Not really. If they were just focused on financials, they wouldn't of cancelled the A321 contract. Money is money

sabenapilot wrote:

The video shows a poorly maintainted plane, which is the obvious result of QR inability/refusal to apply the manufacturer's prescribed fixes to what must initially have been much less pronounced and widespread paint issues. Period. Or do you think these planes -all of them having different manufacturing dates BTW- all started to look like shown in that video on one and the same day? Seriously?
And how come no other plane manufactured in between those of QR and called in to have all the manufacturer's prescribed fixes done to them now remotely looks like these QR planes then, even though still flying?
I'd say that is a very worrying thing to see and definitely something that justifies increased SAFA scrutiny whenever a QR plane turns up in the EU.
We don't want to see accidents involving EU citizens flying with airlines that are found to be unable/unwilling to apply globally acccepted maintenance standards, do we?

As to your second comment: Airbus can only produce X billion worth of planes per annum. All the rest it sells, it simply ads to its ever growing backlog.
Clealy it has now decided that it doesn't matter any longer if it thus has to take off a whimfull customer from that huge backlog as it knows it will sell out to others and as such there's no loss at al:. the market is supply limited, not demand limited. It really is a uniquely strong position Airbus is in and they just made AAB feel that.

Interesting perspective. I handle 3 to 4 QR flights per week and in the four years that I've held that contract I've never seen a poorly maintained QR aircraft. In fact, their fleet is arguably the best maintained that I've ever seen. Even the freighters are always spotless.

bikerthai wrote:

Section 44 crown shows lots of issue, but section 46 looks pristine. It begs a couple of questions.

No such section numbers on the A350

ZKCIF wrote:

what is the point of dealing with a customer if it
*regularly gives you bad publicity
*is threatening you
*brings far less profit than your other customers (or even loss)
*harms the morale of your staff

you walk away at the first chance. let Boeing earn then. Good luck, chaps...
Airbus - as I believe - never regretted it sour relationship with Mr O'Leary. So, now we will have two O'Learies

I’ve never seen a one-sided dispute. Both Airbus and QR share culpability.

Airbus agreed to the terms of the original contract and subsequent amendments. If it’s not profitable, shame on them.

There is also a significant difference between the public persona of airlines and their executives and how they behave in private. QR is a respected and sought after customer for lessors because their private behavior is professional and constructive. I also know airlines that build a public image of warm and friendly that are anything but that in private, acting like the raving lunatic that people think AAB is.

[quote="Ric99"
On the other side, I am thinking team A is more and more focused on financial KPIs and customer satisfaction is a lower priority. We know what kind of damage this business model did to team B....[/quote]

On what (factual) basis are you 'thinking' that?

geomap wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

geomap wrote:

The question that really needs to be asked is, what is so threatening to Airbus in this situation that it causes this extreme reaction?

I'd say its the simple fact Airbus realized they realy don't need to cope with any of AAB's regular whims any longer to fill their massive order book and global production lines and can in fact happily sell them out (and more even) without ever having to deal with him?
.

So your position is that the video represents Qatar's "regular whims"? that's astounding to me. No company turns over a $20 billion customer to their struggling competitor based on whims.

Airbus can easily sell those A321s for a higher margin to some less troublesome customers. At Dubai, they said that they are basically sold out for 6 years, during a pandemic mind you. Now imagine what happens when aviation will inevitable scale up. They have the luxury to choose who to sell to. It also gives a bargaining chip against Qatar and signals that they don't need them to fill order books (which they don't)

They are not losing 20 billion if Airbus, this site and the world is confident that they can easily fill those slots. Boeing is also not gaining 20 billion if it means they lose orders to Airbus because Airbus suddenly they have some highly demanded slots free. This is the situation of things.

They may even want those free slots for combo deals of A320s/A220s/A350s/A350F that may sway some less troublesome customers away from doing a deal with Boeing (just think of the recent KLM deals, which were also a combination of deals A220/A320 or A320/A350f).

Maybe for a moment assume that Airbus is not full of incompetent idiots that act on impulse, but that it is a very calculated business move.

I believe section 44 on the 747 is the nose wheel area. I have never heard that nomenclature for the A350.

zeke wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Section 44 crown shows lots of issue, but section 46 looks pristine. It begs a couple of questions.

No such section numbers on the A350

Can you tell us the appropriate way to refer to the sections that alternatively appear damaged and pristine in the pictures?

Vicenza wrote:

Ric99 wrote:

On the other side, I am thinking team A is more and more focused on financial KPIs and customer satisfaction is a lower priority. We know what kind of damage this business model did to team B....

On what (factual) basis are you 'thinking' that?

This is clearly an opinion, but consistent with the feedback I’m receiving from other customers. The attitude and approach has deteriorated significantly since Leahy retired.

Pelly wrote:

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?

Pure speculation, to be sure someone would need to see it on day 1. However, since the (first) planes are grounded for quite a long time, I'd say probability it is different is close to "really sure".

Cheers,
Adam

Vicenza wrote:

[quote="Ric99"
On the other side, I am thinking team A is more and more focused on financial KPIs and customer satisfaction is a lower priority. We know what kind of damage this business model did to team B....

On what (factual) basis are you 'thinking' that?[/quote]

As discussed several times in various threads in this site, there have been consistent feedbacks that Airbus did not allow to defer deliveries in 2020, even if customers where suffering and fighting for survival.

ElroyJetson wrote:

I believe section 44 on the 747 is the nose wheel area. I have never heard that nomenclature for the A350.

on Boeing planes section 44 is always the over wing section which is over the main gear.. 46 is the aft body, 43 forward body and 41 the cockpit/nose.

sxf24 wrote:

zeke wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Section 44 crown shows lots of issue, but section 46 looks pristine. It begs a couple of questions.

No such section numbers on the A350

Can you tell us the appropriate way to refer to the sections that alternatively appear damaged and pristine in the pictures?

Try over wing and aft body..Airbus doesn't use references other than names...

Note the over wing section is produces by Spirit the forward and aft by other suppliers. Also Airbus did some extensive weight reduction studies in the over wing section crown.

geomap wrote:

All of the speculation in this thread in how great this is for Airbus ignores the reality that no company would choose this path unless they were faced with some sort of existential threat by the situation. The personality and aggressiveness of the Qatar CEO is not an existential threat to Airbus. Neither is holding firm on delivery specs for carpets on A380s. Both examples have been presented in this thread as some sort of justification for the path Airbus has taken. Qatar's demand for compensation, even at the $600million level, no matter how unjustified it may be, is not an existential threat to Airbus.

The question that really needs to be asked is, what is so threatening to Airbus in this situation that it causes this extreme reaction?

Airbus has followed all their normal procedures when building and delivering the A350s. There is quite a bit of science involved in the QA side of exterior finishes, there is quite a lot of sampling and non destructive testing performed. There is a published grid where these tests performed across each airframe. Airbus has data on every aircraft built on the exterior finish when it left the factory. QR representatives oversee this QA process, they also select the paint that is applied. QR know what they received, they have signed off on it.

All aircraft require maintenance over their lifetime, there is no such thing as a maintenance free aircraft. There are those who are taught by big MBA schools that think equipment can be bought new, depreciated, and then sold off without having to maintain it. Worldwide we have seen many airlines terminate maintenance staff because they think new aircraft do not need to be maintained, or they can just outsource everything.

A standard part of maintenance is following the published maintenance documents, airlines are free to vary these documents however they have to consider the implications, these changes are approved by their local regulator. If something is outside the limits in the manuals, it normally gets referred back to the manufacturer for a specific repair scheme. The normal process is then for the operator to implement the repair scheme. QR from their court filings appears not to be following this process.

Repair schemes use standard industry techniques and procedures, they are written in a way that a competent person trained and certified in maintenance can follow to restore the aircraft. They are not a detailed academic thesis, this has always been the case.

Anyone that has worked in design with tell you the approved data that the manufactures use is not presented like an academic report with the underlying science or justifications, it is presented for ease of use.

I saw nothing in that video which would warrant grounding an aircraft, if normal maintenance process outlined above was followed they could be back in service. QR is claiming close to $200,000 a day for making a decision not to perform the required maintenance. The regulator has every right to suspend the maintenance review of an aircraft if the maintenance is not being performed.

You can lease a 77W for close to $200,000 per month at the moment, and a A350 for around $1 million a month, what is being claimed is excessive.

Through their court documents it would appear QR is being petulant, they are refusing to perform the maintenance, they are refusing to accept the technical memorandum sent by the manufacturer claiming it not a root cause analysis, yet at the same time say they are unable to perform a root cause analysis as they do nit have the data.

In the court filings QR have stated they sent “letters dated 28 June, 12 July, 26 July, 9 August, 23 August, 6 September, 20 September, 4 October, 18 October, 1 November, 15 November, 29 November and 13 December 2021, the Claimant made demands for AOG Compensation for all the Grounded Aircraft. The most recent demand was made on 13 December 2021”. This is nit in my view a customer that wants to get their aircraft back flying, it is a customer that is looking for a payout.

I suspect just before June 28, QR was due to take delivery one or more A350s under the contract, and they refused to accept it, hence not making the final payment. I suspect this triggered a contractural damages clause against the customer. The customer has been near silent in its court filings on its contractural responsibilities for the outstanding aircraft. There has been no statement made to the court that they have made all financial payments called for under the contract. The wording in the court documents would suggest that they have sought to bypass their contractural responsibilities with this claim, I.e. “Injunctive relief to restrain the Defendant from purporting to deliver any of the Undelivered A350 QR Fleet pending rectification of the Condition and the design defects giving rise to it.”.

sxf24 wrote:

I do not think there’s such a clause and I do not think the order will actually be cancelled/debooked. Neither is consistent with the typical Airbus contract. Airbus has more discretion on the timing of deliveries and I would expect what they’ve really done is slide out indefinitely and keep the order on the books - can’t start the year negative!

I would expect cancellation of A350s for failure to accept delivery is within the contract. It limits Airbus’ ability to claim damages, but this seems to be more about teaching a customer a lesson - and sending a message to other customers to stay in line. Airlines and lessors are not happy with an OEM allowing a dispute to get to this point.

I find that most people that comment on legal cases have no idea how contracts and the law actually works when you actually get to court.

Great to Airbus stand up to a bully.

I’ve had the distinct displeasure of having QR as a customer in 3 different companies I’ve worked for. At each of those companies QR was by far the most troublesome customer, and often in unique and utterly perplexing ways. They are unreasonable, clueless, entitled and impossible to satisfy.

They treat, or at least try to, you like a servant and expect you to solve issues that hasn’t happened, or which are totally outside your control, and blame you for the mistakes they make. Their cadre of middle management is living in constant fear of instant dismissal over even the tiniest of mistakes or less-than-perfect performance, and their senior management is under complete micro-management by the CEO.

It was only a matter of time before someone at the very top of the aviation food chain said enough is enough and put the hammer down.

zeke wrote:

All aircraft require maintenance over their lifetime, there is no such thing as a maintenance free aircraft. There are those who are taught by big MBA schools that think equipment can be bought new, depreciated, and then sold off without having to maintain it. Worldwide we have seen many airlines terminate maintenance staff because they think new aircraft do not need to be maintained, or they can just outsource everything.

A standard part of maintenance is following the published maintenance documents, airlines are free to vary these documents however they have to consider the implications, these changes are approved by their local regulator. If something is outside the limits in the manuals, it normally gets referred back to the manufacturer for a specific repair scheme. The normal process is then for the operator to implement the repair scheme. QR from their court filings appears not to be following this process.

Repair schemes use standard industry techniques and procedures, they are written in a way that a competent person trained and certified in maintenance can follow to restore the aircraft. They are not a detailed academic thesis, this has always been the case.

Some of us fall on the side that QR a/c degraded faster than expected and that over the time of the a/c in their service the additional repair cost is not desirable, now if I apply that logic to your comments.

Based on QR operation of other Airbus a/c including the A380 they do not appear to be a carrier who terminated maintenance contracts, as this thread is about QR and Airbus...

In some of the early pictures yourself and other posters noted that there appear to have been some repairs being performed, is this where you are saying that QR did not follow proper procedures? Another question, since it took years before it became public knowledge that other A350 a/c were having SOME similar problems, were the repair procedures published to all carriers or just QR, my thought process here is that if published to all airlines, the issue of early degradation of the paint would have been more widely known and not initially taken as QR having a fit, note that until pictures were released, most thought they were just throwing temper tantrums.

We know that QR has declined to repair the a/c as they seem to think it is a temporary repair which will not address the early degradation and increase cost, question in the court may be if Airbus can prove it is more than temporary. However, we know Airbus did agree to a sum for compensation, do we still believe that offer should have been made thereby admitting there is some flaw or that was just Airbus doing good customer support?

A general trend now seems to be ignoring the initial point that there is / was something wrong with the some of QR a/c, if Airbus is cancelling billions in sales for "nothing" it would be a shocking development.

kimshep wrote:

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.

Not irrelevant at all when the other carriers with paint issues (or mesh issues) haven't had aircraft grounded because of it. How do you think Finnair can sue Airbus for 275,000 a day if the airplane is in service as normal?

kimshep wrote:

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.

You were the one suggesting it. If Finnair, Lufthansa and Cathay Pacific are happy with Airbus' response to the issue and don't have any aircraft grounded due to it, then why would they try and destroy their relationship with Airbus inorder to satisfy the ego of U-Turn-Al (who is their competitor)?? What do they have to gain from it? Unnecessary trips to the courtroom are very expensive.

Just because QR is unhappy doesn't mean that other A350 operators are unhappy with Airbus' response.

In the case of Finnair in particular, they're supposedly quite close to an A321neo order. U-Turn-Al's ego may just have made available to them some near-term production slots.

beachroad wrote:

With such a huge backlog, Airbus can afford to live with AAB. However, the Qatari's have a lot of influence in London. I wouldn't be too confident of Airbus winning in an English court.

I would hope that the winner of the court case would do so thanks to the merits of their case, not the clout they have.

bikerthai wrote:

As some of us have noticed that the paint on the aft portion of the crown seemed perfectly fine. So the arguement of lack of maintenance does not jive.

One plus one does not equal 3. That is like saying the paint lifting on 787 wings is a design issue when it was caused by maintenance attaching suction cups for fall protection.

A picture does nothing to suggest it’s a design issue.

bikerthai wrote:

The argument between QR and Airbus seems to be the long term disposition of the flaw.

That is a totally different discussion, and that is not a valid reason stop taking contractural deliveries, to ground aircraft, and claim AOG payments.

Opus99 wrote:

RoyalBrunei757 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

Either way be it Qatar's own or lessor's, Airbus is now reducing its direct exposure to QR. That would be last thing Airbus will do, cancelling remaining 23 orders. Surely selling 5 A350-1000s NTUs will be easier than selling 23. If QR does return all their current 53 A350s, they would deal (mostly) with lessors, not much with Airbus anymore. Those bought alright, QR can choose to sell them or burn them to ground, Airbus couldn't be bothered.

We are saying the same thing. Airbus can cancel those 50 321s because they’ve probably already had pre agreements to sell them to someone else. But those 23 35Ks, THAT they care about because that does not come easy

Likely order contracts have clauses that if buyer has outstanding invoices in-default, they risk the order being cancelled. Can certainly imagine the sales directors wanted the slots for other buyers as well because they probably have opportunity more margin versus headaches, and risking QR defaulting on further payments over the A350 spat.

par13del wrote:

In some of the early pictures yourself and other posters noted that there appear to have been some repairs being performed, is this where you are saying that QR did not follow proper procedures? Another question, since it took years before it became public knowledge that other A350 a/c were having SOME similar problems, were the repair procedures published to all carriers or just QR

My observation related to the question why did they stop repainting fasteners heads ? Obviously at one stage they were, and then for some unknown reason they stopped.

par13del wrote:

We know that QR has declined to repair the a/c as they seem to think it is a temporary repair which will not address the early degradation and increase cost, question in the court may be if Airbus can prove it is more than temporary.

Every airliner I have flown has had surface degradation, and normally the place where it is most obvious is on the engine cowls. Those sort of repairs are very common. In maintenance terms, a temporary repair would be placing speed tape over the area, preparing and repainting would not be considered as temporary, the item would be considered closed.

par13del wrote:

However, we know Airbus did agree to a sum for compensation, do we still believe that offer should have been made thereby admitting there is some flaw or that was just Airbus doing good customer support?

Do you have a reference to where they agreed to pay compensation, my understanding was they were willing to make MSN36 good again at their own facilities.

pugman211 wrote:

Not really. If they were just focused on financials, they wouldn't of cancelled the A321 contract. Money is money

Not really.
Financial focus says "revenue - cost [must be] > $0", i.e. "revenue [must be] > cost".
If "revenue < (manufacturing cost) + (cost to keep AAB happy)", then it doesn't make financial sense anymore and you just dump the customer.
The time of "the customer is always right" is long gone.

Highlander747 wrote:

Great to Airbus stand up to a bully.

And tell them not all their petro $$$ can buy everything they want. They act like they can rule the world which could going south preety fast !

zeke wrote:

Do you have a reference to where they agreed to pay compensation, my understanding was they were willing to make MSN36 good again at their own facilities.

I was using the Bloomberg article below with the 175k offer from Airbus, think that article was upthread or in the now closed thread.
I agree it does not encompass everything that QR is claiming, but one can assume that either Airbus acknowledges that there is an issue or they were / are just doing good customer relations.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ace-issues

bikerthai wrote:

If the paint was designed to take the suction cup but if it lifts up, then it is a design issue.

As far as I aware paint is not part of the type design, it comes under Part 43 which broadly is maintance.

par13del wrote:

I was using the Bloomberg article below with the 175k offer from Airbus, think that article was upthread or in the now closed thread.

That is the AOG payment in the contract, there appears to nothing specifically agreed to for this. The $175k is closer to $200k in 2021 dollars, from the filing

“The AOG Amount of USD 175,000 per each day was stated in January 2015 economic conditions and was to be escalated in accordance with the AOG Amount Revision Formula set out in Appendix A to Letter Agreement 1 of Amendment No. 8 to the A350 ASPA (Clause 3.2.2). As at the date hereof, the AOG Amount is USD 199,308 (2021).”

The ASPA is the 2007 contract for 80 aircraft.

zeke wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

As some of us have noticed that the paint on the aft portion of the crown seemed perfectly fine. So the arguement of lack of maintenance does not jive.

One plus one does not equal 3. That is like saying the paint lifting on 787 wings is a design issue when it was caused by maintenance attaching suction cups for fall protection.

A picture does nothing to suggest it’s a design issue.

bikerthai wrote:

The argument between QR and Airbus seems to be the long term disposition of the flaw.

That is a totally different discussion, and that is not a valid reason stop taking contractural deliveries, to ground aircraft, and claim AOG payments.

Isn't the whole dispute based on QR claiming the damage on their aircraft is a flaw in the construction of the aircraft and QR wanting a permanent fix to be made available before they fix their damaged aircraft and take any new deliveries of 350s from Airbus ?

zkojq wrote:

kimshep wrote:

zkojq wrote:

I would hope that the winner of the court case would do so thanks to the merits of their case, not the clout they have.

We'd all hope for that!

LTEN11 wrote:

Isn't the whole dispute based on QR claiming the damage on their aircraft is a flaw in the construction of the aircraft and QR wanting a permanent fix to be made available before they fix their damaged aircraft and take any new deliveries of 350s from Airbus ?

I posted their claim summary on page 2, what they are claiming is

“ The Claimant claims from the Defendant payment of contractual Compensation in respect of A350s grounded because they are unairworthy, alternatively damages for breach of contract for failing to pay said compensation, a declaration that the Defendant is obliged to perform a full root-cause analysis for each of the defects and an order for specific performance of that obligation, a declaration that the design of the A350s is defective, a declaration that pending rectification of the design defects, the Claimant is not obliged to accept any further undelivered A350 aircraft and any written notice served by the Defendant that any undelivered A350s are in a condition to begin the Acceptance Procedure is invalid and of no contractual effect and that any purported delivery of such A350s is invalid and/or of no contractual effect. Further, injunctive relief to restrain the Defendant from purporting to deliver any undelivered A350s pending rectification of the design defects.”

In contrast the view of EASA is reported as

“ The European regulator reportedly does not intend to take any actions over the potential risks since it has not indicated any paint and protection degradation that could affect the structure of the jet nor introduces “other risks”.

Speaking to media on August 10, 2021, the European regulator outlined that judging by the provided data, none of the reported degradations of the particular 13 Qatar Airways aircraft surface paint and protection could affect the structure of the planes and in this way cause the potential risks. EASA argued that none of the other air carriers have reported any “paint and protection damage” and concluded that it will not “take any action as the State of Design for the issue at this time”.”

From https://www.aerotime.aero/28562-easa-op ... s%20?v=amp

zeke wrote:

I posted their claim summary on page 2, what they are claiming is

“ The Claimant claims from the Defendant payment of contractual Compensation in respect of A350s grounded because they are unairworthy, alternatively damages for breach of contract for failing to pay said compensation, a declaration that the Defendant is obliged to perform a full root-cause analysis for each of the defects and an order for specific performance of that obligation, a declaration that the design of the A350s is defective, a declaration that pending rectification of the design defects, the Claimant is not obliged to accept any further undelivered A350 aircraft and any written notice served by the Defendant that any undelivered A350s are in a condition to begin the Acceptance Procedure is invalid and of no contractual effect and that any purported delivery of such A350s is invalid and/or of no contractual effect.

Gosh, what a monster sentence. Took my half of the weekend to understand it

So QR doesn't want to take their remaining A350s ordered and doesn't want to pay for milestones reached anymore?

Judging by that blurb QR will need to prove that the paint issue led to the aircraft being unairworthy. Good Luck with that.

bikerthai wrote:

Paint, and primer on a metal aircraft prevent corrosion which impact the structural integrity of the aircraft.

Paint on a composite aircraft prevent degradation of the composite matrix which is a structural component of the aircraft.

I would be surprised if all of that don't fall under Part 25.

As an aircraft designer. One's design responsibility goes beyond the regulations. This is specially true if one deals with interiors and payloads.

bt

Interiors are different, as often airframes are certified with no interior, and each LOPA is essentially a STC (even to remove seats to carry cargo on the main deck was an STC). Airlines can and do change their livery at will, they need no STC to do so.

Painting is a maintenance procedure, the paint choice and livery is a customer option. OEMs have specifications for the process and paints, like they have for any other maintenance task. Aircraft can be flown without paint, which you will see numerous A350 examples of in the photo database on this site.

bikerthai wrote:

3rdGen wrote:

Judging by that blurb QR will need to prove that the paint issue led to the aircraft being unairworthy. Good Luck with that.

But QR didn't say the aircraft is unworthy. It's their regulator who grounded the aircraft.

Now the court may not buy the cost incurred being asked by QR. But I doubt that the idea that the regulator and the airline being in bed with each other would have sway in the court.

bt

It would be up to Airbus to show why they believe the regulator and airline are in bed with each other. It would be incumbent of the regulator to show how they are not in bed with QR and how they came to their conclusion that the aircraft is not safe and thus grounded. I don't believe we have seen evidence of this yet.

bikerthai wrote:

But QR didn't say the aircraft is unworthy. It's their regulator who grounded the aircraft.

Now the court may not buy the cost incurred being asked by QR. But I doubt that the idea that the regulator and the airline being in bed with each other would have sway in the court.

bt

According to QRs court filing, it would appear the airline deemed them grounded/unairworthy. And the airline that deemed the OEM analysis and OEM repair scheme invalid.

“The Condition was outside the scope of the A350 Aircraft Structural Repair manual (“ASR”) and thereby rendered MSN 036 unserviceable. The Claimant, with its responsibility as the Continuing Airworthiness Management Organisation (“CAMO”) for MSN 036, and in accordance with its continuing airworthiness oversight responsibilities could not permit this aircraft to be returned to service, given the nature and extent of the damage and it was thereby grounded pending further inspection, investigation and analysis of the extent of the Condition and its cause. This aircraft remains grounded until such time as: (a) the full root cause of the Condition is identified and understood; and (b) a repair solution to correct the underlying root cause and repair the damage resulting from the Condition.”

“Between around 2 February and 5 July 2021, the Defendant provided the Claimant with eight memoranda, each addressing one of the defects comprising the Condition.”

“Airbus recommended approximately 900 patch repairs to the damage resulting from the Condition on MSN 036 and distributed across the airframe.”

“In the absence of (i) a proper analysis of the root-cause and (ii) satisfactory repair proposals, twenty-one aircraft of the QR A350 fleet are presently grounded because they are unairworthy as a result of the Condition.”

The regulator suspended the certificate of maintenance review, that would normally be suspended in the event maintenance was outstanding. All that needs to be done is the outstanding maintenance.

zeke wrote:

From QRs court document what is on the crown has been explained by Airbus to them as “thick layers of rigid, rather brittle clearcoat applied”

“ On 19 July 2021, the Defendant produced an ‘Airworthiness Assessment’ explaining why, in its view, the Condition does not affect the airworthiness of the A350. This substantially incorporates much of the memoranda referred to above. It notes that “the very thick layers of rigid, rather brittle clearcoat applied … may be one of the driving factors” but this “will be confirmed through the root-cause analysis investigation and testing campaign currently underway”. It is to be inferred that the Defendant does not itself consider the memoranda which pre-date the Airworthiness Assessment (or its Airworthiness Assessment) to be a full root-cause analysis, and is continuing to investigate the Condition. The Airworthiness Assessment appears to rely on incomplete, improperly conducted and unsubstantiated hypothesis, thereby rendering the Airworthiness Assessment unreliable.“

The explanation quoted by Zeke here is interesting, are the “thick layers of rigid, rather brittle clearcoat applied” only to the center section? the quote goes on with "will be confirmed through the root-cause analysis investigation and testing campaign currently underway” will be interesting to see what the conclusion were.

bikerthai wrote:

Yes, but they would need an STC if they decide to fly the airplane without paint.

No sir, like I said you will find lots of photos about of unpainted A350s flying. You may have also heard of a little airline in the USA called American Airlines, they essentially had their entire fleet with the polished aluminium look.

bikerthai wrote:

With respect to interiors and seats. My point is seats, which have their own certification (16 g crash load for example) would fall under FAR regulations. Buy the durability of those seat covers may not. Buy as a designer, it still fall under my responsibility.

Seats are buyer finished equipment, and normally from a seat supplier like Zodiac. The seat manufacturer does the seat certification. For airliners over 10 seats the fabric needs to meet FAR flammability requirements.

The in service maintenance of the seats and seat fabric has nothing to do with either the airframe OEM or the seat manufacturer.

““Airbus recommended approximately 900 patch repairs to the damage resulting from the Condition on MSN 036 and distributed across the airframe.””

Airbus recommended 900 patch repairs on one airframe? What the heck is going on? Is this not happening to other airline’s A350’s which operate in the desert? Did QR use a low quality paint shop or something?

zeke wrote:

“The Condition was outside the scope of the A350 Aircraft Structural Repair manual (“ASR”) and thereby rendered MSN 036 unserviceable. The Claimant, with its responsibility as the Continuing Airworthiness Management Organisation (“CAMO”) for MSN 036, and in accordance with its continuing airworthiness oversight responsibilities could not permit this aircraft to be returned to service, given the nature and extent of the damage and it was thereby grounded pending further inspection, investigation and analysis of the extent of the Condition and its cause. This aircraft remains grounded until such time as: (a) the full root cause of the Condition is identified and understood; and (b) a repair solution to correct the underlying root cause and repair the damage resulting from the Condition.”

The regulator suspended the certificate of maintenance review, that would normally be suspended in the event maintenance was outstanding. All that needs to be done is the outstanding maintenance.

If the condition was outside the scope of the A350 Aircraft Structural Repair Manual then maybe this applies:

In the EASA user guide for foreign approvals of composite workshops it quotes:


"The EASA Part-145 organisation, shall take particular care to the following topics

...

AMC 20-29 “operators and maintenance repair organisations (MRO) wishing to complete major
repairs or alterations outside the scope of approved repair documentation should be aware of the [i]extensive
analysis, design, process, and test substantiation required to ensure the airworthiness of a certificated
structure. Documented records and the certification approval of this substantiation should be retained to
support any subsequent maintenance activities”[/i]

texl1649 wrote:

Airbus recommended 900 patch repairs on one airframe? What the heck is going on? Is this not happening to other airline’s A350’s which operate in the desert? Did QR use a low quality paint shop or something?

That I understand is for MSN36 which was flown from Ireland to TLS for assessment by Airbus (totally unpainted for that flight).

It is very common on composites to need filler applied prior to repaint to get a smooth surface. Bit like drywall.

Pelly wrote:

In the EASA user guide for foreign approvals of composite workshops it quotes:

The surface layer is not structural