oldJoe wrote:

Maybe the next step is if a carpet don`t match their expections they will ground the plane because it`s not airworthy ???

May I please ask a question? You keep bringing up carpets up on this thread, what relevance does it have to the topic?

oldJoe wrote:

PJ01 wrote :
It's quite likely that until repairs have been made, these aircraft are deemed to be not airworthy.

Nobody even the QCAA said these aircraft are not airworthy

QR doesn't want to make those repairs until they know said repairs will be a permenent solution instead of a temporary fix, therefore the aircraft stay 'grounded'.

If any OEM offers you a fix is there any guarantee they can provide you ? I guess no ! They do their best to keep the customer satisfied !

Not sure it is that simple, have you forgotten that the paint issue turned surface degradation is occuring much sooner in the life of the a/c, hence the issue. We all know this is not a simple repair issue.

oldJoe wrote:

That would be why other carriers and CAAs are not grounding their aircraft, as they are happy (enough) with the current fixes.

If they are happy enough with the current fixes why even affected airlines like Finnair are accepting new deliveries ?

Well, how long did we go with this only being a QR paint issue and no other carrier was involved or having similar issues?

oldJoe wrote:

If QR and QCAA wants to teach Airbus/EASA or Boeing/FAA how to certify an airplane or a fix they have a lesson to learn !
Maybe the next step is if a carpet don`t match their expections they will ground the plane because it`s not airworthy ???

Why carpet, we know they had bathroom issues with the A380, so that should be more appropriate.

Qatar is claiming $618 million in compensation and $4 million for each day the A350s are grounded by QCAA. Certainly an aggressive ask.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-01-06/

sxf24 wrote:

Qatar is claiming $618 million in compensation and $4 million for each day the A350s are grounded by QCAA. Certainly an aggressive ask.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-01-06/

Very interesting.

QR is claiming this amount for what?? How did they sum up this amount?
We know that they dont know the root cause, hence dont know how much does the fix cost.

sxf24 wrote:

Qatar is claiming $618 million in compensation and $4 million for each day the A350s are grounded by QCAA. Certainly an aggressive ask.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-01-06/

Do Qatar Airways want compensation instead of a fix?
Or do they want compensations, a fix and $4 million each day the A350 is grounded?
In such case what do they place on a basis for compensation? The "agony" of surface paint quality issue?!?

What is happening at Qatar Airways? This truly escalates into unknown dimensions and won't help them long term. One way or the other.

sxf24 wrote:

Qatar is claiming $618 million in compensation and $4 million for each day the A350s are grounded by QCAA. Certainly an aggressive ask.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-01-06/

TFA says:

Now, the financial and technical details associated with the rare legal spat have emerged in a court filing at a High Court division in London, where Qatar Airways sued Airbus in December.

Some times I wonder if the aviation press reads this site or not, now I know it does!

We get more insight into the degree of damage:

The claim includes $76 million for one aircraft alone - a five-year-old A350 that was due to be re-painted in livery for the 2022 World Cup, which Qatar is hosting later this year.

That aircraft has been parked for in France for a year needing 980 repair patches after the aborted paint job exposed gaps in the lightning shield, industry sources say.

For those who keep wondering about QCAA's stance, we finally get some insight:

The complaint detailed how the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority (QCAA) had started withdrawing flying permits for individual A350 planes in a series of letters from June 2021.

It said the QCAA had told Airbus that the deterioration of airplanes was "disturbing, if not alarming".

It is the first public evidence of the stance of Qatar's regulator, which has not so far commented in public.

Airbus has appeared to question the QCAA's independence from the state-owned airline, saying the decision to drag safety into a technical matter put at risk global safety protocols.

To me it seems Airbus keeps using the safety boogeyman to avoid talking about the actual issue, the amount of degradation appearing so early in the life cycle of these planes.

Some more info from Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... pId=google

These parts stood out to me:

Chief Executive Officer Guillaume Faury told Bloomberg on Thursday that the company is “mostly there” in terms of resolving the A350 surface issues. He said that the company was attempting to resolve the disagreement with Qatar over a proposed fix on a technical level, while also dealing with the legal dispute.

This feels a little odd as Airbus were saying they had proposed fixes, but yet they seem to indicate they still havent finished resolving the surface issues.

In the filing, the airline lists what it says are there are eight identified defects with the aircraft, including spider cracks around fasteners in the paint and expanded copper foil, abrasion and peeling, oxidation and so-called rivet rash, where paint is missing from fastener-heads.

Maybe someone with more knowledge can shed some light on whether these 8 defects can all stem from a common set of flaws...

Do either Airbus or QR accept that the frame that has received the 980 patches is now fully repaired.

Gar1G wrote:

Some more info from Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... pId=google

These parts stood out to me:

Chief Executive Officer Guillaume Faury told Bloomberg on Thursday that the company is “mostly there” in terms of resolving the A350 surface issues. He said that the company was attempting to resolve the disagreement with Qatar over a proposed fix on a technical level, while also dealing with the legal dispute.

I suspect this will end like the US 5G situation where FAA + aviation industry squabbled with FCC + telecomm industry, some set of short term and long term approaches will be found. What I can't understand is how IMO Airbus has been behind the curve for so long in dealing with this major customer with their huge A350 fleet that they knew would be vocal if his concerns were not being addressed to his satisfaction. I suspect they will in the end pay just as much as they would if they had been throwing money at the problem all along, and the lasting result will be a broken relationship with a major customer, and a customer who could have made the A350F an instant success presumably becoming the 77XF launch customer instead.

This is assuming that Qatar would have accepted a perfect fix. Given that any other airline is not going bonkers, as well as no other agency grounding the A350, I don't think the paint issues are the reason for the grounding... you know given that widebody travel has not recovered much...

What I can't understand is how IMO Airbus has been behind the curve for so long in dealing with this major customer with their huge A350 fleet that they knew would be vocal if his concerns were not being addressed to his satisfaction.

I may be wrong but perhaps its not that they were behind the curve but more a sign of a new Airbus culture that has been growing with Faury in charge - not excusing behaviour that they previously would back down to.

This hardline approach was detailed in a WSJ article during 2020: https://www.wsj.com/articles/airbus-boe ... 1626189853

Mr. Faury spent the bulk of the pandemic trying to force his biggest and most loyal customers, some of whom were teetering on the brink, to live up to their ironclad contractual obligations. That gamble, which bucked industry convention, has helped lift Airbus into the strongest competitive position in its history against rival Boeing Co.

After all that, its not a far fetch to say that QR would be pretty pissed that they backed down to Airbus, only for these issues to start showing up shortly after. Seems to match AAB sentiment that Airbus didn't care about their customers, only their financials.

Revelation wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

Qatar is claiming $618 million in compensation and $4 million for each day the A350s are grounded by QCAA. Certainly an aggressive ask.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-01-06/

TFA says:

Now, the financial and technical details associated with the rare legal spat have emerged in a court filing at a High Court division in London, where Qatar Airways sued Airbus in December.

Some times I wonder if the aviation press reads this site or not, now I know it does!

We get more insight into the degree of damage:

The claim includes $76 million for one aircraft alone - a five-year-old A350 that was due to be re-painted in livery for the 2022 World Cup, which Qatar is hosting later this year.

That aircraft has been parked for in France for a year needing 980 repair patches after the aborted paint job exposed gaps in the lightning shield, industry sources say.

For those who keep wondering about QCAA's stance, we finally get some insight:

The complaint detailed how the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority (QCAA) had started withdrawing flying permits for individual A350 planes in a series of letters from June 2021.

It said the QCAA had told Airbus that the deterioration of airplanes was "disturbing, if not alarming".

It is the first public evidence of the stance of Qatar's regulator, which has not so far commented in public.

Airbus has appeared to question the QCAA's independence from the state-owned airline, saying the decision to drag safety into a technical matter put at risk global safety protocols.

To me it seems Airbus keeps using the safety boogeyman to avoid talking about the actual issue, the amount of degradation appearing so early in the life cycle of these planes.

So it seems that the Aircraft are deteriorating faster but there are repair jobs that can fix them (short-medium term).

Then QR did not accept this solutions and the QCAA took the certificates from QR to fly the aircraft because QR decided not to fix the aircraft.

For me this sounds like QR throwing a tantrum because the fix Airbus would have paid for as it seems they did with other customers and now QR wants compensation for that?

I mean it is clear Airbus has to pay to fix the aircraft but I dont know if QR has any chance getting money for aircraft that were grounded because QR did not want them in flyable condition. They choose to not take the fix. They choose to let them deteriorate to a point they could not fly them anymore.

If my car mech sais, we can fix the car for 3 years with this paint job and your manufacturer will pay for i (but we have to do the same again in 3 years) and I decline that, because I want a fix that lasts 10 years and then my car does not pass NCT can I really claim compensation for the expenses this generates?

FluidFlow wrote:

If my car mech sais, we can fix the car for 3 years with this paint job and your manufacturer will pay for i (but we have to do the same again in 3 years) and I decline that, because I want a fix that lasts 10 years and then my car does not pass NCT can I really claim compensation for the expenses this generates?

You are missing something with this analogy though. In your analogy, what if the issue happens in one section of your car in 3 years time, then a few months later it appears somewhere else, then somewhere else. You will not be doing one "free" paint every three years but instead after the 3 year point you will be constantly driving back and forth to your car mech to do different patch repairs in different areas of your car. Now add to that every time you go back you have to prove to the car mech, and the car mech has to get approval from the car manufacturer that the new area that needs attention is a continuation of the same issue before you get the free repair.

Pelly wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

If my car mech sais, we can fix the car for 3 years with this paint job and your manufacturer will pay for i (but we have to do the same again in 3 years) and I decline that, because I want a fix that lasts 10 years and then my car does not pass NCT can I really claim compensation for the expenses this generates?

You are missing something with this analogy though. In your analogy, what if the issue happens in one section of your car in 3 years time, then a few months later it appears somewhere else, then somewhere else. You will not be doing one "free" paint every three years but instead after the 3 year point you will be constantly driving back and forth to your car mech to do different patch repairs in different areas of your car. Now add to that every time you go back you have to prove to the car mech, and the car mech has to get approval from the car manufacturer that the new area that needs attention is a continuation of the same issue before you get the free repair.

You obviously don't remember buying cars in the 70's where there always seemed to be new areas of rust that needed fixing every annual inspection (at the owners cost). My latest car is 13 years old and has never failed an inspection for corroded structural elements.

Pelly wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

If my car mech sais, we can fix the car for 3 years with this paint job and your manufacturer will pay for i (but we have to do the same again in 3 years) and I decline that, because I want a fix that lasts 10 years and then my car does not pass NCT can I really claim compensation for the expenses this generates?

You are missing something with this analogy though. In your analogy, what if the issue happens in one section of your car in 3 years time, then a few months later it appears somewhere else, then somewhere else. You will not be doing one "free" paint every three years but instead after the 3 year point you will be constantly driving back and forth to your car mech to do different patch repairs in different areas of your car. Now add to that every time you go back you have to prove to the car mech, and the car mech has to get approval from the car manufacturer that the new area that needs attention is a continuation of the same issue before you get the free repair.

I am pretty sure they strip the whole aircraft, and bring it all to a state of "new", that lasts a couple years again I do not think that Finnair and the other 350 operators have theirs every 2-3 months in the repair shop.

FluidFlow wrote:

I am pretty sure they strip the whole aircraft, and bring it all to a state of "new", that lasts a couple years again I do not think that Finnair and the other 350 operators have theirs every 2-3 months in the repair shop.

When you strip the whole aircraft you will not just pre-emptively restore all the copper mesh like new, you have to see an issue to fix it. From previous articles it is mentioned the issue occurs at different rates in different parts of the aircraft.

You can't compare Finnair with QR, Airbus acknowledges that different airlines are affected differently in this Reuters article.

"Asked about gaps in the mesh, it said some airlines were subject to higher swings in temperatures than others, apparently referring, for example, to desert conditions in Qatar."

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-11-29/

No other airline operates their A350 in the same temperature conditions as frequently as QR, not even SQ or VN. If airline X has 3 spots that need attention on the whole aircraft appearing after 4 years, and airline Y has 100 spots that need fixing after 3 years, you can't say why is airline Y throwing a tantrum and not dealing with the issue like airline X.

Gar1G wrote:

What I can't understand is how IMO Airbus has been behind the curve for so long in dealing with this major customer with their huge A350 fleet that they knew would be vocal if his concerns were not being addressed to his satisfaction.

I may be wrong but perhaps its not that they were behind the curve but more a sign of a new Airbus culture that has been growing with Faury in charge - not excusing behaviour that they previously would back down to.

Good point. It seems like Faury et al are trying to establish a "new normal" and AAB is having none of it.

FluidFlow wrote:

For me this sounds like QR throwing a tantrum because the fix Airbus would have paid for as it seems they did with other customers and now QR wants compensation for that?

I mean it is clear Airbus has to pay to fix the aircraft but I dont know if QR has any chance getting money for aircraft that were grounded because QR did not want them in flyable condition. They choose to not take the fix. They choose to let them deteriorate to a point they could not fly them anymore.

If my car mech sais, we can fix the car for 3 years with this paint job and your manufacturer will pay for i (but we have to do the same again in 3 years) and I decline that, because I want a fix that lasts 10 years and then my car does not pass NCT can I really claim compensation for the expenses this generates?

The one thing you know is your negotiating leverage disappears the minute you agree to the three year fix.

The fact another owner in a similar situation accepted the three year deal isn't particularly operative to me, every owner has different valuations on things.

In the end this is all posturing to get the best possible outcome. In the end I think QR will get a better result than if they just took the short term fix path, but of course won't get what they just put on the table. I think other operators are silently egging AAB and QR on, since he'll be setting the precedent.

Qatar doubles down, now wants to stop deliveries of A350 ENTIRELY (german source https://www.aerotelegraph.com/qatar-air ... ch-stoppen)

could this be the end of Airbus?

Duke91 wrote:

Qatar doubles down, now wants to stop deliveries of A350 ENTIRELY (german source https://www.aerotelegraph.com/qatar-air ... ch-stoppen)

could this be the end of Airbus?

From the article

“Qatar Airways is also demanding that the court prohibit Airbus from delivering A350s until the defects have been rectified, according to the Reuters report.”

Did the Reuters report actually say that ?

We to remember that the contract this falls under (A350 purchase contract) QR is in default for not making payment or taking delivery of aircraft it committed to.

I don’t see this ending well for QR, it has been reported earlier that Airbus has offered fixes, however QR has refused to let Airbus do them.

Typically this is called hindrance, if you have defects with a building, and the builder offers to fix them however you lock them out, courts will side with the builder.

If you have a building that has damage that needs repair, that is not a valid reason for not completing the settlement on another new building one had committed to.

The numbers QR are presenting are obscene because they know they have significant damages owing to Airbus for failure to pay and take delivery of other new aircraft under the contract.

Duke91 wrote:

Qatar doubles down, now wants to stop deliveries of A350 ENTIRELY (german source https://www.aerotelegraph.com/qatar-air ... ch-stoppen)

could this be the end of Airbus?

Had to translate but the translation quoted “ Qatar Airways also requires the court to prohibit Airbus from delivering A350 until the deficiencies have been rectified”

This has always been QRs position. They aren’t cancelling (yet) simply trying to stop deliveries until a fix of their liking is found.

zeke wrote:

Duke91 wrote:

Qatar doubles down, now wants to stop deliveries of A350 ENTIRELY (german source https://www.aerotelegraph.com/qatar-air ... ch-stoppen)

could this be the end of Airbus?

From the article

“Qatar Airways is also demanding that the court prohibit Airbus from delivering A350s until the defects have been rectified, according to the Reuters report.”

Did the Reuters report actually say that ?

A bit of an exaggeration of the actual words from the Reuters link, which say:

The Gulf carrier is also asking British judges to order France-based Airbus not to attempt to deliver any more of the jets until what it describes as a design defect has been fixed.

Ref: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-01-06/

Maybe it suffered in translation?

"The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" becomes "the liquor is good but the meat is bad" after a few goes through the translator.

Duke91 wrote:

Qatar doubles down, now wants to stop deliveries of A350 ENTIRELY (german source https://www.aerotelegraph.com/qatar-air ... ch-stoppen)

could this be the end of Airbus?

No, this is not the end of Airbus. They can fix any issues, just like Boeing will fix the 787.

Duke91 wrote:

Qatar doubles down, now wants to stop deliveries of A350 ENTIRELY (german source https://www.aerotelegraph.com/qatar-air ... ch-stoppen)

could this be the end of Airbus?

No. "The end of Airbus" is a wild exaggeration for this matter.

First of all, only one airline is pursuing such strong measures. I am extremely dubious a European court is going to side with Qatar on this unless the EASA becomes suddenly significantly more concerned about this as a safety issue.

Second, even if Qatar prevails entirely, AIrbus can handle a delivery stop on their 2nd most important aircraft to develop a paint solution and pay a $600 million fine. For comparison, consider that Boeing has so far handled an 18 month grounding of their most important aircraft, paid a $2.5 billion criminal penalty, and faced abnormal production costs and delivery penalties that if I remember right, have exceeded $15 billion. And then they had a year plus long delivery stop on the 787 on top of that.

Airbus is going to be fine. It's question of what they need to do to fix this, and how quickly they need to do it.

Also, there is an English article about the lawsuit here:

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-01-06/

It’s not bad translation. It’s just people misinterpreting and thinking QR means all A350s for all customers when they just mean the A350s they have on order.

Thanks to the posters for the new links provided. I want to highlight a specific quote from the Qatari regulator since, to this point, no public statements have been made.


https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-01-06/



The complaint detailed how the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority (QCAA) had started withdrawing flying permits for individual A350 planes in a series of letters from June 2021.
It said the QCAA had told Airbus that the deterioration of airplanes was "disturbing, if not alarming". It is the first public evidence of the stance of Qatar's regulator, which has not so far commented in public.

Polot wrote:

It’s not bad translation. It’s just people misinterpreting and thinking QR means all A350s for all customers when they just mean the A350s they have on order.

This is the game they are playing, QR owe damages to Airbus for aircraft they have failed to take delivery of.

The courts will ask, what defects do the brand new aircraft currently have that are preventing delivery ?

The answer is none.

They deal with facts, not something that may or may not occur some unknown time in the future.

Duke91 wrote:

Qatar doubles down, now wants to stop deliveries of A350 ENTIRELY (german source https://www.aerotelegraph.com/qatar-air ... ch-stoppen)

could this be the end of Airbus?

The end of Airbus? Really?

zeke wrote:

Polot wrote:

It’s not bad translation. It’s just people misinterpreting and thinking QR means all A350s for all customers when they just mean the A350s they have on order.

This is the game they are playing, QR owe damages to Airbus for aircraft they have failed to take delivery of.

The courts will ask, what defects do the brand new aircraft currently have that are preventing delivery ?

The answer is none.

They deal with facts, not something that may or may not occur some unknown time in the future.

A product doesn’t need to have defect present to be considered defective. If there is a known high likelihood that it will become defective it may be ruled defective from the start. That’s the entire basis for things like automotive recalls and stop sales.

I doubt QR would get an injunction halting A350 deliveries from the court, but it wouldn’t surprise me if waiving of penalties for deferring deliveries until after the fix is implemented is part of the final settlement.

Polot wrote:

If there is a known high likelihood that it will become defective it may be ruled defective from the start.

All aircraft exterior surface finishes deteriorate over time, that is not a defect. It is known are wear and tear (damage that naturally and inevitably occurs as a result of normal wear or aging).

Polot wrote:

It’s not bad translation. It’s just people misinterpreting and thinking QR means all A350s for all customers when they just mean the A350s they have on order.

Ok, I get it. I read the article twice and never got the idea that QF was asking for a stoppage of delivery for all A350s.

And as mentioned already, that scenario would not be the end of Airbus, Boeing hasn't been able to deliver 787s for months at a time (soon passing the year mark?) and 737s for years at a time.

zeke wrote:

Polot wrote:

If there is a known high likelihood that it will become defective it may be ruled defective from the start.

All aircraft exterior surface finishes deteriorate over time, that is not a defect. It is known are wear and tear (damage that naturally and inevitably occurs as a result of normal wear or aging).

I highlighted the key words in your statement.

If deterioration is occurring faster than expected and not following expected normal wear or aging expectations than by definition it is defective.

Steel rusts. If you buy a brand new car made of steel and the next month it has a huge rust hole on the floor pan will you just write it off as normal wear and tear?

Polot wrote:

I highlighted the key words in your statement.

If deterioration is occurring faster than expected and not following expected normal wear or aging expectations than by definition it is defective.

Steel rusts. If you buy a brand new car made of steel and the next month it has a huge rust hole on the floor pan will you just write it off as normal wear and tear?

Depends where you are, if you were in a dry state like Texas it would not be, however if you were upstate New York where the roads have loads of salt applied, rust development is much faster. That would be normal there.

It had already been stated that QR has much higher temperature variations than any other operator. What is normal for say BA with small temperature variations in the U.K. is not what will be normal for QR.

zeke wrote:

Polot wrote:

I highlighted the key words in your statement.

If deterioration is occurring faster than expected and not following expected normal wear or aging expectations than by definition it is defective.

Steel rusts. If you buy a brand new car made of steel and the next month it has a huge rust hole on the floor pan will you just write it off as normal wear and tear?

Depends where you are, if you were in a dry state like Texas it would not be, however if you were upstate New York where the roads have loads of salt applied, rust development is much faster. That would be normal there.

Having lived in salt heavy northern US, I can assure you rust eating through a body panel within one month is not expected behavior at all.

The court will decide if the degradation is normal/expected or not. If not then the product has a defect.

It had already been stated that QR has much higher temperature variations than any other operator. What is normal for say BA with small temperature variations in the U.K. is not what will be normal for QR.

That only absolves Airbus of responsibility if they let QR know, before ordering the plane, that QR’s planes will be at greater risk of this degradation due to their operating conditions. If Airbus led QR to believe the degradation would be the same as other operators and it turns out it’s not…well then Airbus might have to pull out their checkbook. QR did not design the aircraft. They are not automatically expected to know the surface degradation expectations of the A350 and how temperature will effect it.

zeke wrote:

All aircraft exterior surface finishes deteriorate over time, that is not a defect. It is known are wear and tear (damage that naturally and inevitably occurs as a result of normal wear or aging).

From the Bloomberg article:

"Airbus sent engineers to Ireland to inspect the aircraft and then recommended that it be sent to its facility to Toulouse for further investigation. The repairs proposed by Airbus involve some 900 patches to different parts of the aircraft, vastly exceeding the normal handful, Qatar said.

Polot wrote:

Having lived in salt heavy northern US, I can assure you rust eating through a body panel within one month is not expected behavior at all.

Having lived in Buffalo NY myself, I know rust can develop in a week. And it so common there the dealerships just touch it up and get in with life. People don’t just stop driving their cars, and they don’t leave them in those conditions for more time without getting it fixed.

Polot wrote:

The court will decide if the degradation is normal/expected or not. If not then the product has a defect.

Surface degradation is normal and expected hence the reason for the published maintenance tasks.

Polot wrote:

That only absolves Airbus of responsibility if they let QR know, before ordering the plane, that QR’s planes will be at greater risk of this degradation due to their operating conditions. If Airbus led QR to believe the degradation would be the same as other operators and it turns out it’s not…well then Airbus might have to pull out their checkbook.

All aircraft are subject to degradation, and it is something everyone in industry knows about. During covid many airlines moved their aircraft to dry climates for storage. NZ for example didn’t with some of their 77Ws and are now looking at repair bills of tens of millions of dollars because they chose stored them in the moist salty environment of AKL airport. The 77Ws are not defective, Boeing would not have said “never store these at AKL for extended periods of time”, that is a choice the end user has made.

zeke wrote:

Polot wrote:

Having lived in salt heavy northern US, I can assure you rust eating through a body panel within one month is not expected behavior at all.

Having lived in Buffalo NY myself, I know rust can develop in a week. And it so common there the dealerships just touch it up and get in with life. People don’t just stop driving their cars, and they don’t leave them in those conditions for more time without getting it fixed.

Polot wrote:

The court will decide if the degradation is normal/expected or not. If not then the product has a defect.

Surface degradation is normal and expected hence the reason for the published maintenance tasks.

Polot wrote:

That only absolves Airbus of responsibility if they let QR know, before ordering the plane, that QR’s planes will be at greater risk of this degradation due to their operating conditions. If Airbus led QR to believe the degradation would be the same as other operators and it turns out it’s not…well then Airbus might have to pull out their checkbook.

All aircraft are subject to degradation, and it is something everyone in industry knows about. During covid many airlines moved their aircraft to dry climates for storage. NZ for example didn’t with some of their 77Ws and are now looking at repair bills of tens of millions of dollars because they chose stored them in the moist salty environment of AKL airport. The 77Ws are not defective, Boeing would not have said “never store these at AKL for extended periods of time”, that is a choice the end user has made.

You are clearly not understanding that rate and degree of acceptable surface degradation is easily up to debate. Unless you can point to an Airbus document that states expected surface degradation on the A350, at different conditions and what operators must do to combat it, and that QR knew about this before they were taking their planes.

QR is not going to outright win their case and get everything they want. On the other side of the coin Airbus is also not going to outright win their case and get off scot free. The most likely outcome is both Airbus and QR will accept/get assigned (depending on whether they settle or if judge makes ruling) some of the blame and both parties will take a financial hit from this issue that will leave both sides satisfied but only the lawyers truly happy.

Pelly wrote:

vastly exceeding the normal handful, Qatar said.

So QR know and expect the surface to degrade.

I have posted this link from the UAE CAA a couple of times on this thread

https://www.gcaa.gov.ae/en/epublication ... E%2001.pdf

From that

“ 8.1 Composite Filling, Sanding and Surface Preparation
The process to prepare the composite substrate is a two stage process that is always affected by the quality of the molds used to create the structure and also by the percent solids of the resin. The first step is to insure the shape and contour of the surface with filler. Next, perfect and sand smooth the surface for paint. After a smooth surface has been created, the surface will be ready to start priming. For more information with regard to the use and application for the sandable Epoxy Primer refer to section 10 of this manual and to technical data. Most composite surfaces need to be repaired prior to sanding and painting.

So QR are saying a handful and the UAE CAA say most.

I don't think anyone is suggesting this is normal wear and tear, including Airbus. Hence their multiple statements about trying to find a solution to the problem. Without a doubt this is accelerated surface degradation. The two questions are who plays for the repairs, and does this problem affect airworthiness? That is what will be litigated.

If Airbus led QR to believe the degradation would be the same as other operators and it turns out it’s not…well then Airbus might have to pull out their checkbook.

This would assume that Airbus expected such degradation, which they did not with the new carbon based body....

This is a risk that early adopters of new technology have to take. I think Qatar should have been aware that this is new tech and the risk involved.

Duke91 wrote:

It had already been stated that QR has much higher temperature variations than any other operator. What is normal for say BA with small temperature variations in the U.K. is not what will be normal for QR.

If Airbus led QR to believe the degradation would be the same as other operators and it turns out it’s not…well then Airbus might have to pull out their checkbook.

This would assume that Airbus expected such degradation, which they did not with the new carbon based body....

This is a risk that early adopters of new technology have to take. I think Qatar should have been aware that this is new tech and the risk involved.

That risk also applies equally to the OEM. “We didn’t know because it’s new technology and QR should be financially responsible for all unintended effects of the new technology we decided to implemented” is not a good legal defense.

Do you think A380 operators should have paid for their wing crack repairs? It’s not like Airbus intended to design a product that developed those wing cracks and early A380 operators should just accept all risks that come with a new design.

Polot wrote:

You are clearly not understanding that rate and degree of acceptable surface degradation is easily up to debate. Unless you can point to an Airbus document that states expected surface degradation on the A350, at different conditions and what operators must do to combat it, and that QR knew about this before they were taking their planes.

The A350 like all new aircraft certified since around 1990 is known as a maintenance steering group 3 (MSG3), they have different published inspections which are performed at specific intervals.

The maintenance manuals do not say as you suggest different rates for different climates, they specify inspection intervals, and if something is noticed during an inspection that triggers the procedure.

zeke wrote:

Polot wrote:

You are clearly not understanding that rate and degree of acceptable surface degradation is easily up to debate. Unless you can point to an Airbus document that states expected surface degradation on the A350, at different conditions and what operators must do to combat it, and that QR knew about this before they were taking their planes.

The A350 like all new aircraft certified since around 1990 is known as a maintenance steering group 3 (MSG3), they have different published inspections which are performed at specific intervals.

The maintenance manuals do not say as you suggest different rates for different climates, they specify inspection intervals, and if something is noticed during an inspection that triggers the procedure.

And if QR is following the procedure and yet QR jets are experiencing greater than expected surface degradation then Airbus might be on the hook…

Again, what is “acceptable” and “normal” is very debatable.

zeke wrote:

Pelly wrote:

vastly exceeding the normal handful, Qatar said.

So QR know and expect the surface to degrade.

So QR are saying a handful and the UAE CAA say most.

Read the quote in the Bloomberg article again, the handful is in relation to a single aircraft requiring 900+ patches when QR expect normally only a handful of patches on a single aircraft. Its not an issue of surfaces degrading, its the rate and extent of that degradation. The QR press release also uses this term "accelerated surface degradation condition"

Polot wrote:

And if QR is following the procedure and yet QR jets are experiencing greater than expected surface degradation then Airbus might be on the hook…

Again, what is “acceptable” and “normal” is very debatable.

Again that is a big IF, the photos published earlier suggest QR are not doing this. In the photos you can see where procedure was followed like the touch up of fastener heads, and other areas not addressed and just left to get worse.

Pelly wrote:

Read the quote in the Bloomberg article again, the handful is in relation to a single aircraft requiring 900+ patches when QR expect normally only a handful of patches on a single aircraft. Its not an issue of surfaces degrading, its the rate and extent of that degradation. The QR press release also uses this term "accelerated surface degradation condition"

Not particularly interested in the adjectives used by QR, fact is it is known that most of the surface will require repair prior to painting. This is not something that is news as I have demonstrated by the UAE CAA document that has been around for ages.

Do you know how close in proximity the UAE is from Qatar ?

zeke wrote:

Polot wrote:

And if QR is following the procedure and yet QR jets are experiencing greater than expected surface degradation then Airbus might be on the hook…

Again, what is “acceptable” and “normal” is very debatable.

Again that is a big IF, the photos published earlier suggest QR are not doing this. In the photos you can see where procedure was followed like the touch up of fastener heads, and other areas not addressed and just left to get worse.

We have no clue of the context behind the pics, ie if some of that paint was manually scrapped off in attempts to assess level of degradation prior to the picture being taken. I’ll also for the third time in this thread point out that when these pictures were first released you said the damage didn’t look that bad to you and you see things like that on engine cowlings for as long as you can remember (reply #375!!!)

Again it’s clear you have already decided this is normal surface degradation and QR should just accept it. QR disagrees. Your opinion is no more correct than QR’s. That’s why it’s now in court.

zeke wrote:

The A350 like all new aircraft certified since around 1990 is known as a maintenance steering group 3 (MSG3), they have different published inspections which are performed at specific intervals.

The maintenance manuals do not say as you suggest different rates for different climates, they specify inspection intervals, and if something is noticed during an inspection that triggers the procedure.

So if "something" ends up being "every square inch of the aircraft's surface is degraded", just get on with the sanding and patching and be prepared to repeat next inspection interval, move on, nothing to see here...

Polot wrote:

We have no clue of the context behind the pics, ie if some of that paint was manually scrapped off in attempts to assess level of degradation prior to the picture being taken. I’ll also for the third time in this thread point out that when these pictures were first released you said the damage didn’t look that bad to you and you see things like that on engine cowlings for as long as you can remember (reply #375!!!)

Again it’s clear you have already decided this is normal surface degradation and QR should just accept it. QR disagrees. Your opinion is no more correct than QR’s. That’s why it’s now in court.

Correct, it doesn’t look bad, that does not mean it should be ignored and not rectified in accordance with the published procedures.

If you have rust development on your car, you take it to the dealership when you notice it. If your too lazy to take it back until something has completely failed, the dealership will not repair it.

Revelation wrote:

So if "something" ends up being "every square inch of the aircraft's surface is degraded", just get on with the sanding and patching and be prepared to repeat next inspection interval, move on, nothing to see here...

It is normal procedure to prepare every square inch during a repaint.

Did you see the photos of the QR aircraft ferried from Ireland to TLS, every square inch was being prepared.