zeke wrote:

The aircraft were operated for years, by saying they were “delivered planes that are not fit for use” means QR has been reckless and negligent for accepting the deliveries and flying them for years.

This line of argument fails in the light of the MAX debacle.

Now that they know an issue exists, they have stopped taking deliver, which reinforces the back end of your argument.

I am on the fence in this situation. And believe it's all about money. Which has gone beyond any technical solution to this problem, for now.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

This line of argument fails in the light of the MAX debacle.

Now that they know an issue exists, they have stopped taking deliver, which reinforces the back end of your argument.

I am on the fence in this situation. And believe it's all about money. Which has gone beyond any technical solution to this problem, for now.

bt

Irrelevant, this has been stated not to be an airworthiness issue, the MAX issue was an airworthiness issue hence the emergency AD, that as we know from other threads is still be taken through the courts for deceiving the regulatory authorities.

We know now that the max should never had been certified, that is not the case here. The airline is still operating A350s.

They stopped taking deliveries during COVID, and that is the issue I believe is going to be infront of the courts. Items like exterior paint and interior are normally only have a warranty for 12 months, some of these aircraft that have been grounded have done 4 years in service which is in the normal timeframe for a repaint. While it has been reported Airbus has offered to fix the issues, I think contractually they are not they are outside the period that refortification would be required to be taken.

Rectification of old aircraft has nothing to do with non-acceptance of new deliveries, and that is the reality I think of the legal position QR has placed itself in.

Your argument was why would QA fly planes for years if they determined that the planes were not fit for use.

While not to the same extent, the MAX was flying with many customers with an underlying flight worthiness issue.

Again, I am not saying the A350 issue reaches to the same level, but if you use the same argument as the MAX, the answer to your question would be:

"Airlines will fly defective airplanes if they don't know the defective condition exists."

bt

zeke wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

According to QR, Airbus has delivered planes that are not fit for use; you think they won't seek financial compensations for the time they had to pay the lease and been unable to use the plane? Pleeeeease...

Please cite a source for the “delivered planes that are not fit for use” or withdraw the comment.

The aircraft were operated for years, by saying they were “delivered planes that are not fit for use” means QR has been reckless and negligent for accepting the deliveries and flying them for years.

I think you’re interrupting the comment, and getting quite upset, as the planes were delivered not fit for use. The comment could also be read in the planes that were delivered are not fit for use.

Since no one on this forum is anointed protector of another’s reputation, it’s fine to share and listen to perspectives.

Oh yeah, defective condition sometimes only show up after years of service. I recall Boeing having fuse pin corrosion problems which only shows up after some time in service.

bt

zeke wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

According to QR, Airbus has delivered planes that are not fit for use; you think they won't seek financial compensations for the time they had to pay the lease and been unable to use the plane? Pleeeeease...

Please cite a source for the “delivered planes that are not fit for use” or withdraw the comment.

The aircraft were operated for years, by saying they were “delivered planes that are not fit for use” means QR has been reckless and negligent for accepting the deliveries and flying them for years.

Zeke, I am with you that QR is playing afoul here; don't shoot me.
QR, by having this feud, is basically stating that the planes are not fit for use; I heartfully disagree with that statement, but that's what the grounding is about.

I hate to throw a wrinkle into people's established positions, however
1) I recall several of the posters (and airlines) here were demanding root cause analysis when a certain product have lithium battery issues.
2) looking again at the few pictures we have, in two there appear to be repairs to finish cracking around fasteners, and those repairs also cracked. so a repaint is not a solution until the cause is identified. another shot shows a casual paint spray on the mesh and existing paint surface.. this leads me to think QR has tried to approach this as standard wear and tear only to see that the underlying issue is resistant to normal repair processes.

Since the skin degradation issue appears to be more than normal wear, wanting to understand the root cause of the problem seems very reasonable.

But if the root cause is down to materials or manufacturing process not being adequate, then it becomes and issue of who pays for the fix. I am sure like many of us, LH, DL, CX and others will avidly follow the proceedings.

Well someone needs to set AAB straight, he has been a nasty customer for both Boeing and Airbus. Other airlines negotiate behind closed door, this particular prick prefers to negotiate through media. He is welcomed to buy all Boeing, COMAC, Ilyushin, Antonov product for that matter. He needs Airbus more than the other way round. Airbus is more than happy to take their 53 A350s back and cancel delivery of another six let them sit and rot, free up the remaining 17 slots for others. Also cancel their 50 A321neo order to free up their valuable slots for other airlines. *Roll eyes*

kanban wrote:

I hate to throw a wrinkle into people's established positions, however
1) I recall several of the posters (and airlines) here were demanding root cause analysis when a certain product have lithium battery issues.
2) looking again at the few pictures we have, in two there appear to be repairs to finish cracking around fasteners, and those repairs also cracked. so a repaint is not a solution until the cause is identified. another shot shows a casual paint spray on the mesh and existing paint surface.. this leads me to think QR has tried to approach this as standard wear and tear only to see that the underlying issue is resistant to normal repair processes.

2) The "paint issue" ship has sailed a long time ago and is roughly in the middle of the ocean by now. I don't think, seeing the photos, anyone is still saying it's just paint. What zeke has repeated is that there are repair processes existing, or available from Airbus, that other airlines have applied such repairs and keep flying the planes. It appears QR is not applying the repair and letting the issue get worse.

https://www.malaymail.com/news/money/20 ... te/2029999

"...The row meanwhile looks set to cost Airbus a big Qatar order for a new A350 freighter version. It received the first firm order for the model on Monday, confirming a previously tentative order for four planes from France's CMA CGM.

Qatar Airways Chief Executive Akbar Al Baker told the South China Morning Post last week he had previously looked at placing a large order for the cargo A350. Sources now expect Boeing to win the order to replace Qatar's 34-35 freighters. — Reuters"

Such passive aggressive behaviour.....

WayexTDI wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

They will fight the lease payment (or seek Airbus to pay for them) as the aircraft are deemed unfit to fly.

AAB thought he could win over Airbus; now he has to save face.

Oh they will fight it? Just like that?

Please. How long will they stop paying it? Is it really cheaper to reactivate all those aircraft? Pay their lease?

Also might I add some of the ones grounded are owned by QR and have no lease financial or operating attached to them

According to QR, Airbus has delivered planes that are not fit for use; you think they won't seek financial compensations for the time they had to pay the lease and been unable to use the plane? Pleeeeease...

If Airbus has delivered planes that are not fit for use, why did he accept delivery of the aircraft?

kanban wrote:

I hate to throw a wrinkle into people's established positions, however
1) I recall several of the posters (and airlines) here were demanding root cause analysis when a certain product have lithium battery issues.
2) looking again at the few pictures we have, in two there appear to be repairs to finish cracking around fasteners, and those repairs also cracked. so a repaint is not a solution until the cause is identified. another shot shows a casual paint spray on the mesh and existing paint surface.. this leads me to think QR has tried to approach this as standard wear and tear only to see that the underlying issue is resistant to normal repair processes.

It's a long time ago and memory is often unreliable. But I seem to recall that the root cause of the lithium battery issues was not established at the time, but an effective solution was put in place. This is not intended to take the discussion off-topic.

majano wrote:

kanban wrote:

I hate to throw a wrinkle into people's established positions, however
1) I recall several of the posters (and airlines) here were demanding root cause analysis when a certain product have lithium battery issues.
2) looking again at the few pictures we have, in two there appear to be repairs to finish cracking around fasteners, and those repairs also cracked. so a repaint is not a solution until the cause is identified. another shot shows a casual paint spray on the mesh and existing paint surface.. this leads me to think QR has tried to approach this as standard wear and tear only to see that the underlying issue is resistant to normal repair processes.

It's a long time ago and memory is often unreliable. But I seem to recall that the root cause of the lithium battery issues was not established at the time, but an effective solution was put in place. This is not intended to take the discussion off-topic.

There is a big difference between an interim fix (containment) while the root cause is being investigated.. Here slapping another coat of paint on a surface that has adhesion issues is hardly an effective repair and if that is what the repair manual calls for, I'd question the integrity of the certifying regulatory agency.

So Airbus won't participate to the next QR RFPs, Boeing should respond with the price they want, AAB will have to pay.

kanban wrote:

There is a big difference between an interim fix (containment) while the root cause is being investigated.. Here slapping another coat of paint on a surface that has adhesion issues is hardly an effective repair and if that is what the repair manual calls for, I'd question the integrity of the certifying regulatory agency.

I have gone into some detail with you on what is involved with painting any aircraft, and no aircraft paint process will involve painting over old paint.

The old paint is always stripped back, the surface always prepared, and then, and only then the protective layer and polyurethane livery are applied.

No one has suggested painting over any unprepared surface.

RoyalBrunei757 wrote:

https://www.malaymail.com/news/money/2021/12/21/qatar-airways-sues-airbus-in-a350-jet-damage-dispute/2029999

"...The row meanwhile looks set to cost Airbus a big Qatar order for a new A350 freighter version. It received the first firm order for the model on Monday, confirming a previously tentative order for four planes from France's CMA CGM.

Qatar Airways Chief Executive Akbar Al Baker told the South China Morning Post last week he had previously looked at placing a large order for the cargo A350. Sources now expect Boeing to win the order to replace Qatar's 34-35 freighters. — Reuters"

Such passive aggressive behaviour.....

Let´s see if anything will be announced in the near future in regards to the freighter order. Given the row between Airbus and QR about an apparent quality issue I can imagine that Boeing prefers to wait-and-see how this pans out. What is Airbus now could be Boeing next time. The development of the 777X hasn´t been flawless, and that leaves some doors - at least percieved - open for similar behaviour. And there can´t be much of a bigger favor than your competitor publically fighting the client in question in court. Best way to learn how you might do it better.

MrBren wrote:

So Airbus won't participate to the next QR RFPs, Boeing should respond with the price they want, AAB will have to pay.

That´s the major part I don´t understand in this exercice. It´s a duopoly. If you fall out with one of the suppliers big time your negotiation power towards the other one starts to drop by a considerable margin, not only in terms of price but in terms of other contractual clauses, too. And I don´t think that any lessor will happily jump in. The long-term (negative) repercussions are in QR´s territory, not Airbus´ or Boeing´s.

WayexTDI wrote:

AAB thought he could win over Airbus; now he has to save face.

Yep, I think that´s it. I think I mentioned it earlier already in this topic. This hasn´t much to do with the actual quality / production / safety issue anymore. It´s now about power - are the manufacturerer´s getting the upper hand for a prolonged time, or are airlines? I think QR gambled too high and the bluff didn´t work out. Now the only way is to declare defeat or try to save what is left to be saved.

I am curious why people think that it is such a big deal for QR to get a straight answer from Airbus about what the root cause of the accelerated degradation of the aircraft skin is ?

Surely if you're paying billions of dollars for a product from a company and it starts to deteriorate faster than expected, you would expect answers, not just patch it up with this and paint it and she'll be right, nothing to worry about here. Is it simply because it is QR and AAB ? Would people be so dismissing if it were SQ or even EK if they were operating the 350 already ?

This has been going on for months now, if Airbus know what the root cause is, disclose it to QR and end this idiocy. Airbus do not need to make it public, just to the airlines and regulators, but the longer this drags on, the more it looks Airbus has something to hide. It may well be a simple solution, it may not be, it maybe something that will affect every 350 at some point in the future and has just been accelerated by the environment that QR operate in and will need work continually throughout the aircraft life.

I just don't get the hate for QR in this instance. They've spent cash to acquire other, mostly Airbus aircraft, to keep their capacity at the level they want. They've even publicly said they will take the rest of the aircraft they have on order from Airbus. What they did say very early, is that if the problem isn't resolved satisfactorily, it may affect future orders from Airbus and it that regard it's hard to blame them.

LTEN11 wrote:

I am curious why people think that it is such a big deal for QR to get a straight answer from Airbus about what the root cause of the accelerated degradation of the aircraft skin is ?

This is not about finding out what happened, it is about who pays to get it fixed and who is going to compensate for the airplanes' downtime.

I think the "hate" is mostly mistrust because QR based the grounding on an AD? from the CAA but this AD seems not to exist at all. Regulators publish their AD and have to back up the reason why the ADs are in place. The CAA has not done this yet but QR still insists that there is an AD and they can ground their aircraft. It is very fishy.

The is no denying that the A350 seems to have premature wear and tear and it seems that no permanent fix exists yet but obviously you can still do maintenance and keep the aircraft airworthy during the time Airbus is looking for a permanent fix.

But having a temper tantrum and throwing your toys out of the pram will not get you anywhere, especially if you use a seemingly inexistent AD as a reason for the grounding.

This makes this court case very interesting actually. I very much think that Airbus has to pay to rectify the aircraft but I would not be surprised at all if the aircraft will just be fixed with the temporary fix and be flying next year again and QR will get no cent from Airbus for the grounding because the AD was not filed correctly and also does not seem to exist at all in the first place. How should Airbus even know about said AD for the grounding if it was not published?

I cant just rent a car and tell Mercedes to pay for it because my local regulator deemed the car not safe to operate, but my regulator never published the reason why to any other Mercedes driver nor the regulator that is overseeing Mercedes.

LTEN11 wrote:

This has been going on for months now, if Airbus know what the root cause is, disclose it to QR and end this idiocy. Airbus do not need to make it public, just to the airlines and regulators, but the longer this drags on, the more it looks Airbus has something to hide. It may well be a simple solution, it may not be, it maybe something that will affect every 350 at some point in the future and has just been accelerated by the environment that QR operate in and will need work continually throughout the aircraft life.

Two weeks ago or so was an article that the root cause is understood by Airbus but likely needs further validation. I guess this has to be translated into "further age testing", which simply needs time to have the sheer number of cycles completed to verify the findings. That´s likely somehting which - even in a lab - will take a couple of months.

From my understanding Airbus´ proposal towards airlines (and authorities) is: fix it now with an approved intermediate fix, and it gets permanently fixed once we´ve validated the root cause. Seems that every airlines and regulator except for QR has accepted this approach, whidh, from my understanding, doesn´t really differ from typical processes (or even many AD processes) in the industry.

I dont know if it is a smart move by QR to end business with one supplier in a duopoly. IMO QR will be the new Ryanair to Airbus. And in future QR has to pay any price Boeing gives. Win situation for Boeing.

QR can afford inflated prices from a single supplier if it comes to that.

Burning bridges is never wise.

Can someone who is closer to such matters inform us of when this case may actually be heard in the London courts? Is it imminent/mid-term/long-way-off?

Moreover, are there any pre-hearing restrictions imposed on the parties, like keeping their mouths closed (in public, at least)?

FluidFlow wrote:

I think the "hate" is mostly mistrust because QR based the grounding on an AD? from the CAA but this AD seems not to exist at all. Regulators publish their AD and have to back up the reason why the ADs are in place. The CAA has not done this yet but QR still insists that there is an AD and they can ground their aircraft. It is very fishy.

The is no denying that the A350 seems to have premature wear and tear and it seems that no permanent fix exists yet but obviously you can still do maintenance and keep the aircraft airworthy during the time Airbus is looking for a permanent fix.

But having a temper tantrum and throwing your toys out of the pram will not get you anywhere, especially if you use a seemingly inexistent AD as a reason for the grounding.

This makes this court case very interesting actually. I very much think that Airbus has to pay to rectify the aircraft but I would not be surprised at all if the aircraft will just be fixed with the temporary fix and be flying next year again and QR will get no cent from Airbus for the grounding because the AD was not filed correctly and also does not seem to exist at all in the first place. How should Airbus even know about said AD for the grounding if it was not published?

I cant just rent a car and tell Mercedes to pay for it because my local regulator deemed the car not safe to operate, but my regulator never published the reason why to any other Mercedes driver nor the regulator that is overseeing Mercedes.

The court proceedings will be interesting if the evidence gets put in the public domain, there is no guarantee that will happen. One or both parties may insist on gag orders for any information used as evidence.

Hopefully it is all publicised, it will be interesting too see just what the Qatar CAA directive was and it's wording and if it was passed onto Airbus, etc. Otherwise people here are going to constantly carry on about this and that, when they have no access to facts lodged with the court. I have no interest in either camp, but QR must be pretty confident in themselves to let it get this far.

sassiciai wrote:

Can someone who is closer to such matters inform us of when this case may actually be heard in the London courts? Is it imminent/mid-term/long-way-off?

Moreover, are there any pre-hearing restrictions imposed on the parties, like keeping their mouths closed (in public, at least)?

This is extremely unlikely to get to court and even if it does most will not be in public.

As I recall, it was A350 A7-ALL that initially had the issue discovered when it went in for a world cup paint livery in SNN. Where is A7-ALL now ? I know it was flown back to TLS, but is Airbus actively looking at the issue with this frame or is it sitting outside effectively abandoned whilst the legal shenanigans are going on ?

LL has been hangared since Jan 8th 2021 AFAIK

zeke wrote:

I have gone into some detail with you on what is involved with painting any aircraft, and no aircraft paint process will involve painting over old paint.

The old paint is always stripped back, the surface always prepared, and then, and only then the protective layer and polyurethane livery are applied..

Zeke, you are quite, QUITE wrong on that.
I've worked on dozens of secondhand Boeing and Bombardier airliners, and each of them was a simple re-spray after very hasty surface prep with what I assume was mild ScotchBrite pads.
And there are many, many photos in the a.net database that show new/updated liveries flaking off and revealing pervious liveries underneath.
I'm not going to waste time posting photos when they're readily accessible here on a.net.

StTim wrote:

sassiciai wrote:

Can someone who is closer to such matters inform us of when this case may actually be heard in the London courts? Is it imminent/mid-term/long-way-off?

Moreover, are there any pre-hearing restrictions imposed on the parties, like keeping their mouths closed (in public, at least)?

This is extremely unlikely to get to court and even if it does most will not be in public.

Yes, I understand that. However, not getting to court implies discussions and agreement between the 2 parties, and I assume that this outcome must be achieved within some court-imposed deadline. I am interested in knowing if the court is obliged to hear such a case by any deadline, which would then become the deadline for the adversarial parties to conclude any agreement that they could reach. If there is a horrible Covid-worsened backlog that means that this might make it to court in 2025, then we know there is scope for this to rumble on until then!

Thus I ask again, is there any time limit set for this case to reach court?

FluidFlow wrote:

I think the "hate" is mostly mistrust because QR based the grounding on an AD? from the CAA but this AD seems not to exist at all. Regulators publish their AD and have to back up the reason why the ADs are in place. The CAA has not done this yet but QR still insists that there is an AD and they can ground their aircraft. It is very fishy.

The is no denying that the A350 seems to have premature wear and tear and it seems that no permanent fix exists yet but obviously you can still do maintenance and keep the aircraft airworthy during the time Airbus is looking for a permanent fix.

But having a temper tantrum and throwing your toys out of the pram will not get you anywhere, especially if you use a seemingly inexistent AD as a reason for the grounding.

This makes this court case very interesting actually. I very much think that Airbus has to pay to rectify the aircraft but I would not be surprised at all if the aircraft will just be fixed with the temporary fix and be flying next year again and QR will get no cent from Airbus for the grounding because the AD was not filed correctly and also does not seem to exist at all in the first place. How should Airbus even know about said AD for the grounding if it was not published?

I cant just rent a car and tell Mercedes to pay for it because my local regulator deemed the car not safe to operate, but my regulator never published the reason why to any other Mercedes driver nor the regulator that is overseeing Mercedes.

There’s no indication there’s an AD from the QCAA.

RalXWB wrote:

I dont know if it is a smart move by QR to end business with one supplier in a duopoly.

Southwest and Alaska are pretty much Boeing only airlines. They still make a profit and get frames at reasonable prices.

What is important in these relationships is mutual respect on all sides. What is lost on this dust up is how this will impact other carriers in the region. Culturally, honor is very important. If they feel that QR is being "dis-respecred" even even if QR is a competitor, it may affect their working relationship with Airbus as well. It is a subtle thing that will be interesting so see if it plays out in the future.

bt

TC957 wrote:

As I recall, it was A350 A7-ALL that initially had the issue discovered when it went in for a world cup paint livery in SNN. Where is A7-ALL now ? I know it was flown back to TLS, but is Airbus actively looking at the issue with this frame or is it sitting outside effectively abandoned whilst the legal shenanigans are going on ?

It was flown, naked, to TLS on January 5, 2021 for further inspection and corrective measures.

Caught here landing on same date by our awesome photographer Clément Alloing

Qatar Airways Airbus A350-941 cn 036 A7-ALL by Clément Alloing, on Flickr

and another photographer A380_TLS_A350

Ferry Flight msn36 A7-ALL SNN 5/1/2021 by A380_TLS_A350, on Flickr

sxf24 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

I think the "hate" is mostly mistrust because QR based the grounding on an AD? from the CAA but this AD seems not to exist at all. Regulators publish their AD and have to back up the reason why the ADs are in place. The CAA has not done this yet but QR still insists that there is an AD and they can ground their aircraft. It is very fishy.

The is no denying that the A350 seems to have premature wear and tear and it seems that no permanent fix exists yet but obviously you can still do maintenance and keep the aircraft airworthy during the time Airbus is looking for a permanent fix.

But having a temper tantrum and throwing your toys out of the pram will not get you anywhere, especially if you use a seemingly inexistent AD as a reason for the grounding.

This makes this court case very interesting actually. I very much think that Airbus has to pay to rectify the aircraft but I would not be surprised at all if the aircraft will just be fixed with the temporary fix and be flying next year again and QR will get no cent from Airbus for the grounding because the AD was not filed correctly and also does not seem to exist at all in the first place. How should Airbus even know about said AD for the grounding if it was not published?

I cant just rent a car and tell Mercedes to pay for it because my local regulator deemed the car not safe to operate, but my regulator never published the reason why to any other Mercedes driver nor the regulator that is overseeing Mercedes.

There’s no indication there’s an AD from the QCAA.

So what is the grounding based on then?

FluidFlow wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

I think the "hate" is mostly mistrust because QR based the grounding on an AD? from the CAA but this AD seems not to exist at all. Regulators publish their AD and have to back up the reason why the ADs are in place. The CAA has not done this yet but QR still insists that there is an AD and they can ground their aircraft. It is very fishy.

The is no denying that the A350 seems to have premature wear and tear and it seems that no permanent fix exists yet but obviously you can still do maintenance and keep the aircraft airworthy during the time Airbus is looking for a permanent fix.

But having a temper tantrum and throwing your toys out of the pram will not get you anywhere, especially if you use a seemingly inexistent AD as a reason for the grounding.

This makes this court case very interesting actually. I very much think that Airbus has to pay to rectify the aircraft but I would not be surprised at all if the aircraft will just be fixed with the temporary fix and be flying next year again and QR will get no cent from Airbus for the grounding because the AD was not filed correctly and also does not seem to exist at all in the first place. How should Airbus even know about said AD for the grounding if it was not published?

I cant just rent a car and tell Mercedes to pay for it because my local regulator deemed the car not safe to operate, but my regulator never published the reason why to any other Mercedes driver nor the regulator that is overseeing Mercedes.

There’s no indication there’s an AD from the QCAA.

So what is the grounding based on then?

As I’ve described before, grounding may not be the correct term as a portion of the fleet remains in service.

We don’t know what action the QCAA took on the parked airplanes. It is plausible to assume they would require the accelerated paint degradation be corrected and that it hasn’t been. Insuring adequate maintenance and airworthiness is a core duty of a CAA. Withdrawing or withholding certification would be highly unusual.

Revelation wrote:

KingOrGod wrote:

Dear Revelation,

Bad look? To who? To those that matter, I reckon the entire situation is clear as day. And when I say those that matter, I am referring to the other A350 operators and Airbus and even QR. I can guarantee you that LH et al would have no qualms grounding an aircraft from any manufacturer should they even remotely suspect a safety issue.

And for those who thought the "threat" to QR was a good idea, probably still do - and it would have likely originated from the legal team at Airbus, and I'd be inclined to agree with them. It was always destined for court, from what I have read and seen, AAB has made his mind up.

KoG

If you are inclined to speculate about what LH and other A350 operators are thinking, so shall I, and I will speculate they are glad QR is willing to hold Airbus's feet to the fire to come up with a long term solution to this problem rather than "accelerated" patching and painting for the rest of the A350's life cycle.

I'll speculate more then on that, and say it is likely not the final fix from airbus. Those other operators are probably undertaking constructive dialog with airbus, not throwing a sandpit tantrum in public...

Haters gonna hate.

KingOrGod wrote:

Revelation wrote:

KingOrGod wrote:

Dear Revelation,

Bad look? To who? To those that matter, I reckon the entire situation is clear as day. And when I say those that matter, I am referring to the other A350 operators and Airbus and even QR. I can guarantee you that LH et al would have no qualms grounding an aircraft from any manufacturer should they even remotely suspect a safety issue.

And for those who thought the "threat" to QR was a good idea, probably still do - and it would have likely originated from the legal team at Airbus, and I'd be inclined to agree with them. It was always destined for court, from what I have read and seen, AAB has made his mind up.

KoG

If you are inclined to speculate about what LH and other A350 operators are thinking, so shall I, and I will speculate they are glad QR is willing to hold Airbus's feet to the fire to come up with a long term solution to this problem rather than "accelerated" patching and painting for the rest of the A350's life cycle.

I'll speculate more then on that, and say it is likely not the final fix from airbus. Those other operators are probably undertaking constructive dialog with airbus, not throwing a sandpit tantrum in public...

Haters gonna hate.

I will add that other customer may not like QR way to rush Airbus to deliver the definitive corective actions. Airbus has implemented curative actions to limit impact for it's customers and is working on the corrective solution. Rushing them may not end with a fully satisfactory solution.
I don't know what is in the contracts between Airbus and QR, but from an industry problem solving standard, QR should take the curative mesure to keep it's fleet airworthy, negociate with Airbus compensations and wait for the definitive fix.

mig17 wrote:

QR should take the curative mesure to keep it's fleet airworthy, negociate with Airbus compensations and wait for the definitive fix.

This is a most logical path. But its not the current path. So there have got to be more behind the scene than just the ego of one man and a paint issue of a few airplanes.

Like most airplane disasters, there is not just one failure. Unfortunately, we probably will not know all the other triggers that brought us to this place.

bt

We do know however, that EASA stated that this is not a safety issue, which people seem to forget. The comparison to an airplane disaster is just plain wrong

RalXWB wrote:

We do know however, that EASA stated that this is not a safety issue, which people seem to forget. The comparison to an airplane disaster is just plain wrong

Not currently a safety issue. While I respect EASA’s expertise, we should also recognize one reason the industry is safe is because of taking proactive steps to improve safety.

bikerthai wrote:

mig17 wrote:

QR should take the curative mesure to keep it's fleet airworthy, negociate with Airbus compensations and wait for the definitive fix.

This is a most logical path. But its not the current path. So there have got to be more behind the scene than just the ego of one man and a paint issue of a few airplanes.

There might be more behind the scene, but question is why QR is the only one making a fuzz about it the way they do? I really can't believe other airlines would just sit and be quiet... So is this an Airbus issue or a Qatar issue?

sxf24 wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

We do know however, that EASA stated that this is not a safety issue, which people seem to forget. The comparison to an airplane disaster is just plain wrong

Not currently a safety issue. While I respect EASA’s expertise, we should also recognize one reason the industry is safe is because of taking proactive steps to improve safety.

So you are blaming EASA for being not proactive enough in this case?

RalXWB wrote:

The comparison to an airplane disaster is just plain wrong

Not comparing the technical aspect of the paint degradation as a disaster. I am saying the way the issue is being handled is the disasters.

marcelh wrote:

but question is why QR is the only one making a fuzz about it the way they do? I really can't believe other airlines would just sit and be quiet... So is this an Airbus issue or a Qatar issue?

That is my suggestion, the relationship between the two companies would have started to sour before the A350 incident and the paint issue is just the "final straw".

Technically, thing seems pretty straight forward, if not yet finalized. Financialy, despite what Zeke explained (which is beyond my ability to follow) it also does not make sense. So there's got to be some other issue in play. Some say ego. I would not stop there.

bt

marcelh wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

We do know however, that EASA stated that this is not a safety issue, which people seem to forget. The comparison to an airplane disaster is just plain wrong

Not currently a safety issue. While I respect EASA’s expertise, we should also recognize one reason the industry is safe is because of taking proactive steps to improve safety.

So you are blaming EASA for being not proactive enough in this case?

There’s a lot of space between blaming EASA for not being proactive and dismissing QR for overreacting. Similarly, just because an issue does not present a current or immediate safety risk does not mean it should be ignored.

MrBren wrote:

So Airbus won't participate to the next QR RFPs, Boeing should respond with the price they want, AAB will have to pay.

He'll come back to Airbus, pleading for an offer. Watch

IMO there is a lot of subtle nuanced posturing each side is taking. They are creating impressions on people without actually saying the things the impressions imply. They are doing this to improve their negotiating posture without actually crossing lines. It seems some posters are missing the nuances.

xwb777 wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

According to QR, Airbus has delivered planes that are not fit for use; you think they won't seek financial compensations for the time they had to pay the lease and been unable to use the plane? Pleeeeease...

If Airbus has delivered planes that are not fit for use, why did he accept delivery of the aircraft?

QR has not used that language so the "According to QR" is an incorrect and IMO inflammatory statement.

zeke wrote:

No one has suggested painting over any unprepared surface.

He didn't say the surface was unprepared, he just said it has adhesion issues, which is a given since it needs to be repaired on an accelerated timescale.

MrBren wrote:

So Airbus won't participate to the next QR RFPs, Boeing should respond with the price they want, AAB will have to pay.

Airbus hasn't said they won't participate in future RFPs, AAB's statement was that the door was closed to the A350F and they were still taking the remainder of the A350s and the A321neos they have on order. No one knows what QR's next RFP will be or if Airbus will be invited to participate or if they will decide to participate.

LTEN11 wrote:

This has been going on for months now, if Airbus know what the root cause is, disclose it to QR and end this idiocy. Airbus do not need to make it public, just to the airlines and regulators, but the longer this drags on, the more it looks Airbus has something to hide. It may well be a simple solution, it may not be, it maybe something that will affect every 350 at some point in the future and has just been accelerated by the environment that QR operate in and will need work continually throughout the aircraft life.

It's about the money, who pays for what. IMO Airbus wants to avoid saying that they have a design flaw that will lead to a lifetime of expensive repairs. It very well could be they know the root cause is a design flaw but have not decided how they are going to deal with the resulting life cycle repair expenses. Clearly they are not threatening the other airlines that have reported "surface degradation" issues so clearly they want the patch and paint path to be the way forward at least in the near term. I presume that this is because at some point their warranty ends and then the cost is borne by the operator, which if nothing else gives Airbus an improved negotiating posture. Perhaps the presumed design flaw will lead to free life time repairs, but I have not heard Airbus has offered that just yet. Maybe their proposal will be free till end of warranty then on some sort of discount due to Airbus's presumed design flaw. It's also not clear if QR would accept a solution involving frequent and unscheduled inspections and repairs without major compensation. What Airbus has to offer is largely determined on what the root cause is, which IMO is why Airbus has not shared that with QR to their satisfaction.

FluidFlow wrote:

I think the "hate" is mostly mistrust because QR based the grounding on an AD? from the CAA but this AD seems not to exist at all.

QR/QCAA have never said there is an airworthiness issue, and no AD has been issued. QR has said they don't know if there is an airworthiness issue because they don't know the root cause. As written earlier in this thread, the planes could be grounded by the regulator simply because they are in a state of disrepair, as opposed to not being airworthy.

Couldn't see this posted previously - sorry if it has been. Airbus have posted a response

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... m-by-qatar

Toulouse, 20 December 2021 - Airbus received a formal legal claim in the English courts filed by Qatar Airways, relating to the dispute over the degradation of surface and paint on certain of Qatar Airways' A350XWB aircraft. Airbus is in the process of analysing the contents of the claim. Airbus intends to vigorously defend its position.

Scoreboard wrote:

Couldn't see this posted previously - sorry if it has been. Airbus have posted a response

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... m-by-qatar

Toulouse, 20 December 2021 - Airbus received a formal legal claim in the English courts filed by Qatar Airways, relating to the dispute over the degradation of surface and paint on certain of Qatar Airways' A350XWB aircraft. Airbus is in the process of analysing the contents of the claim. Airbus intends to vigorously defend its position.

Vigorously… quite though language…

JonesNL wrote:

Scoreboard wrote:

Couldn't see this posted previously - sorry if it has been. Airbus have posted a response

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... m-by-qatar

Toulouse, 20 December 2021 - Airbus received a formal legal claim in the English courts filed by Qatar Airways, relating to the dispute over the degradation of surface and paint on certain of Qatar Airways' A350XWB aircraft. Airbus is in the process of analysing the contents of the claim. Airbus intends to vigorously defend its position.

Vigorously… quite though language…

Classic language from a defendant in court cases. Nothing new honestly.