Breaking Story - Qatar Airways has grounded 13 A350’s at the request of the Qatar Aviation regulator due to fuselage surface below the paint degrading at an accelerated rate

Qatar Airways says they will not take any further A350’s that are on order until the problem has been rectified

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

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-08-05/

https://samchui.com/2021/08/05/qatar-ai ... vate-a330/

Guess this explains the QR 77W's I've seen at DFW recently in place of the normal A35J 's

Sooner787 wrote:

Guess this explains the QR 77W's I've seen at DFW recently in place of the normal A35J 's

No doubt BOS will encounter the same effect.

Weird, has any other airline had the same level of fuselage skin issues as QR?

Thanks for posting this. I checked the PHL route and I see that the 777-300ER replaced the 350-900

ILikeTrains wrote:

Weird, has any other airline had the same level of fuselage skin issues as QR?

Could it have to do with the hot weather affecting operations in DOH? Definitely very weird. There should be issues reported from other operators if this was a general issue. Fuselage skin is the same for all operators of the model, right?

Bigant0408 wrote:

Thanks for posting this. I checked the PHL route and I see that the 777-300ER replaced the 350-900

That's a signifcant upgrade in capacity.

Interesting. Was it a mix of A350s or just -900s? I didn't see any mention in the articles.

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..

Niloko wrote:

Bigant0408 wrote:

Thanks for posting this. I checked the PHL route and I see that the 777-300ER replaced the 350-900

That's a signifcant upgrade in capacity.

I know Pre Covid the 777 was used during the summers for the route. I'm sure once everything gets straighten out the 359 will be back but obliviously it's a matter of when

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..

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?

a350lover wrote:

ILikeTrains wrote:

Weird, has any other airline had the same level of fuselage skin issues as QR?

Could it have to do with the hot weather affecting operations in DOH? Definitely very weird. There should be issues reported from other operators if this was a general issue. Fuselage skin is the same for all operators of the model, right?

They also have a bunch of older A350s compared to many airlines. There are a few reports that LH had some A350 repainted (on Airbus’s dime) due to paint issues after the initial QR discovery, but unsure if it was related to the surface underneath.

Opus99 wrote:

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..

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.

11- 350-900s and 2- 350-1000

This site has additional info

https://simpleflying.com/qatar-airways- ... -grounded/

QR has some of the first build A350's. I agree, at this point it appears to be more than just posturing as the cost of using 77W's instead of A350's in terms of fuel burn is not insignificant, nor bringing A330's out of storage.

What is unclear to me are potential safety issues as QR is claiming cracks in the hull. Airbus has admitted to the cracking issue but says they are cosmetic, not a structural problem. The fact the Qatari regulators are involved is concerning.

Honestly, I am not sure what is going on.

Opus99 wrote:

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..

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.

ChrisNH38 wrote:

Sooner787 wrote:

Guess this explains the QR 77W's I've seen at DFW recently in place of the normal A35J 's

No doubt BOS will encounter the same effect.

So far BOS remains a 359 for the next ~5 days. Who knows how the grounding impacts the aircraft used after the weekend.

SQ also has some early A350 frames, I wonder if they are also experiencing these issues?

flee wrote:

SQ also has some early A350 frames, I wonder if they are also experiencing these issues?

They might not be. There’s a possibility this might due to the extremely hot conditions that exist in the Middle East and because they are the only operators of the aircraft in the region, we can’t compare it to anyone else

It would be good to know if the grounded frames are clearly the oldest or not. Simple Flying, quoting ch aviation, says the following, which only suggests older on average, not precisely chronologically:

" ch-aviation.com lists 11 Airbus A350-900s as stored, alongside two -1000s, giving a total of 13. One of these -900s is A7-ALL, the aircraft in Toulouse which is listed as being in Maintenance. The oldest aircraft listed as stored is A7-ALA, the first A350 to be delivered. It is a 6.81-year-old A350-900.

Meanwhile, the youngest stored Airbus A350 is a 3.02-year old -1000 registered as A7-ANC. The average age of the 13 aircraft listed as stored is five years of age. This compares to an average age of 4.3 for the -900 fleet and 2.2 for the -1000 fleet."

https://simpleflying.com/qatar-airways- ... -grounded/

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

It is never a dull day in Doha Al Baker's universe.

G'day

ElroyJetson wrote:

The fact the Qatari regulators are involved is concerning.

Just to make it clear, Qatar the airline and the Qatar regulator are essentially the same thing, both are government owned. Airbus obviously did not find it necessary to meet the demands of U-turn Al for some time now - rightfully or not I do not know, so Al decided to make it more "official" by bringing in the regulator. As long as the A 350 can be flown it other countries we can assume there is no safety issue. I just wonder how much this exercise is going to cost Qatar and if they will get anything out of this

Cheers

Peter

Revelation wrote:

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.

Man, we are cynical. morrisond posted it before I could.

Heavierthanair wrote:

Just to make it clear, Qatar the airline and the Qatar regulator are essentially the same thing, both are government owned. Airbus obviously did not find it necessary to meet the demands of U-turn Al for some time now - rightfully or not I do not know, so Al decided to make it more "official" by bringing in the regulator. As long as the A 350 can be flown it other countries we can assume there is no safety issue. I just wonder how much this exercise is going to cost Qatar and if they will get anything out of this

As above, I'm confident this is not a safety of flight issue, yet am not sure there is not some underlying manufacturing or durability issue.

Clearly it is an escalation, spooling up the A330s and using 77W instead of A350 will cost QR money which suggests to me there is probably an actual underlying issue, one that QR feels will be expensive to fix so they feel justified in escalating.

If you are asking what will this cost QR, we can also ask what it may cost Airbus. Maybe a hit in public relations or relations with other customers as they probably have to deliver some explanations to the rest of the customer base? Maybe some chatter among the regulators that Airbus has to react to? Maybe costly repairs that need to be made to a large number of A350s? Maybe less interest from QF in an A350F right at the time when Airbus needs launch orders?

morrisond 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?

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.

I recall a thread a few months ago about an A350 with the same issue that was flown back to Toulouse from Asia for Airbus to inspect and presumably repair and repaint. Seems the issue is widespread and makes me wonder if it is either a problem with the paint and/or the surface that it's being applied on.

9252fly wrote:

I recall a thread a few months ago about an A350 with the same issue that was flown back to Toulouse from Asia for Airbus to inspect and presumably repair and repaint. Seems the issue is widespread and makes me wonder if it is either a problem with the paint and/or an the surface that it's being applied on.

Linked article says that very plane was ferried from Ireland (not Asia) and has remained in Toulouse since then. It’s considered to be one of the 13 grounded.

To Akbar's credit (and I can't believe I'm saying this) he was harping on about an unspecified Airbus issue a month or two ago and most of us here - myself included - laughed at him and suggested that it was a situation of toys being thrown from pram. Back then he didn't specify what the issue was, nor did he specifically suggest that the issue was serious enough for aircraft to be grounded, which presumably he could have. So we possibly should give him some credit for that...

Heavierthanair wrote:

G'day

ElroyJetson wrote:

The fact the Qatari regulators are involved is concerning.

Just to make it clear, Qatar the airline and the Qatar regulator are essentially the same thing, both are government owned. Airbus obviously did not find it necessary to meet the demands of U-turn Al for some time now - rightfully or not I do not know, so Al decided to make it more "official" by bringing in the regulator.

Indeed. If Akbar wanted to have a snap grounding of some airframes to put a bit of pressure on Airbus, I've no doubt that the regular would be happy to oblige.

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.

The whole thing is just odd with how vague everyone has been from the start back when an issue was first found with the intended World Cup livery A350 about what exactly is the issue. Which is uncharacteristic of someone like Al Baker. We honesty don’t really know if the issue is just QR planes, or if other airlines have discovered the issue but not been making public noise about it (and view it as more minor of an issue, or happy to let QR be the mouthpiece).

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.

9252fly wrote:

I recall a thread a few months ago about an A350 with the same issue that was flown back to Toulouse from Asia for Airbus to inspect and presumably repair and repaint. Seems the issue is widespread and makes me wonder if it is either a problem with the paint and/or the surface that it's being applied on.

My assumption is surface the paint is applied on. If the surface layer of resin is not properly prepared, or is degraded before the paint is applied, it may not bond well.

rlwynn wrote:

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

They already paid for the airplanes.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

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.

I am aware of a number of workplace injuries caused by fall protection systems failing on the 787. Essentially these fall protection systems use an industrial suction cup on a surface like a wing to create an anchor for workers to attach to. There have been a few cased where these suction cups for a better word has detached from the wing taking the paint with it. The FAA issued a Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO) 20006 about a year ago "Subject: Vacuum-Type Fall-Arrest Protection Systems and Paint Peeling Issues on Boeing model 787 Airplanes." Should be able to get a copy online.

There was a previous thread on this viewtopic.php?t=1461737 which had photos of patches of paint missing on upper wing of 787s.

I think this is essentially the same as what is happening on the A350, and the way things are being detected on the A350 might by using these suction cups. If they come off with the paint attached, the paint is not bonding. I would then be looking at these eco friendly paints to see if they are living up to what they say on the can.

AAB has been fighting the paint spat with Airbus for awhile since the first one that was reapplied. Probably hanging the A350F order on the balance with the issue as well. Surely was adamant about wanting that plane.

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.

Do we actually have an instance where safety is taken more seriously at Boeing

There are a lot of A350 flying out there.

Should we think this is a specific case related to Qatar's operational environment?

Well, we kinda guessed it would be the paint undercoat issued causing AAB's recent hissy fit with Airbus a few weeks ago. No doubt he'll be saying a few choice words again publicly soon.

rlwynn wrote:

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

I was thinking the same thing.

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?

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.

The fact AAB hasn't thrown the normal tantrum, I will give the benefit of the doubt.

Ultrasound or x-ray would be able to detect an issue. The fact A330 and 77W noted prior are serving indicates more than a normal

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... issues?amp

I think QR would rather fly the A350. Just my opinion from circumstantial evidence.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

The fact AAB hasn't thrown the normal tantrum, I will give the benefit of the doubt.

Ultrasound or x-ray would be able to detect an issue. The fact A330 and 77W noted prior are serving indicates more than a normal

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... issues?amp

I think QR would rather fly the A350. Just my opinion from circumstantial evidence.

Lightsaber

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.

I wouldn't either but different regulatory agencies have different rules. Airbus could be investigating under a provisional "not immediate safety issue" determination while they do testing and investigation. The Qatar CESA could have a time limit on that provisional determination.

All this to just say it could be a safety issue for one and not another. There is a grey space at the border between safety and not safety... I was involved in safety review boards at manufacturers before I retired.

morrisond wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

The fact AAB hasn't thrown the normal tantrum, I will give the benefit of the doubt.

Ultrasound or x-ray would be able to detect an issue. The fact A330 and 77W noted prior are serving indicates more than a normal

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... issues?amp

I think QR would rather fly the A350. Just my opinion from circumstantial evidence.

Lightsaber

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.

I’ve seen a lot of leases and the only time when an operator can stop paying is if the aircraft is a total loss. Payments contractually continue through groundings, though other terms can be negotiated.

Trying to find a financial angle is absurd. It’s also questionable to presume the regulator is acting on behalf of QR when there are bilateral and international agreements preventing retaliatory action. If this was a negotiating tactic, you’d be hearing from EASA.

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.

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.

Has someone found the statement or instruction issued by the Qatar aviation regulators? I can't help but recall that the first regulators to ground the Max were not EASA or the FAA.

majano wrote:

Has someone found the statement or instruction issued by the Qatar aviation regulators? I can't help but recall that the first regulators to ground the Max were not EASA or the FAA.

CAAC was first to ground the MAX.