zeke wrote:

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.

I'm sure AA got the STC to fly the plane without paint. It would gave come with increased inspection intervals for detecting corrosion.

zeke wrote:

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.

And as a seat designer, all that is part of their design "responsibilities".

Again, my point has nothing to do with what is in QR legal argument, or may only have a tangential relation. My point is there are aspects of design that goes beyond the regulations, that may not be as important, but is still relevant.

bt

zeke wrote:

The surface layer is not structural

Very true.

But tell that to my Stress analyst every time she comment on the finnish of my part.

But strictly speaking, where I work, all structure parts require the approval of Materials and Processes. Paint and finish is part of the "design" and is not taken lightly.

bt

zeke wrote:

Pelly wrote:

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

The surface layer is not structural

The lightning protection system is part of the structure system, and is under Part 25. Anyways the quote is not about which layer, it was about the SRM which does covers paint layers, fasteners, corrosion etc.

Another set of quotes from AMC 20-29

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... 020-29.pdf

"Degradation in surface layers (e.g., paints and coatings)
that provide structural protection against ultraviolet exposure must be detected.
Any degradation to the lightning strike protection system that affects structural
integrity, fuel tank safety, and electrical systems must also be detected."

"The surface layers (e.g., paints and coatings) that provide structural protection against ultraviolet exposure,
structural temperatures, and the lightning strike protection system must also be properly
repaired."

"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 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 in accordance with
regulations to support any subsequent maintenance activities"

zeke wrote:

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.

There are no unpainted A350s operating commercial flights. Trying to equate ferry or test flights with commercial operations is disingenuous.

sxf24 wrote:

no unpainted A350s operating commercial flights. Trying to equate ferry or test flights with commercial operations is disingenuous.

Painted or unnpainted, those flights have their own certificatre and falls under regulations.

Airlines can repaint an aircraft to their whims, but what ever paint they use have to be covered by the certificate. And if it does not satisfy the reg, then it is nor acceptable.

That is the argument in court with respect to this thread.

I am not versed nor interested in that aspect. I am interested in the design aspect of the degradation and would really like to know the engineering principle behind it.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

zeke wrote:

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

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 (like the durability of the seat fabric) but is also true elsewhere.

bt

Except that most seat fabric (and seats) fall under the BFE portion, and the aircraft OEMs refuse to get dragged into that discussion; been there, lived it.

zeke wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

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.

AND, quite often, airlines decide to replace the seat covers using their own engineering, without involving the seat OEM.

enzo011 wrote:

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.

AAB also being the Secretary-General of Qatar National Tourism Council puts him directly in government shoes.

zeke wrote:

Every airliner I have flown has had surface degradation.

Try lowering the landing gear prior to touching down.....

No Tax On Rotax

WayexTDI wrote:

Except that most seat fabric (and seats) fall under the BFE portion, and the aircraft OEMs refuse to get dragged into that discussion; been there, lived it.

Yep, until the seats design can't meet 16G and the airframe manufacturer have to set up a tiger team to "help out". Didn't participate in the tiger team but had colleagues who were pulled to support it.



bt

The OEM has procedures and process specifications for the application of initial painting and sealing. This is an engineering and manufacturing requirement. the purpose is to ensure the stuff adheres, seals out moisture, and is appropriate for the area being painted. The post delivery maintenance also must be done to those specifications. delivering unpainted requires a waiver by the customer, engineering and QA.

Yes, planes can be flown unpainted although most have a protective finish left over from assembly. However those flights are short and in non wet conditions to reduce moisture penetration. bare metal schemes require much closer adherence to assembly processes that preclude water penetration and dissimilar metal corrosion.

composites including CFRP always require a top coat to prevent solar ray degradation, surface contamination and moisture penetration...

notaxonrotax wrote:

zeke wrote:

Every airliner I have flown has had surface degradation.

Try lowering the landing gear prior to touching down.....

It'll buff out!

bikerthai wrote:

Airlines can repaint an aircraft to their whims, but what ever paint they use have to be covered by the certificate. And if it does not satisfy the reg, then it is nor acceptable.

Let me be very clear here, paint comes under the maintenance certificate, and maintenance procedures. The only relationship to the TCDS is for continuing airworthiness where the maintenance procedures are situated.

This is where EASA being the state of design have said what they said (linked above), the the Qatar regulator suspension of particular certificate of maintenance reviews on particular tails. It is not against the type.

There has been no action against the TCDS by the Qatar regulator for all A350 aircraft under their register.

I

bikerthai wrote:

I am interested in the design aspect of the degradation and would really like to know the engineering principle behind it.

The OEMs don’t make paint, they don’t develop paint systems. What they have are specifications and industry produces products that meet those specifications. Individual airlines decide what paint and paint systems they want applied.

You are incorrect in your previous statements regarding STCs for paint systems. All of the American Airlines STCs are available fir anyone to see on the FAA website.

The two main types of paint Unser in industry are epoxy type which generally have better adhesion, and enamel paints which have better appearance. Enamel however is more brittle and does not adhere as well. It is a customers choice.

zeke wrote:

You are incorrect in your previous statements regarding STCs for paint systems

You misunderstood my point. I did not mean an STC for the paint. The STC in the case of AA, would have been for the airplane minus the paint. They would have gotten regulatory approval to fly without the paint, just as any airline would need regulatory approval to fly with what ever paint they put on.

bt

zeke wrote:

The OEMs don’t make paint, they don’t develop paint systems. What they have are specifications and industry produces products that meet those specifications. Individual airlines decide what paint and paint systems they want applied.

You are incorrect in your previous statements regarding STCs for paint systems. All of the American Airlines STCs are available fir anyone to see on the FAA website.

The two main types of paint Unser in industry are epoxy type which generally have better adhesion, and enamel paints which have better appearance. Enamel however is more brittle and does not adhere as well. It is a customers choice.

There are currently many things the OEMs do not make, However they produce product specifications through there R&d labs and Materials Technology people that the paints specify the key characteristics of the paint they buy... everything from adhesion, flow, dry time, surface, and color. Materials Tech are also involved in both application systems and removal systems/processes. The airlines pick the color but the manufacturing spec ensures it's the same gallon after gallon. Until the 70's Boeing manufactured their own paints, both interior and exterior, they contracted out zinc chromate and Skydol resistant finishes only because of volume and later environmental issues.

Airlines may decide what paint /paint systems they want, however if they are not covered by OEM specification have fun getting them applied. I recall an airline that tried to do a BFE on paint. The result had to be stripped off when the customer refused to accept the mottled surface and a EOM spec of the same color applied.

geomap wrote:

oschkosch wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

As a supplier you not only can, you will walk away from any customer that costs you more than they bring in, unless you think its just short term. Regardless of how much competition there is in the market.

I fully agree. This is a good move by Airbus. You gotta get off the horse when you realize that the horse is dead. And that is what Airbus has now done.

Objectively, one has to wonder what Airbus is thinking. Airbus has taken this situation to the point where they are sacrificing billions of dollars of booked and future revenue with this one customer. Adding up the cancelled existing A320 orders, potentially cancelled existing A350 orders, and any future orders for new aircraft over lets say the next 10 years its could easily add up to more that $20 billion, potentially $25 billion of lost sales that are diverted to Airbus' competitor.

All of that should tell you how much Airbus thinks the customer will cost them in the long run. Quite obviously Airbus has decided to stop losing money on that one customer and that someone else can sink money into them.
After all Qatar has decided they want have half a dozen free A350 on top of the lunch pricing they already secured.

best regards
Thomas

zeke wrote:

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.

Firstly: the time American Airlines used to fly their aircraft with no paint was the time when those aircraft frames were basically aluminium. Have you notice that this little airline has re-branded since and that this re-branding was slightly related to the acquisition of the B787 which, as the A350, has a composite airframe? To ferry or test an aircraft with no paint is one thing; to fly them on fully commercial services day day out, a completely different one. Unless you know of an airline that actually does it now with B787s or A350s...

You have a point in regards to the different paint substances and also paining processes in the market but it would still be the OEM's responsibility to actually determine the specifications that would attend their product and, in the end, make sure that, once these requirements are met, that the quality of painting is met and is durable. That's why the dispute is between Airbus and QR rather than QR and whatever entity that actually painted the aircraft.

Let's highlight also that the paint is not there only for branding purposes: it has a job protecting the structure and frame so it is quite crucial. That's why, for example, you see a lot of European Airlines using that ridiculous expedient of painting the aircraft (almost) entirely white with some branding at the tail. If painting was not needed, they would not even bother and just put something on the tail instead (they are nearly there anyway...).

Off topic , but raising a reply to AA and paint.
aA used to fly there A300s painted originally, before going to the classic all silver look for them.
Indeed, the 787 purchase promised a revised and updated branding from AA.

TUGMASTER wrote:

Off topic , but raising a reply to AA and paint.
aA used to fly there A300s painted originally, before going to the classic all silver look for them.
Indeed, the 787 purchase promised a revised and updated branding from AA.

And, iirc, those are the only unpainted Airbus flown in regular commercial service. Airbus does not recommend leaving their planes bare and unpainted, even with their aluminum planes. You’ll notice airline livery’s that had strips of bare aluminum (eg on the belly, like UA’s old liveries) lack them on Airbus models- they are either painted grey or fully painted in the surrounding color depending on the livery/airline:

texl1649 wrote:

““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?

I'm guessing the 900 patch repairs is something to do with repainting the heads of individual fasteners/rivets/screws.

zkojq wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

““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?

I'm guessing the 900 patch repairs is something to do with repainting the heads of individual fasteners/rivets/screws.

I'm genuinely mystified, but what other composite aircraft (meaning, A350/787), has anyone experienced/heard about requiring 900 patch repairs prior to repaint? I sincerely don't think that would be considered 'normal.' It just sounds extreme, and for example for the years when the 787 was the only one of the 'type' in service (and is still today much more prevalent, by sheer numbers, with over a thousand deliveries vs. what I think is around 500 for the A350), I expect we'd have heard all kinds of noise if that had been the case.

texl1649 wrote:

I'm genuinely mystified, but what other composite aircraft (meaning, A350/787), has anyone experienced/heard about requiring 900 patch repairs prior to repaint? I sincerely don't think that would be considered 'normal.' It just sounds extreme, and for example for the years when the 787 was the only one of the 'type' in service (and is still today much more prevalent, by sheer numbers, with over a thousand deliveries vs. what I think is around 500 for the A350), I expect we'd have heard all kinds of noise if that had been the case.

It is common, I suspect the majority of this is filling and sanding to restore a smooth surface. The aircraft in question had been fully stripped at the time.

“ 8.1 Composite Filling, Sanding and Surface Preparation
The process to prepare the composite substrate is a two stage process that is always affected by the quality of the molds used to create the structure and also by the percent solids of the resin. The first step is to insure the shape and contour of the surface with filler. Next, perfect and sand smooth the surface for paint. After a smooth surface has been created, the surface will be ready to start priming. For more information with regard to the use and application for the sandable Epoxy Primer refer to section 10 of this manual and to technical data. Most composite surfaces need to be repaired prior to sanding and painting.”

From https://www.gcaa.gov.ae/en/epublication ... E%2001.pdf

zkojq wrote:

I'm guessing the 900 patch repairs is something to do with repainting the heads of individual fasteners/rivets/screws.

Can't say for sure what they meant here. But we typically call repainting of fastener heads as touch-up. Patch repair sounds more like composite repair or any area involving the skin.

bt

Edit: See what Zeke just post above.

zeke wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

I'm genuinely mystified, but what other composite aircraft (meaning, A350/787), has anyone experienced/heard about requiring 900 patch repairs prior to repaint? I sincerely don't think that would be considered 'normal.' It just sounds extreme, and for example for the years when the 787 was the only one of the 'type' in service (and is still today much more prevalent, by sheer numbers, with over a thousand deliveries vs. what I think is around 500 for the A350), I expect we'd have heard all kinds of noise if that had been the case.

It is common, I suspect the majority of this is filling and sanding to restore a smooth surface. The aircraft in question had been fully stripped at the time.

“ 8.1 Composite Filling, Sanding and Surface Preparation
The process to prepare the composite substrate is a two stage process that is always affected by the quality of the molds used to create the structure and also by the percent solids of the resin. The first step is to insure the shape and contour of the surface with filler. Next, perfect and sand smooth the surface for paint. After a smooth surface has been created, the surface will be ready to start priming. For more information with regard to the use and application for the sandable Epoxy Primer refer to section 10 of this manual and to technical data. Most composite surfaces need to be repaired prior to sanding and painting.”

From https://www.gcaa.gov.ae/en/epublication ... E%2001.pdf

A process doesn’t mean it’s common at this scale. If a carrier had complained about this regarding the 787, this site would have collectively demanded the entire fleet be grounded until all were repainted and a thorough root cause analysis be determined. No one has posted anything indicating this is actually ‘normal’ prior to a repaint.

texl1649 wrote:

No one has posted anything indicating this is actually ‘normal’ prior to a repaint.

No, but I did see a demonstration video of a 787 composite "patch" repair near the main entry door. The repair was for some structural ply damage. But other than that, the procedure was just as complicated if not more than what zeke described.

In this case, they would not have to repair the structural ply, may be some of the mesh, but the rest of the repair job was still rather involved.

bt

texl1649 wrote:

zeke wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

I'm genuinely mystified, but what other composite aircraft (meaning, A350/787), has anyone experienced/heard about requiring 900 patch repairs prior to repaint? I sincerely don't think that would be considered 'normal.' It just sounds extreme, and for example for the years when the 787 was the only one of the 'type' in service (and is still today much more prevalent, by sheer numbers, with over a thousand deliveries vs. what I think is around 500 for the A350), I expect we'd have heard all kinds of noise if that had been the case.

It is common, I suspect the majority of this is filling and sanding to restore a smooth surface. The aircraft in question had been fully stripped at the time.

“ 8.1 Composite Filling, Sanding and Surface Preparation
The process to prepare the composite substrate is a two stage process that is always affected by the quality of the molds used to create the structure and also by the percent solids of the resin. The first step is to insure the shape and contour of the surface with filler. Next, perfect and sand smooth the surface for paint. After a smooth surface has been created, the surface will be ready to start priming. For more information with regard to the use and application for the sandable Epoxy Primer refer to section 10 of this manual and to technical data. Most composite surfaces need to be repaired prior to sanding and painting.”

From https://www.gcaa.gov.ae/en/epublication ... E%2001.pdf

A process doesn’t mean it’s common at this scale. If a carrier had complained about this regarding the 787, this site would have collectively demanded the entire fleet be grounded until all were repainted and a thorough root cause analysis be determined. No one has posted anything indicating this is actually ‘normal’ prior to a repaint.

You mean like the Li-Ion batteries catching fire had the demand to solve the root cause and not accepting just a titanium box put around it to prevent it from lighting the plane on fire?

best regards
Thomas

texl1649 wrote:

A process doesn’t mean it’s common at this scale.

Actually I was thinking the number was pretty low. I think my light twin would have had over 100 places, and that a small 6 seater.

texl1649 wrote:

If a carrier had complained about this regarding the 787, this site would have collectively demanded the entire fleet be grounded until all were repainted and a thorough root cause analysis be determined.

Well that has already happened, viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1468193

Except no one was saying they should be grounded, and no demands for a root cause a analysis, no grounding of the fleet, no court case.

The customer didn’t throw the bath water out,, and it was resolved the normal way.

tommy1808 wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

zeke wrote:

It is common, I suspect the majority of this is filling and sanding to restore a smooth surface. The aircraft in question had been fully stripped at the time.

“ 8.1 Composite Filling, Sanding and Surface Preparation
The process to prepare the composite substrate is a two stage process that is always affected by the quality of the molds used to create the structure and also by the percent solids of the resin. The first step is to insure the shape and contour of the surface with filler. Next, perfect and sand smooth the surface for paint. After a smooth surface has been created, the surface will be ready to start priming. For more information with regard to the use and application for the sandable Epoxy Primer refer to section 10 of this manual and to technical data. Most composite surfaces need to be repaired prior to sanding and painting.”

From https://www.gcaa.gov.ae/en/epublication ... E%2001.pdf

A process doesn’t mean it’s common at this scale. If a carrier had complained about this regarding the 787, this site would have collectively demanded the entire fleet be grounded until all were repainted and a thorough root cause analysis be determined. No one has posted anything indicating this is actually ‘normal’ prior to a repaint.

You mean like the Li-Ion batteries catching fire had the demand to solve the root cause and not accepting just a titanium box put around it to prevent it from lighting the plane on fire?

best regards
Thomas

It’s possible they found the root cause, but fundamentally couldn’t fix it. Even today we are still dealing with Li-ion battery fires on consumer products, which has brought down airplanes (UPS 6). In those scenarios you can’t eliminate risk you mitigate, such as adding better fire protection (eg metal cage), changing screening processes to better detect defective batteries, etc.

787s were grounded while the battery fire issue was investigated, remember?

zeke wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

A process doesn’t mean it’s common at this scale.

Actually I was thinking the number was pretty low. I think my light twin would have had over 100 places, and that a small 6 seater.

texl1649 wrote:

If a carrier had complained about this regarding the 787, this site would have collectively demanded the entire fleet be grounded until all were repainted and a thorough root cause analysis be determined.

Well that has already happened, viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1468193

Except no one was saying they should be grounded, and no demands for a root cause a analysis, no grounding of the fleet, no court case.

The customer didn’t throw the bath water out,, and it was resolved the normal way.

I think the difference is that peeling paint on the wings on the 787’s didn’t expose any lightning mesh and require such extensive repairs.

Polot wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

A process doesn’t mean it’s common at this scale. If a carrier had complained about this regarding the 787, this site would have collectively demanded the entire fleet be grounded until all were repainted and a thorough root cause analysis be determined. No one has posted anything indicating this is actually ‘normal’ prior to a repaint.

You mean like the Li-Ion batteries catching fire had the demand to solve the root cause and not accepting just a titanium box put around it to prevent it from lighting the plane on fire?

best regards
Thomas

It’s possible they found the root cause, but fundamentally couldn’t fix it. Even today we are still dealing with Li-ion battery fires on consumer products, which has brought down airplanes (UPS 6). In those scenarios you can’t eliminate risk you mitigate, such as adding better fire protection (eg metal cage), changing screening processes to better detect defective batteries, etc.

787s were grounded while the battery fire issue was investigated, remember?

Of course. Just that Qatar is happily flying those, despite only migration (=repaint) but no fix being in place.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Polot wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

You mean like the Li-Ion batteries catching fire had the demand to solve the root cause and not accepting just a titanium box put around it to prevent it from lighting the plane on fire?

best regards
Thomas

It’s possible they found the root cause, but fundamentally couldn’t fix it. Even today we are still dealing with Li-ion battery fires on consumer products, which has brought down airplanes (UPS 6). In those scenarios you can’t eliminate risk you mitigate, such as adding better fire protection (eg metal cage), changing screening processes to better detect defective batteries, etc.

787s were grounded while the battery fire issue was investigated, remember?

Of course. Just that Qatar is happily flying those, despite only migration (=repaint) but no fix being in place.

Best regards
Thomas

Boeing’s mitigation is permanent, it provides constant fire protection throughout the life of the aircraft. Airbus’s is not. Repainting removes the issue now but doesn’t guarantee that it won’t pop up again a few years down the road. Airbus may be willing to pay for the repaint now, that doesn’t mean they will be willing to pay for more frequent repaints throughout the life of the aircraft at QR.

QR’s demands are in part to ensure Airbus treats the issue as a priority to fix rather than a side issue that they’ll eventually fix.

texl1649 wrote:

zeke wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

A process doesn’t mean it’s common at this scale.

Actually I was thinking the number was pretty low. I think my light twin would have had over 100 places, and that a small 6 seater.

texl1649 wrote:

If a carrier had complained about this regarding the 787, this site would have collectively demanded the entire fleet be grounded until all were repainted and a thorough root cause analysis be determined.

Well that has already happened, viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1468193

Except no one was saying they should be grounded, and no demands for a root cause a analysis, no grounding of the fleet, no court case.

The customer didn’t throw the bath water out,, and it was resolved the normal way.

I think the difference is that peeling paint on the wings on the 787’s didn’t expose any lightning mesh and require such extensive repairs.

The problem is if the lightning mesh on the A350 has been exposed, then it is more than a paint issue. Those brand new unpainted A350s at TLS don't have the lightning mesh exposed. So, it is more than a paint issue, its a surface degredation of the actual fuselage skin below the paint.

Polot wrote:

Boeing’s mitigation is permanent, it provides constant fire protection throughout the life of the aircraft.

The box was a quick and dirty solution. The final solution was the redesign of the battery. But it seems they kept the box as back-up protection.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired. ... design/amp

Kine of funny, the article said they could not zero in on a root cause. But the permanent solution seems to satisfy the airline because it did not require accelerated maintenance.

In this aspect, I concur with Zeke. You offer a temporary solution, with a final solution to be provided later. All the cost dispute is just grand standing on both sides.

bt

texl1649 wrote:

““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?

The number seems high at first glance, but the total surface area of an A350-900 fuselage is upwards of 1200 sq-M. Assuming the number also includes wings, etc., that's maybe one repair for every two square meters. It would be really interesting to see locations and repair guidance for each one.

Polot wrote:

Repainting removes the issue now but doesn’t guarantee that it won’t pop up again a few years down the road. Airbus may be willing to pay for the repaint now, that doesn’t mean they will be willing to pay for more frequent repaints throughout the life of the aircraft at QR.

QR’s demands are in part to ensure Airbus treats the issue as a priority to fix rather than a side issue that they’ll eventually fix.

Firstly what may or may not happen in a few years is not relevant here, QR is claiming AOG payments so they are looking for solutions that can get the aircraft airborne again within 12 hours of it being detected. To the best of my knowledge that information has been provided, however the customer is refusing to apply them using your sort of arguments. That is not what AOG is about.

There are a lot of assumptions in your post that are not currently supported by any evidence. There is no evidence that Airbus have not treated this as a priority, and there is no evidence to suggest they do not have a permanent fix. The majority I saw in that last video was paint coming off fastener heads, I would be very surprised if a different product was not available to treat these during surface preparation.

In aerospace terms if something lasts years, that is permanent, it will get through a couple of C checks. A temporary repair would be speed tape that needs to be inspected every sector.

Operators also need to adjust their maintenance programs that fits the way they operate their aircraft. For example NZ have a couple of 77Ws which are significantly damaged by storing them at AKL during covid exposed to moist salt air. The same aircraft if they were taken to a dry climate away from the sea would not have had the same damage. That damage after being stored at AKL is not the fault of the airframe or engine OEMs, it is not an issue with the aircraft. It simply is the was the operator elected to use the aircraft.

One of the types of damage QR had in their court filings related to the edges of dark and light livery changes, the style of livery I trust you would agree is a choice the operator makes, not the OEM.

Nothing about this is clear cut going by what QR has submitted to court, we have only heard one side of the story. Come end of the month we should know the other side’s versions which I would not be surprised to learn has a different perspective.

I think anyone who has worked with the OEMs would think this is very much out of character, it just doesn’t add up. Airbus would have staff in house next to QR maintenance in DOH, they would be very well versed in providing their customer airline with rapid solutions to keep them flying, this is done at a technical manager to technical manager level. I think we will need to wait until Airbus submits their side to understand what has happened, I suspect someone who is not technical has got involved into the process.

That wouldn’t be the first case, one airline CEO was famous for terminating maintenance staff on the basis that new aircraft do not need maintenance.

zeke wrote:

That wouldn’t be the first case, one airline CEO was famous for terminating maintenance staff on the basis that new aircraft do not need maintenance.

Has he never heard of the bath tub curve for failures. I know this is more relevant to electronic but it also applies to new products as well. This is part of why launch customers get good deals.

zeke wrote:

I think anyone who has worked with the OEMs would think this is very much out of character, it just doesn’t add up. Airbus would have staff in house next to QR maintenance in DOH, they would be very well versed in providing their customer airline with rapid solutions to keep them flying, this is done at a technical manager to technical manager level. I think we will need to wait until Airbus submits their side to understand what has happened, I suspect someone who is not technical has got involved into the process.

That wouldn’t be the first case, one airline CEO was famous for terminating maintenance staff on the basis that new aircraft do not need maintenance.

From a purely lay perspective the condition of the skin on the Video that QR released does look extensive and involve multiple areas of the aircraft. I appreciate that editing and camera angles may be involved here. What did strike me is that there did appear to be areas where the paint did not match and the surface looked like a previous touch-up or repairs had happened. Maybe this is more long running than previously thought?
As you say, the reason why the skin of the QR aircraft got in such condition remains unclear. Was it a QR maintenance issue or perhaps equipment or solutions used to clean the aircraft, for example? Im sure the court process will unveil the extent to which other A350 aircraft and operators have had these issues. It might be interesting to note the condition of the aircraft being repainted for LH and DL from Philippines and LATAM, respectively. A quick look at SA's frames even the older frames at SQ, VN and AY might help too. I doubt EY's would be used enough to show much?

bikerthai wrote:

The box was a quick and dirty solution.

The box wasn’t the solution, the solution was the vent. Placing a box around a runaway battery is a bomb as the energy is still there. Venting the battery overboard moves the energy out of the aircraft.

If you were to ask them I bet they had a peel over the fence to see what the other OEM did, as they already had in place from day 1 a containment vent setup with a burst disc that pilots and mechanics can see if there has been an over pressure event.

BrianDromey wrote:

Im sure the court process will unveil the extent to which other A350 aircraft and operators have had these issues.

I do not think that would be possible, the court will be addressing only the parties involved in that particular A350 purchase agreement from 2007. That is the contract dispute before the court.

zeke wrote:

you were to ask them I bet they had a peel over the fence to see what the other OEM did

Wouldn't have to peek over the fence, just over the cubicles. The principle of venting toxic gasses from the main cabin and out the pressure vessel is well versed within the cabin ECS design team.

bt

https://airinsight.com/iata-boss-worrie ... rbus-feud/

Interesting comments from WW here.

Talks about airbus exploiting their current market strength.

Talks about a long list of airlines that wanted to cancel contracts with airbus but Airbus did not allow them

Wants to see a strong Boeing and strong airbus

Etc etc

Opus99 wrote:

https://airinsight.com/iata-boss-worried-about-qatar-airbus-feud/

Interesting comments from WW here.

Talks about airbus exploiting their current market strength.

Talks about a long list of airlines that wanted to cancel contracts with airbus but Airbus did not allow them

Wants to see a strong Boeing and strong airbus

Etc etc

Could see why Airbus does not allow airlines or lessors to cancel their orders, everyone will be comparing notes what rebates, discount, staggered delivery schedule they are receiving from Airbus and start demanding the same from Airbus. Airbus also has thousands of jobs to keep, suppliers to pay for and shareholders to answer to. Airbus does negotiate with airlines who would like to delay/ defer their delivery, also cut orders as well, for example AirAsia Group case. They also do not hesitate to cut loose those doubtful order for example Interjet, CSA Czech Airlines, those of A220 etc.

Opus99 wrote:

https://airinsight.com/iata-boss-worried-about-qatar-airbus-feud/

Interesting comments from WW here.

Talks about airbus exploiting their current market strength.

Talks about a long list of airlines that wanted to cancel contracts with airbus but Airbus did not allow them

Wants to see a strong Boeing and strong airbus

Etc etc

Interesting how the article starts with a photo of paint peeling off a QR A350. Seems this has now become a meme if not a cultural touchstone, which is not good news for Team A. It feels like they are losing contain on the situation.

It's also interesting that it starts with WW saying something I've been saying for a while, "A lot of other airlines would be looking at this to see how Airbus responds. Many will have seen the photographs of the Qatar A350s that it is concerned about. I think myself and a lot of other airline CEO’s will want to understand what has caused that issue”.

Airbus has portrayed this as one rogue customer, but IMO more than one customer has huge stakes in the outcome of this situation.

Canceling A320s does not seem to be engendering any support for Airbus, instead it seems it is being portrayed as an abuse of power.

Airbus IMO really needs to draw a line under this ASAP. Their intentional escalation of the situation doesn't seem to be working, and it's drawing attention on its previous heavy handed dealings with its customers i.e. "I can probably list a hundred airlines that would have liked to terminate their contracts with Airbus in 2020 but Airbus was definitely not willing to allow those airlines to do so".

In terms of airlines terminating contracts due to covid, the OEMs were well aware of government aid of one form or another available to many, to keep them financially healthy, so actions that breached contracts with suppliers were not a necessary / desirable step in most cases. I don't know if QR received explicit government support in this regard, but one of the outcomes of this dispute could be that any such aid turns out to be less necessary.

Opus99 wrote:

Talks about a long list of airlines that wanted to cancel contracts with airbus but Airbus did not allow them

How many of these are due to COVID ? The sentence in the article is quite vague about the reason but mentions "in 2020"...

Theseus wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Talks about a long list of airlines that wanted to cancel contracts with airbus but Airbus did not allow them

How many of these are due to COVID ? The sentence in the article is quite vague about the reason but mentions "in 2020"...

They are probably because of covid

IIRC the videos were published before the cancellation of the 321s but I guess there is nothing Airbus could ever do right...

RalXWB wrote:

IIRC the videos were published before the cancellation of the 321s but I guess there is nothing Airbus could ever do right...

Or there is nothing that Airbus do wrong either……

RalXWB wrote:

IIRC the videos were published before the cancellation of the 321s but I guess there is nothing Airbus could ever do right...

The video came after. You might be thinking of the prior photos we had.

Opus99 wrote:

https://airinsight.com/iata-boss-worried-about-qatar-airbus-feud/

Interesting comments from WW here.

Talks about airbus exploiting their current market strength.

Talks about a long list of airlines that wanted to cancel contracts with airbus but Airbus did not allow them

Wants to see a strong Boeing and strong airbus

Etc etc

I'm wondering, would it have been inappropriate or a conflict of interest to get someone like WW to help mediate before it reached this stage?