Well one thing can be put to bed, it's obvious that QR was trying to maintain the surface paint to little avail.
It looks like several things are involved. these is expansion contraction whether temperature, internal pressurization or moisture penetration and freezing. There also seems to be interactions between panels at the join which might be caused by differing build processes that react differently to expansion/contraction. There are definitely adhesion issues even on panels that would have the same environment on both surfaces. The crown reminds me of pictures of 727's on frosty mornings where the crown stringers are unfrosted. Also to note on the crown there is an area of no damage around an antenna (?) which probably has more supporting structure under it. it is puzzling that ait appears the damage follows the edge between paint colors right across the fasteners .

BT, the wings probably have a totally different build process plus years of wing build experience, so I would not expect to see problems there. The damage appears to be areas where the vendor manufacturing process and experience was lower (newer). It would be interesting to see if the panels exhibiting the damage come from the same vendors or facility as the good panels. There is always a possibility of surface contamination during transport of panels and sections to and around the FAL..

Qatar is correct in complaining.

Revelation wrote:

aaexecplat wrote:

That said, Airbus KNEW who AAB was and what he was capable of. Who in their right mind chose to sign that SCL in 2020 with such an open-ended liability? They effectively gave AAB a license to print money and were then surprised it came to be. Now it also makes sense why AAB is willing to go to war. If he can uphold the SCL and ground more planes along the way (almost certainly what he is doing), he could turn that into billions without an expiration date.

It seems it's not just Airbus who hires high end legal talent.

First of all...no doubt about that...QR has certainly engaged the best and brightest. But unlike Airbus (from what I can tell right now anyway), QR are not behaving like they are guided in a disciplined manner by top-notch legal talent. They are acting like an extension of AAB's ambition and whims with top-notch lawyers having to give in to all of these highly unusual moves. Airbus is playing conventional...QR is engaging in guerilla warfare.

aaexecplat wrote:

So in summary of the AirInsight article:
- In November of 2020, QR brings the paint issue to Airbus' attention
- Airbus agrees to sign an SCL that stipulates $175k/day damages for every plane out of service for 12+ hours a day
- In the summer of 2021, Qatari regulator is the only regulator to ground A350
- Now AAB says he is owed $700 million+

The SCL was signed for MSN420, from what I can gather QR have applied that to their entire fleet. Warranties on “consumable” items like exterior paint and interiors are normally only for 12 months. I have no idea who is advising them that aircraft that are 3-7 years old would have cosmetic livery issues covered under warranty. That is why it is common for aircraft to be repainted every 4-6 years and there are published procedures for that.

kanban wrote:

Well one thing can be put to bed, it's obvious that QR was trying to maintain the surface paint to little avail.
It looks like several things are involved. these is expansion contraction whether temperature, internal pressurization or moisture penetration and freezing. There also seems to be interactions between panels at the join which might be caused by differing build processes that react differently to expansion/contraction. There are definitely adhesion issues even on panels that would have the same environment on both surfaces. The crown reminds me of pictures of 727's on frosty mornings where the crown stringers are unfrosted. Also to note on the crown there is an area of no damage around an antenna (?) which probably has more supporting structure under it. it is puzzling that ait appears the damage follows the edge between paint colors right across the fasteners .

BT, the wings probably have a totally different build process plus years of wing build experience, so I would not expect to see problems there. The damage appears to be areas where the vendor manufacturing process and experience was lower (newer). It would be interesting to see if the panels exhibiting the damage come from the same vendors or facility as the good panels. There is always a possibility of surface contamination during transport of panels and sections to and around the FAL..

Qatar is correct in complaining.

I agree on all counts. I don't think anyone here thinks QR should not have complained. The issue is that they let aircraft get into this state, sign a mutual SCL, then refuse to have the OEM remedy the situation to return it to service, and then want to get paid for the downtime as per SCL. That is what Airbus would have a problem with. But as I said previously...they had a part in that beyond the initial issue...that SCL should have never been signed by Airbus.

zeke wrote:

aaexecplat wrote:

So in summary of the AirInsight article:
- In November of 2020, QR brings the paint issue to Airbus' attention
- Airbus agrees to sign an SCL that stipulates $175k/day damages for every plane out of service for 12+ hours a day
- In the summer of 2021, Qatari regulator is the only regulator to ground A350
- Now AAB says he is owed $700 million+

The SCL was signed for MSN420, from what I can gather QR have applied that to their entire fleet.

SCL for MSN420 is probably reflective of rest of the fleet. There is nothing special about MSN420 (eg test frame) other than the fact that it appears that MSN was the last one QR took delivery of. If Airbus applied a special SCL for that frame (delivered after problems with A7-ALL uncovered?) some lawyers might make the argument that Airbus is accepting culpability for the issue…

zeke wrote:

aaexecplat wrote:

So in summary of the AirInsight article:
- In November of 2020, QR brings the paint issue to Airbus' attention
- Airbus agrees to sign an SCL that stipulates $175k/day damages for every plane out of service for 12+ hours a day
- In the summer of 2021, Qatari regulator is the only regulator to ground A350
- Now AAB says he is owed $700 million+

The SCL was signed for MSN420, from what I can gather QR have applied that to their entire fleet. Warranties on “consumable” items like exterior paint and interiors are normally only for 12 months. I have no idea who is advising them that aircraft that are 3-7 years old would have cosmetic livery issues covered under warranty. That is why it is common for aircraft to be repainted every 4-6 years and there are published procedures for that.

Why are you bringing warranties into the discussion? That’s not at issue.

May I ask 1) Did Concorde suffer paint issues ? It famously stretched by several inches inflight and the exterior was subject to kinetic heat at Mach2, and 2 ) have VN reported A350paint issues ? they have several early-built frames, a dark colourscheme and operate in a pretty warm climate.

Polot wrote:

SCL for MSN420 is probably reflective of rest of the fleet. There is nothing special about MSN420 (eg test frame) other than the fact that it appears that MSN was the last one QR took delivery of. If Airbus applied a special SCL for that frame (delivered after problems with A7-ALL uncovered?) some lawyers might make the argument that Airbus is accepting culpability for the issue…

Cannot be retroactive, and cannot cover aircraft that have already had their warranties expire.

If you bought a car battery with 12 month warranty 5 years ago, and buy the same model today however that now comes with a 18 month warranty, you cannot retroactively apply the warranty of new one for the other that was purchased 5 years earlier. Car batteries performance degrade over time (even so called “maintenance free” batteries), and how they degrade depends on how they are used, and where they are used.

I think Airbus will be more than happy to admit paint comes off, more than happy to admit that surfaces degrade with time. They will have never have given a warranty implied or otherwise to state that the paint will not change over the life of the aircraft. No airline could reasonably argue that paint should not deteriorate over time when it is normal industry practice to maintain and repaint it.

Paint is a cosmetic issue, it is not a safety issue, QR in their filing and even in their latest press release have asserted it as a safety issue eg “serious and legitimate safety concerns regarding the surface degradation”. EASA have come out and clearly stated it is not a safety issue.

What I can guarantee is that when QR do get around to repainting their aircraft, that new paint work will start degrading the second the work has been completed. Maintaining an aircraft is like maintaining a steel bridge, when you complete painting it the process to repaint starts all over again.

cat3appr50 wrote:

As an analogy, consider that an auto dealer sells somebody a new automobile (let alone a multi-million $ new aircraft), at any price point, and subsequently it’s exterior paint is peeling off (and able to be peeled off so easily as indicated in the vid), had that general wrinkled and peeling-off appearance (as shown in the video over a significant surface area of the aircraft and exposing the grid beneath), and the exterior paint was missing on many fasteners, etc. And the auto dealer (and manufacturer) that had sold that product didn’t seem to adequately enough appreciate the buyers/customer concerns about root causes as to why that paint failure is happening, underlying surfaces were being exposed, as well as potential more-concerning issues if continuing to degrade, it would seem one would react the same as Qatar Airways/Al Baker did.

All just my opinion.

I agree the video looks bad, and Airbus has a lot of remedial work to do.
But as far as analogies go, let's look at a real aviation analogy. Back in the day when the B787 had the battery fire issues and Boeing came up with the "enclosure" solution, we all accepted that, even though it wasn't a root cause solution. Sometimes if the remedial work is good enough to maintain airworthiness, and the OEM is paying for it, it's deemed sufficient and satisfactory. Certainly that's what the other A350 operators did and what the B787 operators previously did too. Now imagine if one 787 operator had refused to implement the battery enclosure because it's "not a root cause" solution, then parked their Dreamliners because the local CAA deemed them not flight worthy without the enclosure, etc etc. Doesn't that look unreasonable?

Yes, knowing the root cause is essential, but with all the trade secrets involved in composite material design and manufacturing process, it's not reasonable to refuse remedial work unless the root cause is disclosed to the operators. Considering the nature of composite materials manufacturing, that MAY border on being industrial espionage.
Yet, trade secrets aside, what makes QR A350s condition much worse than those of other A350 operators with similar issues? Only one answer comes to mind, it's the refusal to implement the remedial work, even though the OEM was paying for it.

zeke wrote:

Polot wrote:

SCL for MSN420 is probably reflective of rest of the fleet. There is nothing special about MSN420 (eg test frame) other than the fact that it appears that MSN was the last one QR took delivery of. If Airbus applied a special SCL for that frame (delivered after problems with A7-ALL uncovered?) some lawyers might make the argument that Airbus is accepting culpability for the issue…

Cannot be retroactive, and cannot cover aircraft that have already had their warranties expire.

If you bought a car battery with 12 month warranty 5 years ago, and buy the same model today however that now comes with a 18 month warranty, you cannot retroactively apply the warranty of new one for the other that was purchased 5 years earlier. Car batteries performance degrade over time (even so called “maintenance free” batteries), and how they degrade depends on how they are used, and where they are used.

I think Airbus will be more than happy to admit paint comes off, more than happy to admit that surfaces degrade with time. They will have never have given a warranty implied or otherwise to state that the paint will not change over the life of the aircraft. No airline could reasonably argue that paint should not deteriorate over time when it is normal industry practice to maintain and repaint it.

Paint is a cosmetic issue, it is not a safety issue, QR in their filing and even in their latest press release have asserted it as a safety issue eg “serious and legitimate safety concerns regarding the surface degradation”. EASA have come out and clearly stated it is not a safety issue.

What I can guarantee is that when QR do get around to repainting their aircraft, that new paint work will start degrading the second the work has been completed. Maintaining an aircraft is like maintaining a steel bridge, when you complete painting it the process to repaint starts all over again.

And now we are getting back to argument of what is “normal” degradation and wear and tear. QR and Airbus are clearly not in agreement.

You act as these are QR’a first planes. They have/had A3202, A330s, A340s, 787s, 777s, A380s yet only the A350 has experienced paint issues so unsatisfactory to QR that they have halted deliveries and sued the OEM over it.

sxf24 wrote:

Why are you bringing warranties into the discussion? That’s not at issue.

It is central to QRs court filing

Eg

“ Alternatively, damages for the Defendant’s failure to pay AOG Compensation in breach of Clause 3.2 of the SCL and/or the Warranties.”

“ THE CTAPA (1) Warranties 39. Pursuant to the CTAPA, the Defendant warranted that (amongst other things) (the Warranties):

39.1 Each Aircraft and all Warranted Parts would be free from defects in workmanship (clause 12.1.1(ii)).

39.2 Each Aircraft and all Warranted Parts would be free from defects in design, including in the selection of materials (clause 12.1.1(iii)).

(2) Breaches of Warranties 40. As a result of the Defendant’s failure to provide root cause analyses, the Claimant cannot currently give full particulars of the Defendant’s breaches of warranty and reserves the right to supplement the particulars below as and when the root cause analyses are provided.”

“ As a result of the aforementioned breaches of warranty the Claimant has suffered loss and damage in respect to those Aircraft still within their Warranty Period. The Claimant presently quantifies its loss and damage in the same amount as its claim under the SCL, and reserves the right to plead its loss further in due course.”

zeke wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

Why are you bringing warranties into the discussion? That’s not at issue.

It is central to QRs court filing

Eg

“ Alternatively, damages for the Defendant’s failure to pay AOG Compensation in breach of Clause 3.2 of the SCL and/or the Warranties.”

“ THE CTAPA (1) Warranties 39. Pursuant to the CTAPA, the Defendant warranted that (amongst other things) (the Warranties):

39.1 Each Aircraft and all Warranted Parts would be free from defects in workmanship (clause 12.1.1(ii)).

39.2 Each Aircraft and all Warranted Parts would be free from defects in design, including in the selection of materials (clause 12.1.1(iii)).

(2) Breaches of Warranties 40. As a result of the Defendant’s failure to provide root cause analyses, the Claimant cannot currently give full particulars of the Defendant’s breaches of warranty and reserves the right to supplement the particulars below as and when the root cause analyses are provided.”

“ As a result of the aforementioned breaches of warranty the Claimant has suffered loss and damage in respect to those Aircraft still within their Warranty Period. The Claimant presently quantifies its loss and damage in the same amount as its claim under the SCL, and reserves the right to plead its loss further in due course.”

The key statements are they “Each Aircraft and all Warranted Parts would be free from defects in workmanship” and “ Each Aircraft and all Warranted Parts would be free from defects in design, including in the selection of materials ”

QE is arguing they were not, so Airbus breached their warranty and they (QR) are due free replacement (repair, not replacement aircraft) and any other money Airbus would have provided if under warranty.

Just because a warranty ran out doesn’t mean owner is necessarily responsible to pay for repair of design/material defects.

Could the reason for the issue be the use of water based paint, I vaguely remember years back Airbus was promoting this for environmental reasons. Maybe that is not the best for use with composite surfaces. However if that is the case Airbus surely has developed and proposed an alternative paint system

Polot wrote:

And now we are getting back to argument of what is “normal” degradation and wear and tear. QR and Airbus are clearly not in agreement.

Can you point to a statement by QR which says that the surface should not degrade at all ?

Can you point to a statement by Airbus which says that the surface should not degrade at all ?

The answer to both of these questions is no, neither have made such a statement as it is known that the surface will degrade over time. That is not in dispute.

Polot wrote:

You act as these are QR’a first planes. They have/had A3202, A330s, A340s, 787s, 777s, A380s yet only the A350 has experienced paint issues so unsatisfactory to QR that they have halted deliveries and sued the OEM over it.

I think Airbus will be happy to obtain QR maintenance records not only for the A350, for their other aircraft as well as part of this court process. That will demonstrate that QR has for years needed to maintain and repaint aircraft in their fleet, it might even find some irregularities.

Polot wrote:

Just because a warranty ran out doesn’t mean owner is necessarily responsible to pay for repair of design/material defects.

This is incorrect. There are limits to the warranty, it is not for the life of the aircraft.

Paint is in the same category as carpet, it is expected to deteriorate over time.

zeke wrote:

Polot wrote:

And now we are getting back to argument of what is “normal” degradation and wear and tear. QR and Airbus are clearly not in agreement.

Can you point to a statement by QR which says that the surface should not degrade at all ?

Can you point to a statement by Airbus which says that the surface should not degrade at all ?

The answer to both of these questions is no, neither have made such a statement as it is known that the surface will degrade over time. That is not in dispute.

I’ll put the keyword in bold this time:

And now we are getting back to argument of what is “normal” degradation and wear and tear. QR and Airbus are clearly not in agreement.

1. Could the fact that Qatar operate in a sand blaster arid area?

2. Water based paints stink to put it mildly. Check out any car over 7 years old.

Polot wrote:

zeke wrote:

Polot wrote:

SCL for MSN420 is probably reflective of rest of the fleet. There is nothing special about MSN420 (eg test frame) other than the fact that it appears that MSN was the last one QR took delivery of. If Airbus applied a special SCL for that frame (delivered after problems with A7-ALL uncovered?) some lawyers might make the argument that Airbus is accepting culpability for the issue…

Cannot be retroactive, and cannot cover aircraft that have already had their warranties expire.

If you bought a car battery with 12 month warranty 5 years ago, and buy the same model today however that now comes with a 18 month warranty, you cannot retroactively apply the warranty of new one for the other that was purchased 5 years earlier. Car batteries performance degrade over time (even so called “maintenance free” batteries), and how they degrade depends on how they are used, and where they are used.

I think Airbus will be more than happy to admit paint comes off, more than happy to admit that surfaces degrade with time. They will have never have given a warranty implied or otherwise to state that the paint will not change over the life of the aircraft. No airline could reasonably argue that paint should not deteriorate over time when it is normal industry practice to maintain and repaint it.

Paint is a cosmetic issue, it is not a safety issue, QR in their filing and even in their latest press release have asserted it as a safety issue eg “serious and legitimate safety concerns regarding the surface degradation”. EASA have come out and clearly stated it is not a safety issue.

What I can guarantee is that when QR do get around to repainting their aircraft, that new paint work will start degrading the second the work has been completed. Maintaining an aircraft is like maintaining a steel bridge, when you complete painting it the process to repaint starts all over again.

And now we are getting back to argument of what is “normal” degradation and wear and tear. QR and Airbus are clearly not in agreement.

You act as these are QR’a first planes. They have/had A3202, A330s, A340s, 787s, 777s, A380s yet only the A350 has experienced paint issues so unsatisfactory to QR that they have halted deliveries and sued the OEM over it.

It is also an unusual time when Airlines are losing money left and right while Airbus does not. Would Qatar ground those planes during the usual times when they need the capacity? Other A350 airlines dont sue the OEM, so I doubt it. Qatar is also in the unusual position to have their own federal agency that can ground the planes if they want, giving them leeway to do those stunts

Duke91 wrote:

Polot wrote:

zeke wrote:

Cannot be retroactive, and cannot cover aircraft that have already had their warranties expire.

If you bought a car battery with 12 month warranty 5 years ago, and buy the same model today however that now comes with a 18 month warranty, you cannot retroactively apply the warranty of new one for the other that was purchased 5 years earlier. Car batteries performance degrade over time (even so called “maintenance free” batteries), and how they degrade depends on how they are used, and where they are used.

I think Airbus will be more than happy to admit paint comes off, more than happy to admit that surfaces degrade with time. They will have never have given a warranty implied or otherwise to state that the paint will not change over the life of the aircraft. No airline could reasonably argue that paint should not deteriorate over time when it is normal industry practice to maintain and repaint it.

Paint is a cosmetic issue, it is not a safety issue, QR in their filing and even in their latest press release have asserted it as a safety issue eg “serious and legitimate safety concerns regarding the surface degradation”. EASA have come out and clearly stated it is not a safety issue.

What I can guarantee is that when QR do get around to repainting their aircraft, that new paint work will start degrading the second the work has been completed. Maintaining an aircraft is like maintaining a steel bridge, when you complete painting it the process to repaint starts all over again.

And now we are getting back to argument of what is “normal” degradation and wear and tear. QR and Airbus are clearly not in agreement.

You act as these are QR’a first planes. They have/had A3202, A330s, A340s, 787s, 777s, A380s yet only the A350 has experienced paint issues so unsatisfactory to QR that they have halted deliveries and sued the OEM over it.

It is also an unusual time when Airlines are losing money left and right while Airbus does not. Would Qatar ground those planes during the usual times when they need the capacity? Other A350 airlines dont sue the OEM, so I doubt it. Qatar is also in the unusual position to have their own federal agency that can ground the planes if they want, giving them leeway to do those stunts

That argument would hold more weight if QR wasn’t leasing in more aircraft and taking planes out of retirement at the moment. That suggests the A350’s capacity is needed. No one has presented any evidence proving that QR has ceased paying lease or finance payments on the grounded planes.

Duke91 wrote:

It is also an unusual time when Airlines are losing money left and right while Airbus does not. Would Qatar ground those planes during the usual times when they need the capacity? Other A350 airlines dont sue the OEM, so I doubt it. Qatar is also in the unusual position to have their own federal agency that can ground the planes if they want, giving them leeway to do those stunts

They are also in the position of having to take A380s out of storage to fly missions better suited to A350, and have the World Cup coming up in a few months as well.

Okay, they need the capacity now, but are also losing money left and right.

Duke91 wrote:

Okay, they need the capacity now, but are also losing money left and right.

they get subsidizsd by the goverment

Hope DL volunteers to take the LR slots

Polot wrote:

Duke91 wrote:

Polot wrote:

And now we are getting back to argument of what is “normal” degradation and wear and tear. QR and Airbus are clearly not in agreement.

You act as these are QR’a first planes. They have/had A3202, A330s, A340s, 787s, 777s, A380s yet only the A350 has experienced paint issues so unsatisfactory to QR that they have halted deliveries and sued the OEM over it.

It is also an unusual time when Airlines are losing money left and right while Airbus does not. Would Qatar ground those planes during the usual times when they need the capacity? Other A350 airlines dont sue the OEM, so I doubt it. Qatar is also in the unusual position to have their own federal agency that can ground the planes if they want, giving them leeway to do those stunts

That argument would hold more weight if QR wasn’t leasing in more aircraft and taking planes out of retirement at the moment. That suggests the A350’s capacity is needed. No one has presented any evidence proving that QR has ceased paying lease or finance payments on the grounded planes.

Are you aware that QR is claiming millions per day from Airbus because the more frames grounded means more compensation (if they win)? So it doesn't matter that the capacity is needed if you get more from the planes being on the ground. Additionally, not one poster who brings up this aircraft being brought out of storage reason has demonstrated that the capacity brought back matches the capacity of the 21 grounded A350. In as far as I am aware QR had only eight A330 and by August 2021 had brought back to service only five. https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... ates-a330s. According to the below, a minimum of five A380s were to come back to support winter routes only. But the A350 will not come back after winter. https://www.qatarairways.com/en/press-r ... 20due%20to.

Revelation wrote:

kimshep wrote:

It seems to me that everyone is attacking AAB, rather than Airbus. It is true that AAB has and is being demanding on answers from Airbus. He has also stated that QR cannot be sure / unsure regarding the safety of these A350 aircraft and their pitting.. So far, Airbus has issued statements indicating that this is a 'cosmetic issue' only. Despite QR's attempt to assist, by providing comprehensive documentation, it would appear that Airbus has little interest in investigating this issue. Poor customer service, in my view

Airbus ( ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... r-air-rift ) has said more than it's just a cosmetic issue, it may take new materials to solve the problem.

Many thanks for your comment, Revelation. I would note that - yes - I had previously seen this report.
Further, I would add that the date of this report is 29 November 2021, so it is a comparatively 'late" acknowledgement, given that this saga dates back 5 years to 2016. One would have to question whether there is a certain Airbus 'convenience' factor or whether the response is sincere?

The root cause thing in QR filing made me chuckle. Is QR entitled to any "root cause" explanation? They brought copies of the product, not the product design. There is zero obligation from OEM to explain "root cause" to QR

zeke wrote:

majority of what I see in that video is rivet rash, and you can see where someone at some time has come in and touched up paint again afterwards.

I see the "rivet rash". But in this case, it's a misnomer because we typically do not use rivets in composite structures.

But that is besides the point. In the crown area, you do see the "wrinkles" along the stringer lines. That is why I asked if the A350 fastened those stringers on. The 787 have co-cured stringer, thus no rivet lines.

Even if it was rivet rash it would not have explained how the wrinkles spread across the whole area, in between the stringers as well. That could be explained by migrating moisture starting at the rivets. But if that was so, then that would also be a design flaw as well.

Just some opinion from my knot hole.

As Kanban noted the wings are different. Perhaps the skin there is thicker and less prone to thermal expansion. But that is pure speculation on my part.

bt

LDRA wrote:

The root cause thing in QR filing made me chuckle. Is QR entitled to any "root cause" explanation? They brought copies of the product, not the product design. There is zero obligation from OEM to explain "root cause" to QR

I work in manufacturing and yes I have seen root cause explanation for an issue from our customers and we deliver it including the 8D. Fun times.

Duke91 wrote:

Okay, they need the capacity now, but are also losing money left and right.

Not if they win in court.

IMO it's always been about the money, not the "AOG money" QR could use to get through COVID, but the money to fix all their A350s once and for all instead of patching/painting for the life of the aircraft. The former is the leverage to get the later.

zkojq wrote:

kimshep wrote:

What also has escaped attention here is that a number of other A350 operators have experienced the same issues as QR, to varying degrees. That includes Finnair.

Remind us again, how many non Qatar A350s are grounded due to paint issues?

Somewhat irrelevant, given that the true issue here seems to be defined as a copper mesh issue, with paint pitting "being cosmetic". Or that's what Airbus seems to be saying.

zkojq wrote:

kimshep wrote:

3. AAB could decide to form a small cabal with the other aggrieved A350 customers. They now can see how Airbus could choose to treat them. Strength in numbers?

Why would other airlines come to the aid of QR? The other airlines with A350 paint degradation issues are working with Airbus to find a solution. Just because QR are throwing toys out of the metaphoric pram doesn't mean that the other airlines want to join in.

Who said anything about other airlines "coming to the aid of QR" ?

Common interest legal arrangements (or even lawsuits) where a lead plaintiff progresses a claim, with other 'interested / affected parties' are able to join happen every day of the week. That is a very different concept to 'coming to the aid' of QR.

The first implies commonality of a desire to resolve a problem. The "coming to the aid of QR" suggests the same shared commonality of resolve, but an additional adherence to an identical philosophy. Mutual inclusivity is not always present.

Good try, though!

Revelation wrote:

Duke91 wrote:

It is also an unusual time when Airlines are losing money left and right while Airbus does not. Would Qatar ground those planes during the usual times when they need the capacity? Other A350 airlines dont sue the OEM, so I doubt it. Qatar is also in the unusual position to have their own federal agency that can ground the planes if they want, giving them leeway to do those stunts

They are also in the position of having to take A380s out of storage to fly missions better suited to A350, and have the World Cup coming up in a few months as well.

To be fair , they are also in a position where the 787-9 they still have on order would fly missions better than the A380s , but team B don`t deliver for a while !

oldJoe wrote:

, but team B don`t deliver for a while !

Yes and team B will gladly pay the penalties to not distract AAB from his current wrath.

bt

zeke wrote:

That is why it is common for aircraft to be repainted every 4-6 years and .....

Can you provide some backup for this claim? My quick searches indicate a range of 7 to 10 years for full exterior paint replacement. This article about Southwest Airlines - https://skift.com/2019/07/05/southwest- ... ing-sharp/ states "usually airplanes get a full exterior makeover once every eight years,". I'm not sure if this is just the case for Southwest, but Ive yet to find any reference to normal operations calling for a repaint every 4-6 years.

My take on your many posts on this situation is that that the condition of the paint shown on these four airplanes in the video released today, all under 6 years old when parked, is normal and just requires a repaint.
The condition of A7-ALT at under 4 years old when parked seems to be very bad, and in contrast to many of your posts in the previous thread, there seems to have been several efforts by QR maintenance to take corrective action.

At a minimum QR must be looking at the prospects of having to repaint their A350's twice or three times as often as anticipated due to these conditions. Add in the extra maintenance time needed to do the touch ups that are shown in the video more often as well and they must be looking at a significant hit in unexpected costs.

GeoMap

TC957 wrote:

May I ask 1) Did Concorde suffer paint issues ? It famously stretched by several inches inflight and the exterior was subject to kinetic heat at Mach2, and 2 ) have VN reported A350paint issues ? they have several early-built frames, a dark colourscheme and operate in a pretty warm climate.

Looks like 8/14 of VN's fleet is flying, including the oldest (VN-A886 MSN14). To my knowledge VN haven't reported issues. Neither have ET who also fly in challenging conditions, though with younger aircraft. Some of ET's ships are older than some of QR's affected examples.

MrHMSH wrote:

TC957 wrote:

May I ask 1) Did Concorde suffer paint issues ? It famously stretched by several inches inflight and the exterior was subject to kinetic heat at Mach2, and 2 ) have VN reported A350paint issues ? they have several early-built frames, a dark colourscheme and operate in a pretty warm climate.

Looks like 8/14 of VN's fleet is flying, including the oldest (VN-A886 MSN14). To my knowledge VN haven't reported issues. Neither have ET who also fly in challenging conditions, though with younger aircraft. Some of ET's ships are older than some of QR's affected examples.

https://www.businessinsider.com/qatar-w ... aws-2022-1

"At least six other carriers have also complained of paint damage on A350s, including Finnair, Cathay Pacific, Etihad, Lufthansa, Delta Air Lines, and Air France, reported Reuters."

bikerthai wrote:

I see the "rivet rash". But in this case, it's a misnomer because we typically do not use rivets in composite structures.

The term “rivet rash” was used by QR in their court filing

“Rivet Rash Condition (paint missing from fastener-heads, colloquially known as ‘rivet rash’).”

As for the fuselage crown, I simply put that down to the compression loads. The A350 fuselage structure uses cobonding to incorporate the omega (hat) stiffeners with the fuselage skin. Pre-cured omega stiffeners are located onto green automatic fibre placement skins with a layer of film adhesive between the elements and then autoclave cured. During the cobonding cycle shaped tube bags are located inside the cured stiffener and are open to autoclave pressure during the cure/cobonding cycle to ensure the already cured stringer does not collapse or become damaged when subjected to autoclave pressure.

geomap wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

Looks like 8/14 of VN's fleet is flying, including the oldest (VN-A886 MSN14). To my knowledge VN haven't reported issues. Neither have ET who also fly in challenging conditions, though with younger aircraft. Some of ET's ships are older than some of QR's affected examples.

"At least six other carriers have also complained of paint damage on A350s, including Finnair, Cathay Pacific, Etihad, Lufthansa, Delta Air Lines, and Air France, reported Reuters."

Sorry, but ET = Ethiopian, EY=Etihad.

smartplane wrote:

LifelinerOne wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

None of those frames have been ordered through lessors though. All through QR. Lessors are only involved with QR on the sale and leaseback. Not on the initial order

True, but since then, of their 53 A350s in the fleet, 44 are now leased. Which means they can't return them that easily and will need to negotiate with all the different lessors... And in this environment, I don't see them being very open to get the aircraft back without a hefty penalty.

For me the timing of this escalation is interesting and I would not be surprised that the degration issue has been inflated by Qatar Airways (and the civil aviation authority, which I see as one as they all report to the same ruler in Qatar) to mitigate losses accumulated over the years by the airspace blocking in the Middle-East and the pandemic.

It's telling that the civil aviation authorities in Europe, Hong Kong and Singapore don't see this as a safety issue but as cosmetic.

With Qatar defaulting on taking delivery on ready A350s, they most likely have no choice to limit their exposure to Qatar and therefore cancel the A321neo-order.

QR has placed orders for A35 and A321 aircraft, and in doing so, earns retrospective credits as physical deliveries are made.

Retrospective credits are not accrued on a straight line. Final deliveries of an order or tranche attract greater value.

None, some or all of the credits to-date, may have transferred to the lessors, with credits from later deliveries retained by QR.

The value of credits can be increased or decreased depending on use. For example, dollar for dollar by using to meet milestone payments on the current order / tranche. Perhaps up to 20% bonus if a new (to the customer) acquisition is made, like A32NEO or A350F. Or a discount if used for parts and services, and a massive discount if cashed up.

By cancelling the A32NEO order, Airbus has eliminated the most lucrative option.

Retrospective credits operate like bank accounts. Both Airbus and Boeing include a right of set-off. Likely accrued credits have been frozen, and are being set-off against unpaid milestone payments.

In business, the customer is usually always right, except very rarely when they are wrong. I have a special admiration for any supplier who has what it takes to say no to an important customer, and the back bone and moral fortitude to follow through. There will be some respect at Boeing, other airlines and suppliers for Airbus.

Thanks for the insight. So it's like Airbus just revoked all QR's accumulated air-mile points?

geomap wrote:

Can you provide some backup for this claim? My quick searches indicate a range of 7 to 10 years for full exterior paint replacement.

“ Beyond the need for washing, the comparative cost of maintaining painted and polished surfaces is significantly affected by the policies of individual operators. Most repaint their airplanes every four years, often during a scheduled C- or D-check, but do not completely strip the paint during each cycle. Instead, they alternate between complete stripping and merely scuff-sanding the existing paint layer and applying a new topcoat. Painting costs include labor, stripper, paint, primer, masking materials, and proper disposal of consumables.”

From https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... 01txt.html


“And, lasting six to eight years, the life­times of the two-coat paint­work are sig­nifi­cantly longer than most other paint systems, which last an aver­age of only five years.”

From https://aeroreport.de/en/aviation/how-a ... re-painted

And Lufthansa started their A350 repaint at 4 years

https://simpleflying.com/lufthansa-airb ... paint/amp/

geomap wrote:

"At least six other carriers have also complained of paint damage on A350s, including Finnair, Cathay Pacific, Etihad, Lufthansa, Delta Air Lines, and Air France, reported Reuters."

That was for paint peel, not something QR has complained about. Earlier in this thread I provided the reference from the QR court filing where they have no direct knowledge of any other operator having the same issue. All they cited was a Reuters report of a Finnair Issue.

The cancellation of orders is now a potential point for action. Can Airbus actually win in court on that, and if it doesn’t, what happens to airlines who are allocated earlier slots that must now be given back?

majano wrote:

Are you aware that QR is claiming millions per day from Airbus because the more frames grounded means more compensation (if they win)? So it doesn't matter that the capacity is needed if you get more from the planes being on the ground. Additionally, not one poster who brings up this aircraft being brought out of storage reason has demonstrated that the capacity brought back matches the capacity of the 21 grounded A350. In as far as I am aware QR had only eight A330 and by August 2021 had brought back to service only five. https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... ates-a330s. According to the below, a minimum of five A380s were to come back to support winter routes only. But the A350 will not come back after winter. https://www.qatarairways.com/en/press-r ... 20due%20to.

QR reactivated 14 A330s since the summer of 2021. Prior to activation some of those were in storage while others were already returned to lessors and had titles and logo re-applied. They also reactivated so far 4 A380s. They have also wet-leased 3 A333, and have taken delivery of 3 leased 77W initially used to release some of QR's own 77W from "mini" freighter flights back to regular PAX flights. So far that is (14+4+3+3=24 aircraft of which 21 are actively flying). The cargo schedules indicate more leased in capacity is coming so that might help relieve some of the last remaining PAX 77W from freighter duties.

Casual observations of passenger loads are tenuous any day but is not as relevant these days to QR for a couple of reasons, first of all ticket prices are very different and secondly cargo is now the main driver for QR. QR flew 4.6% more cargo volume in the 2020/1 financial year compared to the previous year but cargo revenue is up 86% in the same period. That changes the economics of widebody flights for QR where a pax light/cargo heavy flight can be economic, you can see it in QR's utilisation these days with the A32X fleet being used less and widebodies still used on routes within the range of their narrowbodies.

Sources:
https://www.qatarairways.com/en/about-q ... ports.html
https://www.aircargonews.net/airlines/f ... -pandemic/
https://www.flightglobal.com/networks/c ... 80.article

zeke wrote:

And Lufthansa started their A350 repaint at 4 years

https://simpleflying.com/lufthansa-airb ... paint/amp/

Reports are those A350s were repainted by Airbus under warranty (which is why they were repainted at TLS) free of charge to LH for technical reasons:

https://www.aerotelegraph.com/airbus-la ... -lufthansa

So probably not the best example to give, as it indicates something was wrong with the paint (ie it was not experiencing normal wear and tear, which warranties never cover) and Airbus stepped in to fix it. I’m not sure how many beyond those have been repainted to the new livery yet.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The cancellation of orders is now a potential point for action. Can Airbus actually win in court on that, and if it doesn’t, what happens to airlines who are allocated earlier slots that must now be given back?

My guess is Airbus won’t actually release the production slots to others until the matter has been settled in court.

zeke wrote:

As for the fuselage crown, I simply put that down to the compression loads. The A350 fuselage structure uses cobonding to incorporate the omega (hat) stiffeners with the fuselage skin.

OK, the crown skin area is not related to rivet rash because of the co-bonding. Fuselage compression occurs at the keel and not the crown.

Even if one argues that the stress loads are causing the paint to wrinkle, then it is still a design flaw and they would need a better paint system. I've seen pictures photos of skin buckling on metal airframe (typically from shear stress) but I've never seen of the shark skin like wrinkles on the paint before.

Specially at time stamp 17-19 seconds into the video.

bt

Well i guess airbus and qatar airways will get back to business , politics will play a part in this .

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The cancellation of orders is now a potential point for action. Can Airbus actually win in court on that, and if it doesn’t, what happens to airlines who are allocated earlier slots that must now be given back?

QR says they were performing on the A321 contract and it’s not normal to link contracts for different models. Will be interesting what the court says or if Airbus actually cancelled the order and reallocated the slots (versus threatening to do so).

I hope this is resolved soon because Europe may need natural gas from Qatar.

sxf24 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The cancellation of orders is now a potential point for action. Can Airbus actually win in court on that, and if it doesn’t, what happens to airlines who are allocated earlier slots that must now be given back?

QR says they were performing on the A321 contract and it’s not normal to link contracts for different models. Will be interesting what the court says or if Airbus actually cancelled the order and reallocated the slots (versus threatening to do so).

I hope this is resolved soon because Europe may need natural gas from Qatar.

There may be a clause in the A321 contract about QR remaining a customer "in good standing" if QR have defaulted on any payments to Airbus or deliveries on the A350 contract they would cease to be. One contract can easily be linked to or bleed over into another.

Just a quick reminder, anyone noticed we're quite a long time from the drama start?

If I'd just go down to my car, make a scratch here and there (barely visible), then put it out and let it there for a few months, do you think it would picture a real damage on say November 2022?

And if I had a plan to get a compensation, I could possibly think of a place/conditions to make it even worse.

I have a strong feeling videos/pics are real. And they show the damage now. I'm pretty sure it looked quite different on day "+1". It's just non-maintained, left to develop etc. Far from what it was originally.

That's just my 2 cents.

Cheers,
Adam

gloom wrote:

Just a quick reminder, anyone noticed we're quite a long time from the drama start?

If I'd just go down to my car, make a scratch here and there (barely visible), then put it out and let it there for a few months, do you think it would picture a real damage on say November 2022?

And if I had a plan to get a compensation, I could possibly think of a place/conditions to make it even worse.

I have a strong feeling videos/pics are real. And they show the damage now. I'm pretty sure it looked quite different on day "+1". It's just non-maintained, left to develop etc. Far from what it was originally.

That's just my 2 cents.

Cheers,
Adam

The first aircraft with the issue went straight to TLS, the other aircraft weren't grounded all in December 2020 but progressively over 2021. Anyways everything would be documented at that time. May I ask to clarify, are you speculating it may have looked different or are you really sure that it looked quite different on day +1?

This is what lack of options does. We have a duopoly of Airbus and Boeing. So they can pretty much act up like brats to their clients when they want to. That is why i was not in favor of the aircraft now knows as A220 falling in Airbus's hands. They won't be able to callously walk away from an 50 aircraft order if there were more competitors.