zeke wrote:

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.

So every inspection interval is a repaint interval too?

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...

You are being deliberately facetious.

The amount of work done in preparation for a repaint is different to normal phase inspections. The 900 areas were discovered during the paint preparation process.

The published procedures reflect this.

zeke wrote:

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.

You are now assuming QR ignored the degradation. The fact that they took pictures of it, and possibly sent them to Airbus, suggests they didn’t. You don’t know what actions QR took after they snapped the photo.

So can we assume that Airbus gives different warranties / inspection intervals etc. based on the where the owner is located? If that is a defense being proposed it should be easy to produce such documents.
Second like another poster, good luck getting a court of European judges to rule in their favour, yes in my opinion, if the judgements are significant favoritism will take place.
As for other airlines complaining, how many A350's do they operate and how many do they have on order, a carrier with a fleet of 5 a/c will have a much different maintenance budget to a carrier with 10, 20 or heaven forbid 50.

zeke wrote:

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 think this repair process is for control surfaces and access panels and does not apply to built up body section panels..

It is fairly obvious from the pictures that there is no possibility of sanding the panels before painting as the copper mesh is the outer most surface when the units are pulled from the molds following autoclaving. It is also apparent that both the copper mesh and any subsequent finishing layers are not adhering to the copper mesh which does not appear to be adhering to the base composite panel.

I also notice that some of the deniers are much more familiar with metal airframes and those planes composite components (access doors, control surfaces and nacelles) those components have a long history of successful manufacture and repair. However composite airframes whether spun units or panel/frame units are a vastly different animal. The historic components generally have equal pressure on both sides of the part and are not subject to internal pressures, where as body panels must not only flex with the body pressures, but are subjected to differing pressures inside and out. Some of the damage shown is consistent with repeated internal/external pressure fluctuations. The "rivet rash" is a prime example of fluctuations related to aircraft pressurization and twisting. So when you combine a composite surface with adhesion issues with aircraft pressurization cycles and temperature cycles, this not a small issue.

Also nobody here speaks for Airbus or their processes although assumptions have been made based on legal documents.. And those may prove inaccurate.

Polot wrote:

You are now assuming QR ignored the degradation. The fact that they took pictures of it, and possibly sent them to Airbus, suggests they didn’t. You don’t know what actions QR took after they snapped the photo.

The photos suggest that published procedures were not followed.

Even if Airbus was involved, their instructions would state to seal the area to prevent water ingress, inspect after every flight, limited to 21 days.

On the technical aspect as an EASA delegated signature holder for wing structural design of an aircraft with composite wings I completely second Zeke in earlier posts, in the sense it's just incredible to have left the situation deteriorate to this point. At the moment of the picture it's been a while you should have started maintenance procedures to clean and repair the zone to keep aircraft airworthy. How can you complain while showing how undermaintained your aircraft is ??

If I understood correctly QR absolutely wants to know the root cause before doing "anything". That's not how a proper Root Cause analyse works. It's normal, if not obvious, you should take the containment solutions offered by the RCA team while they continue working on the RC.

Unless contractual technicalities I just can't see QR case here.

zeke wrote:

Polot wrote:

You are now assuming QR ignored the degradation. The fact that they took pictures of it, and possibly sent them to Airbus, suggests they didn’t. You don’t know what actions QR took after they snapped the photo.

The photos suggest that published procedures were not followed.

Even if Airbus was involved, their instructions would state to seal the area to prevent water ingress, inspect after every flight, limited to 21 days.

Again, you have no proof that QR did not follow such advice.

kanban wrote:

It is fairly obvious from the pictures that there is no possibility of sanding the panels before painting as the copper mesh is the outer most surface when the units are pulled from the molds following autoclaving. It is also apparent that both the copper mesh and any subsequent finishing layers are not adhering to the copper mesh which does not appear to be adhering to the base composite panel.

You have made this claim over and over again on this thread it is false.

The lightning protection is not on the surface, it is fully enclosed. That is why lightning inspections involve non destructive techniques to see below the surface.

There is no evidence that the it is not adhering.

Polot wrote:

Again, you have no proof that QR did not follow such advice.

The photos, the Qatar CAA grounding them.

zeke wrote:

Polot wrote:

Again, you have no proof that QR did not follow such advice.

The photos, the Qatar CAA grounding them.

The photos could have been first time seen, taken before Airbus procedure received or applied. The photos do not prove that that the plane left the hangar (or whatever) exactly the same as it entered.

The CAA grounding does not prove QR did not follow Airbus’s advice. It could prove that QR got frustrated with the inconvenience of Airbus’s advice and the frequency that is was appearing, asked/demanded Airbus for a permanent fixed, and was told by the CAA they could not fly the planes until repaired in a suitable manner.

zeke wrote:

Polot wrote:

Again, you have no proof that QR did not follow such advice.

The photos, the Qatar CAA grounding them.

If the photos mentionned are the one from a Reuters article the thing is even if you dont know the root cause and a definite solution you dont leave deteriorate that much. That's it.

zeke wrote:

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...

You are being deliberately facetious.

The amount of work done in preparation for a repaint is different to normal phase inspections. The 900 areas were discovered during the paint preparation process.

The published procedures reflect this.

Nope, just following up on your response in #1143. Inspections are done in intervals, fine, yet that doesn't mean each interval might not find "accelerated surface degradation" with a lot of work needed to rectify that, each and every inspection interval. It goes back to Polot's point, in the end it's about the unexpectedly high rate of surface degradation no matter when/how it's discovered.

Polot wrote:

zeke wrote:

Polot wrote:

Again, you have no proof that QR did not follow such advice.

The photos, the Qatar CAA grounding them.

The photos could have been first time seen, taken before Airbus procedure received or applied. The photos do not prove that that the plane left the hangar (or whatever) exactly the same as it entered.

The CAA grounding does not prove QR did not follow Airbus’s advice. It could prove that QR got frustrated with the inconvenience of Airbus’s advice and the frequency that is was appearing, asked/demanded Airbus for a permanent fixed, and was told by the CAA they could not fly the planes until repaired in a suitable manner.

Do you believe the 900+ spots including the large area patches of wear just magically appeared one day, at the same time and to that degree? It could not possibly been the first time they spotted it. If so, they are definitely not following standard maintenance routines and protocols.

JetBuddy wrote:

Polot wrote:

zeke wrote:

The photos, the Qatar CAA grounding them.

The photos could have been first time seen, taken before Airbus procedure received or applied. The photos do not prove that that the plane left the hangar (or whatever) exactly the same as it entered.

The CAA grounding does not prove QR did not follow Airbus’s advice. It could prove that QR got frustrated with the inconvenience of Airbus’s advice and the frequency that is was appearing, asked/demanded Airbus for a permanent fixed, and was told by the CAA they could not fly the planes until repaired in a suitable manner.

Do you believe the 900+ spots including the large area patches of wear just magically appeared one day, at the same time and to that degree? It could not possibly been the first time they spotted it. If so, they are definitely not following standard maintenance routines and protocols.

I was referring to the first time the specific degradation in the specific photo was seen. QR could have 900+ photos for all we know. We’ve just seen ~5.

I've always had the impression that paint repair almost never match the original paint in terms of shading even if it is the exact same specification. Has technology progressed enough to have these patches indististinguishabe from the original?

bt

Polot wrote:

And QCAA has made it clear that they apparently are unsure if these aircraft meet requirements set out in the certified design in the TCDS, and has grounded the aircraft until repaired.

That is exactly what I said, the aircraft are not being maintained as required under the continuing airworthiness instructions.

The only way a regulator becomes unsure of requirements are being met is when an operator steps outside of the published requirements.

Polot wrote:

EASA clearly disagrees with this assessment, but doesn’t have authority to force Qatar to agree to their viewpoint and unground the plane.

EASAs position is if the existing continuing airworthiness instructions are followed the aircraft would remain airworthy.

Polot wrote:

The dispute between QR and Airbus is what the repair should be (QR has stated they want a permanent fix) and who is paying for it.

No, Airbus has told them what repairs should be done, and also offered to do them. They are refusing to do the repairs until a root cause is known. The legal term for this is hinderance.

zeke wrote:

Polot wrote:

And QCAA has made it clear that they apparently are unsure if these aircraft meet requirements set out in the certified design in the TCDS, and has grounded the aircraft until repaired.

That is exactly what I said, the aircraft are not being maintained as required under the continuing airworthiness instructions.

The only way a regulator becomes unsure of requirements are being met is when an operator steps outside of the published requirements.

That assumes there are published requirements/guidelines that address all issues. Sometimes the published requirements don’t properly address the issue at hand because the issue at hand is unexpected and unknown. They then have the rely on OEM expertise, and that opens up the possibility of disagreement between regulator and OEM over OEM’s belief. Or are you now taking the position that CAA’s should always side with Airbus no matter what? Boeing/FAA has shown what a slippery slope that can be…

zeke wrote:

EASAs position is if the existing continuing airworthiness instructions are followed the aircraft would remain airworthy.

Unfortunately for QR, EASA’s position doesn’t apply to them because QCAA has final say on whether QR’s planes are airworthy or not, not EASA.

zeke wrote:

No, Airbus has told them what repairs should be done, and also offered to do them. They are refusing to do the repairs until a root cause is known. The legal term for this is hinderance.

We have discussed this before. This is not hinderance. Customers are not obligated to agree with OEM’s repair suggestions and are allowed to dispute what actions are performed on planes in their care. When in dispute a customer may be a pain in the neck for the OEM and may make matters worse for themselves, but it not hinderance. And before you start talking about lessors and other legal owners you have no proof that the legal owners of the plane agreed to the repair Airbus offered and that QR is hindering them. Before you start talking about leases requiring planes remain airworthy that is for QR and the lessor to hash out with no involvement from Airbus if the lessor has not agreed with Airbus over a repair.

Revelation wrote:

zeke wrote:

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...

You are being deliberately facetious.

The amount of work done in preparation for a repaint is different to normal phase inspections. The 900 areas were discovered during the paint preparation process.

The published procedures reflect this.

Nope, just following up on your response in #1143. Inspections are done in intervals, fine, yet that doesn't mean each interval might not find "accelerated surface degradation" with a lot of work needed to rectify that, each and every inspection interval. It goes back to Polot's point, in the end it's about the unexpectedly high rate of surface degradation no matter when/how it's discovered.

That feels like only looking through one end of the telescope to me...
I've no intention of denying "accelerated surface degredation", but when/how it is discovered DOES matter.

But root cause analysis solutions always contain both Containment measures (short-term) and Countermeasures (permanent solutions). Avoiding the Containment measures and leaving the deterioration until rectification becomes orders of magnitude more complex feels to me like nothing more than an attempt to force a showdown for whatever reason. I've never experienced a circumstance where the short-term containment has deliberately been avoided.

As our Grizzly friend pointed out, finding the accelerated degredation but then ignoring a containment proposed by the OEM and letting the degredation continue until the plane has to be withdrawn from service surely has to be folly of the highest order.

If that is what QR have actually done, then it might well explain why we're not seeing other A350 customers jumping up and down in the law courts.

I don't know, to be honest.
But "QR good, Airbus bad" or "Airbus good, QR bad" both feel to me like book-ends of a spectrum that has much more nuanced outcomes contained between them.

Rgds

If it's true that QR is refusing Airbus to do repairs until the root cause is discovered and a solution is found - well that's not reasonable at all.

You discover the problem, you fix it short term. Then you can talk about compensation or permanent fixes. You don't just park your jets (only operator to do this) and sit on your bum and cross your arms like a spoiled child, claiming your planes can't fly.

astuteman wrote:

As our Grizzly friend pointed out, finding the accelerated degredation but then ignoring a containment proposed by the OEM and letting the degredation continue until the plane has to be withdrawn from service surely has to be folly of the highest order.

If that is what QR have actually done, then it might well explain why we're not seeing other A350 customers jumping up and down in the law courts.

I don't know, to be honest.
But "QR good, Airbus bad" or "Airbus good, QR bad" both feel to me like book-ends of a spectrum that has much more nuanced outcomes contained between them.

Rgds

So are we satisfied that QR in the years that they had the A350 never applied any of the Airbus recommendations to repair or deal with the paint blisters?
Why does it seem that we are going on the assumption that when they decided to no longer repair the a/c that it was the first time they found the issue? If as the OEM claims the environment can play an issue, I am prepared to believe that they found and repaired blisters before the a/c was sent to be painted for the world cup promo. Once the full extent of the "issue" was discovered during the full repaint, the issue seems to have been escalated, including Airbus wanting the a/c at their facilities for inspection.

JetBuddy wrote:

If it's true that QR is refusing Airbus to do repairs until the root cause is discovered and a solution is found - well that's not reasonable at all.

You discover the problem, you fix it short term. Then you can talk about compensation or permanent fixes. You don't just park your jets (only operator to do this) and sit on your bum and cross your arms like a spoiled child, claiming your planes can't fly.

Which root cause to which problem are you talking about, paint blistering, surface degradation, lightning protection, it does seem that a number of issues / problems were being discussed and identified, at least in court they are going to have to be specific.

zeke wrote:

kanban wrote:

It is fairly obvious from the pictures that there is no possibility of sanding the panels before painting as the copper mesh is the outer most surface when the units are pulled from the molds following autoclaving. It is also apparent that both the copper mesh and any subsequent finishing layers are not adhering to the copper mesh which does not appear to be adhering to the base composite panel.

You have made this claim over and over again on this thread it is false.

The lightning protection is not on the surface, it is fully enclosed. That is why lightning inspections involve non destructive techniques to see below the surface.

There is no evidence that the it is not adhering.

Did you even look at the pictures.. the copper mesh is not imbedded and in some places actually detached from the base composite. Having worked in the aircraft manufacturing including warranty processing, for 35 years, I know what is being shown. Your resistance to seeing and understanding the pictures is affecting your creditably.

There is a report now paraphrasing Reuters, following similar discoveries at 5 different airlines, Airbus has convened an internal task force to review and FORMULATE NEW OR REVISED PROCESSES FOR FUTURE A350 PRODUCTION lightening protection. (CAPS are mine) .. I'll have to look up the reference data although some has probably already posted it above..

astuteman wrote:

Revelation wrote:

zeke wrote:

You are being deliberately facetious.

The amount of work done in preparation for a repaint is different to normal phase inspections. The 900 areas were discovered during the paint preparation process.

The published procedures reflect this.

Nope, just following up on your response in #1143. Inspections are done in intervals, fine, yet that doesn't mean each interval might not find "accelerated surface degradation" with a lot of work needed to rectify that, each and every inspection interval. It goes back to Polot's point, in the end it's about the unexpectedly high rate of surface degradation no matter when/how it's discovered.

That feels like only looking through one end of the telescope to me...
I've no intention of denying "accelerated surface degredation", but when/how it is discovered DOES matter.

But root cause analysis solutions always contain both Containment measures (short-term) and Countermeasures (permanent solutions). Avoiding the Containment measures and leaving the deterioration until rectification becomes orders of magnitude more complex feels to me like nothing more than an attempt to force a showdown for whatever reason. I've never experienced a circumstance where the short-term containment has deliberately been avoided.

As our Grizzly friend pointed out, finding the accelerated degredation but then ignoring a containment proposed by the OEM and letting the degredation continue until the plane has to be withdrawn from service surely has to be folly of the highest order.

If that is what QR have actually done, then it might well explain why we're not seeing other A350 customers jumping up and down in the law courts.

I don't know, to be honest.
But "QR good, Airbus bad" or "Airbus good, QR bad" both feel to me like book-ends of a spectrum that has much more nuanced outcomes contained between them.

Rgds

I agree. Issues are rarely ever completely black or white. There are obvious accelerated surface degradation problems that according to Reuters have been experienced by at least 5 A350 operators (QR, DL, LH, CX and AY). This is imho an Airbus manufacturing or design issue. However, QR is claiming the problem may be affecting airworthiness which is a position unsupported by other operators or the EASA. There is also a question as to whether or not QR has allowed the problem to continue without adequate maintenance to bolster their case against Airbus.

In other words, as you said, it is nuanced.


The Airbus bad QR good argument or the reverse QR bad Airbus good position seems a little foolish to me. The truth is most likely somewhere in the middle.

par13del wrote:

astuteman wrote:

As our Grizzly friend pointed out, finding the accelerated degredation but then ignoring a containment proposed by the OEM and letting the degredation continue until the plane has to be withdrawn from service surely has to be folly of the highest order.

If that is what QR have actually done, then it might well explain why we're not seeing other A350 customers jumping up and down in the law courts.

I don't know, to be honest.
But "QR good, Airbus bad" or "Airbus good, QR bad" both feel to me like book-ends of a spectrum that has much more nuanced outcomes contained between them.

Rgds

So are we satisfied that QR in the years that they had the A350 never applied any of the Airbus recommendations to repair or deal with the paint blisters?
Why does it seem that we are going on the assumption that when they decided to no longer repair the a/c that it was the first time they found the issue? If as the OEM claims the environment can play an issue, I am prepared to believe that they found and repaired blisters before the a/c was sent to be painted for the world cup promo. Once the full extent of the "issue" was discovered during the full repaint, the issue seems to have been escalated, including Airbus wanting the a/c at their facilities for inspection.

There's a reason that I posted an "if" at the beginning of the sentence, and then said "I don't know".
But I'm not sure how assuming one case is any better or worse than assuming its opposite.
Yet here we are ......
Can you demonstrate that they DID find and repaired the blisters fully in accordance with Airbus instructions, or are you doing what many of us do and just posing the counter argument because it suits your particular agenda?

So
a) I'd thank you not to accuse me of something I haven't done, and
b) I'd thank you not to be guilty of doing the same thing that you're accusing me of.
Sort of doesn't work, really.

Rgds

I posted a hypothesis upthread which nobody has supported or dismissed, so please forgive repetition.

The photos don't represent the visible condition in which QR flew the aircraft. They are taken AFTER intrusive investigation of newly visible surface irregularities, following digging out material under what could be seen on the surface in order to ascertain the extent of the problem.

That does not make the problem in any way less significant.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

The photos don't represent the visible condition in which QR flew the aircraft. They are taken AFTER intrusive investigation of newly visible surface irregularities, following digging out material under what could be seen on the surface in order to ascertain the extent of the problem.

That component would have been removed form the aircraft for repair, and one of the first steps in the process would be to remove the bonded static wick.

astuteman wrote:

par13del wrote:

astuteman wrote:

As our Grizzly friend pointed out, finding the accelerated degredation but then ignoring a containment proposed by the OEM and letting the degredation continue until the plane has to be withdrawn from service surely has to be folly of the highest order.

If that is what QR have actually done, then it might well explain why we're not seeing other A350 customers jumping up and down in the law courts.

I don't know, to be honest.
But "QR good, Airbus bad" or "Airbus good, QR bad" both feel to me like book-ends of a spectrum that has much more nuanced outcomes contained between them.

Rgds

So are we satisfied that QR in the years that they had the A350 never applied any of the Airbus recommendations to repair or deal with the paint blisters?
Why does it seem that we are going on the assumption that when they decided to no longer repair the a/c that it was the first time they found the issue? If as the OEM claims the environment can play an issue, I am prepared to believe that they found and repaired blisters before the a/c was sent to be painted for the world cup promo. Once the full extent of the "issue" was discovered during the full repaint, the issue seems to have been escalated, including Airbus wanting the a/c at their facilities for inspection.

There's a reason that I posted an "if" at the beginning of the sentence, and then said "I don't know".
But I'm not sure how assuming one case is any better or worse than assuming its opposite.
Yet here we are ......
Can you demonstrate that they DID find and repaired the blisters fully in accordance with Airbus instructions, or are you doing what many of us do and just posing the counter argument because it suits your particular agenda?

So
a) I'd thank you not to accuse me of something I haven't done, and
b) I'd thank you not to be guilty of doing the same thing that you're accusing me of.
Sort of doesn't work, really.

Rgds

I guess you never saw the questions marks....

Polot wrote:

zeke wrote:

No, Airbus has told them what repairs should be done, and also offered to do them. They are refusing to do the repairs until a root cause is known. The legal term for this is hinderance.

We have discussed this before. This is not hinderance. Customers are not obligated to agree with OEM’s repair suggestions and are allowed to dispute what actions are performed on planes in their care. When in dispute a customer may be a pain in the neck for the OEM and may make matters worse for themselves, but it not hinderance. And before you start talking about lessors and other legal owners you have no proof that the legal owners of the plane agreed to the repair Airbus offered and that QR is hindering them. Before you start talking about leases requiring planes remain airworthy that is for QR and the lessor to hash out with no involvement from Airbus if the lessor has not agreed with Airbus over a repair.

QR is under no obligation to agree to the repair; but, in such case, QR waives any and all financial compensations related to lack of performance (or the total lack of usability) of the product affected by such repairs.
You can't have you cake and eat it.

Seems to me there is a small number of posters here who are so desperate for Airbus to take an "L" to make up for Boeing's several ongoing "Ls" that they are willing to suspend all logic. I have seen the pictures, I have thought through this issue from both viewpoints, and I am certain QR will not get anywhere near the compensation they are asking for. Will they get some? Probably. And I suspect we'll find out that there is indeed an accelerated wear issue. But I also suspect we'll find out that QR did not follow published maintenance procedures and allowed the airframes to deteriorate past acceptable levels.

One thing we ought to look at is what the motives of both parties are and who stands to gain the most here. And no matter how many times I run this through my head, I ALWAYS get back to QR gaining the most in this scenario. Airbus gains nothing from having its largest A350 customer not fly half their fleet or more...they have proposed fixes short-term and offered to make them. They have said they believe they understand the underlying problem. I also suspect they have offered QR some form of compensation quietly before this went to court.

When this is all said and done, I think Airbus will not sell QR another aircraft for a very long time. Which is good for Boeing (higher price per frame). And Airbus (less headache and lower legal fees). And QR may not care about paying more for Boeing aircraft (byproduct of petro-dollars). So in the end, equilibrium will be found. If I were an Airbus exec, my primary focus would be to:

1) hold QR to its contractual obligations
2) go above and beyond to fix the immediate issue on their frames (exceed their own contractual obligations)
3) develop a longer-term fix to the issue
4) withdraw any existing bids for current QR RFPs
5) refuse to participate in future QR RFPs
6) defend Airbus reputation vigorously

What I still dont get is the silence when it comes to the well known 787 issues by QR.

Duke91 wrote:

What I still dont get is the silence when it comes to the well known 787 issues by QR.

Those issues are not affecting/grounding in service frames and QR is no particular hurry to take delivery of new wide bodies at the moment.

Duke91 wrote:

What I still dont get is the silence when it comes to the well known 787 issues by QR.

Silence? They were the most vocal on the early 787 issues, it appears that after so many years they are more or less satisfied with their existing in-service fleet.

aaexecplat wrote:

When this is all said and done, I think Airbus will not sell QR another aircraft for a very long time. Which is good for Boeing (higher price per frame). And Airbus (less headache and lower legal fees). And QR may not care about paying more for Boeing aircraft (byproduct of petro-dollars).

That´s the only part of your post I´m not in agreement with. I´m far from certain that Boeing is happy about the whole QR / Airbus story at the moment. Whilst it may look as if this tips the client in Boeing favor I am of the opinion that they are deeply worried that a similar issue can fall on their feet, too, with similar outcome. The 777X development hasn´t been without problems, and the likelyhood of QR behaving in a similar way is certainly not zero. And it is far from guaranteed that this whole affair does yield a 777XF order - it may still go to Airbus as part of a large "argeement package".

What still makes me wonder why an apparently smallish maintenance / wear issue went so stellar. I´m still at a loss what is in for QR to win in this whole discussion other than to try to pressure Airbus [and probably down the line Boeing, too] into much more favorable terms overall. It seems like an excessivly high-stake game they have initiated, if willingly or by accident doesn´t really matter anymore.

For me this has nothing to do with the actual technical part anymore, this is about power play and who´s going to have the upper hand longer term.

Flying-Tiger wrote:

For me this has nothing to do with the actual technical part anymore, this is about power play and who´s going to have the upper hand longer term.

Some of us came to that conclusion a while back.

Does not bode well for customer relations when engaged in a game of chicken with your customer.

bt

Flying-Tiger wrote:

What still makes me wonder why an apparently smallish maintenance / wear issue went so stellar. I´m still at a loss what is in for QR to win in this whole discussion other than to try to pressure Airbus [and probably down the line Boeing, too] into much more favorable terms overall. It seems like an excessivly high-stake game they have initiated, if willingly or by accident doesn´t really matter anymore.

For me this has nothing to do with the actual technical part anymore, this is about power play and who´s going to have the upper hand longer term.

I think there are two facets to this issue.

In the short-term, with Covid still raging across the globe and travel demand (especially long haul intl travel) being very low, QR gains as follows:

- low demand means they can afford to lose the operability of the frames that have been grounded so far
- they then turn this into an airworthiness issue to extract damages from Airbus for the time the planes are out of service
- they may be able to lease CX planes for less than the payments on some of their A350s which they are trying to get covered by Airbus
- they use the airworthiness issue as a reason not to take delivery of new frames thereby deferring payments to Airbus and storage for frames they don't need right now

In the long-term, QR gains IF:

- they can get ANY financial concessions from Airbus in this process at all
- they can get long-term maintenance guarantees well past the warranty period from Airbus on their A350 fleet
- they can get an idea for how likely such a strategy would be if employed against Boeing

To me, the downsides of this caper to QR are pretty low with the only REAL downside being that both OEMs could refuse to sell them aircraft, which I highly doubt could ever happen. So QR has nothing or very little to lose and a lot of potential upside. In the short-term, I think it is best to think of this as an attempt to right-size their fleet to Covid conditions at an OEMs expense. Which is also why I expect Airbus will go to the end of the world to make sure this is as expensive as possible for QR.

bikerthai wrote:

Flying-Tiger wrote:

For me this has nothing to do with the actual technical part anymore, this is about power play and who´s going to have the upper hand longer term.

Some of us came to that conclusion a while back.

Does not bode well for customer relations when engaged in a game of chicken with your customer.

bt

Also does not bode well to set the precedent of being willing to pay an unreasonable customer damages in the billions after they purposefully hinder the airworthiness of the frames they own and refuse delivery thereby defaulting on their contractual obligations. ANY business has to draw a line in the sand at some point. AAB has pushed Airbus too far and they are willing to go the distance now. And AAB has no choice but to do the same.

aaexecplat wrote:

When this is all said and done, I think Airbus will not sell QR another aircraft for a very long time. Which is good for Boeing (higher price per frame). And Airbus (less headache and lower legal fees). And QR may not care about paying more for Boeing aircraft (byproduct of petro-dollars). So in the end, equilibrium will be found. If I were an Airbus exec, my primary focus would be to:

1) hold QR to its contractual obligations
2) go above and beyond to fix the immediate issue on their frames (exceed their own contractual obligations)
3) develop a longer-term fix to the issue
4) withdraw any existing bids for current QR RFPs
5) refuse to participate in future QR RFPs
6) defend Airbus reputation vigorously

Airbus will not sell or QR will not buy, two different things, so far we usually say the airlines buy. FR may not use Airbus a/c but if they decide to buy, you really believe Airbus will say no?
You also missed a possible 7, QR decide to cancel their purchase agreements with Airbus and pay those penalties, I am sure they have financial experts who would be able to work out the cost of the cancellation penalties versus the increased maintenance cost on the existing fleet and new deliveries that do not have the permanent fix.

bikerthai wrote:

Flying-Tiger wrote:

For me this has nothing to do with the actual technical part anymore, this is about power play and who´s going to have the upper hand longer term.

Some of us came to that conclusion a while back.

Does not bode well for customer relations when engaged in a game of chicken with your customer.

bt

Well, other A350 customers seems to cooperate with Airbus in a civilised way and problems are solved with mutual understanding and respect. QR could have done the same but instead chose confrontation and bashing Airbus in public.
Until SQ, LH, VN and AY starts to be vocal about A350 issues , QRs credibility is very low, particularly based on history.

aaexecplat wrote:

I think there are two facets to this issue.

In the short-term, with Covid still raging across the globe and travel demand (especially long haul intl travel) being very low, QR gains as follows:

- low demand means they can afford to lose the operability of the frames that have been grounded so far
- they then turn this into an airworthiness issue to extract damages from Airbus for the time the planes are out of service
- they may be able to lease CX planes for less than the payments on some of their A350s which they are trying to get covered by Airbus
- they use the airworthiness issue as a reason not to take delivery of new frames thereby deferring payments to Airbus and storage for frames they don't need right now

Question, we read where during the pandemic, Airbus was very aggressive in "forcing" airlines to pick up their purchases and make final payments, that would mean that QR had new frames coming in that would take months before they showed the same issues, why not use them, they only parked a subset of the fleet.

par13del wrote:

Airbus will not sell or QR will not buy, two different things, so far we usually say the airlines buy. FR may not use Airbus a/c but if they decide to buy, you really believe Airbus will say no?
You also missed a possible 7, QR decide to cancel their purchase agreements with Airbus and pay those penalties, I am sure they have financial experts who would be able to work out the cost of the cancellation penalties versus the increased maintenance cost on the existing fleet and new deliveries that do not have the permanent fix.

Yes. If this goes where I think it'll go, Airbus will not sell QR any more airplanes. The FR situation is not analogous here since FR never operated Airbus planes, then hindered a maintenance item and sued Airbus for a minimum of $600 million, plus ongoing damages while defaulting on their contractual obligations. Now...QR may also not BUY Airbus anymore, but I think that is ultimately a mutual thing.

I am thinking that if QR were to cancel the rest of their outstanding orders and pay the contractual fee for doing so, it would be in the best interest of all parties. But I don't think AAB will ever do that because that is a back-of-the-napkin calculation that has long been made and deemed too expensive. Otherwise, they would not have moved forward with this lawsuit against Airbus.

par13del wrote:

Question, we read where during the pandemic, Airbus was very aggressive in "forcing" airlines to pick up their purchases and make final payments, that would mean that QR had new frames coming in that would take months before they showed the same issues, why not use them, they only parked a subset of the fleet.

Not sure what you are asking?

zeke wrote:

kanban wrote:

There is a report now paraphrasing Reuters, following similar discoveries at 5 different airlines

No, there is not 5 other airlines with airframes in that state. There were other airlines with paint peel, that is a very different issue, and not one I have heard QR have had.

For clarity:

Three people with direct knowledge of the situation said that at Qatar Airways and at least one other airline the mesh had in some instances itself developed gaps, leaving the carbon-fibre fuselage exposed to possible weather or other damage.
...
Messages show Finnair, which operates in the colder north, raised paint concerns as early as 2016, and reported in October 2019 that damage had spread below to the anti-lightning mesh.

Cathay Pacific, Etihad, Lufthansa and Air France - acting in its capacity as maintenance provider for Air Caraibes - also complained of paint damage.
...
Pictures submitted on the message board by Finnair in 2019, seen by Reuters, appear to show corroded or missing mesh known as Expanded Copper Foil. Finnair and Airbus declined to comment on the photos, but Airbus officials said that particular problem may have stemmed from an early production issue, since resolved.

Ref: https://www.reuters.com/article/airbus- ... IKBN2IE0TB

So we have six airlines (CX, EY, LH, AF, AY, QR) complaining of paint damage, with "at least" two (AY, QR) reporting damaged mesh.

JetBuddy wrote:

If it's true that QR is refusing Airbus to do repairs until the root cause is discovered and a solution is found - well that's not reasonable at all.

You discover the problem, you fix it short term. Then you can talk about compensation or permanent fixes. You don't just park your jets (only operator to do this) and sit on your bum and cross your arms like a spoiled child, claiming your planes can't fly.

Others keep injecting the re-paint event into the timeline. I think it's important here as well. QCAA did not ground any planes before that event. After that event, they did. It's not too big a leap to presume that once a pervasive problem was discovered then the regulator got hyper vigilant about it. It's not a fact in evidence that QR did no repairs before the re-paint event.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Duke91 wrote:

What I still dont get is the silence when it comes to the well known 787 issues by QR.

Silence? They were the most vocal on the early 787 issues, it appears that after so many years they are more or less satisfied with their existing in-service fleet.

yeah, but they have not grounded the 787

Flying-Tiger wrote:

What still makes me wonder why an apparently smallish maintenance / wear issue went so stellar. I´m still at a loss what is in for QR to win in this whole discussion other than to try to pressure Airbus [and probably down the line Boeing, too] into much more favorable terms overall. It seems like an excessivly high-stake game they have initiated, if willingly or by accident doesn´t really matter anymore.

I'm not sure it's "smallish". QR is saying at this point it's a $600M issue increasing at $4M a day ( https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-01-06/ ) and that's just with 21 of its 53 A350s impacted. Airbus is considering making a design change and switching from mesh to foil.

bikerthai wrote:

Flying-Tiger wrote:

For me this has nothing to do with the actual technical part anymore, this is about power play and who´s going to have the upper hand longer term.

Some of us came to that conclusion a while back.

Does not bode well for customer relations when engaged in a game of chicken with your customer.

I agree, the customer always wins. At the end of the day there aren't too many other customers willing to buy 25-35 wide body freighters.

aaexecplat wrote:

Also does not bode well to set the precedent of being willing to pay an unreasonable customer damages in the billions after they purposefully hinder the airworthiness of the frames they own and refuse delivery thereby defaulting on their contractual obligations. ANY business has to draw a line in the sand at some point. AAB has pushed Airbus too far and they are willing to go the distance now. And AAB has no choice but to do the same.

To me it's interesting that it was Airbus that first threatened legal action yet it was QR that went ahead and took legal action. IMO Airbus is on their back foot at this point.

Duke91 wrote:

yeah, but they have not grounded the 787

IMO 787 is off topic for this thread, it's been hashed out elsewhere.

aaexecplat wrote:

par13del wrote:

Question, we read where during the pandemic, Airbus was very aggressive in "forcing" airlines to pick up their purchases and make final payments, that would mean that QR had new frames coming in that would take months before they showed the same issues, why not use them, they only parked a subset of the fleet.

Not sure what you are asking?

If they were forced during covid to take delivery, they did not have that as an option to save cost.
The leasing of additional a/c and bringing back a/c from the desert also works against this being strictly a cost-saving issue due to covid.

I keep going back to the QR phrase "root cause." I would imagine the cost of stripping the paint and all the protective layers including the lightning protective mesh down to the composite barrels and then reapplying would be enormously expensive.

So my thought is Airbus is offering patch repair and more frequent maintenance, and QR wants a final, long term fix. That appears to be what is happening.

If so, I think the Airbus position is reasonable. That is, provide compensation for the obvious manufacturing/design flaw and specify more frequent surface maintenance and repair.

QR, however, wants everything to be perfectly solved on a go forward basis which would likely be prohibitively expensive for Airbus if done for QR, and ultimately, all the other A350 operators.

So we have what we have here. A complete impasse. I think it will be fascinating to see what the final resolution will be.

ElroyJetson wrote:

If so, I think the Airbus position is reasonable. That is, provide compensation for the obvious manufacturing/design flaw and specify more frequent surface maintenance and repair.

"Obvious manufacturing/design flaw" according to whom?
Let's let such language wait until documents if ever are released / revealed in court, after all, the competence of the airline to conduct necessary maintenance may be lacking, that thought has been raised in this thread, so..........

par13del wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

If so, I think the Airbus position is reasonable. That is, provide compensation for the obvious manufacturing/design flaw and specify more frequent surface maintenance and repair.

"Obvious manufacturing/design flaw" according to whom?
Let's let such language wait until documents if ever are released / revealed in court, after all, the competence of the airline to conduct necessary maintenance may be lacking, that thought has been raised in this thread, so..........

Fair enough. My opinion solely.