Revelation wrote:

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

Not that I am aware of, many airlines have issues with paint peel, and I can dig up threads on this site from 20 years ago where people ask about paint peel.

For example as I posted earlier in this thread CX had paint peel, it presented soon after delivery, and it was fixed. It was no big issue.

Some of the owners of the aircraft grounded in Qatar have A350s with multiple airlines and are not seeing the same issues with their other aircraft.

You keep raising this like it is relevant, it has no relevance to the QR issue. No one else is grounding their aircraft.

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

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

Not that I am aware of, many airlines have issues with paint peel, and I can dig up threads on this site from 20 years ago where people ask about paint peel.

I provided a set of direct quotes that I hope heighten your awareness.

zeke wrote:

You keep raising this like it is relevant, it has no relevance to the QR issue. No one else is grounding their aircraft.

The question I was helping to clarify was the state of damage of the aircraft at the various airlines, not about who is grounding their aircraft.

I think being able to point to AY as another airline whose A350s have shown damaged mesh and not just paint peel helps QR's court case, so it is on topic.

Revelation wrote:

The question I was helping to clarify was the state of damage of the aircraft at the various airlines, not about who is grounding their aircraft.

I think being able to point to AY as another airline whose A350s have shown damaged mesh and not just paint peel helps QR's court case, so it is on topic.

It is actually proving the opposite point, other airlines are able to resolve issues discovered by following the continuing airworthiness instructions and keep their aircraft flying.

There is no “state of damage” at other airlines.

Other airlines have been able to repaint their aircraft.

QR I am not aware of having paint peel.

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

The question I was helping to clarify was the state of damage of the aircraft at the various airlines, not about who is grounding their aircraft.

I think being able to point to AY as another airline whose A350s have shown damaged mesh and not just paint peel helps QR's court case, so it is on topic.

It is actually proving the opposite point, other airlines are able to resolve issues discovered by following the continuing airworthiness instructions and keep their aircraft flying.

There is no “state of damage” at other airlines.

Other airlines have been able to repaint their aircraft.

QR I am not aware of having paint peel.

Actually, per the direct quote provided by the Reuters article, both AY and QR have experienced more than just "paint peel."

There is damage cited to the underlying copper mesh as well. I would assume to properly repair the aircraft per Airbus maintenance guidelines more work would be required to fix the problem than a simple re-paint.

zeke wrote:

It is actually proving the opposite point, other airlines are able to resolve issues discovered by following the continuing airworthiness instructions and keep their aircraft flying.

We do know other airlines have not had planes grounded by their regulators, we do not know if they consider the issue to be resolved.

zeke wrote:

Some of the owners of the aircraft grounded in Qatar have A350s with multiple airlines and are not seeing the same issues with their other aircraft.

You keep raising this like it is relevant, it has no relevance to the QR issue. No one else is grounding their aircraft.

Have you spoken to every owner of each of the QR A350 that are grounded, or have another source that confirms this statement? I personally know that at least 1 owner has at least 1 other A350 with “accelerated surface degradation.” Now, we all know that other operators are approaching the situation differently and have not grounded their aircraft.

You can’t legitimately argue that not grounding an aircraft means there is no issue. It simply means any issue is dispositioned.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Actually, per the direct quote provided by the Reuters article, both AY and QR have experienced more than just "paint peel."

There is damage cited to the underlying copper mesh as well. I would assume to properly repair the aircraft per Airbus maintenance guidelines more work would be required to fix the problem than a simple re-paint.

I think every A350 operator has experienced more than just paint peel, at one of the seminars Airbus put up a graphic of the hundreds of reported lightning strikes that have been experienced across the global A350 fleet. Typically at the point of entry and exit lightning can burn away the matrix around the mesh. Globally all the operators except for one seem to be able to follow the continuing airworthiness instructions to return their aircraft to service.

Revelation wrote:

We do know other airlines have not had planes grounded by their regulators, we do not know if they consider the issue to be resolved.

For aircraft to be returned to service the issues would have to had been resolved.

sxf24 wrote:

Have you spoken to every owner of each of the QR A350 that are grounded, or have another source that confirms this statement?

I have spoken to people at 8 different leasing companies. Something that is consistently raised how some operators are easy to work with, and how some are very difficult. There are some operators some leasing companies refuse to work with, or they charge higher rates. The number of suppliers in the aviation industry is relatively small, burning bridges does not seem to be a wise long term play.

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

We do know other airlines have not had planes grounded by their regulators, we do not know if they consider the issue to be resolved.

For aircraft to be returned to service the issues would have to had been resolved.

That's a pretty narrow and simplistic view of dispute management, IMO.

Revelation wrote:

Flying-Tiger wrote:

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.

Agreed with this, but the number of companies able to put together 25 wide body freighters is even less.

zeke wrote:

I think every A350 operator has experienced more than just paint peel, at one of the seminars Airbus put up a graphic of the hundreds of reported lightning strikes that have been experienced across the global A350 fleet. Typically at the point of entry and exit lightning can burn away the matrix around the mesh. Globally all the operators except for one seem to be able to follow the continuing airworthiness instructions to return their aircraft to service.

Can you confirm that the issue experienced by QR is from un-repaired lightning strikes and nothing to do with expansion/contraction of the copper mesh?

majano wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Flying-Tiger wrote:

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.

Agreed with this, but the number of companies able to put together 25 wide body freighters is even less.

As the old saying goes, follow the money.

zeke wrote:

I have spoken to people at 8 different leasing companies.

Can you clarify if you mean 8 different leasing companies that own QR's grounded A350? and that you spoke to them about this specific issue? Can you mention a name of one of them please as an example

Revelation wrote:

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.

I agree that customers always win in the short-term. I am less than 100% certain this holds true in the long term.

Revelation wrote:

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.

I think you are reading too much into who filed first. The ONLY thing Airbus could have even sued for was defamation and that is exceedingly difficult to prove, value and win in court. And it is a very bad look for an oligopoly supplier to sue a customer. QR, on the other hand, had a much lower threshold to file and I am certain they sue suppliers as a matter of course. Any monkey of a lawyer could have drawn that lawsuit up with some basic calculations. I don't believe for one second that Airbus is "on the backfoot" in this lawsuit.

I will also point out the obvious...Airbus is a global company with over 130k employees, over $32 billion is cash on hand and revenues of $60ish billion/year. Qatar has about a third that many employees, $7 billion in cash on hand (thanks to cash infusions from the Qatari government) and the entire Qatar GdP is barely twice the revenues from Airbus. Airbus' resources and the countries that back it vs QR and the country that backs it isn't even in the same ballpark. Nobody is surprised it got to this and they are almost certainly well prepared for it. I know a thing or two about how large companies operate and there is zero chance anyone at Airbus was surprised and unprepared. You can believe whatever you want, but that is wishful thinking at best.

par13del wrote:

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.

You are basically proving my point. They had no justifiable way to bow out of aircraft deliveries they didn't need, but they had to stem the tide. So they created this airworthiness issue and cloaked it via the regulator. Read Zeke's prior posts where he details the cost of lease payments on new A350s vs the lease cost of the used CX birds. Big cost savings to refuse new deliveries. They have 4 frames by my count that are built and ready to deliver that they are refusing and several more that are in production. And about 9 more that would be delivered this year and next. And then there is the not-so-minor issue of payments to Airbus they won't have to make without accepting deliveries...

zeke wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

Have you spoken to every owner of each of the QR A350 that are grounded, or have another source that confirms this statement?

I have spoken to people at 8 different leasing companies. Something that is consistently raised how some operators are easy to work with, and how some are very difficult. There are some operators some leasing companies refuse to work with, or they charge higher rates. The number of suppliers in the aviation industry is relatively small, burning bridges does not seem to be a wise long term play.

Instead of supporting your statement that no owners of QR’s aircraft have seen issues on other owned A350s, you pivot to criticize QR and suggest that lessors may not work with them…

Trashing customers behind their back, particularly those that consistently pay their bills, is not normal practice within the leasing industry. I’ve been in this business for a good number of years and know that while there can be personality clashes and heated, emotional discussions, the dollar wins the day. No lessor is going to walk away from one of the few airlines in the world with a nearly unlimited bank account.

aaexecplat wrote:

You are basically proving my point. They had no justifiable way to bow out of aircraft deliveries they didn't need, but they had to stem the tide. So they created this airworthiness issue and cloaked it via the regulator. Read Zeke's prior posts where he details the cost of lease payments on new A350s vs the lease cost of the used CX birds. Big cost savings to refuse new deliveries. They have 4 frames by my count that are built and ready to deliver that they are refusing and several more that are in production. And about 9 more that would be delivered this year and next. And then there is the not-so-minor issue of payments to Airbus they won't have to make without accepting deliveries...

Can you confirm that QR has stopped making lease payments on the leased aircraft? Also is QR's intention to save on lease payments? or to preserve short term cash? or to reduce longer term capital commitments on ordered aircraft? Have Airbus and QR turned back on their 2020 deal to restructure deliveries of the A350 (prior to this issue)?

aaexecplat wrote:

The ONLY thing Airbus could have even sued for was defamation and that is exceedingly difficult to prove, value and win in court.

Airbus could also sue for breach of contract to force QR to accept, and pay, for any aircraft they've ordered, aircraft which they will not let Airbus deliver as a result of this dispute.

VictorKilo wrote:

aaexecplat wrote:

The ONLY thing Airbus could have even sued for was defamation and that is exceedingly difficult to prove, value and win in court.

Airbus could also sue for breach of contract to force QR to accept, and pay, for any aircraft they've ordered, aircraft which they will not let Airbus deliver as a result of this dispute.

That depends on the contractural penalties for deferring orders and whether QR is meeting them. A court cannot force an airline to accept a delivery-all contracts have cancellation causes. They can only force contractural clauses and possibly punitive damages.

If QR pays the required deferment penalties (while possibly hoping to get that money back in their lawsuit) then they are not in breach of contract.

aaexecplat wrote:

par13del wrote:

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.

You are basically proving my point. They had no justifiable way to bow out of aircraft deliveries they didn't need, but they had to stem the tide. So they created this airworthiness issue and cloaked it via the regulator. Read Zeke's prior posts where he details the cost of lease payments on new A350s vs the lease cost of the used CX birds. Big cost savings to refuse new deliveries. They have 4 frames by my count that are built and ready to deliver that they are refusing and several more that are in production. And about 9 more that would be delivered this year and next. And then there is the not-so-minor issue of payments to Airbus they won't have to make without accepting deliveries...

So the a/c do not have an issue? (I was going to say damaged but the technicians...)
The root of the deception if we want to call it that is the a/c. First it was paint peel and no other carrier had that, then lightning strikes, then the carrier operating environment, then the airline not properly following the OEM guidelines to repair, in all of these we have an issue with the a/c.
Imagine where this thread would be if the pictures were not released. I still wonder why with the court action initiated that they don't release better pictures.
Airbus has forced them to take deliveries, so why lease a/c if you have no need for them, just to make an economic case? As far as we know, they have not grounded recently received a/c and are continuing to try to defer deliveries, but attempting to use this issue to prevent further deliveries does not change the fact that there is an issue with the a/c, Airbus themselves has said so, it is not lip service that they have set up a team / project to identify and resolve the issue.

Revelation wrote:

That's a pretty narrow and simplistic view of dispute management, IMO.

That comment reminds me of a supervisor I once had. There is a school of thought that when dealing with projects the manager overseeing it has to invoke the dispute management process in the contract every time there is a deviation or defect, and used that as a KPI for staff performance, the higher the number the better the project manager. The number of times I involved the contractual dispute management process was zero, however I was able to deliver every project, my projects never got bogged down and side tracked by dispute management process. My personal view is that issues are best resolved through relationships and understanding. Whenever I see a contractual dispute management process being invoked relationships end.

Pelly wrote:

Can you confirm that the issue experienced by QR is from un-repaired lightning strikes and nothing to do with expansion/contraction of the copper mesh?

I dont think either is the issue, I have the documents filed in court on December 20.

Pelly wrote:

Can you clarify if you mean 8 different leasing companies that own QR's grounded A350? and that you spoke to them about this specific issue? Can you mention a name of one of them please as an example

I am not prepared to be any more specific than I have, all I will say is leasing companies do provide operators feedback on what works and what does not work with their airframes placed with other operators.

VictorKilo wrote:

Airbus could also sue for breach of contract to force QR to accept, and pay, for any aircraft they've ordered, aircraft which they will not let Airbus deliver as a result of this dispute.

Airbus has taken this step in the Admiralty and Commercial courts, however looking at past history only for companies in significate financial trouble.

zeke wrote:

Pelly wrote:

Can you confirm that the issue experienced by QR is from un-repaired lightning strikes and nothing to do with expansion/contraction of the copper mesh?

I dont think either is the issue, I have the documents filed in court on December 20.

Thank you for your explanation, I was confused because you brought up lightning strikes a few times in this thread.

The Reuters article mentions cracks in “window frames”; I’m hoping this sounds worse than it is, perhaps someone would be willing to elaborate as to what this means ?

Pelly wrote:

Thank you for your explanation, I was confused because you brought up lightning strikes a few times in this thread.

The mechanism that caused the initial defect normally has little bearing on how the site is restored.

sxf24 wrote:

Instead of supporting your statement that no owners of QR’s aircraft have seen issues on other owned A350s, you pivot to criticize QR and suggest that lessors may not work with them…

Trashing customers behind their back, particularly those that consistently pay their bills, is not normal practice within the leasing industry. I’ve been in this business for a good number of years and know that while there can be personality clashes and heated, emotional discussions, the dollar wins the day. No lessor is going to walk away from one of the few airlines in the world with a nearly unlimited bank account.

I was very careful not to mentioned the name of any airline, my post was a generic industry wide observation. If what I posted made one airline jump out to you, that obviously as a result of your prior personal interactions.

zeke wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

Instead of supporting your statement that no owners of QR’s aircraft have seen issues on other owned A350s, you pivot to criticize QR and suggest that lessors may not work with them…

Trashing customers behind their back, particularly those that consistently pay their bills, is not normal practice within the leasing industry. I’ve been in this business for a good number of years and know that while there can be personality clashes and heated, emotional discussions, the dollar wins the day. No lessor is going to walk away from one of the few airlines in the world with a nearly unlimited bank account.

I was very careful not to mentioned the name of any airline, my post was a generic industry wide observation. If what I posted made one airline jump out to you, that obviously as a result of your prior personal interactions.

You’re posting in a thread about a specific customer and you’ve strongly and repeatedly taken positions against that customer. The implication was strong.

I remain interested in knowing which lessor told you that none of their other financed A350s experienced premature surface degradation.

Heavierthanair wrote:

Pelly wrote:

Can you confirm that QR has stopped making lease payments on the leased aircraft? Also is QR's intention to save on lease payments? or to preserve short term cash? or to reduce longer term capital commitments on ordered aircraft? Have Airbus and QR turned back on their 2020 deal to restructure deliveries of the A350 (prior to this issue)?

I am sure if any lease company that has not been getting paid by Qatar for A350 paint issues would have raised hell with Airbus. To my knowledge it has been rather quiet at this front. Customer relations is one thing, but getting paid for services contracted keeps lessors in business, so I guess there are limits to what lessors accept for delayed payments

If lessors are not getting paid, they’re definitely hiding that fact. None are hesitant to do more business with QR and I believe all are interested in financing more A350s. I think this is a strong indication we’re not getting the full story from either QR or Airbus.

sxf24 wrote:

If lessors are not getting paid, they’re definitely hiding that fact. None are hesitant to do more business with QR and I believe all are interested in financing more A350s. I think this is a strong indication we’re not getting the full story from either QR or Airbus.

I am not indicating they are not getting paid, I am trying to explore what aaexecplat posted regarding QR trying to save on lease payments and if he has any additional information that he can share about how QR are saving on lease payments.

With regards to your comment about QR and lessors, one example is the long term relationship QR has had with BOC Aviation since the time it was SALE when they leased A320s from them in the late 90s. They own some of QR's A350s and they have had many transactions together over the years and they are still entering into new deals.

https://www.bocaviation.com/en/boc-avia ... 0-aircraft
https://www.bocaviation.com/en/press-re ... r-aircraft
https://www.bocaviation.com/en/press-re ... ar-airways

There are also quite a few others lessors that have a lot of repeat business with QR, QR doesn't appear to be a problematic customer for aircraft lessors or one with a strained relationship with them. I am not aware of any attempts of lessors to repossess aircraft from QR in the past.

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.

More important: they seem to be very cozy with Boeing and may be the first to order the 777XF.

Airplanes, even in a duopoly, are sold with certain implications as to what costs will be and how competitive they will be against the other manufacturers products. No contract ever covers all of the future developments. There is an implication and even salesman talk about how the plane will do for 20 years. (And yes, I know there is not a 20 year guarantee) Even Airbus, back in the 'aughts' derided Boeing for producing a plastic plane. Both have ended up producing what could be regarded as two of the finest planes ever sold. Yet they are 'plastic' planes and there are major glitches which is not entirely a surprise. Boeing will figure out how to deliver 787s. Airbus will get the lightning protection right. I suspect Airbus is working on two things here. Building them better as new planes come off the assembly line, and an expensive but 'permanent' surface repair for old planes having issues. Airbus and the airlines with split the costs, perhaps with court assistance on the particulars.

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

That's a pretty narrow and simplistic view of dispute management, IMO.

That comment reminds me of a supervisor I once had. There is a school of thought that when dealing with projects the manager overseeing it has to invoke the dispute management process in the contract every time there is a deviation or defect, and used that as a KPI for staff performance, the higher the number the better the project manager. The number of times I involved the contractual dispute management process was zero, however I was able to deliver every project, my projects never got bogged down and side tracked by dispute management process. My personal view is that issues are best resolved through relationships and understanding. Whenever I see a contractual dispute management process being invoked relationships end.

I think your personal view of dispute management is quite valid, but I still feel participation in a repair scheme does not indicate those airlines (or even Airbus itself) consider the issue resolved.

Back to Reuters:

Airbus says it has found a root cause, but sources with two affected airlines said they had not been notified of one.
..
The new jets also need a layer of metallic mesh to dissipate lightning strikes because carbon-fibre is not conductive.

Finally, unlike metal, carbon does not expand and shrink as temperatures change. Yet paint does, resulting in a tug of war between plane and paint that can cause peeling over time.

Problems reported by Qatar Airways and some - though far from all - other A350 operators suggest this is happening earlier than expected, two people familiar with the design said.
...
Airbus is nonetheless looking at updating the lightning system to a more flexible material called Perforated Copper Foil, industry sources said.

Airbus confirmed it is one option under review.

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

I think it's hard to read that Airbus is reviewing options to change the lightning system from mesh to foil and conclude the issue is resolved.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I suspect Airbus is working on two things here. Building them better as new planes come off the assembly line, and an expensive but 'permanent' surface repair for old planes having issues.

I'm having a hard time seeing how the second part can happen. These composite parts are formed in an autoclave under high pressure and temperature. I would think the patch/paint repairs are not going to be permanent ones. I think the problem gets worse as exposure time increases, the surface material will degrade and eventually allow water to ingress, and repeated pressurization cycles will add stress. I think both parties realize this, thus the almighty row.

This thread has more or less run its course and has devolved into too many personal attacks and off topic comments. Therefore, it will be locked. A new thread will be started when there are significant new updates to the discussion.

✈️ atcsundevil