own way of doing things and getting people to follow their vision of a caliphate covering first all of north Africa and eventually their old caliphate, and with a bit of luck most of the world.
8) Providing them ( Mullahs) with bucu $$ and many planes is NOT in our or anyone elses best interest.
9) Trying to untangle all the various factions and tribal fights in that corner of the world is IMHO well beyond the subject of this thread.
You are completely loosing sight of Irans real cause for contention against the US.
Moneys now released were Iran’s to start with and illegally withheld by the US on trumped up nefarious reasons.
But my guess is you do not get that.
Uwe, history disagrees with your statements (as well as your implied causality).
Let me guess. In your history the Cuba crisis materialized from thin air when the Soviets set up missiles on Cuba, right?
Dear Uwe, may i kindly suggest you take the first delivered Airbus on a one way from Frankfurt to Qom, Khorramshahr, Tehran, or wherever there?
And enjoy the local way of life?
Oh, and DO NOT FORGET to bring your wife, daughters, cat, etc. They will really enjoy their freedom, education opportunities, and ability to contribute to a free, vibrant, inclusive life.
LOTS of daily subjects to review at dinner after they enjoy their activities outside 🙂
Now, Havana would be a tad easier…
There are gradients of nasty regimes.
We may have an interesting one brewing here if i believe Twitter. Jury not out yet though.
But the Islamic RoR is one real extreme. We should avoid helping if we can.
WHY DID JAPAN GO TO WAR? Embargo of strategic materials & products?
TRUMP may trump Obamanation. Note Airbus position. NO OTHER VIABLE SUPPLIERS. If Iran feels cornered, how might some crazies respond?
We have nothing to fear but fear itself….Spoken many ways before FDR.
Have you got nothing better to do?
The presentation is strange but the observation concise.
US MoO is to build up limiting provocations and then go to war on the defensive action ( presenting this a outright and unprovoked aggression.)
Though incapable to do the job the preferred regional power is SA. Thus Iran is hazed heavily and relentlessly.
Looks like the US never intended to follow though on the recent atomics deal. not really unexpected.
– 1905 Invade Korea and enjoy their *voluntary* contribution
– 1931 Invade China and enjoy their *voluntary* contribution
(1937 Enjoy a 3 days feast a.k.a the ‘rape of nanking’ — read up)
– 1938 Break the 5:5:3 naval treaty “…because you need many many more *peaceful* battleships…”
Ooppsss… then (1940) the nasty nasty US driven war provoking embargo? Dear, that’s really a bad thing that is totally but totally unfair! I was not going to (repeat) repeat, repeat…I swear 🙂 lol.
Do you suggest we should have sold then Boeing B29, Bxx then too?
See the pattern here perhaps ? Lol 🙂
Chamberlain tried a particular direction in 1938.
Rather high quota of fakeed “only self defence” military action
Boeing would sell direct to Satan at a deep discount if the dark one needed capacity.
I was hoping for the 747-8 order to keep the line open for a while longer.
If I remember correctly, Trump’s initial criticism was that the US agreed to a deal with Iran and then Iran purchased Airbus. He was basically saying Obama should have linked a deal with an airplane purchase from the US.
The problem being, the Iran nuclear deal was not a US-only effort. The US was part of an international & UN team, so the leverage you’re suggesting simply wasn’t there.
To add to this, I remember an Iran-Contra arms deal during the Regan/Republican times. Regardless, Obama has done a great job. Also the money provided back to Iran under Obama’s admin (not secretively, unlike the past arms-Regan deal) was money previously locked/seized from Iran.
The US was dragged to this deal ( even when Kerry was moved into the first row for signing.).
Reneging on it does not come unexpected at all.
So on first blush Boeing could not do business with Iran and thus was not in the running. Political instability on the US side was a further detractor.
I agree with steve a 747-8 would be nice to keep the line open, now that trump might ax the deal with the Air Force.
Good to see a large 777 order.
One possible outcome of Trump is for Airbus to review the true cost of sourcing components from the US. It is not as if there are no other alternatives.
Could this be one of the reasons why RR is the main engine supplier to Airbus?
Btw. There are far too many personal and way off-topic attacks in some of the comments. Not cool and rather immature.
I think this is the crux of the matter and lays bare the massive weakness in the global nature of supply chains as we descend into a world of protectionism and political grandstanding. The Iran deals are mere illustrations of the changing world order where the hegemony of the US is slowly being eroded as many countries seek alliances that sidestep the US’s influence. To focus on Iran seems a tad misguided in my view as there are other countries such as China and Russia with which a trade war, if not a fighting war, has some likelihood. I would include the EU in this but it had far less influence to begin with or global reach. Exactly what good would stopping this order or Airbus’s order do?
Obviously Iran didn’t want Boeings, it was blackmailed into buying them. Could Europe try this trick? Probably not, US has more clout when it comes to retaliation. If the US becomes even more protectionist, there’s only one way to go, strip all the US content from at least 2 models.Airbus should at least reduce US content,duel source and make sure Europe has all the strategic components. Russia and China have learned this lesson.
I mentioned this alternate source supplier issue a couple of weeks ago and some here noted that they believed it is/was not worth it for Airbus to go this route, especially as this is the first time the issue has ever come up.
I still believe that in the upper echelons at Airbus, there is some thought being put into re-evaluating this.
Obviously this would require an alternate sourcing for everything that is made in the USA in order to get around any possible blocking of exports to the EU by the USA Government.
Who would have thought that we would ever get to even speculating about something like this?
Agree with you on the personal attacks. Unfortunately this seems to be the new, or revived, norm in Society. It is, unfortunately, not restricted to just the internet, as one notes by the attacks on visible minorities in the UK after the Brexit vote and more recently the same sort of behaviour in the USA after the Presidential election.
Hopefully Society can sort itself out, and soon!
I just can’t let that go.I have seen absolutely no sign of a deterioration in relations with immigrants in the UK since the brexit vote. The high profile killing of a Pole (brought up in the EU parliament by JC Junker)is now coming to court. Five kids let off, one 15 year old kid charged with manslaughter, no racial charges. Group of Poles (big drinkers and fighter’s, by the way) got into a fairly standard fight with some English layabouts, tragically hit his head on a kerbside
Actually I’ll take back the racist comments about Polish drinking habits, let’s just say that they are not too shocked by British drinking habits.
Has anyone met Dr Wherrit, he lives in the Seattle area apparently, maybe in a professional environment? ?
Sorry Grubbie, I didn’t mean to offend. I was just going by the headlines of increased rates of racist attacks in both countries after their respective votes (coverage of both events gleaned from BBC and CNN, maybe other broadcasters did not report such items or did so differently).
Don’t worry I’m not offended. The BBC and Guardian have created a very misleading impression.A Polish mate of mine was warned by his parents to be very careful and not go to the pub on a recent visit. Like he was going to listen!
@ Aero Ninja
I think you will find that the press find what they want to find. I don’t discern any difference relating to more racism in what is a very tolerant country. What I do detect is an unease with so much of the baggage that goes with Brexit in this context. I think the racist few are more than counterbalanced by vast majority
Iran is in that part of the world where a modern long-range airline can reach almost anywhere else.
From that point of view Iran Air re-equipping with modern equipment ought to concern the big three Gulf carriers and the European legacy state carriers.
30 777s would be a good start to creating a fourth Gulf carrier. Emirates, Qatar and Etihad have shown them the way. Turkish Airlines too.
IMHO; Once a country has a powerful cohort of enterprising industrialists who are focussed on making money, their influence progressively outweighs that of extremists. Keeping that cohort isolated and under sanction helps keep the extremists in charge. This is a general truth not specific to Iran.
Chris, I agree that there appears to be some ambition in Iran to emulate the Gulf airlines. Turkey appears to have the same ideas. Let’s see how these two slug it out with each other and Etihad/Qatar. Emirates is too big to be challenged however.
Also agree that Social media and uptake of cellphones will eventually be the downfall of the powerful religious fanatics with too much sway over the general populace in Iran. Secularism will eventually grow in line with the easing of sanctions.
Oh the irony of it all.
During the whole tanker bidding process, many were damning Airbus and Europe as potentially unreliable suppliers should the USA find itself in a war or Military Action that the EU would not agree with.
Now we have the case where the US could potentially block Airbus (located in the EU) sales of civilian aircraft to a Country that the USA Congress and President-elect do not agree with.
The 380’s were dropped from the order. I knew those were not going to stay on the order sheet.