Noshow wrote:

This entire issue is hushed in a strange way. It would be good to finally get some real and honest information not just perceived spin doctoring and deception.

To suggest this has been hushed, means you think there is an international conspiracy involving the regulatory agencies from the USA, Europe, UK, China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, UAE, and Brazil covering up a safety issue. After the MAX fallout, how plausible do you think that conspiracy is ?

zeke wrote:

Noshow wrote:

This entire issue is hushed in a strange way. It would be good to finally get some real and honest information not just perceived spin doctoring and deception.

To suggest this has been hushed, means you think there is an international conspiracy involving the regulatory agencies from the USA, Europe, UK, China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, UAE, and Brazil covering up a safety issue. After the MAX fallout, how plausible do you think that conspiracy is ?

No one said there was a serious safety issue that is being covered up. It’s plainly obvious that Airbus has been rather hushed and not entirely publicly forthcoming about what they know about this issue though. We didn’t even know other airlines were having some issues until someone leaked that info a week or two ago. Before this was just a paint problem that many people including you were trying to argue just affected QR.

I notice some retroactive backdating of known personal knowledge. Funny how this lightning mesh SB never came up in discussions before when we were talking about Qatar complaining about the exposure and damage of that system. Strange how CX’s and other’s paint issues never were mentioned or alluded to.

zeke wrote:

Noshow wrote:

This entire issue is hushed in a strange way. It would be good to finally get some real and honest information not just perceived spin doctoring and deception.

To suggest this has been hushed, means you think there is an international conspiracy involving the regulatory agencies from the USA, Europe, UK, China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, UAE, and Brazil covering up a safety issue. After the MAX fallout, how plausible do you think that conspiracy is ?

Well since EASA said it is not a safety issue.........who is still saying it is other than the regulator who has grounded 13 jets, funny it is only 13 but we digress.
The MAX fallout was in the USA, this case is not, so I am not sure there is any equivalence.
I think what the poster may mean is that on one side of the pond, click bait and folks frothing at the mouth to divulge is seen as the norm, unfortunately, it is not on the other side of the pond, just have to live with it. Nothing to see there until the pictures emerged.

Polot wrote:

Funny how this lightning mesh SB never came up in discussions before when we were talking about Qatar complaining about the exposure and damage of that system.

Feel free to look it up for yourself, you will find the earlier version is about inspecting the ends of stringers inside the fuel tank. The new version is in a different area than the QR photos, the the upper and lower wing covers near the engine. It has no relevance to the QR issue.

Polot wrote:

Strange how CX’s and other’s paint issues never were mentioned or alluded to.

I have mentioned the CX paint peel probably a dozen times in this thread, and explained it is nothing like the QR issue. The main difference is the paint peel presented soon after delivery, where the QR issue is after 4-6 years.

At this point, other than the leaked photos, no one knows exactly how the QR aircraft are affected. For anyone to make assumptions about the 13 aircraft pulled from service by the Qatari regulator is just that, assumption.

Per Al Baker, it is more than a paint issue, and he has implied the lightning protection system is involved. We do not know the EASA communication with Airbus or QR. So to make definitive statements regarding EASA directives and their possible impact on QR, or any other airline, seems premature.

EASA said that there is no link between the missing HECF patch issue and an apparent fuselage skin degradation problem affecting several airlines, notably Qatar Airways.

“The paint degradation is an in-service aging/environmental deterioration issue that affects the surface finish and expanded copper foil (ECF) on the fuselage and vertical tail plane of the A350,” the regulator said. “EASA is not aware of any in-service degradation of the paint or ECF on the wing covers (wing surfaces). No potential airworthiness issue has been identified to-date on the paint degradation issue, and so EASA has no plans to issue an airworthiness directive.”

BOAC1966 wrote:

EASA said that there is no link between the missing HECF patch issue and an apparent fuselage skin degradation problem affecting several airlines, notably Qatar Airways.

“The paint degradation is an in-service aging/environmental deterioration issue that affects the surface finish and expanded copper foil (ECF) on the fuselage and vertical tail plane of the A350,” the regulator said. “EASA is not aware of any in-service degradation of the paint or ECF on the wing covers (wing surfaces). No potential airworthiness issue has been identified to-date on the paint degradation issue, and so EASA has no plans to issue an airworthiness directive.”

Do we know which aircraft are affected by the Airbus manufacturing defects and must be inspected? Those aircraft are in service. Who owns them?

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 43843?s=21

Okay. It’s getting bad. Airbus getting legal involved now.

Is this airbus telling Akbar to “go to hell”?

Airbus seems fed up with one-of-its A350 customer ongoing mischaracterisation of non-structural surface degradation on its fleet of A350...

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2021-12-airbus-preparing-for-an-independent-legal-assessment-in-response-to

Safety is Airbus’ top priority. The surface paint-related findings have been thoroughly assessed by Airbus and confirmed by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) as having no airworthiness impact on the A350 fleet.

The attempt by this customer to misrepresent this specific topic as an airworthiness issue represents a threat to the international protocols on safety matters.

While Airbus regrets the need to follow such a path, it has become necessary to defend its position and reputation

.

I think its perfectly fair what Airbus is doing. They are being open about the issues in their statement and have clearly pointed out the differences between the issues whilst also have EASA assurance that the Qatar issue is not affecting aircraft safety. Jon Ostrower tweeted about airlines wanting Airbus to defend their product more and this appears to be exactly that.

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 43843?s=20

After all this, I think it is safe to say Airbus is happy to ditch AAB and leave him to the competition.

Opus99 wrote:

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/1468987808647843843?s=21

Okay. It’s getting bad. Airbus getting legal involved now.

Is this airbus telling Akbar to “go to hell”?

Wow. That sounds really bad. Looks like the situation between Airbus and QR may end up in court. The one thing I find a bit misleading is the statement that QR is saying the A350 is not airworthy. QR to my knowledge has never said that.

The other issue are those aircraft which were manufactured improperly, and per the EASA must be inspected and repaired if needed. The link I posted yesterday implied the QR aircraft pulled from service by the Qatari regulator are not in that batch of aircraft.

Sounds like Airbus is giving Qatar Airways two big middle fingers and asks them to shove it up where the sun doesn't shine. What would be the fallout? Qatar removing all their Airbus fleet and buy 200 Boeing?

Technically, I feel that Airbus is right. From a customer relations stand point however it is all FUBAR.

Just have to wait so see where ot goes from here.

bt

It does come to a point where any supplier will stop bending over backwards even for long standing customers.

The fact the the Qatar authorities have grounded them implies that it is a safety issue.

StTim wrote:

It does come to a point where any supplier will stop bending over backwards even for long standing customers.

The fact the the Qatar authorities have grounded them implies that it is a safety issue.

And yet EASA said its NOT a safety issue.

ABMUC wrote:

StTim wrote:

It does come to a point where any supplier will stop bending over backwards even for long standing customers.

The fact the the Qatar authorities have grounded them implies that it is a safety issue.

And yet EASA said its NOT a safety issue.

Correct and I would trust EASA more than QATAR

ABMUC wrote:

StTim wrote:

It does come to a point where any supplier will stop bending over backwards even for long standing customers.

The fact the the Qatar authorities have grounded them implies that it is a safety issue.

And yet EASA said its NOT a safety issue.

Al Baker said the safety issue has yet to be determined. So who knows. And the EASA said for the A350's with the manufacturing defects a severe lightning strike could ignite fuel vapor in the wing tanks and cause the aircraft to blow up mid flight. That is definitely a safety issue. Granted those particular aircraft do not appear to be with QR.

I guess if two parties to a dispute cannot agree a mutually acceptable resolution then an "independent legal assessment" is the next sensible step before mutually binding arbitration.

Airbus will want first to test their legal position regarding the actual damage, reputational damage as well as ongoing contractual payments for frames not yet delivered.

Perhaps Airbus will recommend they sell their grounded frames to an airline in another country whose regulator will approve the a/c for return to flight?
No problem placing 13 frames, Airbus may prefer new builds but the upside is the issue will go even further out of the public spotlight.

par13del wrote:

Perhaps Airbus will recommend they sell their grounded frames to an airline in another country whose regulator will approve the a/c for return to flight?
No problem placing 13 frames, Airbus may prefer new builds but the upside is the issue will go even further out of the public spotlight.

The latest count is 20 frames I believe and the thread title probably should be changed.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-12-09/

So do we expect retaliation by inviting media to view the 20 grounded a/c with pictures and video?

Will QR cancel their remaining airbus commitments?

Opus99 wrote:

Will QR cancel their remaining airbus commitments?

I don't think they'd do that. If situation gets way too bad then they might cancel remaining 350 but their 32Q will definitely stay. Whatever they do it would be quite bad for Airbus. Their 351 even in pre pandemic had safe to say no demand so cancelling them would hurt it even more and Qatar would definitely order more 777X to balance their fleet, the rival of 351 with a dozen new orders this year already. Their A350Fwhich was supposed to be the plane to challenge Boeing's freighter dominance is stuck at 11 or so letter of intents when it's unlaunched rival is set to get 3-5 dozen orders soon.

Aseem747 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Will QR cancel their remaining airbus commitments?

I don't think they'd do that. If situation gets way too bad then they might cancel remaining 350 but their 32Q will definitely stay. Whatever they do it would be quite bad for Airbus. Their 351 even in pre pandemic had safe to say no demand so cancelling them would hurt it even more and Qatar would definitely order more 777X to balance their fleet, the rival of 351 with a dozen new orders this year already. Their A350Fwhich was supposed to be the plane to challenge Boeing's freighter dominance is stuck at 11 or so letter of intents when it's unlaunched rival is set to get 3-5 dozen orders soon.

The ALC order is supposed to get a fair bit bigger. The seven loi’s denote seven customers possibly looking at and finalizing deals for a350f’s from alc. Plus both FedEx and UPS are looking at both aircraft. For more information see the a350f forum on here

ElroyJetson wrote:

Al Baker said the safety issue has yet to be determined. So who knows. And the EASA said for the A350's with the manufacturing defects a severe lightning strike could ignite fuel vapor in the wing tanks and cause the aircraft to blow up mid flight. That is definitely a safety issue. Granted those particular aircraft do not appear to be with QR.

What ever happened with nitrogen inerting requirements?

StTim wrote:

It does come to a point where any supplier will stop bending over backwards even for long standing customers.

The fact the the Qatar authorities have grounded them implies that it is a safety issue.

Thing is, no one has yet been able to produce the Qatar Aviation Authorities document stating that Qatar Airways must ground these planes; on the other hand, EASA has said "no airworthiness issues".

JohanTally wrote:

par13del wrote:

Perhaps Airbus will recommend they sell their grounded frames to an airline in another country whose regulator will approve the a/c for return to flight?
No problem placing 13 frames, Airbus may prefer new builds but the upside is the issue will go even further out of the public spotlight.

The latest count is 20 frames I believe and the thread title probably should be changed.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-12-09/

Thank you for the link. So based on the article the 13 A350's with manufacturing issues affecting the lightning mitigation system are not among the QR aircraft.

I am struck by a contradictory statement. Airbus is saying they know the reason for the skin degradation problem yet QR is saying they have not been told what the "root cause" of the problem is. Either Airbus is telling the truth and for some reason is not communicating the facts to QR, or QR is simply being dishonest. I will not speculate only to say the entire situation is very strange. Looks like arbitration may be in the offing.

ElroyJetson wrote:

I am struck by a contradictory statement. Airbus is saying they know the reason for the skin degradation problem yet QR is saying they have not been told what the "root cause" of the problem is. Either Airbus is telling the truth and for some reason is not communicating the facts to QR, or QR is simply being dishonest. I will not speculate only to say the entire situation is very strange. Looks like arbitration may be in the offing.

Don't see it as contradictory or someone being dishonest, they seem to be at an impasse on what the solution should be from the quote below.

Mhun said Airbus had offered solutions to Qatar Airways from patches, to repairs of the anti-lightning material or repainting of entire aircraft, but Qatar Airways had declined the offer.

Industry sources say Qatar Airways is reluctant to implement short-term fixes without a full breakdown of the root cause.

Airbus says it understands the cause, though sources say a formal diagnosis may require further tests on surface ageing.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-12-09/

Pelly wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I am struck by a contradictory statement. Airbus is saying they know the reason for the skin degradation problem yet QR is saying they have not been told what the "root cause" of the problem is. Either Airbus is telling the truth and for some reason is not communicating the facts to QR, or QR is simply being dishonest. I will not speculate only to say the entire situation is very strange. Looks like arbitration may be in the offing.

Don't see it as contradictory or someone being dishonest, they seem to be at an impasse on what the solution should be from the quote below.

Mhun said Airbus had offered solutions to Qatar Airways from patches, to repairs of the anti-lightning material or repainting of entire aircraft, but Qatar Airways had declined the offer.

Industry sources say Qatar Airways is reluctant to implement short-term fixes without a full breakdown of the root cause.

Airbus says it understands the cause, though sources say a formal diagnosis may require further tests on surface ageing.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-12-09/

I think the key statements are "Airbus says it understands the cause." Versus QR saying "Industry sources say Qatar Airways is reluctant to implement short-term fixes without a full breakdown of the root cause." So is the root cause known? Has QR not been given a "full breakdown of the root cause?" The statements do not match up. And to be clear I am not attributing any nefarious motives to either party, It just doesn't make sense to me.

ElroyJetson wrote:

I think the key statements are "Airbus says it understands the cause." Versus QR saying "Industry sources say Qatar Airways is reluctant to implement short-term fixes without a full breakdown of the root cause." So is the root cause known? Has QR not been given a "full breakdown of the root cause?" The statements do not match up. And to be clear I am not attributing any nefarious motives to either party, It just doesn't make sense to me.

I think the statements do match up if you look at the this part of the quote from the Reuters article. "Airbus says it understands the cause, though sources say a formal diagnosis may require further tests on surface ageing.".


Another quote from a Bloomberg article:

Qatar Airways took a first step toward legal action, triggering the conflict resolution provisions in the sale contract, Airbus Executive Vice President Philippe Mhun said on a call with reporters. The solutions offered to Qatar Airways and others range from touch-ups to a full repainting of the aircraft if required.

“We stand by the product,” Mhun said. “We want to find a way to reestablish the relationship with Qatar.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ir-dispute

ElroyJetson wrote:

Pelly wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I am struck by a contradictory statement. Airbus is saying they know the reason for the skin degradation problem yet QR is saying they have not been told what the "root cause" of the problem is. Either Airbus is telling the truth and for some reason is not communicating the facts to QR, or QR is simply being dishonest. I will not speculate only to say the entire situation is very strange. Looks like arbitration may be in the offing.

Don't see it as contradictory or someone being dishonest, they seem to be at an impasse on what the solution should be from the quote below.

Mhun said Airbus had offered solutions to Qatar Airways from patches, to repairs of the anti-lightning material or repainting of entire aircraft, but Qatar Airways had declined the offer.

Industry sources say Qatar Airways is reluctant to implement short-term fixes without a full breakdown of the root cause.

Airbus says it understands the cause, though sources say a formal diagnosis may require further tests on surface ageing.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-12-09/

I think the key statements are "Airbus says it understands the cause." Versus QR saying "Industry sources say Qatar Airways is reluctant to implement short-term fixes without a full breakdown of the root cause." So is the root cause known? Has QR not been given a "full breakdown of the root cause?" The statements do not match up. And to be clear I am not attributing any nefarious motives to either party, It just doesn't make sense to me.

From my point of view it matches. Airbus has identified the likely root cause with such certainty, that they are publically using this wording. It may, however, mean that additional testing to increase the certainty from say 95% to 100%. As these tests may require time to be conducted Airbus has offered / is offering short-term fixed, likely coupled with long-term fixes within the next major maintenance interval, which are then based on the final tests. QR on the other hand wants to have it solved 100% now, and does not want to have a short-term / interim fix.

The first point seems to be very much in line with the approach FAA, EASA, CAA and all other carriers have taken. Fix it for now, and fix it for long-term once the final solution is available and can be implemented. BTW, Airbus, you´re going to pay for that part of the works.

Thus it seems to me that it comes down to a client demanding a 100% solution now vs. others accepting an intermediate fix. Both have now come to a point where they are asking third parties to mediate, which, on contractual level, isn´t unusual. It is certainly unusual that this is brought into public and into the press, though one has to ask what NDA clauses in a contract are for if they are constantly violated (at least looking so from the outside).

One member mentioned that this serves Boeing the freighter order. I´m not sure about this. Boeing will be looking very carefully how this matter is solved, and I would guess that they are not willing to sign any contract with QR or other airlines prior knowing the settlement. This is likely no longer really about a quality issue, this is more about a power play who has the upper hand in the market longer term: manufacturers or airlines. And that´s a space Boeing will watch very closely.

What the problem accually is, the cause of it, and the reason Qatar is in conflict with Airbus has become more and more clear.

All aircraft require maintenance, and repetitive maintenance, the entire life of the aircraft. Some parts of aircraft require more maintenance than other parts. If the required maintenance is not done, than of course the aircraft can't be put in service before the work is completed.

It is now clear that the issues results in more or more frequent maintenance than previously anticipated by the airlines (or promissed by Airbus). Several airlines therefore complained to Airbus. EASA concluded that the issues can be addressed in regular maintenance intervalls.

As reported by Reuters, Airbus have offered solutions to the airlines from patches, to repairs of the anti-lightning material or repainting of entire aircraft. We know Lufthansa did fly A350s to Toulouse so Airbus could do the maintenance repairs.

It is likely that only Qatar Airways have declined the offer/compensation. It seems like they want a solution that permanently removes the need to do this kind of maintenance more frequently than previously expected.

It now seems clear to me that this was a question of economical compensation, where Qatar put on a pokerface and asked for to much from Airbus. When Airbus declined Qatars demands, they escalated the conflict and thereby increasing pressure on Airbus. Airbus still didn't cave in. Now the conflict has escalated out of hand, where a small problem is now a major issue.

If Airbus is correct in their latest press release, that Qatar is in violation of international safety protocols, this might have consequences for Qatars operations in EASA airspace.

Flying-Tiger wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Pelly wrote:

Don't see it as contradictory or someone being dishonest, they seem to be at an impasse on what the solution should be from the quote below.



https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-12-09/

I think the key statements are "Airbus says it understands the cause." Versus QR saying "Industry sources say Qatar Airways is reluctant to implement short-term fixes without a full breakdown of the root cause." So is the root cause known? Has QR not been given a "full breakdown of the root cause?" The statements do not match up. And to be clear I am not attributing any nefarious motives to either party, It just doesn't make sense to me.

From my point of view it matches. Airbus has identified the likely root cause with such certainty, that they are publically using this wording. It may, however, mean that additional testing to increase the certainty from say 95% to 100%. As these tests may require time to be conducted Airbus has offered / is offering short-term fixed, likely coupled with long-term fixes within the next major maintenance interval, which are then based on the final tests. QR on the other hand wants to have it solved 100% now, and does not want to have a short-term / interim fix.

The first point seems to be very much in line with the approach FAA, EASA, CAA and all other carriers have taken. Fix it for now, and fix it for long-term once the final solution is available and can be implemented. BTW, Airbus, you´re going to pay for that part of the works.

Thus it seems to me that it comes down to a client demanding a 100% solution now vs. others accepting an intermediate fix. Both have now come to a point where they are asking third parties to mediate, which, on contractual level, isn´t unusual. It is certainly unusual that this is brought into public and into the press, though one has to ask what NDA clauses in a contract are for if they are constantly violated (at least looking so from the outside).

One member mentioned that this serves Boeing the freighter order. I´m not sure about this. Boeing will be looking very carefully how this matter is solved, and I would guess that they are not willing to sign any contract with QR or other airlines prior knowing the settlement. This is likely no longer really about a quality issue, this is more about a power play who has the upper hand in the market longer term: manufacturers or airlines. And that´s a space Boeing will watch very closely.

Thanks. I agree with your synopsis. QR wants an absolute answer and final resolution and Airbus is not quite there yet.

In the interim, QR has gone public, photos were leaked, and accusations made. Airbus is embarrassed, they feel their reputation has been maligned, and as a result is no longer willing to try to placate QR.

And no doubt QR is angry, not only over the problems with their very expensive aircraft, but Airbus represented the problem for months as solely a paint problem (false), and issue confined to one aircraft (false), and then just a problem only QR was experiencing (also false).

Sounds like this is only going to get uglier.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Flying-Tiger wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I think the key statements are "Airbus says it understands the cause." Versus QR saying "Industry sources say Qatar Airways is reluctant to implement short-term fixes without a full breakdown of the root cause." So is the root cause known? Has QR not been given a "full breakdown of the root cause?" The statements do not match up. And to be clear I am not attributing any nefarious motives to either party, It just doesn't make sense to me.

From my point of view it matches. Airbus has identified the likely root cause with such certainty, that they are publically using this wording. It may, however, mean that additional testing to increase the certainty from say 95% to 100%. As these tests may require time to be conducted Airbus has offered / is offering short-term fixed, likely coupled with long-term fixes within the next major maintenance interval, which are then based on the final tests. QR on the other hand wants to have it solved 100% now, and does not want to have a short-term / interim fix.

The first point seems to be very much in line with the approach FAA, EASA, CAA and all other carriers have taken. Fix it for now, and fix it for long-term once the final solution is available and can be implemented. BTW, Airbus, you´re going to pay for that part of the works.

Thus it seems to me that it comes down to a client demanding a 100% solution now vs. others accepting an intermediate fix. Both have now come to a point where they are asking third parties to mediate, which, on contractual level, isn´t unusual. It is certainly unusual that this is brought into public and into the press, though one has to ask what NDA clauses in a contract are for if they are constantly violated (at least looking so from the outside).

One member mentioned that this serves Boeing the freighter order. I´m not sure about this. Boeing will be looking very carefully how this matter is solved, and I would guess that they are not willing to sign any contract with QR or other airlines prior knowing the settlement. This is likely no longer really about a quality issue, this is more about a power play who has the upper hand in the market longer term: manufacturers or airlines. And that´s a space Boeing will watch very closely.

Thanks. I agree with your synopsis. QR wants an absolute answer and final resolution and Airbus is not quite there yet.

In the interim, QR has gone public, photos were leaked, and accusations made. Airbus is embarrassed, they feel their reputation has been maligned, and as a result is no longer willing to try to placate QR.

And no doubt QR is angry, not only over the problems with their very expensive aircraft, but Airbus represented the problem for months as solely a paint problem (false), and issue confined to one aircraft (false), and then just a problem only QR was experiencing (also false).

Sounds like this is only going to get uglier.

Without knowing the official communication between the companies, official documents etc. most statements here are just assumptions and most people seem to forget that and believe they are facts...

Let's be smart. Airbus will fix one way or another the issue for all aircraft if there is an engineering fault. And continue to sell a ton of planes. If it cannot all the a350 will be scrapped as it's the wet dream of many here. No fanboysm in corporate offices.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Flying-Tiger wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I think the key statements are "Airbus says it understands the cause." Versus QR saying "Industry sources say Qatar Airways is reluctant to implement short-term fixes without a full breakdown of the root cause." So is the root cause known? Has QR not been given a "full breakdown of the root cause?" The statements do not match up. And to be clear I am not attributing any nefarious motives to either party, It just doesn't make sense to me.

From my point of view it matches. Airbus has identified the likely root cause with such certainty, that they are publically using this wording. It may, however, mean that additional testing to increase the certainty from say 95% to 100%. As these tests may require time to be conducted Airbus has offered / is offering short-term fixed, likely coupled with long-term fixes within the next major maintenance interval, which are then based on the final tests. QR on the other hand wants to have it solved 100% now, and does not want to have a short-term / interim fix.

The first point seems to be very much in line with the approach FAA, EASA, CAA and all other carriers have taken. Fix it for now, and fix it for long-term once the final solution is available and can be implemented. BTW, Airbus, you´re going to pay for that part of the works.

Thus it seems to me that it comes down to a client demanding a 100% solution now vs. others accepting an intermediate fix. Both have now come to a point where they are asking third parties to mediate, which, on contractual level, isn´t unusual. It is certainly unusual that this is brought into public and into the press, though one has to ask what NDA clauses in a contract are for if they are constantly violated (at least looking so from the outside).

One member mentioned that this serves Boeing the freighter order. I´m not sure about this. Boeing will be looking very carefully how this matter is solved, and I would guess that they are not willing to sign any contract with QR or other airlines prior knowing the settlement. This is likely no longer really about a quality issue, this is more about a power play who has the upper hand in the market longer term: manufacturers or airlines. And that´s a space Boeing will watch very closely.

Thanks. I agree with your synopsis. QR wants an absolute answer and final resolution and Airbus is not quite there yet.

In the interim, QR has gone public, photos were leaked, and accusations made. Airbus is embarrassed, they feel their reputation has been maligned, and as a result is no longer willing to try to placate QR.

And no doubt QR is angry, not only over the problems with their very expensive aircraft, but Airbus represented the problem for months as solely a paint problem (false), and issue confined to one aircraft (false), and then just a problem only QR was experiencing (also false).

Sounds like this is only going to get uglier.

I bolded your part that I want to comment on, but did not want to take it out of context so I left the rest of your post.

Up to now there is no confirmation that the problem QR is experiencing is actually related or linked to the 13 aircraft that are mandated to be checked by EASA. The 13 aircraft that have to be inspected do have a manufacturing defect that needs to be checked and addressed.

The problem QR seems to have with their aircraft could well have a different root cause. As it seems up to now, there is no manufacturing defect per se (as something was put together the wrong way) but there is accelerated/unexpected degradation of the surface.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Do we know which aircraft are affected by the Airbus manufacturing defects and must be inspected? Those aircraft are in service. Who owns them?

W!e do know, from EASA PAD No.: 21-176

"Groups: Group 1 aeroplanes are MSN 0124 and 0211. Group 2 aeroplanes are MSN 0224, 0237, 0251, 0385, 0407 and 0421. Group 3 aeroplanes are MSN 0044, 0060, 0061, 0292 and 0298."

A coupe of those are operated by Qatar, they are still flying. They are not in the group of 20 grounded.

0124 - Hong Kong Airlines
0211 - Qatar (A7-AMH https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/a7-amh)
0224 - Asiana
0237 - Qatar (A7-AMJ https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/a7-amj)
0251 - Hainan
0385 - Singapore
0407 - Air France
0421 - THY Turkish
0044 - Thai
0060 - Sichuan
0061 - Cathay
0292 - Lufthansa
0298 - Virgin

zeke wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Do we know which aircraft are affected by the Airbus manufacturing defects and must be inspected? Those aircraft are in service. Who owns them?

W!e do know, from EASA PAD No.: 21-176

"Groups: Group 1 aeroplanes are MSN 0124 and 0211. Group 2 aeroplanes are MSN 0224, 0237, 0251, 0385, 0407 and 0421. Group 3 aeroplanes are MSN 0044, 0060, 0061, 0292 and 0298."

A coupe of those are operated by Qatar, they are still flying. They are not in the group of 20 grounded.

0124 - Hong Kong Airlines
0211 - Qatar (A7-AMH https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/a7-amh)
0224 - Asiana
0237 - Qatar (A7-AMJ https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/a7-amj)
0251 - Hainan
0385 - Singapore
0407 - Air France
0421 - THY Turkish
0044 - Thai
0060 - Sichuan
0061 - Cathay
0292 - Lufthansa
0298 - Virgin

Interesting the DL plane you found the SDR report on the other day is not part of the list. I wonder if the 13 are just the planes that Airbus believe are effected but have never been fully inspected.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Flying-Tiger wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I think the key statements are "Airbus says it understands the cause." Versus QR saying "Industry sources say Qatar Airways is reluctant to implement short-term fixes without a full breakdown of the root cause." So is the root cause known? Has QR not been given a "full breakdown of the root cause?" The statements do not match up. And to be clear I am not attributing any nefarious motives to either party, It just doesn't make sense to me.

From my point of view it matches. Airbus has identified the likely root cause with such certainty, that they are publically using this wording. It may, however, mean that additional testing to increase the certainty from say 95% to 100%. As these tests may require time to be conducted Airbus has offered / is offering short-term fixed, likely coupled with long-term fixes within the next major maintenance interval, which are then based on the final tests. QR on the other hand wants to have it solved 100% now, and does not want to have a short-term / interim fix.

The first point seems to be very much in line with the approach FAA, EASA, CAA and all other carriers have taken. Fix it for now, and fix it for long-term once the final solution is available and can be implemented. BTW, Airbus, you´re going to pay for that part of the works.

Thus it seems to me that it comes down to a client demanding a 100% solution now vs. others accepting an intermediate fix. Both have now come to a point where they are asking third parties to mediate, which, on contractual level, isn´t unusual. It is certainly unusual that this is brought into public and into the press, though one has to ask what NDA clauses in a contract are for if they are constantly violated (at least looking so from the outside).

One member mentioned that this serves Boeing the freighter order. I´m not sure about this. Boeing will be looking very carefully how this matter is solved, and I would guess that they are not willing to sign any contract with QR or other airlines prior knowing the settlement. This is likely no longer really about a quality issue, this is more about a power play who has the upper hand in the market longer term: manufacturers or airlines. And that´s a space Boeing will watch very closely.

Thanks. I agree with your synopsis. QR wants an absolute answer and final resolution and Airbus is not quite there yet.

In the interim, QR has gone public, photos were leaked, and accusations made. Airbus is embarrassed, they feel their reputation has been maligned, and as a result is no longer willing to try to placate QR.

And no doubt QR is angry, not only over the problems with their very expensive aircraft, but Airbus represented the problem for months as solely a paint problem (false), and issue confined to one aircraft (false), and then just a problem only QR was experiencing (also false).

Sounds like this is only going to get uglier.

It is a nice analysis of the issue.

My concern on all this is Airbus willingness to go legal without expand public what the problems are and the fixes they are proposing. In summary, they state that the issue is not major and that they have solutions but do not disclose further.

For all we take on AAB and QR, like MOL (Ryanair) they may sound lousy but they would not overstate such a thing. This is no commercial dispute but a rather quality/safety one.

We always depart from the fact that we do paint aircraft, not only because of branding, but because the paint is also supposed to protect their overall structural frame. We seem not to have any data (if I am wrong, it might be good to correct me and highlight it here) in regards to aircraft flying around with no paint whatsoever exposing all their composite frame to the environment for a short or long time to evaluate the long term quality and structural issues we might (or not) have, so it is a serious issue. I am not sure A350s (and B787s for that matter) were ever projected to be flown with no paint whatsoever like old airplanes kind of were. We moved now from the overall aluminium frames.

I know it sounds embarrassing for Airbus but I would rather they refrain from going legal and dealing openly with the issue. I would think that they did learn the MAX lesson where the problem was only dealt with once we had losses...

Whether Airbus loses Qatar Airways or not (i.e. Qatar ditches the A350 and replaces them gradually when the B777X is available and also orders the MAX instead of A320s) seems rather irrelevant at present.

Jomar777 wrote:

My concern on all this is Airbus willingness to go legal without expand public what the problems are and the fixes they are proposing. In summary, they state that the issue is not major and that they have solutions but do not disclose further.

For all we take on AAB and QR, like MOL (Ryanair) they may sound lousy but they would not overstate such a thing. This is no commercial dispute but a rather quality/safety one.

We always depart from the fact that we do paint aircraft, not only because of branding, but because the paint is also supposed to protect their overall structural frame. We seem not to have any data (if I am wrong, it might be good to correct me and highlight it here) in regards to aircraft flying around with no paint whatsoever exposing all their composite frame to the environment for a short or long time to evaluate the long term quality and structural issues we might (or not) have, so it is a serious issue. I am not sure A350s (and B787s for that matter) were ever projected to be flown with no paint whatsoever like old airplanes kind of were. We moved now from the overall aluminium frames.

I know it sounds embarrassing for Airbus but I would rather they refrain from going legal and dealing openly with the issue. I would think that they did learn the MAX lesson where the problem was only dealt with once we had losses...

Whether Airbus loses Qatar Airways or not (i.e. Qatar ditches the A350 and replaces them gradually when the B777X is available and also orders the MAX instead of A320s) seems rather irrelevant at present.

Latest communication (I think it is Flight Global) is that it was actually Qatar Airways invoking the arbitration clauses, not Airbus. If this is true the press release from Airbus is merely a confirmation that they will follow the arbitration process to get matters solved. This will most certainly mean independent technical experts getting involved by the arbitrator(s) to have their judgement. As we´re still dealing with trade secrets and a technical environment where interdependence between systems exist this is probably as open as possible at the moment. And we can be sure that FAA, EASA, QCAA etc. will all be asked for their opinion or have already give in. Thus as neutral as it can be. Which is the whole point of arbitration, and probably the best way to get things settled.

One remark: There is a difference between quality and safety. Airbus and many others (airlines and authorities) see this as quality issue. Paint degrades faster than expected and bring in some additional aspects - but nothing which impacts safety if attended to properly. Just expensive and not wished for. Qatar´s Aviation body sees this as a major safety issue, and has grounded a number of planes because of their perception. However, they have [so far?] not been able to convince other avition bodies of their point of view and currently stand on their own with their view.

Jomar777 wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Flying-Tiger wrote:

From my point of view it matches. Airbus has identified the likely root cause with such certainty, that they are publically using this wording. It may, however, mean that additional testing to increase the certainty from say 95% to 100%. As these tests may require time to be conducted Airbus has offered / is offering short-term fixed, likely coupled with long-term fixes within the next major maintenance interval, which are then based on the final tests. QR on the other hand wants to have it solved 100% now, and does not want to have a short-term / interim fix.

The first point seems to be very much in line with the approach FAA, EASA, CAA and all other carriers have taken. Fix it for now, and fix it for long-term once the final solution is available and can be implemented. BTW, Airbus, you´re going to pay for that part of the works.

Thus it seems to me that it comes down to a client demanding a 100% solution now vs. others accepting an intermediate fix. Both have now come to a point where they are asking third parties to mediate, which, on contractual level, isn´t unusual. It is certainly unusual that this is brought into public and into the press, though one has to ask what NDA clauses in a contract are for if they are constantly violated (at least looking so from the outside).

One member mentioned that this serves Boeing the freighter order. I´m not sure about this. Boeing will be looking very carefully how this matter is solved, and I would guess that they are not willing to sign any contract with QR or other airlines prior knowing the settlement. This is likely no longer really about a quality issue, this is more about a power play who has the upper hand in the market longer term: manufacturers or airlines. And that´s a space Boeing will watch very closely.

Thanks. I agree with your synopsis. QR wants an absolute answer and final resolution and Airbus is not quite there yet.

In the interim, QR has gone public, photos were leaked, and accusations made. Airbus is embarrassed, they feel their reputation has been maligned, and as a result is no longer willing to try to placate QR.

And no doubt QR is angry, not only over the problems with their very expensive aircraft, but Airbus represented the problem for months as solely a paint problem (false), and issue confined to one aircraft (false), and then just a problem only QR was experiencing (also false).

Sounds like this is only going to get uglier.

It is a nice analysis of the issue.

My concern on all this is Airbus willingness to go legal without expand public what the problems are and the fixes they are proposing. In summary, they state that the issue is not major and that they have solutions but do not disclose further.

For all we take on AAB and QR, like MOL (Ryanair) they may sound lousy but they would not overstate such a thing. This is no commercial dispute but a rather quality/safety one.

We always depart from the fact that we do paint aircraft, not only because of branding, but because the paint is also supposed to protect their overall structural frame. We seem not to have any data (if I am wrong, it might be good to correct me and highlight it here) in regards to aircraft flying around with no paint whatsoever exposing all their composite frame to the environment for a short or long time to evaluate the long term quality and structural issues we might (or not) have, so it is a serious issue. I am not sure A350s (and B787s for that matter) were ever projected to be flown with no paint whatsoever like old airplanes kind of were. We moved now from the overall aluminium frames.

I know it sounds embarrassing for Airbus but I would rather they refrain from going legal and dealing openly with the issue. I would think that they did learn the MAX lesson where the problem was only dealt with once we had losses...

Whether Airbus loses Qatar Airways or not (i.e. Qatar ditches the A350 and replaces them gradually when the B777X is available and also orders the MAX instead of A320s) seems rather irrelevant at present.

This is not a "gotcha", as I do not know the answer, one way or the other.

However I understand that the American Airlines frames are not, in fact, painted.

cheers

Without wanting to be disparaging I wonder at the legitimacy of the Qatar regulator…… how robust and qualified is it to require or direct the grounding of these airframes and citing it is a very serious safety issue. Clearly, the fact that no other regulators have, as of now, see any reason for concern. It seems wholly wrong that a commercial concern, Qatar Airways , could or is exercising such influence on its regulator in its endeavour to secure some commercial redress. The contract between is with Airbus and will have clear mediation and resolution clauses. The current situation is not equitable and from what has been published Airbus recognises the issue and had over some time now advanced solution to resolve the quality issue. Qatar and Qatar Airways are seriously undermining their brands with the attitude and behaviours currently being displayed. There are many more constructive and mature ways to address problems!

ElroyJetson wrote:

Flying-Tiger wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I think the key statements are "Airbus says it understands the cause." Versus QR saying "Industry sources say Qatar Airways is reluctant to implement short-term fixes without a full breakdown of the root cause." So is the root cause known? Has QR not been given a "full breakdown of the root cause?" The statements do not match up. And to be clear I am not attributing any nefarious motives to either party, It just doesn't make sense to me.

From my point of view it matches. Airbus has identified the likely root cause with such certainty, that they are publically using this wording. It may, however, mean that additional testing to increase the certainty from say 95% to 100%. As these tests may require time to be conducted Airbus has offered / is offering short-term fixed, likely coupled with long-term fixes within the next major maintenance interval, which are then based on the final tests. QR on the other hand wants to have it solved 100% now, and does not want to have a short-term / interim fix.

The first point seems to be very much in line with the approach FAA, EASA, CAA and all other carriers have taken. Fix it for now, and fix it for long-term once the final solution is available and can be implemented. BTW, Airbus, you´re going to pay for that part of the works.

Thus it seems to me that it comes down to a client demanding a 100% solution now vs. others accepting an intermediate fix. Both have now come to a point where they are asking third parties to mediate, which, on contractual level, isn´t unusual. It is certainly unusual that this is brought into public and into the press, though one has to ask what NDA clauses in a contract are for if they are constantly violated (at least looking so from the outside).

One member mentioned that this serves Boeing the freighter order. I´m not sure about this. Boeing will be looking very carefully how this matter is solved, and I would guess that they are not willing to sign any contract with QR or other airlines prior knowing the settlement. This is likely no longer really about a quality issue, this is more about a power play who has the upper hand in the market longer term: manufacturers or airlines. And that´s a space Boeing will watch very closely.

Thanks. I agree with your synopsis. QR wants an absolute answer and final resolution and Airbus is not quite there yet.

In the interim, QR has gone public, photos were leaked, and accusations made. Airbus is embarrassed, they feel their reputation has been maligned, and as a result is no longer willing to try to placate QR.

And no doubt QR is angry, not only over the problems with their very expensive aircraft, but Airbus represented the problem for months as solely a paint problem (false), and issue confined to one aircraft (false), and then just a problem only QR was experiencing (also false).

Sounds like this is only going to get uglier.

It seems clear to me that what is going on in a very public way is a negotiation about what money gets spent where.
For me, the QR issue is nothing to do with safety (as EASA say) and all to do with pressurising Airbus to do a "whole 9 yards solution" at their cost, rather than indulging in extra maintenance through life - liability for cost to be negotiated downstream. That debate I completely get - with some sympathy for the QR position, if not their method of negotiation.

I think the reasons why you don't hear a lot from Airbus are nothing to do with conspiracy theories, and everything to do with keeping their "contractual powder" dry relative to QR.

Not a great fan of social media conspiracy theories if I'm honest.... I suspect reality is a lot more pragmatic

Rgds

brindabella wrote:

Jomar777 wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Thanks. I agree with your synopsis. QR wants an absolute answer and final resolution and Airbus is not quite there yet.

In the interim, QR has gone public, photos were leaked, and accusations made. Airbus is embarrassed, they feel their reputation has been maligned, and as a result is no longer willing to try to placate QR.

And no doubt QR is angry, not only over the problems with their very expensive aircraft, but Airbus represented the problem for months as solely a paint problem (false), and issue confined to one aircraft (false), and then just a problem only QR was experiencing (also false).

Sounds like this is only going to get uglier.

It is a nice analysis of the issue.

My concern on all this is Airbus willingness to go legal without expand public what the problems are and the fixes they are proposing. In summary, they state that the issue is not major and that they have solutions but do not disclose further.

For all we take on AAB and QR, like MOL (Ryanair) they may sound lousy but they would not overstate such a thing. This is no commercial dispute but a rather quality/safety one.

We always depart from the fact that we do paint aircraft, not only because of branding, but because the paint is also supposed to protect their overall structural frame. We seem not to have any data (if I am wrong, it might be good to correct me and highlight it here) in regards to aircraft flying around with no paint whatsoever exposing all their composite frame to the environment for a short or long time to evaluate the long term quality and structural issues we might (or not) have, so it is a serious issue. I am not sure A350s (and B787s for that matter) were ever projected to be flown with no paint whatsoever like old airplanes kind of were. We moved now from the overall aluminium frames.

I know it sounds embarrassing for Airbus but I would rather they refrain from going legal and dealing openly with the issue. I would think that they did learn the MAX lesson where the problem was only dealt with once we had losses...

Whether Airbus loses Qatar Airways or not (i.e. Qatar ditches the A350 and replaces them gradually when the B777X is available and also orders the MAX instead of A320s) seems rather irrelevant at present.

This is not a "gotcha", as I do not know the answer, one way or the other.

However I understand that the American Airlines frames are not, in fact, painted.

cheers

Huh? All American Airlines planes are painted with the exception of their AA retrojets, which are 737s (that obviously have aluminum, not composite, fuselages). The composite pieces of those 737s are painted grey. The need for paint on their then upcoming 787s was one of the reasons AA changed their livery in the first place.

There is no airline flying aircraft around with bare composite exposed (intentionally).

BOAC1966 wrote:

Without wanting to be disparaging I wonder at the legitimacy of the Qatar regulator…… how robust and qualified is it to require or direct the grounding of these airframes and citing it is a very serious safety issue.

Everyone needs to be careful here.

The Qatar regulator issued the certificate of airworthiness for the Qatar aircraft, it has a mandate to ground any aircraft it sees has not had maintenance performed. There are many reason why aircraft can get grounded.

zeke wrote:

... it has a mandate to ground any aircraft it sees has not had maintenance performed ...

If QR is not able to perform a correct maintenance of the fleet, then QR licence should be paused.

MrBren wrote:

zeke wrote:

... it has a mandate to ground any aircraft it sees has not had maintenance performed ...

If QR is not able to perform a correct maintenance of the fleet, then QR licence should be paused.

So you are saying that all their a/c should be grounded - you did say fleet and not just the A350 which may have unique maintenance issues.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

I guess if two parties to a dispute cannot agree a mutually acceptable resolution then an "independent legal assessment" is the next sensible step before mutually binding arbitration.

Do you know for a fact that the purchase agreement demands arbitration before court?

And then, a court where?