2175301 wrote:

Note: Something I just remembered from my composite class. You always coat the structural layers with sacrificial non-structural layers so that they take any initial damage and you don't affect the structure. In some cases those sacrificial layers can be repaired, in others they cannot be. The presence of the grounding grid in this case would make surface repair difficult as you would not wish to affect the conductivity of the surface of these panels.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but when a repair is needed to a composite fuselage, you also have to deal with the grounding grid. That should already be dealt with in a maintenance or repair manual.

2175301 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

And that is the point. This coating is not part of the structural element. So is this paint or structure? Or something in between. Obviously Airbus has some serious quality issues with the A350, but so far it show now indication that the actual structural elements are effected.

And who should pay for repairing this quality issue... which is likely to get worse in the future if not addressed.... and may then affect the grounding grid (safety) and the structure if it progresses far enough.

Is Airbus responsible for paying for their quality issues.... or are the airlines responsible for quality issues that they did not expect? Please let us know what your position is on this question.

I have no doubt that it is something Airbus is responsible for. But it is not structural, as then regulators would need to at least check the whole fleet of A350s.

TC957 wrote:

Does Royal Jordanian have issues with their fleet ? They have an even darker colour scheme and Amman is just as hot in summer.

Not the same issue but their lovely black livery on the composite fuselage doesn't seem to last very long. I was in AMM and flew to LHR last month, the paint job was looking very, very faded. Apologies for the poor image quality - I snapped it quickly through a dirty window whilst boarding, but whole reason I stopped and took the photo was because the paint looked so faded.

vhtje wrote:

TC957 wrote:

Does Royal Jordanian have issues with their fleet ? They have an even darker colour scheme and Amman is just as hot in summer.

Not the same issue but their lovely black livery on the composite fuselage doesn't seem to last very long. I was in AMM and flew to LHR last month, the paint job was looking very, very faded. Apologies for the poor image quality - I snapped it quickly through a dirty window whilst boarding, but whole reason I stopped and took the photo was because the paint looked so faded.

That’s nothing unique to RJ’s 787s. Royal Jordanian’s livery looks great when new, but it fades pretty fast in the sun no matter the type (there are plenty of pictures of faded A320s, E190s, etc in the database). Also the plane you took a picture of is over 7 years old and presumably hasn’t been repainted since delivery, it is not exactly new paint at this point.

2175301 wrote:

For everyone: Here is the wording of the EASA statement posted on Twitter Aug 9, 2021

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

If I transcribed it correctly: "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."

EASA clearly says there is an issue. Clearly says that it involves both paint and protection; but does not clarify what this protection consists of (other than its not paint). They also include a statement of "at this time" which to me indicates that they know that things may change in the future.

QR is reporting that the surface layer(s) of the composite is cracking and exposing the grounding grid (while Airbus has not said anything - they have not denied this either). Neither of those would be structural elements of the CRFP.

Note: Something I just remembered from my composite class. You always coat the structural layers with sacrificial non-structural layers so that they take any initial damage and you don't affect the structure. In some cases those sacrificial layers can be repaired, in others they cannot be. The presence of the grounding grid in this case would make surface repair difficult as you would not wish to affect the conductivity of the surface of these panels.

This is consistent with the situation described to me by others with direct knowledge. There’s a lot of nuance in what’s in the public domain, but it is clear there is a potentially significant fleet issue, though not an immediate airworthiness concern.

Polot wrote:

vhtje wrote:

TC957 wrote:

Does Royal Jordanian have issues with their fleet ? They have an even darker colour scheme and Amman is just as hot in summer.

Not the same issue but their lovely black livery on the composite fuselage doesn't seem to last very long. I was in AMM and flew to LHR last month, the paint job was looking very, very faded. Apologies for the poor image quality - I snapped it quickly through a dirty window whilst boarding, but whole reason I stopped and took the photo was because the paint looked so faded.

That’s nothing unique to RJ’s 787s. Royal Jordanian’s livery looks great when new, but it fades pretty fast in the sun no matter the type (there are plenty of pictures of faded A320s, E190s, etc in the database). Also the plane you took a picture of is over 7 years old and presumably hasn’t been repainted since delivery, it is not exactly new paint at this point.

Your points are valid, and I do not disagree with you, but I fly RJ semi-regularly - at least 4 times a year. In all my time flying through AMM and on RJ, I have never seen an RJ livery so faded as on that aircraft. I mean, it was enough to stop me in my tracks and take a photograph. (A rather poor one, granted, but still...)

sxf24 wrote:

This is consistent with the situation described to me by others with direct knowledge. There’s a lot of nuance in what’s in the public domain, but it is clear there is a potentially significant fleet issue, though not an immediate airworthiness concern.

That doesn't sound good at all. ..

Revelation wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

This is consistent with the situation described to me by others with direct knowledge. There’s a lot of nuance in what’s in the public domain, but it is clear there is a potentially significant fleet issue, though not an immediate airworthiness concern.

That doesn't sound good at all. ..

And as you pointed out Rev. Who pays the bill for those repairs?

As much as Airbus is not happy to see the A350s grounded, I am pretty sure they are happy to see the A380s back in service again.

xwb777 wrote:

As much as Airbus is not happy to see the A350s grounded, I am pretty sure they are happy to see the A380s back in service again.

Not if they are the one who ends up paying for the re-activation, which is suggested earlier in this thread.

sxf24 wrote:

2175301 wrote:

For everyone: Here is the wording of the EASA statement posted on Twitter Aug 9, 2021

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

If I transcribed it correctly: "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."

EASA clearly says there is an issue. Clearly says that it involves both paint and protection; but does not clarify what this protection consists of (other than its not paint). They also include a statement of "at this time" which to me indicates that they know that things may change in the future.

QR is reporting that the surface layer(s) of the composite is cracking and exposing the grounding grid (while Airbus has not said anything - they have not denied this either). Neither of those would be structural elements of the CRFP.

Note: Something I just remembered from my composite class. You always coat the structural layers with sacrificial non-structural layers so that they take any initial damage and you don't affect the structure. In some cases those sacrificial layers can be repaired, in others they cannot be. The presence of the grounding grid in this case would make surface repair difficult as you would not wish to affect the conductivity of the surface of these panels.

This is consistent with the situation described to me by others with direct knowledge. There’s a lot of nuance in what’s in the public domain, but it is clear there is a potentially significant fleet issue, though not an immediate airworthiness concern.

I can believe the potential significant fleet issue. This was discovered in late 2020 on I understand a 4.3 year old aircraft where Qatar was going to paint a special celebration livery (and Airbus has only been delivering the A350 for about 6 years at that point). I'm sure the issue will show up on other aircraft - but that might take a lot longer given the unique temperature change characteristics of Qatar. It also apparently requires stripping of the paint to really see well; something most airlines don't do so early in life.

This may have affected other airlines on choices they are making. Example, that A350F vs the B777XF. Freight airlines tend to buy aircraft that they expect to operate for many decades without major issues.

2175301 wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

2175301 wrote:

For everyone: Here is the wording of the EASA statement posted on Twitter Aug 9, 2021

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

If I transcribed it correctly: "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."

EASA clearly says there is an issue. Clearly says that it involves both paint and protection; but does not clarify what this protection consists of (other than its not paint). They also include a statement of "at this time" which to me indicates that they know that things may change in the future.

QR is reporting that the surface layer(s) of the composite is cracking and exposing the grounding grid (while Airbus has not said anything - they have not denied this either). Neither of those would be structural elements of the CRFP.

Note: Something I just remembered from my composite class. You always coat the structural layers with sacrificial non-structural layers so that they take any initial damage and you don't affect the structure. In some cases those sacrificial layers can be repaired, in others they cannot be. The presence of the grounding grid in this case would make surface repair difficult as you would not wish to affect the conductivity of the surface of these panels.

This is consistent with the situation described to me by others with direct knowledge. There’s a lot of nuance in what’s in the public domain, but it is clear there is a potentially significant fleet issue, though not an immediate airworthiness concern.

I can believe the potential significant fleet issue. This was discovered in late 2020 on I understand a 4.3 year old aircraft where Qatar was going to paint a special celebration livery (and Airbus has only been delivering the A350 for about 6 years at that point). I'm sure the issue will show up on other aircraft - but that might take a lot longer given the unique temperature change characteristics of Qatar. It also apparently requires stripping of the paint to really see well; something most airlines don't do so early in life.

This may have affected other airlines on choices they are making. Example, that A350F vs the B777XF. Freight airlines tend to buy aircraft that they expect to operate for many decades without major issues.

Let’s be clear that all airplanes have issues. While this may cause some airlines to reevaluate A350s, it’s not like they can get a 787 right now.

My bigger concern is that FAA, EASA and other CAAs are approaching certification and safety differently. One strength of industry has been a unified approach.

I wonder if Airbus has a route round this using the proposed A350F.

They could bid QR for a launch order of say 30 A350Fs, packaged with "3 years' free servicing" on their entire A350 fleet. Airbus would have to repair QR's frames where issues arise before expiry of the 3 year period, but would not create a precedent applicable to other operators.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

I wonder if Airbus has a route round this using the proposed A350F.

They could bid QR for a launch order of say 30 A350Fs, packaged with "3 years' free servicing" on their entire A350 fleet. Airbus would have to repair QR's frames where issues arise before expiry of the 3 year period, but would not create a precedent applicable to other operators.

Maybe it would not create a full blown precedent, but it would be seen as Airbus "blinking first" in the stare down and rewarding bad behavior. Yet it is a creative solution to an ugly situation, one where the customer usually gets their way. The devil would be in the details. Airbus would want to be seen as letting AAB save face, without giving away the store. It really helps AAB that Airbus management has created the expectation of commercial success with A350F and that QR is one of the few operators that can make that happen.

seahawk wrote:

And that is the point. This coating is not part of the structural element. So is this paint or structure? Or something in between. Obviously Airbus has some serious quality issues with the A350, but so far it show now indication that the actual structural elements are effected.

Can we really describe something as a serious issue for Airbus if it is - maybe - a risk to flight safety, affecting a few aircraft (seemingly not systematic or related to age) at one airline with a fairly harsh and specific climate?

MrHMSH wrote:

seahawk wrote:

And that is the point. This coating is not part of the structural element. So is this paint or structure? Or something in between. Obviously Airbus has some serious quality issues with the A350, but so far it show now indication that the actual structural elements are effected.

Can we really describe something as a serious issue for Airbus if it is - maybe - a risk to flight safety, affecting a few aircraft (seemingly not systematic or related to age) at one airline with a fairly harsh and specific climate?

The mental image I get is that it is related to exposure, and if it's happening at QR in 4.5 years then it could show up on other fleets later on, based on their lower amounts of exposure. Of course this is all me doing some guesswork and projection. None of us know the actual details.

Revelation wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

seahawk wrote:

And that is the point. This coating is not part of the structural element. So is this paint or structure? Or something in between. Obviously Airbus has some serious quality issues with the A350, but so far it show now indication that the actual structural elements are effected.

Can we really describe something as a serious issue for Airbus if it is - maybe - a risk to flight safety, affecting a few aircraft (seemingly not systematic or related to age) at one airline with a fairly harsh and specific climate?

The mental image I get is that it is related to exposure, and if it's happening at QR in 4.5 years then it could show up on other fleets later on, based on their lower amounts of exposure. Of course this is all me doing some guesswork and projection. None of us know the actual details.

I get that, but the poster I replied to mas made the leap to 'Airbus has some serious quality issues with the A350', which I'm questioning.

Though for the record, the A350 has handled some pretty harsh environments (VN operate short hops between cities with a lot of pollution and tropical climate) and this issue hasn't popped up.

Revelation wrote:

and rewarding bad behavior.

I don't understand why people keep saying something like this.

Let's ignore the fact that there's tens of billions at stake here, and just summarize it with "high priced item"...... if you'd bought a pricey item, that you expected to last for decades; but it basically deteriorated less than 6yrs in; wouldn't you be irate as well? A Rolex for yourself that broke a few months later. A Bvlgari necklace for the wife, that cracked shortly after wearing.

Wouldn't you expect the highest compensation? Wouldn't you expect another done right?
Wouldn't you use the power of publicity, if you felt the manufacturer was dragging their feet over your needs?

Sure the dude's theatrical; but enumerate what he's done, that we didn't see from the likes of Trippe, Branson, O'Leary, etc etc over the decades. Can you?

Looks like as at 3rd November A7-ANF has joined the fleet of grounded aircraft

LAX772LR wrote:

Revelation wrote:

and rewarding bad behavior.

I don't understand why people keep saying something like this.

Let's ignore the fact that there's tens of billions at stake here, and just summarize it with "high priced item"...... if you'd bought a pricey item, that you expected to last for decades; but it basically deteriorated less than 6yrs in; wouldn't you be irate as well? A Rolex for yourself that broke a few months later. A Bvlgari necklace for the wife, that cracked shortly after wearing.

Wouldn't you expect the highest compensation? Wouldn't you expect another done right?
Wouldn't you use the power of publicity, if you felt the manufacturer was dragging their feet over your needs?

Sure the dude's theatrical; but enumerate what he's done, that we didn't see from the likes of Trippe, Branson, O'Leary, etc etc over the decades. Can you?

Guessing from the outside the battle is probably about wear and tear vs design issue.

Airbus could argue that due to the nature of QRs climate the aircraft have higher deteriation and it is therefore QRs problem as this was known before and maybe even pointed out to them while QR excpected the same life expectancy than what every other operator has.

FluidFlow wrote:

Airbus could argue that due to the nature of QRs climate the aircraft have higher deteriation and it is therefore QRs problem as this was known before and maybe even pointed out to them while QR excpected the same life expectancy than what every other operator has.

There's essentially zilch chance that that wouldn't be contracted as an "if/then" contingency clause though... especially after QR's experience with silicate formation within the GE90.

Even airlines that aren't based in "hostile" environments would have similar.

FluidFlow wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Revelation wrote:

and rewarding bad behavior.

I don't understand why people keep saying something like this.

Let's ignore the fact that there's tens of billions at stake here, and just summarize it with "high priced item"...... if you'd bought a pricey item, that you expected to last for decades; but it basically deteriorated less than 6yrs in; wouldn't you be irate as well? A Rolex for yourself that broke a few months later. A Bvlgari necklace for the wife, that cracked shortly after wearing.

Wouldn't you expect the highest compensation? Wouldn't you expect another done right?
Wouldn't you use the power of publicity, if you felt the manufacturer was dragging their feet over your needs?

Sure the dude's theatrical; but enumerate what he's done, that we didn't see from the likes of Trippe, Branson, O'Leary, etc etc over the decades. Can you?

Guessing from the outside the battle is probably about wear and tear vs design issue.

Airbus could argue that due to the nature of QRs climate the aircraft have higher deteriation and it is therefore QRs problem as this was known before and maybe even pointed out to them while QR excpected the same life expectancy than what every other operator has.

Seriously ?

Why would any airline buy a product off any manufacturer, if they had been told that ?

LTEN11 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

I don't understand why people keep saying something like this.

Let's ignore the fact that there's tens of billions at stake here, and just summarize it with "high priced item"...... if you'd bought a pricey item, that you expected to last for decades; but it basically deteriorated less than 6yrs in; wouldn't you be irate as well? A Rolex for yourself that broke a few months later. A Bvlgari necklace for the wife, that cracked shortly after wearing.

Wouldn't you expect the highest compensation? Wouldn't you expect another done right?
Wouldn't you use the power of publicity, if you felt the manufacturer was dragging their feet over your needs?

Sure the dude's theatrical; but enumerate what he's done, that we didn't see from the likes of Trippe, Branson, O'Leary, etc etc over the decades. Can you?

Guessing from the outside the battle is probably about wear and tear vs design issue.

Airbus could argue that due to the nature of QRs climate the aircraft have higher deteriation and it is therefore QRs problem as this was known before and maybe even pointed out to them while QR excpected the same life expectancy than what every other operator has.

Seriously ?

Why would any airline buy a product off any manufacturer, if they had been told that ?

I am pretty sure any manufacturer will tell clients that paints deteriorate differently in different climates and with different exposures. So the question is how much additional "agening" is ok if you have your aircraft 5 years in the desert compared to having them 5 years in London for example.

FluidFlow wrote:

I am pretty sure any manufacturer will tell clients that paints deteriorate differently in different climates and with different exposures. So the question is how much additional "agening" is ok if you have your aircraft 5 years in the desert compared to having them 5 years in London for example.

Doubt anyone would disagree with that part.

Where your take became unrealistic is the (seemingly) dismissive means in which you (indicated that you) believe Airbus would be able to get away with, in disclosing such.

No legal team worth a grain o' salt would ever agree to a sales contract in which an OEM could slide on a defective product like that. Heck, even a clause for a generic Consumer Expectation Test under common law, wouldn't allow an OEM to get away with such a response.

Thus, it wouldn't be "your climate will cause the planes to prematurely age, so sucks to be you"....

...it'd be more along the lines of "your aircraft will prematurely age, along these expected lines [insert calculation], so here's (1) the arrangement we can come to for maintenance/upkeep/replacement; and here's (2) what we (Airbus) will offer if our product doesn't meet those expectations when given due care/diligence by you."

LAX772LR wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

I am pretty sure any manufacturer will tell clients that paints deteriorate differently in different climates and with different exposures. So the question is how much additional "agening" is ok if you have your aircraft 5 years in the desert compared to having them 5 years in London for example.

Doubt anyone would disagree with that part.

Where your take became unrealistic is the (seemingly) dismissive means in which you (indicated that you) believe Airbus would be able to get away with, in disclosing such.

No legal team worth a grain o' salt would ever agree to a sales contract in which an OEM could slide on a defective product like that. Heck, even a clause for a generic Consumer Expectation Test under common law, wouldn't allow an OEM to get away with such a response.

Thus, it wouldn't be "your climate will cause the planes to prematurely age, so sucks to be you"....

...it'd be more along the lines of "your aircraft will prematurely age, along these expected lines [insert calculation], so here's (1) the arrangement we can come to for maintenance/upkeep/replacement; and here's (2) what we (Airbus) will offer if our product doesn't meet those expectations when given due care/diligence by you."

Yeah I get that, I wrote it short and pointed with intention. The devils in the details. The basic question remains: When will liability be transferred from OEM to Customer. There is a time for every part. Certain parts should last a life time, so liability will be on the manufacturer for ever (remember the pickle forks in the 737s) others will have a shorter life time where the Customer will have to foot the bill after a while because the part is expected to be replaced after X years and if it fails before the OEM pays if it fails after the customer pays. The point here is, we do not know who is responsible here for the repair. Qatar says its Airbus, Airbus says it is Qatar. EASA says its no security issue so we stay out of it.

LAX772LR wrote:

Revelation wrote:

and rewarding bad behavior.

I don't understand why people keep saying something like this.

Let's ignore the fact that there's tens of billions at stake here, and just summarize it with "high priced item"...... if you'd bought a pricey item, that you expected to last for decades; but it basically deteriorated less than 6yrs in; wouldn't you be irate as well? A Rolex for yourself that broke a few months later. A Bvlgari necklace for the wife, that cracked shortly after wearing.

Wouldn't you expect the highest compensation? Wouldn't you expect another done right?
Wouldn't you use the power of publicity, if you felt the manufacturer was dragging their feet over your needs?

Sure the dude's theatrical; but enumerate what he's done, that we didn't see from the likes of Trippe, Branson, O'Leary, etc etc over the decades. Can you?

A lot of this depends on if you trust AAB's description of the state of the aircraft.

If we believe EASA (which IMO is a more detached observer) we're talking about some degradation of paint and coating that is not a safety issue and is something that can be addressed at normal maintenance intervals.

I think a better analogy is a person who bought a new roof for a house that gets a lot of sun exposure and some tiles are degrading faster than desired. No water is getting into the house (the tiles overlap so there's plenty of redundancy) so the house is still usable, but the customer complains to anyone who will listen. Then the customer moves his family into an expensive hotel and expects the firm who installed the roof to send over a crew immediately and replace tiles. This happens even though the contract doesn't include things like free hotels and free replacement of tiles and tells you that some maintenance is required. Government officials even tell the customer that this is something that can be handled via routine maintenance, yet he moves even more family members into hotels.

FluidFlow wrote:

The point here is, we do not know who is responsible here for the repair. Qatar says its Airbus, Airbus says it is Qatar. EASA says its no security issue so we stay out of it.

I think EASA said a bit more than that by saying there is degradation but there are no required changes to maintenance procedures. They're saying it's not a safety problem, and they're also saying the problem can/should be addressed by routine maintenance.

Revelation wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Revelation wrote:

and rewarding bad behavior.

I don't understand why people keep saying something like this.

Let's ignore the fact that there's tens of billions at stake here, and just summarize it with "high priced item"...... if you'd bought a pricey item, that you expected to last for decades; but it basically deteriorated less than 6yrs in; wouldn't you be irate as well? A Rolex for yourself that broke a few months later. A Bvlgari necklace for the wife, that cracked shortly after wearing.

Wouldn't you expect the highest compensation? Wouldn't you expect another done right?
Wouldn't you use the power of publicity, if you felt the manufacturer was dragging their feet over your needs?

Sure the dude's theatrical; but enumerate what he's done, that we didn't see from the likes of Trippe, Branson, O'Leary, etc etc over the decades. Can you?

A lot of this depends on if you trust AAB's description of the state of the aircraft.

If we believe EASA (which IMO is a more detached observer) we're talking about some degradation of paint and coating that is not a safety issue and is something that can be addressed at normal maintenance intervals.

I think a better analogy is a person who bought a new roof for a house that gets a lot of sun exposure and some tiles are degrading faster than desired. No water is getting into the house (the tiles overlap so there's plenty of redundancy) so the house is still usable, but the customer complains to anyone who will listen. Then the customer moves his family into an expensive hotel and expects the firm who installed the roof to send over a crew immediately and replace tiles. This happens even though the contract doesn't include things like free hotels and free replacement of tiles and tells you that some maintenance is required. Government officials even tell the customer that this is something that can be handled via routine maintenance, yet he moves even more family members into hotels.

FluidFlow wrote:

The point here is, we do not know who is responsible here for the repair. Qatar says its Airbus, Airbus says it is Qatar. EASA says its no security issue so we stay out of it.

I think EASA said a bit more than that by saying there is degradation but there are no required changes to maintenance procedures. They're saying it's not a safety problem, and they're also saying the problem can/should be addressed by routine maintenance.

Do we think that the cost of repairing it will be high?

Opus99 wrote:

Do we think that the cost of repairing it will be high?

I think the fact that he's willing to ground the planes and go through the exercise of ungrounding the A380s is a strong indicator that it's not a quick and easy fix.

Revelation wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Do we think that the cost of repairing it will be high?

I think the fact that he's willing to ground the planes and go through the exercise of ungrounding the A380s is a strong indicator that it's not a quick and easy fix.

And if it was cheap/easy, Airbus would have blinked long before it got to this state. The fact the standoff is this large is indicative of the cost to repair/fixed/keep maintained. (It’s possible it’s not hard to fix but would need fixing every couple of years which would be a large expense overall)

LAX772LR wrote:

No legal team worth a grain o' salt would ever agree to a sales contract in which an OEM could slide on a defective product like that. Heck, even a clause for a generic Consumer Expectation Test under common law, wouldn't allow an OEM to get away with such a response.

The OEMs simply will not provide a warranty over an aspect of an aircraft which is known to deteriorate over time, the exception being engines where the engine OEM not the airframe OEM will have an agreement/guarantee on the engine performance over its life cycle.

The aircraft are not defective, they just require known scheduled maintenance. Every aircraft requires washing and repainting, that is normal maintenance.

It is common in aircraft maintenance to consider where an aircraft is operated, and how it is being operated and adjust maintenance accordingly. For example an operator that has most of their operations in a humid coastal area would have different requirements to an operator that is in a drier climate away from sea air.

If you drove your car in upstate New York in winter with the salt over the roads the maintenance you would need to do would be different to an owner that only drives around Texas.

How operators decide to maintain their aircraft is their choice, more time spent in maintenance, the less availability the aircraft has, and the higher maintenance costs. Performance degradation is common on aircraft and its up to operators to decide how they want to manage that.

“ 4.3.3.8 PAINT CONDITION
Deterioration of the aircraft’s exterior surface is to be expected on any aircraft in service. The rate of deterioration can vary with the intensity of the utilization and environmental conditions. Although the thickness of paint is typically around 1/3 millimeter, its loss in critical areas of the airframe will upset the local airflow to an extent that overall drag can be increased. Particular attention should be paid to the nose and cockpit area and the wing upper and lower surfaces.”

From https://www.cockpitseeker.com/wp-conten ... Issue2.pdf

zeke wrote:

The aircraft are not defective, they just require known scheduled maintenance. Every aircraft requires washing and repainting, that is normal maintenance.

It is common in aircraft maintenance to consider where an aircraft is operated, and how it is being operated and adjust maintenance accordingly. For example an operator that has most of their operations in a humid coastal area would have different requirements to an operator that is in a drier climate away from sea air.

I'm not speaking of "defect" in the colloquial sense.

I'm using the legal definition (granted, from the perspective of American law; but it mirrors British common law and French civil law in this specific regard, and thus likely applies to Airbus transactions), where "defective" is not an objective (static) value, but a subjective deviation from an expectation, summarized in an aptly named "consumer expectation test."

As stated, there's no doubt that both Airbus and QR expected deterioration on these aircraft at an accelerated rate.

But (to just use simplistic random numbers) if Airbus told QR "These planes normally last 15yrs without this kind of deterioration; you'll likely only get 10, with a 2yr margin" but then QR only ends up getting 6-- then that's a defect. Even if there's nothing really "wrong," with the product, the subjective deviation from the contracted value would still constitute a defect that must be cured.

LAX772LR wrote:

But (to just use simplistic random numbers) if Airbus told QR "These planes normally last 15yrs without this kind of deterioration; you'll likely only get 10, with a 2yr margin" but then QR only ends up getting 6-- then that's a defect. Even if there's nothing really "wrong," with the product, the subjective deviation from the contracted value would still constitute a defect that must be cured.

Zeke is telling us that no such condition exists in any aircraft manufacturer's contract.

Revelation wrote:

Zeke is telling us that no such condition exists in any aircraft manufacturer's contract.

And you believed it?

LAX772LR wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Zeke is telling us that no such condition exists in any aircraft manufacturer's contract.

And you believed it?

Yep, why not, you got proof otherwise?

Revelation wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Zeke is telling us that no such condition exists in any aircraft manufacturer's contract.

And you believed it?

Yep, why not, you got proof otherwise?

EDIT: so wait then, you're just feigning ignorant? I don't do humor: so no idea if you're being serious or not.

LAX772LR wrote:

Revelation wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

And you believed it?

Yep, why not, you got proof otherwise?

Eh, just 17yrs experience in drafting and executing multi-million dollar sales contracts across three different industry types. It's not exactly uncommon.

Which is why again, I'll ask: why on Earth would you believe that?
It'd be the height of fiduciary negligence (and realistically: legal malpractice) to not have consumer expectation clauses for asset acquisitions of that nature.

I think Rev is being sarcastic

Opus99 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Yep, why not, you got proof otherwise?

Eh, just 17yrs experience in drafting and executing multi-million dollar sales contracts across three different industry types. It's not exactly uncommon.

Which is why again, I'll ask: why on Earth would you believe that?
It'd be the height of fiduciary negligence (and realistically: legal malpractice) to not have consumer expectation clauses for asset acquisitions of that nature.

I think Rev is being sarcastic

And maybe wrong as well…

Zeke may actully be right about how the contract is worded.

However, the key will be the statements in the maintenance materials that would be incorporated and referenced in the contract.

Those maintenance materials would include listings of the parts subject to degradation and wear; with expected repair/refurbishment or replacement schedules; along with recommended spare parts that the airline should stock.

If those materials do not list the components showing the degradation at 4.3 years.... then it would be considered some form of manufacturing defect and most courts would hold the Aircraft Mfr responsible.

I suspect that even the paint was not expected to fail in 4.3 years in normal service.

2175301 wrote:

I suspect that even the paint was not expected to fail in 4.3 years in normal service.

Sure thing.

Yet, it's not like normal conditions. There are some early frames, that could've been investigated outside of Qatar. OH-LWA still flying, right? And it's older than at least few of the grounded Qatar frames, right?

I feel this could be one of "early maintenance" - earlier than expected/scheduled. And still think it's the Qatar job to do the job. If they're unhappy with resulting MX costs, they have options. Get more 777/787s. Try 339. Whatever. It's as easy - get a cheaper product. It's just that, isn't it?

Cheers,
Adam

IIRC a design decision on the A350 was to construct the cockpit module from metal rather than composite. Maybe that was because the wear rate of the paint is greater "up front" but the underlying metal better resists damage?

It would be interesting to know how near the wear hotspot is to the metal / composite join point

2175301 wrote:

Zeke may actully be right about how the contract is worded.

However, the key will be the statements in the maintenance materials that would be incorporated and referenced in the contract.

Those maintenance materials would include listings of the parts subject to degradation and wear; with expected repair/refurbishment or replacement schedules; along with recommended spare parts that the airline should stock.

If those materials do not list the components showing the degradation at 4.3 years.... then it would be considered some form of manufacturing defect and most courts would hold the Aircraft Mfr responsible.

I suspect that even the paint was not expected to fail in 4.3 years in normal service.

It simply does not work that way, and hasn’t since the 1980s. How aircraft are maintained come under standards commonly known as maintenance steering group (MSG) 1/2/3. MSG1 came in with the 747, MSG2 was an improvement, and since the 1980s we have MSG3. Under MSG3 the maintenance planning documents (MPD) are not fixed in stone, they get amended by the maintenance review board (MRB) as a result of in service experience. Generally speaking the initial MPD is very conservative and the MRB extends out intervals.

Ref https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Mai ... p-3_(MSG-3)

Painting is a common maintenance task on any aircraft around the 5 year mark. Numerous operators have repainted A350s.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

IIRC a design decision on the A350 was to construct the cockpit module from metal rather than composite. Maybe that was because the wear rate of the paint is greater "up front" but the underlying metal better resists damage?

It would be interesting to know how near the wear hotspot is to the metal / composite join point

My understanding the reason for keeping that section metallic was to do with requirements surrounding bird strike.

“ According to Gordon McConnell, A350 Chief Engineer, a carbon fibre structure would need titanium reinforcements for bird-strike protection, thus the aluminium structure is the best cost-wise.”

From https://swiftflyer.wordpress.com/2014/0 ... rbus-a350/

zeke wrote:

2175301 wrote:

Zeke may actully be right about how the contract is worded.

However, the key will be the statements in the maintenance materials that would be incorporated and referenced in the contract.

Those maintenance materials would include listings of the parts subject to degradation and wear; with expected repair/refurbishment or replacement schedules; along with recommended spare parts that the airline should stock.

If those materials do not list the components showing the degradation at 4.3 years.... then it would be considered some form of manufacturing defect and most courts would hold the Aircraft Mfr responsible.

I suspect that even the paint was not expected to fail in 4.3 years in normal service.

It simply does not work that way, and hasn’t since the 1980s. How aircraft are maintained come under standards commonly known as maintenance steering group (MSG) 1/2/3. MSG1 came in with the 747, MSG2 was an improvement, and since the 1980s we have MSG3. Under MSG3 the maintenance planning documents (MPD) are not fixed in stone, they get amended by the maintenance review board (MRB) as a result of in service experience. Generally speaking the initial MPD is very conservative and the MRB extends out intervals.

Ref https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Mai ... p-3_(MSG-3)

Painting is a common maintenance task on any aircraft around the 5 year mark. Numerous operators have repainted A350s.

Thanks Zeke for explaining the maintenance documents. I believe my point stands that degradation or failure prior to what is described in those standards is the responsibility of the Manufacturer.

Also, my experience in Nuclear says that maintenance (even painting) intervals are scheduled prior to expected failure.

In this case, we have reports that the surface of the panels under the paint (the non-structural "protective" layers) is also degrading. It's not just the paint. Look at the wording of the EASA statement and it clearly indicates both paint and protection being degraded (although not a structural or other safety issue, at this time).

Have a great day,

JerseyFlyer wrote:

IIRC a design decision on the A350 was to construct the cockpit module from metal rather than composite. Maybe that was because the wear rate of the paint is greater "up front" but the underlying metal better resists damage?

It would be interesting to know how near the wear hotspot is to the metal / composite join point

From the reporting it sounds like they are seeing the degradation close to wear the differing materials meet. The initial reports mentioned top of the fuselage near the nose.

https://www.flightglobal.com/airbus-con ... 28.article

2175301 wrote:

I believe my point stands that degradation or failure prior to what is described in those standards is the responsibility of the Manufacturer.

There has been no failure, the surface is expected to degrade with time. Under MSG3 every aspect of the aircraft is inspected under the reoccurring A/B/C checks, and zonal inspection programs. All of those MPD will say the lower limit time for maintenance is not fixed, if it need to be repaired, it gets done. Likewise of some private aircraft that are hangered when not in use can often extend their repaint cycles as the hanger has protected the aircraft.

Aircraft paint and primers are customer options. The more expensive ones are less dense, adhere better with flexing, and chemical strippers can be used for repainting. The cheaper paints have to be removed by sanding, which often results in surface damage.

2175301 wrote:

Also, my experience in Nuclear says that maintenance (even painting) intervals are scheduled prior to expected failure.

I’m sounding like a broken record, nothing failed.

2175301 wrote:

In this case, we have reports that the surface of the panels under the paint (the non-structural "protective" layers) is also degrading.

That is expected on all composite aircraft. Prior to painting the surface is filled, then a epoxy base is applied, then the aircraft is painted. We are talking about fractions of a millimeter layers.

2175301 wrote:

Look at the wording of the EASA statement and it clearly indicates both paint and protection being degraded (although not a structural or other safety issue, at this time).

This is totally expected, that protective layer is normally removed during the paint process to facilitate inspection of the surface underneath and a new layer is applied.

Zeke,

I appreciate your knowledgeable contributions to the thread. You make the valid point that paint is expected to degrade, I don't think that is the issue though. QR is not saying that aircraft paint shouldn't degrade, they are not saying that they shouldn't be expecting to repaint aircraft. They do have 16 year old aircraft in the fleet that have had several repaints already. Even when it comes to composite aircraft they do have 9 year old 787s in the fleet. When it comes to conditions that are specific to DOH/QR such as heat/sand/humidity and being close to the sea they do have experience as well their own procedures and mitigation measures in place. It is not like they are a new operator, or a small unsophisticated one.

The first aircraft had issues discovered after the paint was removed and was flown to TLS and investigated, it was considered a one off and possibly caused by the paint removal process. When the issue was discovered in other aircraft QR wanted to know the root cause and how the issue can be mitigated. In Airbus' viewpoint this is a cosmetic issue and not a cause of concern, in QR's viewpoint this is an issue that might appear cosmetic now but that could potentially have costly implications in the future.

It is not a case of whether aircraft need to be painted at all or whether the paint is supposed to last a lifetime. Its a case of why in QR's case do the A350 have this issue when their other aircraft don't? what are the consequences of this issue for QR? could this issue be worse with time and increase downtime and maintenance cost of the A350 for QR?

Recent quotes from QR's CEO.


"These groundings are due to an ongoing issue relating to the accelerated degradation of the fuselage surface below the paint, which as yet remains an unresolved matter between Qatar Airways and the manufacturer for which the root cause is yet to be understood,”

“We continue to strongly urge Airbus to prioritize their investigations into the conclusive root cause of the issue affecting the A350 aircraft type, and ensure it proposes a permanent solution at the earliest opportunity to repair the damage and correct the underlying root cause,”

https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2021 ... o-service/

Pelly wrote:

It is not like they are a new operator, or a small unsophisticated one.

Given you are aware they have been around for a while, could I suggest you have a look at what sort of reputation they have with their suppliers and employees. Do they have a reputation of ordering options that will have a lower life cycle cost for the aircraft, or options that provide a good first impression to customers.

Do you personally think these aircraft would be grounded if it were not for COVID ?

Pelly wrote:

The first aircraft had issues discovered after the paint was removed and was flown to TLS and investigated, it was considered a one off and possibly caused by the paint removal process.

Problems found during maintenance are not hidden from others in industry. The process this EASA maintenance facility is required to follow is to submit what is known as a “service difficulty report” (SDR) to the regulator (EASA) if they discover a defect that shouldn’t be there. These SDR are available for anyone to see, I have not found any SDRs relating to A350 paint. This tells me that the maintenance facility didn’t actually find anything unusual.

This same maintenance facility also have painted A350s for other operators without issue.

The process used to paint the QR aircraft is the process outlined in the QR approved maintenance program, that process includes the method used to remove the exterior paint and underlying protective layer. Every airline has their own individual maintenance program. It’s QRs specifications also on what preparation, protection layer, and external paint to be reapplied.

Pelly wrote:

Recent quotes from QR's CEO.

He has made so many contradictions in his statements over this I have lost count. As far as I am aware he has no direct technical knowledge in this area. He has been unable to clarify his comments when asked directly.

Pelly wrote:

Zeke,

I appreciate your knowledgeable contributions to the thread. You make the valid point that paint is expected to degrade, I don't think that is the issue though. QR is not saying that aircraft paint shouldn't degrade, they are not saying that they shouldn't be expecting to repaint aircraft. They do have 16 year old aircraft in the fleet that have had several repaints already. Even when it comes to composite aircraft they do have 9 year old 787s in the fleet. When it comes to conditions that are specific to DOH/QR such as heat/sand/humidity and being close to the sea they do have experience as well their own procedures and mitigation measures in place. It is not like they are a new operator, or a small unsophisticated one.

The first aircraft had issues discovered after the paint was removed and was flown to TLS and investigated, it was considered a one off and possibly caused by the paint removal process. When the issue was discovered in other aircraft QR wanted to know the root cause and how the issue can be mitigated. In Airbus' viewpoint this is a cosmetic issue and not a cause of concern, in QR's viewpoint this is an issue that might appear cosmetic now but that could potentially have costly implications in the future.

It is not a case of whether aircraft need to be painted at all or whether the paint is supposed to last a lifetime. Its a case of why in QR's case do the A350 have this issue when their other aircraft don't? what are the consequences of this issue for QR? could this issue be worse with time and increase downtime and maintenance cost of the A350 for QR?

Recent quotes from QR's CEO.


"These groundings are due to an ongoing issue relating to the accelerated degradation of the fuselage surface below the paint, which as yet remains an unresolved matter between Qatar Airways and the manufacturer for which the root cause is yet to be understood,”

“We continue to strongly urge Airbus to prioritize their investigations into the conclusive root cause of the issue affecting the A350 aircraft type, and ensure it proposes a permanent solution at the earliest opportunity to repair the damage and correct the underlying root cause,”

https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2021 ... o-service/

The thing is neither the manufacturer who holds the nav certificate for the type, nor the sureillance authority find this to be a non conformance. It is an anomaly at best.
Why would Airbus investigate further on a non issue if QR isn't financing the investigation. Furthermore if what QR wants is a fleetwide free of charge repaire because their aircraft aren't shinny enough ...

zeke wrote:

Pelly wrote:

It is not like they are a new operator, or a small unsophisticated one.

Given you are aware they have been around for a while, could I suggest you have a look at what sort of reputation they have with their suppliers and employees. Do they have a reputation of ordering options that will have a lower life cycle cost for the aircraft, or options that provide a good first impression to customers.

Do you personally think these aircraft would be grounded if it were not for COVID ?

Pelly wrote:

The first aircraft had issues discovered after the paint was removed and was flown to TLS and investigated, it was considered a one off and possibly caused by the paint removal process.

Problems found during maintenance are not hidden from others in industry. The process this EASA maintenance facility is required to follow is to submit what is known as a “service difficulty report” (SDR) to the regulator (EASA) if they discover a defect that shouldn’t be there. These SDR are available for anyone to see, I have not found any SDRs relating to A350 paint. This tells me that the maintenance facility didn’t actually find anything unusual.

This same maintenance facility also have painted A350s for other operators without issue.

The process used to paint the QR aircraft is the process outlined in the QR approved maintenance program, that process includes the method used to remove the exterior paint and underlying protective layer. Every airline has their own individual maintenance program. It’s QRs specifications also on what preparation, protection layer, and external paint to be reapplied.

Pelly wrote:

Recent quotes from QR's CEO.

He has made so many contradictions in his statements over this I have lost count. As far as I am aware he has no direct technical knowledge in this area. He has been unable to clarify his comments when asked directly.

They have an opportunity to be ungrounded but rather they’re bringing in 380s and old 777-300ERs from cathay pacific (apparently) to fill in the gap. If there were no replacements. These aircraft are one of if not the Mose efficient things flying and are not the hardest to fill. Something is not right

zeke wrote:

Do you personally think these aircraft would be grounded if it were not for COVID ?

I addressed this earlier. Why would QR ground a more efficient aircraft if the issue was COVID and over-capacity? Why would QR extend leases on older less efficient aircraft or bring back aircraft after they have been returned to lessors? Why would QR lease in new capacity?

Pelly wrote:

I addressed this earlier. Why would QR ground a more efficient aircraft if the issue was COVID and over-capacity? Why would QR extend leases on older less efficient aircraft or bring back aircraft after they have been returned to lessors? Why would QR lease in new capacity?

I think you are following the correct bread crumb trail, follow the money (or lack of money). Who is/isnt paying for the aircraft that are not flying because of claims they are defective (I think they all maybe leased), and who is/ isnt paying for the aircraft they have not taken delivery of.

How much could they save a month doing that, some 77W are leasing at half the rate of a A359.