This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

251423Z May 05

UNCLAS ANKARA 002970 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EB/TRA/OTP-BMATTINGLEY AND EUR/SE 
PARIS FOR TSA 
BRUSSELS FOR FAA 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAIR TU
SUBJECT:  RESUMPTION OF ONUR AIR FLIGHTS 
 
Ref:  (A) Ankara 2764 (B) 2004 Ankara 6982 
 
¶1. (U) Sources at the Directorate General of Civil 
Aviation (DGCA) and the Dutch Embassy in Ankara 
confirmed press reports that an agreement had been 
reached to permit Onur Air to resume flights to the 
Netherlands and other European countries, and that the 
airline actually resumed flights on May 24.  The Dutch 
had banned Onur flights for a period of one month 
beginning on May 12 due to serious, repeated safety 
problems (ref A).  Germany, France and Switzerland had 
also restricted flights. 
 
¶2. (SBU) The Anatolian news agency reported that 
Transport and Communications Minister Yildirim had said 
that the GOT had reached agreement with several 
European countries to resume Onur Air flights.  He also 
publicly urged Onur to improve safety measures.  DGCA 
Director of Flight Standards Haydar Yalcin told Econoff 
May 25 that Onur flights had resumed subject to special 
safety oversight measures.  However, he repeated 
previous allegations that the Dutch and others had 
suspended Onur flights on commercial grounds (ref A). 
 
¶3. (SBU) The Econ/Trade Counselor at the Embassy of the 
Netherlands in Ankara confirmed press reports on the 
agreement, which consists of a four-page action plan 
requiring strict inspections of Onur aircraft and a 
prohibition on Onur leasing of planes.  The Counselor 
related that Germans had negotiated a similar agreement 
with the Turks, but expressed frustration that EU 
member states did not take a unified and coordinated 
approach on this issue. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Our contact at the Dutch Embassy also 
strenuously objected to Turkish allegations, repeated 
aired in the local press since May 12, that the Dutch 
and others had commercial motives for banning Onur Air. 
He reiterated the incidents cited reftel and added that 
Onur Air had averaged six "category 3" (worst category) 
incidents a day in the month prior to the suspension, 
with a trend toward increasing problems.  He said that 
a Dutch technical mission, which visited Turkey during 
the week of May 16, came away with the impression that 
the problem was more with DGCA's oversight than with 
Onur Air itself.  He added that Dutch authorities are 
observing similar problems with Fly Air (though not 
with state-owned Turkish Airlines). 
 
¶4. (SBU) Comment:  Neither Onur nor Fly Air operate 
flights to the U.S., and European authorities did not 
question the safety record of THY, which does fly to 
the U.S., in this incident.  However, the problems 
apparently surfacing with low-cost private airlines 
suggest that civair authorities are stretched in 
overseeing a rapidly growing and liberalizing air 
services market.  This is exacerbated by the DGCA's 
difficulties in retaining an adequate number of 
experienced staff.  In April, a parliamentary committee 
endorsed a bill designed to improve air safety 
oversight by enhancing DGCA's ability to retain 
qualified inspectors, but it has not yet come before 
the full Parliament for approval.  Moreover, the 
Turkish authorities' attempt to politicize what appear 
to be genuine technical issues with implications for 
passenger safety is troubling.  Embassy will continue 
to monitor the situation, and would welcome an FAA 
followup visit to the December 2004 consultations with 
DGCA on air safety issues (ref B). 
EDELMAN