G'day

xwb777 wrote:

Air Tanzania is having similer issues with the A220-300

Interesting, so air Tanzanias A 220's have a composite fuselage...... I wonder what premium they had to pay to get that version. I also missed the news about the version having been certified

Cheers

Peter

Can someone answer this simple question: did the Qatari Authorities ground A350s MSN (insert list here) until repairs are conducted on the basis of flight safety? Does anyone has the official Qatari order?
It seems there is a lot of back and forth about the cause, but the original mandate seems to be inexistent.

I searched the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority website and there is no such document to be found; not even a mention of Qatar Airways grounding their A350s in their news. A lot of media mention that Qatar Airways was "ordered" (quote included) to ground their aircraft, meaning they doubt the veracity of said order.

Any insight would be appreciated.

Or maybe Akbar feels he’s ordered too many of them?

EASA says they won’t be investigating further as it does not pose a threat to flight safety.

https://twitter.com/jrobinsuk/status/14 ... 59072?s=21

WayexTDI wrote:

Can someone answer this simple question: did the Qatari Authorities ground A350s MSN (insert list here) until repairs are conducted on the basis of flight safety? Does anyone has the official Qatari order?
It seems there is a lot of back and forth about the cause, but the original mandate seems to be inexistent.

I searched the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority website and there is no such document to be found; not even a mention of Qatar Airways grounding their A350s in their news. A lot of media mention that Qatar Airways was "ordered" (quote included) to ground their aircraft, meaning they doubt the veracity of said order.

Any insight would be appreciated.

Not all groundings are due to safety of flight issues. Planes can be grounded for myriad of paperwork reasons and these don't need to have public announcements. I have yet to hear any knowledgeable party say this grounding is due to a safety of flight issue. Ideally the media would emphasize this, but they are in business to get clicks and airplanes grounded due to paperwork issues aren't very sexy.

Opus99 wrote:

Or maybe Akbar feels he’s ordered too many of them?

EASA says they won’t be investigating further as it does not pose a threat to flight safety.

https://twitter.com/jrobinsuk/status/14 ... 59072?s=21

Airbus should have caved in to AAB and closed the matter quietly. It has not been a flight safety issue from day one. However with the Qatar regulator involved now, matters have taken a more complicated turn. Unnecessary bad publicity but as has been reported Airbus under Faury is a different animal. This approach has both disadvantages and advantages in the long run.

"More smoke than fire" it seems

xwb565 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Or maybe Akbar feels he’s ordered too many of them?

EASA says they won’t be investigating further as it does not pose a threat to flight safety.

https://twitter.com/jrobinsuk/status/14 ... 59072?s=21

Airbus should have caved in to AAB and closed the matter quietly. It has not been a flight safety issue from day one. However with the Qatar regulator involved now, matters have taken a more complicated turn. Unnecessary bad publicity but as has been reported Airbus under Faury is a different animal. This approach has both disadvantages and advantages in the long run.

Under Faury what has changed at airbus?

Opus99 wrote:

xwb565 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Or maybe Akbar feels he’s ordered too many of them?

EASA says they won’t be investigating further as it does not pose a threat to flight safety.

https://twitter.com/jrobinsuk/status/14 ... 59072?s=21

Airbus should have caved in to AAB and closed the matter quietly. It has not been a flight safety issue from day one. However with the Qatar regulator involved now, matters have taken a more complicated turn. Unnecessary bad publicity but as has been reported Airbus under Faury is a different animal. This approach has both disadvantages and advantages in the long run.

Under Faury what has changed at airbus?

The recent reports of contracts being enforced during the covid situation is an example. Some will say such a shift is overdue but customers have long and biased memories. QR has been a loyal customer despite all the shenanigans and upsetting them no matter how justifiably can have consequences when you are searching for launch customers for the next big project.

G'day

JerseyFlyer wrote:

"More smoke than fire" it seems

What is the saying - where there is smoke there is fire.

Looks like someone tried to light a wet match though

Cheers

Peter

JerseyFlyer wrote:

"More smoke than fire" it seems

More sizzle than bacon!

Revelation wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Can someone answer this simple question: did the Qatari Authorities ground A350s MSN (insert list here) until repairs are conducted on the basis of flight safety? Does anyone has the official Qatari order?
It seems there is a lot of back and forth about the cause, but the original mandate seems to be inexistent.

I searched the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority website and there is no such document to be found; not even a mention of Qatar Airways grounding their A350s in their news. A lot of media mention that Qatar Airways was "ordered" (quote included) to ground their aircraft, meaning they doubt the veracity of said order.

Any insight would be appreciated.

Not all groundings are due to safety of flight issues. Planes can be grounded for myriad of paperwork reasons and these don't need to have public announcements. I have yet to hear any knowledgeable party say this grounding is due to a safety of flight issue. Ideally the media would emphasize this, but they are in business to get clicks and airplanes grounded due to paperwork issues aren't very sexy.

Paperwork issues on years-old aircraft? How's that the responsibility of the airframe manufacturer at that point? At the beginning of the life of the aircraft, it could be understandable. But up to 6 years later (date of EIS at Qatar), one feel that severe paperwork issues from the manufacturer would have been solved by then; and if they haven't, it's more an operator issue at this point for not managing the paperwork better.

xwb565 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Or maybe Akbar feels he’s ordered too many of them?

EASA says they won’t be investigating further as it does not pose a threat to flight safety.

https://twitter.com/jrobinsuk/status/14 ... 59072?s=21

Airbus should have caved in to AAB and closed the matter quietly. It has not been a flight safety issue from day one. However with the Qatar regulator involved now, matters have taken a more complicated turn. Unnecessary bad publicity but as has been reported Airbus under Faury is a different animal. This approach has both disadvantages and advantages in the long run.

But again, what is the real "official" reason for these planes to be grounded? Until we know, it's too easy to throw stones at Airbus...

Airbus has decided not to bid on Ryanair RFPs in the past. Maybe it is time to do the same with QR?

aaexecplat wrote:

Airbus has decided not to bid on Ryanair RFPs in the past. Maybe it is time to do the same with QR?

Large widebody orders are too important (and rare relative to large narrow body orders) to ignore, even with difficult customers like QR. QR, for example, is the largest A350 customer with 76 ordered.

aaexecplat wrote:

Airbus has decided not to bid on Ryanair RFPs in the past. Maybe it is time to do the same with QR?

Yes QR is annoying but that’s too dangerous

aaexecplat wrote:

Airbus has decided not to bid on Ryanair RFPs in the past. Maybe it is time to do the same with QR?

As many here are touting QR as the launch customer for the A350F, I doubt that will happen.
As an armchair CEO with no skin in the game, I would be very tempted though.

Bricktop wrote:

aaexecplat wrote:

Airbus has decided not to bid on Ryanair RFPs in the past. Maybe it is time to do the same with QR?

As many here are touting QR as the launch customer for the A350F, I doubt that will happen.
As an armchair CEO with no skin in the game, I would be very tempted though.

Maybe they want to convert the remaining A350 on order to A350F.

Who needs more capacity nowadays anyway?

VV wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

aaexecplat wrote:

Airbus has decided not to bid on Ryanair RFPs in the past. Maybe it is time to do the same with QR?

As many here are touting QR as the launch customer for the A350F, I doubt that will happen.
As an armchair CEO with no skin in the game, I would be very tempted though.

Maybe they want to convert the remaining A350 on order to A350F.

Who needs more capacity nowadays anyway?

That makes sense, but wouldn’t that be a good deal for Airbus? I mean it still keeps the program on the same amount of overall orders and gives them the confidence to launch the freighter

SQ has found NO issies in its large A350 fleet:

"Singapore Airlines, which has many aircraft older than some grounded by Qatar Airways, has now confirmed that it hasn’t been affected by the surface degradation experienced by the Middle East giant."

https://simpleflying.com/singapore-airl ... gredation/

One of the many A350s currently stored at TLS, all taped up: https://www.instagram.com/p/CRVyT3PnTFh/

MentourPilot reports EASA has made a statement:

“Based on the data provided to EASA, there is no indication that the paint and protection degradation affects the structure of the aircraft or introduces other risks, and so EASA is not intending to take any action as State of Design for this issue at this time. No other airlines have reported paint and protection damage.”

Ref: https://mentourpilot.com/qatar-a350-eas ... this-time/

Hmm.

Man. With that view from State of Design and no similar concern is known with other A350 operators, how long will QR's be grounded for then...

Revelation wrote:

MentourPilot reports EASA has made a statement:

“Based on the data provided to EASA, there is no indication that the paint and protection degradation affects the structure of the aircraft or introduces other risks, and so EASA is not intending to take any action as State of Design for this issue at this time. No other airlines have reported paint and protection damage.”

Ref: https://mentourpilot.com/qatar-a350-eas ... this-time/

Hmm.

I'll ask the question again, as new information is pouring in: do we know the exact cause that granted the Qatari regulator to ground part of the Qatar Airways fleet (and not all of it)?

Based on comments from Singapore Airlines and EASA, it would appear to be due to the paint and protection degradation; but then again, I cannot find any official communication, making me believe it's a bogus reason and that Qatar Airways uses its influence to strong arm Airbus,

WayexTDI wrote:

I'll ask the question again, as new information is pouring in: do we know the exact cause that granted the Qatari regulator to ground part of the Qatar Airways fleet (and not all of it)?

Based on comments from Singapore Airlines and EASA, it would appear to be due to the paint and protection degradation; but then again, I cannot find any official communication, making me believe it's a bogus reason and that Qatar Airways uses its influence to strong arm Airbus,

I can't find any official communication about anything from QCAA other than public relations content ( ref: https://www.caa.gov.qa/en-us ).

I don't think it's established that they would need to make official statements about this type of action.

Instead of asking here repeatedly which isn't very useful, perhaps you should use the contact information at the bottom of that page to follow up?

xwb777 wrote:

It might be that the Qatar Aviation Authority has not issued any order to ground the planes and Akbar is just stating that to make the subject more serious, hence no official announecment has been heard or found on their website.

Let me make it concise - Akbar might be lying

LDRA wrote:

xwb777 wrote:

It might be that the Qatar Aviation Authority has not issued any order to ground the planes and Akbar is just stating that to make the subject more serious, hence no official announecment has been heard or found on their website.

Let me make it concise - Akbar might be lying

Unlikely. Airbus could (and would) dispell that with a simple phone call. Surely the Airframer has access to all of the world's aviation authorities.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

LDRA wrote:

xwb777 wrote:

It might be that the Qatar Aviation Authority has not issued any order to ground the planes and Akbar is just stating that to make the subject more serious, hence no official announecment has been heard or found on their website.

Let me make it concise - Akbar might be lying

Unlikely. Airbus could (and would) dispell that with a simple phone call. Surely the Airframer has access to all of the world's aviation authorities.

However minor that move would be, QR might view that as an escalation.

I think Airbus is handling it well. There's no upside for them to publicly push back on their customer. Say as little as possible in public, and in private work with EASA to give them access to the data they need and let them be the ones to make any statements that may refute what QR has been saying. If QCAA wants to take an action, so what, it doesn't apply to anyone other than airlines that have AOCs issued by QCAA that operate A350s.

In a way it's like how Boeing dealt with STC's public complaints about 779. Don't say anything that could be viewed as an escalation, do your best to work things out in private. Even if you have the evidence to undermine what he's saying, there's no upside in embarrassing a big customer who is trying to run an airline during a pandemic so keep things behind closed doors.

Revelation wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

LDRA wrote:

Let me make it concise - Akbar might be lying

Unlikely. Airbus could (and would) dispell that with a simple phone call. Surely the Airframer has access to all of the world's aviation authorities.

However minor that move would be, QR might view that as an escalation.

I think Airbus is handling it well. There's no upside for them to publicly push back on their customer. Say as little as possible in public, and in private work with EASA to give them access to the data they need and let them be the ones to make any statements that may refute what QR has been saying. If QCAA wants to take an action, so what, it doesn't apply to anyone other than airlines that have AOCs issued by QCAA that operate A350s.

In a way it's like how Boeing dealt with STC's public complaints about 779. Don't say anything that could be viewed as an escalation, do your best to work things out in private. Even if you have the evidence to undermine what he's saying, there's no upside in embarrassing a big customer who is trying to run an airline during a pandemic so keep things behind closed doors.

I agree with everything you stated. I wasn't implying AIrbus would escalate... only that they might want to know the truth of the matter for themselves. But absolutely, keep it all beyond closed doors... doesn't benefit anyone except media and commentators on the interwebs that like to use it as fodder for clicks, reads and likes.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

I agree with everything you stated. I wasn't implying AIrbus would escalate... only that they might want to know the truth of the matter for themselves. But absolutely, keep it all beyond closed doors... doesn't benefit anyone except media and commentators on the interwebs that like to use it as fodder for clicks, reads and likes.

Ok, I wasn't thinking of that angle, thanks for the clarification.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

Unlikely. Airbus could (and would) dispell that with a simple phone call. Surely the Airframer has access to all of the world's aviation authorities.

Unlikely for the manufacturer to make that call, but it would be negligent if the state of design TCDS issuer (EASA) did not contact the Qatar CAA, Irish CAA, and the manufacturer. It has the responsibility under the TCDS for continuing airworthiness.

The Irish CAA would be contacted as the first aircraft strip happened in Ireland, and now is stored in TLS, where the manufacturer would be contacted.

This is beyond politics, if someone make safety related claims the authorities jump all over it. Even more so now after the Max events.

But absolutely, keep it all beyond closed doors... doesn't benefit anyone except media and commentators on the interwebs that like to use it as fodder for clicks, reads and likes.

It would be interesting for the public to know if extreme heat might in fact damage CFRP structures or if paint removal procedures might need some fine tuning. This is why I don't get this attitude to not debate things at all. Finally this is an aviation forum and some aviation topic. Open debate please. Don't go to forums if you don't like it.

Noshow wrote:

But absolutely, keep it all beyond closed doors... doesn't benefit anyone except media and commentators on the interwebs that like to use it as fodder for clicks, reads and likes.

It would be interesting for the public to know if extreme heat might in fact damage CFRP structures or if paint removal procedures might need some fine tuning. This is why I don't get this attitude to not debate things at all. Finally this is an aviation forum and some aviation topic. Open debate please. Don't go to forums if you don't like it.

Extreme heat, yes, also the daily heat - cold cycle and wind - blown sand. Example: sand damage, water ingress , heat expansion.

That is totally relevant for the entire industry not only for Airbus and for the flying public. Think 787, think Cirrus and so on.

zeke wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

Unlikely. Airbus could (and would) dispell that with a simple phone call. Surely the Airframer has access to all of the world's aviation authorities.

Unlikely for the manufacturer to make that call, but it would be negligent if the state of design TCDS issuer (EASA) did not contact the Qatar CAA, Irish CAA, and the manufacturer. It has the responsibility under the TCDS for continuing airworthiness.

The Irish CAA would be contacted as the first aircraft strip happened in Ireland, and now is stored in TLS, where the manufacturer would be contacted.

This is beyond politics, if someone make safety related claims the authorities jump all over it. Even more so now after the Max events.

It would be negligence if the Qatar CAA would not contact EASA and the Irish CAA.

seahawk wrote:

zeke wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

Unlikely. Airbus could (and would) dispell that with a simple phone call. Surely the Airframer has access to all of the world's aviation authorities.

Unlikely for the manufacturer to make that call, but it would be negligent if the state of design TCDS issuer (EASA) did not contact the Qatar CAA, Irish CAA, and the manufacturer. It has the responsibility under the TCDS for continuing airworthiness.

The Irish CAA would be contacted as the first aircraft strip happened in Ireland, and now is stored in TLS, where the manufacturer would be contacted.

This is beyond politics, if someone make safety related claims the authorities jump all over it. Even more so now after the Max events.

It would be negligence if the Qatar CAA would not contact EASA and the Irish CAA.

EASA has already looked into the matter, what else do you want them to do? This sounds more and more like the usual QR nonsense where minor issues are blown out of proportion.

I was just pointing out the correct way to report safety issues. If the Qatar CAA finds a safety issue, they must instantly inform EASA. You can not ground a type and then wait for the TCDS issuer to contact you and ask what the problem is.

My thing is. So how does this end up? Does Airbus give them a break on the deliveries? Does QR just accept it. Also if he’s saying he doesn’t want to take deliveries till 2022 (like he said) I mean, I’m sure Airbus can accommodate that. He’s a big customer.

Opus99 wrote:

My thing is. So how does this end up? Does Airbus give them a break on the deliveries? Does QR just accept it. Also if he’s saying he doesn’t want to take deliveries till 2022 (like he said) I mean, I’m sure Airbus can accommodate that. He’s a big customer.

There were reports that Airbus was taking some customers to court last year when they would not take delivery of planes, but they were small customers. Therefore it's an option but not a likely one.

So in the press, Akbar can't get his new 777-X fast enough, but in the real world, while flying half empty 77W, A359/K and 788, he is trying block deliveries of new aircraft with debatable causes ...

mig17 wrote:

So in the press, Akbar can't get his new 777-X fast enough, but in the real world, while flying half empty 77W, A359/K and 788, he is trying block deliveries of new aircraft with debatable causes ...

It takes a keen intellect to be a good liar, you've got to remember which lies you've told to and whom you've told them to, and when challenged about contradictions you need to come up with a workable retort on the fly.

Are they still grounded?

Revelation wrote:

mig17 wrote:

So in the press, Akbar can't get his new 777-X fast enough, but in the real world, while flying half empty 77W, A359/K and 788, he is trying block deliveries of new aircraft with debatable causes ...

It takes a keen intellect to be a good liar, you've got to remember which lies you've told to and whom you've told them to, and when challenged about contradictions you need to come up with a workable retort on the fly.

Strangely, this has to be true. Don't know whether it was meant to be sarcastic though.

Some factors that could cause Qatar's fuse skin to degrade faster than typical.
1. The hub is a very hot, constantly sunny location, also dusty.
2. The paint is in a gray, with little white pigment, which is quite reflective and also more "opaque'. More sunlight energy, in particular the UV, gets absorbed. It is the UV that damages a lot of resins.
3. Pollution can affect performance, but low risk here as the coatings effectively seal.
4. Thermal interaction between the CFRP and the metal mesh that expands at different rates. Qatar has possibly the largest thermal range from being parked in the desert sun to arctic conditions at flight level 10 minutes later and back.

At the same time EASA would be quite interested in this, but with their comment they basically see the degradation observed falls in line with the predicted degradation, so no issue and no news.

Never thought this was a safety issue, but still a mystery. I understand Airbus' silence, why piss off a major customer. But it would be nice if a regulator like the EASA would issue a statement saying once and for all there are no safety concerns with the problem raised by QR. At this point it almost appears like corporate slander.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Never thought this was a safety issue, but still a mystery. I understand Airbus' silence, why piss off a major customer. But it would be nice if a regulator like the EASA would issue a statement saying once and for all there are no safety concerns with the problem raised by QR. At this point it almost appears like corporate slander.

They did issue a statement on that, as posted above earlier.

https://twitter.com/jrobinsuk/status/14 ... 59072?s=21

MrBryan86 wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Never thought this was a safety issue, but still a mystery. I understand Airbus' silence, why piss off a major customer. But it would be nice if a regulator like the EASA would issue a statement saying once and for all there are no safety concerns with the problem raised by QR. At this point it almost appears like corporate slander.

They did issue a statement on that, as posted above earlier.

https://twitter.com/jrobinsuk/status/14 ... 59072?s=21

That is a tweet from an individual that allegedly is quoting EASA. I am not aware of any official statement from the EASA and I am generally highly skeptical of internet bloggers or tweeters. If there is an official statement I would love to see it.

Again, I do not believe the issue raised by QR is a safety concern. If there is anything official directly from a regulatory body please post.

I just did search and can find to official statement from the EASA. The link to the tweet above is from an aviation reporter. I do not know how credible he is. I found this from Simply Flying, which is a source many find questionable. Take it for what you will. https://simpleflying.com/easa-no-airbus-a350-grounding/


Key Quote: An EASA spokesperson told Simple Flying that the agency has been aware of the Airbus A350 issue being experienced by Qatar Airways since the end of 2020. It has been working with both Airbus and the airline to determine whether there is a risk to the type’s airworthiness.

EASA told Simple Flying,

“Based on the data provided to EASA, there is no indication that the paint and protection degradation affects the structure of the aircraft or introduces other risks, and so EASA is not intending to take any action as State of Design for this issue at this time. No other airlines have reported paint and protection damage.” Despite this, EASA is still paying attention to the issue. A spokesperson informed Simple Flying that the agency has “contacted the Qatari Civil Aviation Authority to determine if the latest action is related to airworthiness issues with the aircraft type or not.” EASA will then evaluate any further information it receives to “ensure continued airworthiness of the A350”.

ElroyJetson wrote:

I just did search and can find to official statement from the EASA. The link to the tweet above is from an aviation reporter. I do not know how credible he is. I found this from Simply Flying, which is a source many find questionable. Take it for what you will. https://simpleflying.com/easa-no-airbus-a350-grounding/


Key Quote: An EASA spokesperson told Simple Flying that the agency has been aware of the Airbus A350 issue being experienced by Qatar Airways since the end of 2020. It has been working with both Airbus and the airline to determine whether there is a risk to the type’s airworthiness.

EASA told Simple Flying,

“Based on the data provided to EASA, there is no indication that the paint and protection degradation affects the structure of the aircraft or introduces other risks, and so EASA is not intending to take any action as State of Design for this issue at this time. No other airlines have reported paint and protection damage.” Despite this, EASA is still paying attention to the issue. A spokesperson informed Simple Flying that the agency has “contacted the Qatari Civil Aviation Authority to determine if the latest action is related to airworthiness issues with the aircraft type or not.” EASA will then evaluate any further information it receives to “ensure continued airworthiness of the A350”.

Thanks, and good work!