Gar1G wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

VictorKilo wrote:

This move by Airbus is as much about sending a signal to other airlines and customers that these tactics are unacceptable as it is about sending a signal to QR and AAB.

From my conversations with airlines and lessors, they get a clear message from Airbus: the customer-first days are in the past and the company is now prioritizing corporate finance. There’s a real sense Airbus is over leveraging its current, market-leading position and becoming quite arrogant. Boeing had a similar mindset before and generated the same kind of complaints.

Pride comes before a fall.

You do have a point here potentially and probably backed up by the WSJ article with the following excerpt.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/airbus-boeing-rivals-max-11626189853

Mr. Faury spent the bulk of the pandemic trying to force his biggest and most loyal customers, some of whom were teetering on the brink, to live up to their ironclad contractual obligations.... Mr. Faury’s strategy is a break from past downturns. Airbus, under previous leadership, has traditionally been more willing to give its best customers flexibility on orders. Across industries, suppliers, landlords, even tax authorities all deployed a similar soft touch to accommodate the pandemic’s economic hit.

Mr. Faury’s strategy is a break from past downturns. Airbus, under previous leadership, has traditionally been more willing to give its best customers flexibility on orders. Across industries, suppliers, landlords, even tax authorities all deployed a similar soft touch to accommodate the pandemic’s economic hit.

Airbus’s rigid approach carries big risks, and some Airbus executives privately worry it threatens long-term relationships with carriers just as demand starts to return.

Willie Walsh, who stepped down as chief executive of International Consolidated Airlines Group SA at the end of last year, asked for a moratorium on Airbus deliveries to the owner of British Airways during the early days of the pandemic, according to people familiar with the matter.

When he was turned down, he repeatedly cited the “old Airbus,” they said.

The WSJ article just tells me Airbus has matured and is paying back its investors for the decades of investments. The countries and stockholders should reap profits from the marketing strength Airbus presently holds.

So who blacklisted who? Is QR not taking or getting calls from Airbus. Has Airbus stopped calling QR? Never smart to be on a "do not call" list in a two company OEM market. At least SWA and Ryan Air get cold calls and model airplanes from Airbus.

sxf24 wrote:

VictorKilo wrote:

This move by Airbus is as much about sending a signal to other airlines and customers that these tactics are unacceptable as it is about sending a signal to QR and AAB.

From my conversations with airlines and lessors, they get a clear message from Airbus: the customer-first days are in the past and the company is now prioritizing corporate finance. There’s a real sense Airbus is over leveraging its current, market-leading position and becoming quite arrogant. Boeing had a similar mindset before and generated the same kind of complaints.

Pride comes before a fall.

I disagree > AAB has gone too far - and now Airbus sends a message that making business in this way is not acceptable.

Northpole wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

VictorKilo wrote:

This move by Airbus is as much about sending a signal to other airlines and customers that these tactics are unacceptable as it is about sending a signal to QR and AAB.

From my conversations with airlines and lessors, they get a clear message from Airbus: the customer-first days are in the past and the company is now prioritizing corporate finance. There’s a real sense Airbus is over leveraging its current, market-leading position and becoming quite arrogant. Boeing had a similar mindset before and generated the same kind of complaints.

Pride comes before a fall.

I disagree > AAB has gone too far - and now Airbus sends a message that making business in this way is not acceptable.

I also dont get why Airbus should during a pandemic be more lenient with customers, when said customers have received billions in bailout. They already have been by renegotiating contracts to delay deliveries for a higher price in the future. Anything more than that would be a bailout from Airbus for the customers, just for customer friendship points? Where is the guarantee here?

Northpole wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

VictorKilo wrote:

This move by Airbus is as much about sending a signal to other airlines and customers that these tactics are unacceptable as it is about sending a signal to QR and AAB.

From my conversations with airlines and lessors, they get a clear message from Airbus: the customer-first days are in the past and the company is now prioritizing corporate finance. There’s a real sense Airbus is over leveraging its current, market-leading position and becoming quite arrogant. Boeing had a similar mindset before and generated the same kind of complaints.

Pride comes before a fall.

I disagree > AAB has gone too far - and now Airbus sends a message that making business in this way is not acceptable.

Let’s be clear: while AAB is the CEO and primary spokesperson for QR, he is not the final decision maker. QR is owned by the state, which is an absolute monarchy. The political implications of this standoff are quite interesting.

Duke91 wrote:

Northpole wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

From my conversations with airlines and lessors, they get a clear message from Airbus: the customer-first days are in the past and the company is now prioritizing corporate finance. There’s a real sense Airbus is over leveraging its current, market-leading position and becoming quite arrogant. Boeing had a similar mindset before and generated the same kind of complaints.

Pride comes before a fall.

I disagree > AAB has gone too far - and now Airbus sends a message that making business in this way is not acceptable.

I also dont get why Airbus should during a pandemic be more lenient with customers, when said customers have received billions in bailout. They already have been by renegotiating contracts to delay deliveries for a higher price in the future. Anything more than that would be a bailout from Airbus for the customers, just for customer friendship points? Where is the guarantee here?

Aviation is cyclical and it is guaranteed that airlines and OEMs will encounter hard times in the future. Building and maintaining trust is important as it increases the likelihood your partners will standby and help you get through a rough patch. That doesn’t mean you roll over and acquiesce, but operating with a certain level of humility is helpful.

planewasted wrote:

Boeing will have good margins on the coming orders from Qatar Airways.

Assuming Boeing also wants to have the joy of dealing with AAB's persistent histrionics ?

They tasted the same medicine before.

JannEejit wrote:

planewasted wrote:

Boeing will have good margins on the coming orders from Qatar Airways.

Assuming Boeing also wants to have the joy of dealing with AAB's persistent histrionics ?

They already have experience of tantrums with MOL.

bikerthai wrote:

Duke91 wrote:

saying, 737 has no version that can compete with the LR, let alone XLR by range.

Don't want to derail this thread, but just want to mention it here first. If thing goes on like this. Then my money is on QR being one of the launch customer for Boeing new airplane to compete with the XLR.

bt

And when is this going to happen? in ten years maybe - I always try to be optimistic By then this drama will all be forgotten, AlBaker is gone, Airbus' reputation restored and Qatar happily operating 'buses again.

william wrote:

Reflection wrote:

par13del wrote:

Which is what QR wants, recall that they are also attempting to refuse additional A350 deliveries.

The A320 order cancellation by Airbus can also be viewed as great customer service. As the Qatar CEO feels that Airbus can not serve Qatar satisfactorily with its products nor with its organization, then by cancelling the order A saves Qatar the hassle and costs of cancellation.

Furthermore, did Baker not say in public/press that they no longer feel they can conduct business with Airbus, as the business relationship has been destroyed, or something to that extent?

Surprised France's Macron has not got involved yet. Or he has the same mind as Airbus, not an important enough customer. The politics behind this is fascinating.

Didn't he (or Sarkozy) meet the Emir of Qatar to sort out the last dispute between Airbus and Qatar Airways in 2017?

After all we all know that despite the rhetoric, the Royal Family of Qatar will make the final decision on these matters not AAB.

https://twitter.com/airinsight/status/1 ... 18185?s=21

Airbus has suspended the delivery of an A350.

For the posters much older than me, has there ever been a feud to this extent?

MIflyer12 wrote:

I'll put it back to you: what narrowbody routes does Qatar fly that it couldn't do with a MAX9?

Sorry to state the bleeding obvious, but quite clearly there are no current Qatar narrowbody routes that couldn't be done with the Max9 because no current narrowbody apart from the LR has these capabilities.

This from Mad Al; -

The (LR) is being taken by us so that, when there is a downturn – our network is very seasonal in one direction or the other – it is a perfect aeroplane to use when the trend is offseason.

Heavierthanair wrote:

And when is this going to happen? in ten years maybe - I always try to be optimistic By then this drama will all be forgotten

Ah, but when it comes to Middle East, in politics, business or any other type of relationships, institutional memory can span decades if not centuries.

bt

Duke91 wrote:

I bet Airbus already sold the 50 neos somewhere else, the question is who?

Actually the real loser seems to be Allegiant

lat I heard they wen in talks with Northern Pacific and Icelandair, but Icelandair said the other day they stalled out because there in love with there maxes.

https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1484581665519198208?s=20

Finally we get some videos of the damage

Gar1G wrote:

https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1484581665519198208?s=20

Finally we get some videos of the damage

"It is not a paint issue" ... ^^

Reuters says QR has released a video of the damage, I can't find it. Has anybody seen it that can post it?

Gar1G wrote:

https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1484581665519198208?s=20

Finally we get some videos of the damage

The more technical guys on here. How does it look?

Gar1G wrote:

https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1484581665519198208?s=20

Finally we get some videos of the damage

Having watched that - yes it looks bad and I can't excuse Airbus for that type of product.

But again how as an airline do you let your planes get into that state. What are pilots doing when they inspect a plane before every flight? What about during routine maintenance. Are you telling me that all occurs between maintenance intervals?

This has become a boxing match to use a bad sports metaphor. Some are rooting for Airbus, some for QR.

Personally, the mystery of the dispute is the fascination for me. Airbus has stated their side, QR has stated theirs. The factual truth likely lies somewhere in the middle. My hope is the actual causal factors are fully revealed. Ultimately, the obligation of any Judicial proceeding is to determine the material facts of a case and make a final, and hopefully fair final judgement.

So what are the true facts? Maybe eventually we'll all find out.

Gar1G wrote:

https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1484581665519198208?s=20

Finally we get some videos of the damage

Oh, wow. A few spots do look pretty concerning, doesn’t look like a lot of force was required to pull off some of those flakes. I have to say, however, the dramatic editing made me chuckle. Oh, AAB…

MLIAA wrote:

Breathe wrote:

A bit left field, but if QR really wants the A321s is there anything stopping them from order some from a leasing company?

Alternatively, IAG or Cathay Pacific could order them for Qatar and sell the orders or the planes straight to Qatar. There are lots of ways around this.

Sure, and Airbus will fulfill the order and also make a huge discount! Ironic mode off

Dang, looking at the crown skin irregularities at 19 seconds in, my first impression would be a process issue.

With deference to Zeke, if a few paint chip falls off the top of some titanium fasteners, it could be considered normal, but the puckering around those fasteners, and the number of fasteners involve tells me they either need a design change or tighten up on their painting process.

Looks like what you find on a rusting frame in the desert grave yard.

bt

My take on this overall is that.

A) There is an issue (potentially big issue) with the paint system on the A350 particularly relating to the durability.
B) Airbus recognise there is a problem and have proposed interim solutions to re-mediate the issue.
C) Airbus is working on or has completed a long term solution.
D) QR wanted the long term solution immediately and was unwilling to take any re-mediation in advance of that.
E) QR want compensation for all time planes have been grounded and have done no maintenance on the issue so it continues to deteriorate. (I suspect video is current and not when the frame in question was first "grounded")

There are of course many many things we are not privy to. I do remember Jon Ostrower saying at the start of this that other airlines were encouraging Airbus to stand up to this as it was harming public perception of their flagship products.

Can anyone tell me if those crown stringers are fastened on or co-cured? At 19 seconds in from the video. I mean if they are co-cured, then there is no reason for the irregularity other than thermal expansion. If thermal expansion is to blame in that area, then they use the wrong paint for that condition.

bt

Yikes, I do not like how there some consistent patterns in some areas.

Gar1G wrote:

https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1484581665519198208?s=20

Finally we get some videos of the damage

This looks not so bad as the pictures we had earlier, no mesh to be seen or deteriorating material; just peeling paint. A lot of it, but just that…

JonesNL wrote:

Gar1G wrote:

https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1484581665519198208?s=20

Finally we get some videos of the damage

This looks not so bad as the pictures we had earlier, no mesh to be seen or deteriorating material; just peeling paint. A lot of it, but just that…

Uh…mesh can literally be seen in the first two photos after the registration shot at the 1 and 2 second mark.

Looks like fish skin, not something passengers would want to see.

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+

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see who is playing games here and how this was gamed out. And it also explains why Airbus is so set to scorch earth. 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.

As far as the video goes, it certainly looks bad, but there are a few things we should be mindful of. I am not a metallurgist nor an engineer nor have I ever built or worked on composite surfaces like this. What looks bad to me may not be nearly as bad as it looks and we do not know if QR allowed the surfaces to get to this state in breach of normal service requirements. I will therefore remain open to both sides of the argument. What is less of a grey area is that QR released evidence WHILE involved in a lawsuit. That isn't something a corporation does when it has high confidence the evidence is irrefutable and will get them to prevail in court. Quite the contrary, it is usually indicative of a corporation that thinks it will lose but is trying to win the "hearts and minds" of the public to buffer the potential loss in court. It is also wildly against protocol while in a legal dispute (normally nobody will so much as comment during ongoing litigation).

Polot wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Gar1G wrote:

https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1484581665519198208?s=20

Finally we get some videos of the damage

This looks not so bad as the pictures we had earlier, no mesh to be seen or deteriorating material; just peeling paint. A lot of it, but just that…

Uh…mesh can literally be seen in the first two photos after the registration shot at the 1 and 2 second mark.

Those shots are the same spot but from a different angle (quite disingenuous to exaggerate if you ask me) and look like they have been treated. At least they are not consistent with all the other shots…

JonesNL wrote:

looks not so bad as the pictures we had earlier, no mesh to be seen or deteriorating material; just peeling paint. A lot of it, but just that…

Oh but the video is much worse. In the photos, you see local damage. But the video starting at 18 seconds, you see wrinkling of the paint over large portion of the crown.

The wrinkling reveals systemic issues in the layer underneath.

Maybe the reason why this is a complex issue is that there may be multiple root cause and as each one of us concentrate on one, we do not see the other.

And that is why AB is slow to set a definitive solution. To the chagrin of QR.

bt

Gar1G wrote:

Gar1G wrote:

https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1484581665519198208?s=20

Finally we get some videos of the damage

Having watched that - yes it looks bad and I can't excuse Airbus for that type of product.

But again how as an airline do you let your planes get into that state. What are pilots doing when they inspect a plane before every flight? What about during routine maintenance. Are you telling me that all occurs between maintenance intervals?

I wonder how the paint looks like for normal used aircraft?

Yeah, I too wonder how that somehow popped up without anyone noticing until now

BTW. Even if AB have a proposed solution, it would take time for them to build test hardware and run through the environmental cycling tests which must simulate X lifetime of the paint. All time consuming effort.

bt

I mean this is crazy

It seams the worst of the damage occurs on he crown, something pilots don't typicaly see when they do rhe walk around. Even from the concourse it may be difficult to see the top surface of a wide body unless you are right up close with good lighting.

bt

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+

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see who is playing games here and how this was gamed out. And it also explains why Airbus is so set to scorch earth. 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.

As far as the video goes, it certainly looks bad, but there are a few things we should be mindful of. I am not a metallurgist nor an engineer nor have I ever built or worked on composite surfaces like this. What looks bad to me may not be nearly as bad as it looks and we do not know if QR allowed the surfaces to get to this state in breach of normal service requirements. I will therefore remain open to both sides of the argument. What is less of a grey area is that QR released evidence WHILE involved in a lawsuit. That isn't something a corporation does when it has high confidence the evidence is irrefutable and will get them to prevail in court. Quite the contrary, it is usually indicative of a corporation that thinks it will lose but is trying to win the "hearts and minds" of the public to buffer the potential loss in court. It is also wildly against protocol while in a legal dispute (normally nobody will so much as comment during ongoing litigation).

Certainly there is a game being played. And fully agree with your last paragraph, releasing the video for public consumption is highly unusual IMO. A PR-stunt for a "media war".

That Airframe as first flown in 2015. Is that the original paint?

It almost seems like the fuselage is flexing too much on the top which is causing the paint to separate. Is that the downside of the panel system in that they are moving independently causing too much flex?

Francoflier wrote:

hope Boeing takes full advantage of this with their 737 asking price when QR comes knocking.

What if Boeing will say that they already have enough problems, no thanx?

TaromA380 wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

hope Boeing takes full advantage of this with their 737 asking price when QR comes knocking.

What if Boeing will say that they already have enough problems, no thanx?

It’s a problem that comes with big money which they also need

Yeah, that pretty bad. I’ve seen some some rough paint jobs and I’ve seen what wear and tear does to paint on aircraft.

That’s not wear and tear for certain. There are definitely issues going on. Hopefully we will see QR and Airbus figure it out.

This public PR battle isn’t going to end well for both parties the way I see it. It’s funny seeing the Airbus fans and Boeing fans go at it the usuals going out of their ways to defend their manufacturers want to crap on QR. Or cheer on QR and crap on Airbus. Quite frankly, this is being handled poorly by both sides.

I am just here eating my popcorn watching this unfold and curious about what the underlying issues are and what the solutions will be to resolve said issues.

morrisond wrote:

almost seems like the fuselage is flexing too much on the top which is causing the paint to separate. Is that the downside of the panel system in that they are moving independently causing too much flex?

The panel system only impacts the panel stiffness at the global level. It should not make a difference at the local level. Note that there was really no image of problems on the wing where we all know there is significant flexing.

Besides if it's a urethane paint system, it should be able to flex much more than the reinforced epoxy underneath.

If Airbus think it's a thermal expansion issue, I can agree with that. Some here suggests it could also be a moisture ingression and mesh corrosion issue, the video evidence could support that as well.

A complex situation all around.

bt

The video looks bad.
But how long has A7-ALF and A7-ALT been out of service?
Has it just been sitting around in DOH in the heat all this time? Can the heat be something that causes this?
Why aren't the other airlines having a similar drastic paint issue?
Because these are leases, do you think QR, doesn't take care of there aircraft cosmetically like others do to reduce cost?

KL808 wrote:

The video looks bad.
But how long has A7-ALF and A7-ALT been out of service?
Has it just been sitting around in DOH in the heat all this time? Can the heat be something that causes this?
Why aren't the other airlines having a similar drastic paint issue?
Because these are leases, do you think QR, doesn't take care of there aircraft cosmetically like others do to reduce cost?

If I'm not wrong these were in the first batch of 350s taken out of action (so maybe since around June 2021).

And yes based on some videos from aviation bloggers, all the parked 350s have no choice but to sit out in the sun (and during the Middle East summer at that!)

Gar1G wrote:

And yes based on some videos from aviation bloggers, all the parked 350s have no choice but to sit out in the sun (and during the Middle East summer at that!)

As a designer, it would be something we would take into account when selecting a paint material, including various testing parameters. Or at least, we should be and the parameter we design to should is realistic.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

morrisond wrote:

almost seems like the fuselage is flexing too much on the top which is causing the paint to separate. Is that the downside of the panel system in that they are moving independently causing too much flex?

The panel system only impacts the panel stiffness at the global level. It should not make a difference at the local level. Note that there was really no image of problems on the wing where we all know there is significant flexing.

Besides if it's a urethane paint system, it should be able to flex much more than the reinforced epoxy underneath.

If Airbus think it's a thermal expansion issue, I can agree with that. Some here suggests it could also be a moisture ingression and mesh corrosion issue, the video evidence could support that as well.

A complex situation all around.

bt

I suspect it is all of the above. It is likely an issue with the paint being the wrong paint on a surface that had far more thermal expansion than expected and once cracking happened, moisture got in there and the wetting/drying cycle caused the buckling and corrosion. But again...I am not a specialist on this...I on;y have experience with this kind of thing in the context of home building.

One has to wonder, should Boeing make a play and attempt to get 50 Max 8/9 in QR quick? ABB would probably want to show off he can replace airbus easily. Or should boeing stay out of it?

I personally think a good dreamliner and Max could properly allow QR to replace the A330 and A320 quick.

The issue with AAB is that his reaction to this supposed issue must be seen in context. The context of his previous relationship with Airbus (where Airbus tried to run around him to the Emir) and that he most certainly has an axe to grind with Airbus. And also the context of his past (unreasonable) interactions with both Airbus and Boeing on other 'issues'. If it was any other airline chief, apart from perhaps O'Leary (!), then this whole thing would most certainly have a different complexion. And no doubt a different outcome.

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.

bikerthai wrote:

Dang, looking at the crown skin irregularities at 19 seconds in, my first impression would be a process issue.

With deference to Zeke, if a few paint chip falls off the top of some titanium fasteners, it could be considered normal, but the puckering around those fasteners, and the number of fasteners involve tells me they either need a design change or tighten up on their painting process.

Looks like what you find on a rusting frame in the desert grave yard.

bt

The 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. There were parts of that clip that were pretty obvious that were cleaned up for maintenance, and another part that can be seen masked off. The video is not alarming to me at all.

I don’t see anything that would be called structural there, it looks like cosmetic livery. I don’t see any issues with the CFRP and see no ECF.

Rivet rash is not uncommon, and it got worse when the new environmentally friendly paints were introduced. See https://www.boeingsuppliers.com/environ ... 003-08.pdf it is nit something that will be going away anytime soon eg https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA604681.pdf

It is very well known that paint does not stick well to titanium fasteners, while not pretty it isn’t really that much if a concern as titanium is being used for its corrosion free properties in the first place.

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.“