ER757 wrote:

Joshu wrote:

rlwynn wrote:

Seems like Qatar will look for any excuse not to pay.

I was thinking the same thing.

Since QR already has these aircraft in their possession, I'd assume they were already paid for, so what is Qatar looking for an excuse to not to pay for?

FLALEFTY wrote:

Here's a Reuters article from June that does into more detail of this issue:

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-ea ... 021-06-08/

This all started when one of QR's A350's was sent to a contractor in Ireland for repaint to a special 2022 World Cup livery. It is speculated that when the original paint was removed by the contractor they discovered evidence of exposed metal mesh that is supposed to be underneath the fuselage skin and used for lightning protection. While this may have been a byproduct of bad procedures followed in the paint stripping process by the painting contractor, QR is treating this like a major design flaw of the A350.

"Qatar Airways continues to experience and has witnessed a condition in which

the surface below the paint on some of its Airbus A350 aircraft has been degrading at an accelerated rate

," an airline spokesperson said in response to a Reuters query.

Two industry sources said problems had emerged when the old paint was stripped away, triggering discussions over whether it was a one-off repair problem or evidence of deeper issues.

The plane was then sent to Toulouse, home to both Airbus and facilities of Satys Group, a major paint contractor that handles work for both Airbus and Qatar Airways, industry sources said. It has remained in Toulouse since Jan 5, according to tracking data.

While the jet had been expected to go to Satys, which is repainting other jets for the 2022 tournament, it ended up on the forecourt of Airbus amid a standoff over who was to blame for exposing metal mesh on the aircraft's skin, they said.

Joshu wrote:

ER757 wrote:

Since QR already has these aircraft in their possession, I'd assume they were already paid for, so what is Qatar looking for an excuse to not to pay for?

It was my understanding that Qatar recently had a beef with Airbus. In doing so, they would find tiny problems with the A/C and make it seem disastrous so they could refuse new deliveries.

The airline says its exacting standards reflect its premium brand, although aerospace executives have accused it of seizing on such details in the past to delay taking deliveries or gain leverage in other negotiations, a suggestion it has denied.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

The first issues were detected only AFTER the top layer of paint had been stripped off.

Unless QR are stripping paint solely to look for this problem, it looks like they have devised a way to detect problems in the undercoat by "looking through" the topcoat.

guillermohs wrote:

Negotiations for launch customer of the A350F are escalating rapidly.

QR's record for rejecting aircraft based on dubious quality issues is well-known. Not until another operator of the A350 publicly addresses the issue, this might very well be another of Al Baker's quarrels with the manufacturers as a form of negotiation for new aircraft. The fact that this comes out the same week Airbus announces the freighter version of the A350 is even more remarkable.

Lootess wrote:

guillermohs wrote:

Negotiations for launch customer of the A350F are escalating rapidly.

QR's record for rejecting aircraft based on dubious quality issues is well-known. Not until another operator of the A350 publicly addresses the issue, this might very well be another of Al Baker's quarrels with the manufacturers as a form of negotiation for new aircraft. The fact that this comes out the same week Airbus announces the freighter version of the A350 is even more remarkable.

I have no doubt that AAB wants some resolution so they can get a "premier" launch A350F deal signed.

Joshu wrote:

ER757 wrote:

Joshu wrote:

I was thinking the same thing.

Since QR already has these aircraft in their possession, I'd assume they were already paid for, so what is Qatar looking for an excuse to not to pay for?

It was my understanding that Qatar recently had a beef with Airbus. In doing so, they would find tiny problems with the A/C and make it seem disastrous so they could refuse new deliveries.

SteelChair wrote:

Does anyone really believe that if this was a true safety issue that the Qatari safety regulator would be on the leading edge?

ElroyJetson wrote:

If it is purely posturing the logical explanation would be deferrals or cancellation without financial penalty. I personally am skeptical of anything STC or Al Baker state publicly, but grounding a significant part of your A350 fleet and bringing A330's out of storage is a new escalation that has a financial impact.

It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.

Joshu wrote:

ER757 wrote:

Joshu wrote:

I was thinking the same thing.

Since QR already has these aircraft in their possession, I'd assume they were already paid for, so what is Qatar looking for an excuse to not to pay for?

It was my understanding that Qatar recently had a beef with Airbus. In doing so, they would find tiny problems with the A/C and make it seem disastrous so they could refuse new deliveries.

SteelChair wrote:

Does anyone really believe that if this was a true safety issue that the Qatari safety regulator would be on the leading edge?

Airlinerdude wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

If it is purely posturing the logical explanation would be deferrals or cancellation without financial penalty. I personally am skeptical of anything STC or Al Baker state publicly, but grounding a significant part of your A350 fleet and bringing A330's out of storage is a new escalation that has a financial impact.

It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.

If it wasn't posturing, wouldn't QR gladly accept A350 deliveries then? Surely if the defect in question can be isolated to 13 aircraft, QR would prefer newly delivered aircraft to replace the grounded ones for the interim, thus avoiding any cost of bringing A330s into service or substitutions with 777s.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

Airlinerdude wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

If it is purely posturing the logical explanation would be deferrals or cancellation without financial penalty. I personally am skeptical of anything STC or Al Baker state publicly, but grounding a significant part of your A350 fleet and bringing A330's out of storage is a new escalation that has a financial impact.

It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.

If it wasn't posturing, wouldn't QR gladly accept A350 deliveries then? Surely if the defect in question can be isolated to 13 aircraft, QR would prefer newly delivered aircraft to replace the grounded ones for the interim, thus avoiding any cost of bringing A330s into service or substitutions with 777s.

I have no doubt there would be posturing, but what type is a question, Warranty period lasts 4 years. I could see Qatar not wanting to take new airplanes with a defect that will cost millions to repair right after the warranty period expires. They could be forcing a delivery commitment where they are demanding an extended warranty and retroactive warranty coverage for their existing fleet, which Airbus may not be willing to do.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Does anyone really believe that if this was a true safety issue that the Qatari safety regulator would be on the leading edge?

If the Qatar Airways fleet is the one seeing the safety issue and on the leading edge then I’d expect the Qatari regulatory agency to be on the leading edge. Without information on the route cause of the issue, it is quite possible that Qatar is the one experiencing the issue worse than other operators. As the airline with the worlds largest fleet and having over 10% of delivered A350s and with the oldest A350s, they likely will see issues before other airlines. Additionally after the issue was originally found on an airplane going through an early repaint for a special paint scheme, Qatar has done inspections that other airlines haven’t. We will see what EASA has to say by seeing if they issue an inspection Airworthiness directive or not.

seahawk wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Does anyone really believe that if this was a true safety issue that the Qatari safety regulator would be on the leading edge?

If the Qatar Airways fleet is the one seeing the safety issue and on the leading edge then I’d expect the Qatari regulatory agency to be on the leading edge. Without information on the route cause of the issue, it is quite possible that Qatar is the one experiencing the issue worse than other operators. As the airline with the worlds largest fleet and having over 10% of delivered A350s and with the oldest A350s, they likely will see issues before other airlines. Additionally after the issue was originally found on an airplane going through an early repaint for a special paint scheme, Qatar has done inspections that other airlines haven’t. We will see what EASA has to say by seeing if they issue an inspection Airworthiness directive or not.

The FAA and EASA have to step up now and order inspections or even a grounding too. If there is a safety issue, appropriated measures must be taken.

majano wrote:

I will ask again, is there any reference to the Qatar regulator's instruction other than what is relayed by the airline?

ElroyJetson wrote:

A key question is why the QR A350 is still at Toulouse after 7 months. If the cracks found in the fuselage are "cosmetic" and not "structural" why the need for Airbus to keep the aircraft for so long?

Revelation wrote:

qf789 wrote:

A330’s are being returned to service to compensate fir the grounded jets

The cost of spinning up the A330s seems to suggest this isn't just a negotiating move, there is some actual expense being born to deal with the issue.

Yes, I went there..

zeke wrote:

majano wrote:

I will ask again, is there any reference to the Qatar regulator's instruction other than what is relayed by the airline?

There appears to be no safety directives published by the Qatar CAA regarding this

https://www.caa.gov.qa/en-us/CivilAviat ... Category=3

It is also very unusual to use the term "request", authorities publish "directives" (i.e. must) which are compulsory by some sort of limiting time/hours/cycles, a request in my view is something that is too arbitrary.

Checking of paint bonding to composite structures is standard maintenance practices (eg FAA AC 20-107B available online), the colour of the pigment can change the amount of heat that is reflected or absorbed.

LaunchDetected wrote:

Aircrafts are paid at delivery (beside the small deposit). In those hard times it can be useful for an airline to postpone some deliveries. You can also add some posturing for a more favorable A350F deal.

There would be less debates if it was let's say Finnair and EASA. But it's Qatar Airways (and Al-Baker) and the local authority (Qatari state). While there is no doubt that safety is the priority of such a great airline, we know what business practices they can display.

zeke wrote:

majano wrote:

I will ask again, is there any reference to the Qatar regulator's instruction other than what is relayed by the airline?

There appears to be no safety directives published by the Qatar CAA regarding this

https://www.caa.gov.qa/en-us/CivilAviat ... Category=3

It is also very unusual to use the term "request", authorities publish "directives" (i.e. must) which are compulsory by some sort of limiting time/hours/cycles, a request in my view is something that is too arbitrary.

Checking of paint bonding to composite structures is standard maintenance practices (eg FAA AC 20-107B available online), the colour of the pigment can change the amount of heat that is reflected or absorbed.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

I have no doubt there would be posturing, but what type is a question, Warranty period lasts 4 years. I could see Qatar not wanting to take new airplanes with a defect that will cost millions to repair right after the warranty period expires. They could be forcing a delivery commitment where they are demanding an extended warranty and retroactive warranty coverage for their existing fleet, which Airbus may not be willing to do.

ElroyJetson wrote:

I will say again as a personal opinion I do not believe this is a safety issue. The silence from other A350 operators to me is telling as well. If this is purely posturing it would seem to be some very high stakes gambling. Hopefully, there will be some factual information soon.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

The first issues were detected only AFTER the top layer of paint had been stripped off.

Unless QR are stripping paint solely to look for this problem, it looks like they have devised a way to detect problems in the undercoat by "looking through" the topcoat.

Wasn’t the problem initially discovered by accident when a plane was supposed to get a special livery and then ended up instead back at Airbus for repairs on their dime? I suspect that QR wants to know if other frames have this problem as they were the launch customer for both types.

pugman211 wrote:

It will be interesting to know if these cracks are appearing in the same location on each frame. I.e. is this related to a specific panel on the fuse? Or is it process related to the paint removal etc

zeke wrote:

pugman211 wrote:

It will be interesting to know if these cracks are appearing in the same location on each frame. I.e. is this related to a specific panel on the fuse? Or is it process related to the paint removal etc

There isn’t cracks, it’s paint not sticking to the composite.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

The principle maintenance inspector for the airline usually has the ability to ground aircraft without an Airworthiness Directive if damage found to an airplane is deemed unairwothy. I wouldn’t expect an AD if the airplanes are grounded as a result of damage findings. The PMI has oversite of logbook entries and corrective action which is where the damage would be documented,

memphiX wrote:

Any word from VN? They have a number of early frames as well.

zeke wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

The principle maintenance inspector for the airline usually has the ability to ground aircraft without an Airworthiness Directive if damage found to an airplane is deemed unairwothy. I wouldn’t expect an AD if the airplanes are grounded as a result of damage findings. The PMI has oversite of logbook entries and corrective action which is where the damage would be documented,

Yes, and no.

To do so they would need to make an entry in the Service Difficulty Reporting System (SDRS) in their country which in turn gets sent uploaded to the FAA/EASA and everyone around the world can see.

The industry does not work in isolation, if one maintenance organization has a finding, that gets reported via the Service Difficulty Reporting System (SDRS), and it becomes a trend across operators, or deemed an actual issue they result in service bulletins and/or airworthiness directives.

So yes the local maintenance organization can deem an aircraft to be unairworthy, however it would need to share that finding internationally via its local airworthiness authority. That is how the continued airworthiness process works.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

Yes that is true for items that are reportable based on the various criteria used. I’m aware of FAA criteria but not EASA or Qatar. I’d assume this issue would warrant reporting, but can’t say so for sure.

Revelation wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

The cost of spinning up the A330s seems to suggest this isn't just a negotiating move, there is some actual expense being born to deal with the issue.

Yes, I went there..

That’s what it seems. But I’m wondering what this means for the jet. I’m assuming it has no effect on the safety of the aircraft?

It probably is like what we're seeing on 787, no real effect on safety yet not meeting specifications so the regulator has "requested" a grounding.

Of course airlines will honor such "requests", there is too much risk in deciding to ignore their "request".

The significant part of story is in our thread starter's post -- "Qatar Airways has grounded 13 A350’s at the request of the Qatar Aviation regulator".

The title of the Reuters article is "Qatar Airways says regulator grounds 13 of its Airbus A350s over surface issue".

You can say what you want about the way things work in Qatar, but it is significant that this is no longer a squabble between QR and Airbus, it is a grounding.

morrisond wrote:

Generally they don`t ground something unless it is an immediate safety concern - but given the Airline and personalities involved - this could be posturing and a way to reduce costs at a time when cash is scarce.

Yet we have 787s grounded for a manufacturing issue that no one is suggesting is an immediate safety concern. As above, I presume that the planes are not meeting specifications thus the regulator has no choice but to issue a grounding request that is in effect a grounding order.

zeke wrote:

pugman211 wrote:

It will be interesting to know if these cracks are appearing in the same location on each frame. I.e. is this related to a specific panel on the fuse? Or is it process related to the paint removal etc

There isn’t cracks, it’s paint not sticking to the composite.

"Qatar Airways continues to experience and has witnessed a condition in which the surface below the paint on some of its Airbus A350 aircraft has been degrading at an accelerated rate," an airline spokesperson said in response to a Reuters query.

Two industry sources said problems had emerged when the old paint was stripped away, triggering discussions over whether it was a one-off repair problem or evidence of deeper issues.

The plane was then sent to Toulouse, home to both Airbus and facilities of Satys Group, a major paint contractor that handles work for both Airbus and Qatar Airways, industry sources said. It has remained in Toulouse since Jan 5, according to tracking data.

While the jet had been expected to go to Satys, which is repainting other jets for the 2022 tournament, it ended up on the forecourt of Airbus amid a standoff over who was to blame for exposing metal mesh on the aircraft's skin, they said.

Revelation wrote:

If the paint's not sticking it's because the surface below the paint is degrading it would seem.

morrisond wrote:

[

I think we can't ignore the potential financial angle. I believe somewhere it was mentioned the lessors were notified. There may be a clause in the leasing contract that Qatar doesn't have to pay if they are grounded due to an issue such as this. With a lot of Empty planes lying around that are maybe already paid for - 77W and 330 combined with a friendly regulator - this could an easy way to lower the monthly fleet costs.

At least that is what it smells like to me.

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

If the paint's not sticking it's because the surface below the paint is degrading it would seem.

Paint is not applied to composites, between the paint layer which has the livery, and the underlying composite part there are multiple layers.

3rdGen wrote:

It cannot be just the paint not sticking. If that was the case why was the problem not found out until after the paint was stripped off for the repaint. The reality is that something under the paint isn’t right with the aircraft. One thing that is clear is that it isn’t a safety issue, it is something that is expected to happen within the life cycle of the aircraft but it is happening too soon for Qatar’s liking. I think thats a fair concern to have. The issue now is that Qatar is clearly not getting anywhere with Airbus and are now taking their spat out in public, and refusing to fly the aircraft on which they are finding the issue.

Revelation wrote:

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

If the paint's not sticking it's because the surface below the paint is degrading it would seem.

Paint is not applied to composites, between the paint layer which has the livery, and the underlying composite part there are multiple layers.

"Surface below the paint" is the wording QR's spokesperson chose to use, as did I.

sxf24 wrote:

3rdGen wrote:

It cannot be just the paint not sticking. If that was the case why was the problem not found out until after the paint was stripped off for the repaint. The reality is that something under the paint isn’t right with the aircraft. One thing that is clear is that it isn’t a safety issue, it is something that is expected to happen within the life cycle of the aircraft but it is happening too soon for Qatar’s liking. I think thats a fair concern to have. The issue now is that Qatar is clearly not getting anywhere with Airbus and are now taking their spat out in public, and refusing to fly the aircraft on which they are finding the issue.

Exposure of the wire mesh is a safety issue.

3rdGen wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

3rdGen wrote:

It cannot be just the paint not sticking. If that was the case why was the problem not found out until after the paint was stripped off for the repaint. The reality is that something under the paint isn’t right with the aircraft. One thing that is clear is that it isn’t a safety issue, it is something that is expected to happen within the life cycle of the aircraft but it is happening too soon for Qatar’s liking. I think thats a fair concern to have. The issue now is that Qatar is clearly not getting anywhere with Airbus and are now taking their spat out in public, and refusing to fly the aircraft on which they are finding the issue.

Exposure of the wire mesh is a safety issue.

How are you so certain that the issue is with the wire mesh? And if it is a safety issue why are 100s of A350s still flying? Why hasn't a major regulator like EASA issued a grounding of the aircraft worldwide. The first aircraft with the issue was discovered in January.

jbs2886 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

That’s what it seems. But I’m wondering what this means for the jet. I’m assuming it has no effect on the safety of the aircraft?

Generally they don`t ground something unless it is an immediate safety concern - but given the Airline and personalities involved - this could be posturing and a way to reduce costs at a time when cash is scarce.

That would make sense if Qatar weren't bringing retired A330s back into service, which can't be zero cost. If Qatar cancelled flights/adjusted it schedule to compensate for 13 fewer aircraft, sure, but that isn't the case. I'm not saying politics aren't involved or to what extent they are driving what is happening.