aaexecplat wrote:keesje wrote:TC957 wrote:If only it were that simple. But I suspect that's how Airbus handled other airlines that reported minor A350 paint issues. You don't see other airlines's CEO's making such a shutzpah over this issue. And none of their countries aviation regulators have deemed the grounding necessary of the affected frames so what we have come to now is down to how QR have handled this.
I don't know all the details & it seems the way QR handled it was more personal then regular by I guy who isn't used to handling "no" as an answer.
On the other hand I don't want to downplay the paint damage issues, they look bad enough to me.
But I assume there is a reason & solution for it that can be worked out by operations.
And Al Baker probably doesn't want to bet the company on 777-9 & 737-10s iso proven A35Xs and A321NEOs.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-11-29/
https://simpleflying.com/qatar-airways- ... 50-damage/
1) QR used paint outside of Airbus specs/recommendation
2) QR used stripping techniques during repaint in contravention of published Airbus methods
It is entirely possible that the severity of the images you show is due to their continued defiance of Airbus paint and maintenance protocol. I think the images look bad, but they have to be viewed with the previously mentioned facts as the background.
When did QR use paint outside of Airbus specs ? Wasn't the 350 that had been stripped of paint the first to have been done so, otherwise all the 350's delivered would've been painted by Airbus ?