JerseyFlyer wrote:

Any ideas why some of QR's A350s are NOT showing this problem? Maybe too new?

I ask because QR is the only airline for which we know which aircraft are affected, and which are not, or not yet, because if affected QR would have visibly grounded them. In all other cases the issue seems to be being handled "under the radar" between airline and Airbus, so we have no idea how many are affected and what the characteristics of their affected frames are in terms of age, cycles, routes etc.

Qatar has 53 A350 aircraft, of which 22 are currently grounded. They are grounded as they develop signs the paint peeling issue has (or will) spread from fuselage to wing.

Five airlines total have also reported the paint peeling issue, but none other than Qatar has regarded it as an airworthiness issue.

According to Airbus, the Qatar problem is more severe because they did not follow Airbus guidelines for thickness of the paint applied. But EASA has agreed that it's still not an airworthiness issue.

Qatar has cited an earlier AD from EASA regarding inspection of embedded wing lightning protection mesh, for degradation which could be a safety of flight issue in detonating a fuel tank if struck by lightning. However the amount of exposure required is greater than has been observed on the Qatar aircraft.

So basically Qatar is saying that any exposure or degradation presents grounding justification, whereas Airbus and EASA are saying the total exposure needs to exceed a specific determined area before safety is compromised.

Thus Qatar grounds the aircraft as soon as they find the mesh exposed by peeling paint in a wing area, no matter the size. They claim that exposure will soon lead to degradation and the risk is too great. They also claim that this is a manufacturing defect, and not a surface wear issue.

scbriml wrote:

mig17 wrote:

And the 777-8F contract was drafted and firmed in the mean time Boeing was annoncing more delays on the 777-8/9. If one, Boeing hasn't disclosed the new delays to QR before signing this deal including 777-8/9 conversion to 777-8F and almost certainly including credits for the 777-8/9 delays, it could cause legal issue for Boeing

Surely, even Boeing couldn't be that silly?

They aren't.

The X uses the MAX iteration 3 compensation template, as an adjunct to the original contracts. It includes a time-based compensation formula, details discounts based on utilisation (but also how it erodes once X production is underway), and preserves / extends retrospective credits based on volume.

Every sane customer will have executed, unless seriously contemplating cancellation.

Some customers have already negotiated to partly utilise compensation credits for orders of other models. Whether discounted or at face value, only a few know.

smartplane wrote:

scbriml wrote:

mig17 wrote:

And the 777-8F contract was drafted and firmed in the mean time Boeing was annoncing more delays on the 777-8/9. If one, Boeing hasn't disclosed the new delays to QR before signing this deal including 777-8/9 conversion to 777-8F and almost certainly including credits for the 777-8/9 delays, it could cause legal issue for Boeing

Surely, even Boeing couldn't be that silly?

They aren't.

The X uses the MAX iteration 3 compensation template, as an adjunct to the original contracts. It includes a time-based compensation formula, details discounts based on utilisation (but also how it erodes once X production is underway), and preserves / extends retrospective credits based on volume.

Every sane customer will have executed, unless seriously contemplating cancellation.

Some customers have already negotiated to partly utilise compensation credits for orders of other models. Whether discounted or at face value, only a few know.

So the question is, does QR used all of it's credit with Boeing including the one from the latest 777-X delays or do they still have some "free" leverage for further negociations like a cancellation of the XF.

Avatar2go wrote:

Five airlines total have also reported the paint peeling issue, but none other than Qatar has regarded it as an airworthiness issue.

Can we please keep statements like this out of this thread. QR have not had an issue with paint peel, it was not one of the 9 mechanisms which they claimed about in the court documents. QR in their own submissions is not aware of any other airline experiencing the same range of issues QR has.

Your comment suggests to someone who is unaware the QR does not have paint peel, that QR is the 6th airline with the same issue, this is FALSE.

This dispute is between two parties, QR and Airbus, please keep the comments to those relevant parties. Dragging other manufacturers or airlines into this takes the thread off topic, and it will get locked.

WayexTDI wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

I am no lawyer but seeing that other jumped on the order for Airbus not to sell the slots before the judge could rule on whether the were allowed to cross link contracts, what do those that saw it that was see the judge allowing Airbus to continue to deliver aircraft to QR and not stop it at this point? Surely that points to the judge believing the aircraft are safe to fly otherwise he would have sided with QR.

Thing is, even not considering the judge and the law, QR and the QCAA have dramatically failed to prove, and convinced other CAAs, that the A350s are unsafe to fly; no one has even seen their (supposedly existing) order to ground the planes. I've said since day one that it was all a stunt and that it'd blow in QR's face.

Neither QR nor QCAA have said the A350 is unsafe to fly. The QCAA is not allowing specific aircraft to be operated without maintenance to rectify the surface degradation condition. This is well within the rights and responsibilities of a CAA. The nuance lost here is that QR doesn’t appear willing to make on-going temporary fixes without understanding the root of the issue and therefore has not performed the maintenance required to rectify the surface degradation condition. There’s nothing nefarious, just petty behavior on both sides.

B777LRF wrote:

A deal should be doable, something along the lines of “we’ll reinstate the A321 order, and you’ll cancel the 777XF order in place of an order for the same amount of A350F’s as a sign of, you know, your unwavering support of the aircraft."

It would be highly inappropriate for Airbus to request or require termination of a Boeing contract as a condition of doing business. The tortious interference would net Boeing billions in damages.

zeke wrote:

Can we please keep statements like this out of this thread. QR have not had an issue with paint peel, it was not one of the 9 mechanisms which they claimed about in the court documents. QR in their own submissions is not aware of any other airline experiencing the same range of issues QR has.

Your comment suggests to someone who is unaware the QR does not have paint peel, that QR is the 6th airline with the same issue, this is FALSE.

This dispute is between two parties, QR and Airbus, please keep the comments to those relevant parties. Dragging other manufacturers or airlines into this takes the thread off topic, and it will get locked.

Five airlines total was reported in the press. I did not suggest at all that Qatar does not have paint peel. Nor did I drag other manufacturers or airlines into the thread.

I gave an accurate summary of the issue, based on extensive reading. You are free to disagree if you wish, or to suggest corrections. But you are not free to suggest I not post, I have the same right to do that as you.

WayexTDI wrote:

The QR A350s that are not currently flying were indeed grounded by the QCAA, on basis that is yet to be actually disclosed.

The grounded aircraft have had their individual Airworthiness Review Certificate revoked or suspended following checks and inspections which is the mechanism for the grounding. The QCAA's basis of revoking or suspending the airworthiness review certificates is disclosed, it is detailed in the court filings including one of the filings shared earlier by Zeke. The court filings also detail some of the communications between EASA/QCAA/Airbus/QR on the matter.

One of the points of contention in the case is the validity/justification of the QCAA's decision and its basis.

Pelly wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

That is not a matter of logic, its like saying that the MH A330 that was written off by a chemical spill had a design fault no, it came into contact with a chemicals outside of its design specification.

This was quoted by The Times from the judge's interim ruling.

As may be but I disagree with his logic.

Avatar2go wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Any ideas why some of QR's A350s are NOT showing this problem? Maybe too new?

I ask because QR is the only airline for which we know which aircraft are affected, and which are not, or not yet, because if affected QR would have visibly grounded them. In all other cases the issue seems to be being handled "under the radar" between airline and Airbus, so we have no idea how many are affected and what the characteristics of their affected frames are in terms of age, cycles, routes etc.

Qatar has 53 A350 aircraft, of which 22 are currently grounded. They are grounded as they develop signs the paint peeling issue has (or will) spread from fuselage to wing.

Five airlines total have also reported the paint peeling issue, but none other than Qatar has regarded it as an airworthiness issue.

According to Airbus, the Qatar problem is more severe because they did not follow Airbus guidelines for thickness of the paint applied. But EASA has agreed that it's still not an airworthiness issue.

Qatar has cited an earlier AD from EASA regarding inspection of embedded wing lightning protection mesh, for degradation which could be a safety of flight issue in detonating a fuel tank if struck by lightning. However the amount of exposure required is greater than has been observed on the Qatar aircraft.

So basically Qatar is saying that any exposure or degradation presents grounding justification, whereas Airbus and EASA are saying the total exposure needs to exceed a specific determined area before safety is compromised.

Thus Qatar grounds the aircraft as soon as they find the mesh exposed by peeling paint in a wing area, no matter the size. They claim that exposure will soon lead to degradation and the risk is too great. They also claim that this is a manufacturing defect, and not a surface wear issue.

This is a great informing post. Thank you Avatar for the information.

zeke wrote:

QR has not said they have paint peel

Say what?

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/air ... t-lawsuit/

Qatar went public with images of blistering and peeling paint

AeroVega wrote:

zeke wrote:

QR has not said they have paint peel

Say what?

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/air ... t-lawsuit/

Qatar went public with images of blistering and peeling paint

Avweb is not QR. There is not a single quote in that article from QR about paint peel.

Please refer to documents QR filed in court for the 9 issues they claimed. Paint peel is NOT one of them.

zeke wrote:

There is not a single quote in that article from QR about paint peel.

Not a single quote, you say?

Airbus said in court filings there was no need to ground the planes because the European Union Aviation Safety Agency reviewed the paint problem and found no safety issues. Rather, Airbus claims Qatar grounded the planes because of the COVID-19 pandemic and is using the paint issue to get Airbus to cover those costs. The airline rejected the claim. “These defects are not superficial and one of the defects causes the aircraft’s lightning protection system to be exposed and damaged,” it said.

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/air ... t-lawsuit/

AeroVega wrote:

zeke wrote:

There is not a single quote in that article from QR about paint peel.

Not a single quote, you say?

Airbus said in court filings there was no need to ground the planes because the European Union Aviation Safety Agency reviewed the paint problem and found no safety issues. Rather, Airbus claims Qatar grounded the planes because of the COVID-19 pandemic and is using the paint issue to get Airbus to cover those costs. The airline rejected the claim. “These defects are not superficial and one of the defects causes the aircraft’s lightning protection system to be exposed and damaged,” it said.

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/air ... t-lawsuit/

What are you trying to prove here? Where is the QR quote about paint peel? Can you stop with this side argument please? It is clogging this topic up with irrelevant debates.

majano wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

zeke wrote:

There is not a single quote in that article from QR about paint peel.

Not a single quote, you say?

Airbus said in court filings there was no need to ground the planes because the European Union Aviation Safety Agency reviewed the paint problem and found no safety issues. Rather, Airbus claims Qatar grounded the planes because of the COVID-19 pandemic and is using the paint issue to get Airbus to cover those costs. The airline rejected the claim. “These defects are not superficial and one of the defects causes the aircraft’s lightning protection system to be exposed and damaged,” it said.

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/air ... t-lawsuit/

What are you trying to prove here? Where is the QR quote about paint peel? Can you stop with this side argument please? It is clogging this topic up with irrelevant debates.

The argument over semantics is not one sided. The reality is that Airbus, QR and the media have at times used different words to describe the same issue. Failing to use the precise words a poster is looking for should not invalidate one’s position.

majano wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

zeke wrote:

There is not a single quote in that article from QR about paint peel.

Not a single quote, you say?

Airbus said in court filings there was no need to ground the planes because the European Union Aviation Safety Agency reviewed the paint problem and found no safety issues. Rather, Airbus claims Qatar grounded the planes because of the COVID-19 pandemic and is using the paint issue to get Airbus to cover those costs. The airline rejected the claim. “These defects are not superficial and one of the defects causes the aircraft’s lightning protection system to be exposed and damaged,” it said.

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/air ... t-lawsuit/

What are you trying to prove here? Where is the QR quote about paint peel? Can you stop with this side argument please? It is clogging this topic up with irrelevant debates.

If you think this is an irrelevant debate then why are you participating in it? Zeke claimed that QR never said their A350s were suffering from paint peel. We have all seen the pictures published by QR that show the paint peeling off on one of their A350s, and I highlighted a direct quote from QR in bold right above. I would like to know what Zeke is trying to accomplish by denying this obvious fact? Isn't the paint peeling what started this whole dispute in the first place?

[quote=AeroVega] Isn't the paint peeling what started this whole dispute in the first place?[/quote]

I think Zeke is saying that QR is claiming only that the exposed mesh is a danger to the aircraft. They have not mentioned the paint as such in the legal documents. We all know that peeling paint is what causes the mesh to be exposed but QR have not specifically mentioned paint issues in their legal dox but only exposed mesh.

That's really playing on words.

BTW, for those who think it might matter : Qatar’s Emir Amir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani is scheduled to have a “working dinner” with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris on Sunday, reports stated, citing the French Presidency.

https://dohanews.co/frances-macron-to-h ... -in-paris/

Aesma wrote:

That's really playing on words.

BTW, for those who think it might matter : Qatar’s Emir Amir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani is scheduled to have a “working dinner” with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris on Sunday, reports stated, citing the French Presidency.

https://dohanews.co/frances-macron-to-h ... -in-paris/

It's understood that they discussed this issue when Macron visited Qatar in December 2021, but nothing seemed to happen from that. Hopefully something more productive occurs

accentra wrote:

Aesma wrote:

That's really playing on words.

BTW, for those who think it might matter : Qatar’s Emir Amir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani is scheduled to have a “working dinner” with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris on Sunday, reports stated, citing the French Presidency.

https://dohanews.co/frances-macron-to-h ... -in-paris/

I would be astonished if the dispute didn't figure in the discussions, including how best to end it with Qatar's face saved. I'm sure Macron's office will have been well briefed on possible solutions by Airbus' government affairs team!

It would likely be a benign and brief comment about cooperation towards a mutual solution. These type of meetings are fairly scripted and focused on big, strategic issues.

freqflyer wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Isn't the paint peeling what started this whole dispute in the first place?

I think Zeke is saying that QR is claiming only that the exposed mesh is a danger to the aircraft. They have not mentioned the paint as such in the legal documents. We all know that peeling paint is what causes the mesh to be exposed but QR have not specifically mentioned paint issues in their legal dox but only exposed mesh.

I cannot find the legal document that contains the original QR claims. All I can find is Airbus' response:

https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploa ... -25-22.pdf

The word "paint" appears 70 times in this response, for example in the following quote:

5.4. It is also admitted that certain other aircraft in the QTR A350 Fleet appear to have
suffered from some surface degradation involving cracking to paint and, in some
cases, damage to the ECF layer and that findings have been made of a similar
type or nature as certain aspects of the Condition

I would love to read the original legal QR claim that this quote is in response to. Did someone post a link to that document and did I miss it?

AeroVega wrote:

zeke wrote:

Not a single quote, you say?

I said not a single quote from QR regarding to paint peel, the quote is for example “These defects are not superficial and one of the defects causes the aircraft’s lightning protection system to be exposed and damaged,” does not include paint peel.

QR in their court filings listed 9 different types of mechanisms with descriptions, for example where the light and dark areas of their livery join. They have not claimed paint peel. Paint peel is a different mechanism which shows up normally soon after delivery where the livery paint lifts off in sometimes large areas. Paint peel is a very common issue on all aircraft, I could sent you links where paint peel has been discussed on here 20 years ago.

freqflyer wrote:

I think Zeke is saying that QR is claiming only that the exposed mesh is a danger to the aircraft. They have not mentioned the paint as such in the legal documents. We all know that peeling paint is what causes the mesh to be exposed but QR have not specifically mentioned paint issues in their legal dox but only exposed mesh.

My point is in the legal documents filed by QR they have made specific mention to 9 defect mechanisms, paint peel is not one of the defects they have listed.

zeke wrote:

freqflyer wrote:

I think Zeke is saying that QR is claiming only that the exposed mesh is a danger to the aircraft. They have not mentioned the paint as such in the legal documents. We all know that peeling paint is what causes the mesh to be exposed but QR have not specifically mentioned paint issues in their legal dox but only exposed mesh.

My point is in the legal documents filed by QR they have made specific mention to 9 defect mechanisms, paint peel is not one of the defects they have listed.

I think a normal and reasonable person, without the ability or desire to demonstrate technical knowledge, could believe that the defects, like exposure of lightening protection, require the absence of paint.

If the paint did not peel off as part of the surface degradation, perhaps you could tell us how the paint was separated from the fuselage.

AeroVega wrote:

The word "paint" appears 70 times in this response, for example in the following quote:

There is a number of references to the different conditions QR have claimed (paint cracking, paint cracking around window frames, rivet rash), and they have specifically stated that the AY issues is not the same as the QR issues (page 12). They have said on page 5 that 8 of the mechanisms identified by QR on MSN36 were caused by the paint stripping process.

sxf24 wrote:

I think a normal and reasonable person, without the ability or desire to demonstrate technical knowledge, could believe that the defects, like exposure of lightening protection, require the absence of paint.

A normal reasonable person would not claim an article contained the term "paint peel" when it is not in the article. That is a specific mechanism that not claimed by QR, and that term was not in the article.

sxf24 wrote:

If the paint did not peel off as part of the surface degradation, perhaps you could tell us how the paint was separated from the fuselage.

In my view, improper maintenance in the issue, all external surfaces will degrade over time, does not matter who makes the aircraft, and it does not matter what it is made from. The operator is required to maintain their aircraft, not the manufacturer. It has not been lost on anyone that the aircraft that have been grounded by QR have all been in service for an extended period of time.

zeke wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

I think a normal and reasonable person, without the ability or desire to demonstrate technical knowledge, could believe that the defects, like exposure of lightening protection, require the absence of paint.

A normal reasonable person would not claim an article contained the term "paint peel" when it is not in the article. That is a specific mechanism that not claimed by QR, and that term was not in the article.

sxf24 wrote:

If the paint did not peel off as part of the surface degradation, perhaps you could tell us how the paint was separated from the fuselage.

In my view, improper maintenance in the issue, all external surfaces will degrade over time, does not matter who makes the aircraft, and it does not matter what it is made from. The operator is required to maintain their aircraft, not the manufacturer. It has not been lost on anyone that the aircraft that have been grounded by QR have all been in service for an extended period of time.

This is a forum for aviation enthusiasts, not a court of law or a CAA office. Each individual is going to describe issues to the best of their ability, even if the chosen words may not be legally or technically precise. In this situation, I think the use of “paint peeling” to describe the spontaneous and unscheduled removal of decorative paint and surface coating from the aircraft fuselage is understandable. If there’s another simple and straightforward way to describe the situation, perhaps we can petition to modify the forum rules to require its usage, therefore limiting unflattering criticism of Airbus.

As QR is not the only airline to experience some degree of “paint peeling” on an A350, it’s difficult to attribute the situation to improper maintenance, though it is certainly convenient to suggest that QR did not properly maintain their aircraft prior to any grounding. What we do know is that various A350 operators have taken very different approaches in working with Airbus. All other airlines have addressed the issue quietly and collaboratively, completing temporary fixes to allow the aircraft to continue flying. QR took an adversarial approach and, in my opinion, raised the stakes by choosing not complete temporary fixes and allowed the aircraft to remain grounded pending maintenance.

accentra wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

accentra wrote:

I would be astonished if the dispute didn't figure in the discussions, including how best to end it with Qatar's face saved. I'm sure Macron's office will have been well briefed on possible solutions by Airbus' government affairs team!

It would likely be a benign and brief comment about cooperation towards a mutual solution. These type of meetings are fairly scripted and focused on big, strategic issues.

Not so sure about that. Airbus knows the Emir is the key to settling this issue. They have appealed directly to him before over the AAB-imposed delivery delays over 'quality' issues, for example. True, the meeting is likely to focus on Qatar energy supplies (to the EU) and arms (French weapon system sales to Qatar, following on from the latest Rafale deal). But the Airbus issue is not insignificant in the France/Qatar relationship and the best chance to settle it is via the Emir. So I fully suspect it will get more than brief lip service at the meeting. We shall see!

The Emir can be key to any decision in Qatar. However, having seen the process and requirements for private companies to get government officials, not to mention heads of state, to lobby on their behalf, I would find it highly unusual for the French government to intervene in a matter that is being litigated in a foreign court.

sxf24 wrote:

zeke wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

I think a normal and reasonable person, without the ability or desire to demonstrate technical knowledge, could believe that the defects, like exposure of lightening protection, require the absence of paint.

A normal reasonable person would not claim an article contained the term "paint peel" when it is not in the article. That is a specific mechanism that not claimed by QR, and that term was not in the article.

sxf24 wrote:

If the paint did not peel off as part of the surface degradation, perhaps you could tell us how the paint was separated from the fuselage.

In my view, improper maintenance in the issue, all external surfaces will degrade over time, does not matter who makes the aircraft, and it does not matter what it is made from. The operator is required to maintain their aircraft, not the manufacturer. It has not been lost on anyone that the aircraft that have been grounded by QR have all been in service for an extended period of time.

This is a forum for aviation enthusiasts, not a court of law or a CAA office. Each individual is going to describe issues to the best of their ability, even if the chosen words may not be legally or technically precise. In this situation, I think the use of “paint peeling” to describe the spontaneous and unscheduled removal of decorative paint and surface coating from the aircraft fuselage is understandable. If there’s another simple and straightforward way to describe the situation, perhaps we can petition to modify the forum rules to require its usage, therefore limiting unflattering criticism of Airbus.

As QR is not the only airline to experience some degree of “paint peeling” on an A350, it’s difficult to attribute the situation to improper maintenance, though it is certainly convenient to suggest that QR did not properly maintain their aircraft prior to any grounding. What we do know is that various A350 operators have taken very different approaches in working with Airbus. All other airlines have addressed the issue quietly and collaboratively, completing temporary fixes to allow the aircraft to continue flying. QR took an adversarial approach and, in my opinion, raised the stakes by choosing not complete temporary fixes and allowed the aircraft to remain grounded pending maintenance.

accentra wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

It would likely be a benign and brief comment about cooperation towards a mutual solution. These type of meetings are fairly scripted and focused on big, strategic issues.

Not so sure about that. Airbus knows the Emir is the key to settling this issue. They have appealed directly to him before over the AAB-imposed delivery delays over 'quality' issues, for example. True, the meeting is likely to focus on Qatar energy supplies (to the EU) and arms (French weapon system sales to Qatar, following on from the latest Rafale deal). But the Airbus issue is not insignificant in the France/Qatar relationship and the best chance to settle it is via the Emir. So I fully suspect it will get more than brief lip service at the meeting. We shall see!

The Emir can be key to any decision in Qatar. However, having seen the process and requirements for private companies to get government officials, not to mention heads of state, to lobby on their behalf, I would find it highly unusual for the French government to intervene in a matter that is being litigated in a foreign court.

Still doesn't change the fact that they have been unable to back up the claims he made. QR has never stated their A350s have a paint peeling issues, as far as we know. Whether it is semantics or not, the user said QR said this, was asked for a direct quote and has repeatedly failed to provide it.

A number of airlines have experienced paint peeling issues on a number of aircraft throughout aviation history. If you have a source for the number of airlines experiencing paint peeling issues on their A350s due to a manufacturing defect then I would love to see it.

Don't understand the issue here, an enthusiast forum should still strive to work with facts and not hyperbole, assumptions and emotion. I don't see anyone trying to defend Airbus here, just people stating facts.

Would also love a source for "all other airlines have addressed the issue with Airbus quietly".

gatibosgru wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

zeke wrote:

A normal reasonable person would not claim an article contained the term "paint peel" when it is not in the article. That is a specific mechanism that not claimed by QR, and that term was not in the article.



In my view, improper maintenance in the issue, all external surfaces will degrade over time, does not matter who makes the aircraft, and it does not matter what it is made from. The operator is required to maintain their aircraft, not the manufacturer. It has not been lost on anyone that the aircraft that have been grounded by QR have all been in service for an extended period of time.

This is a forum for aviation enthusiasts, not a court of law or a CAA office. Each individual is going to describe issues to the best of their ability, even if the chosen words may not be legally or technically precise. In this situation, I think the use of “paint peeling” to describe the spontaneous and unscheduled removal of decorative paint and surface coating from the aircraft fuselage is understandable. If there’s another simple and straightforward way to describe the situation, perhaps we can petition to modify the forum rules to require its usage, therefore limiting unflattering criticism of Airbus.

As QR is not the only airline to experience some degree of “paint peeling” on an A350, it’s difficult to attribute the situation to improper maintenance, though it is certainly convenient to suggest that QR did not properly maintain their aircraft prior to any grounding. What we do know is that various A350 operators have taken very different approaches in working with Airbus. All other airlines have addressed the issue quietly and collaboratively, completing temporary fixes to allow the aircraft to continue flying. QR took an adversarial approach and, in my opinion, raised the stakes by choosing not complete temporary fixes and allowed the aircraft to remain grounded pending maintenance.

accentra wrote:

Not so sure about that. Airbus knows the Emir is the key to settling this issue. They have appealed directly to him before over the AAB-imposed delivery delays over 'quality' issues, for example. True, the meeting is likely to focus on Qatar energy supplies (to the EU) and arms (French weapon system sales to Qatar, following on from the latest Rafale deal). But the Airbus issue is not insignificant in the France/Qatar relationship and the best chance to settle it is via the Emir. So I fully suspect it will get more than brief lip service at the meeting. We shall see!

The Emir can be key to any decision in Qatar. However, having seen the process and requirements for private companies to get government officials, not to mention heads of state, to lobby on their behalf, I would find it highly unusual for the French government to intervene in a matter that is being litigated in a foreign court.

Still doesn't change the fact that they have been unable to back up the claims he made. QR has never stated their A350s have a paint peeling issues, as far as we know. Whether it is semantics or not, the user said QR said this, was asked for a direct quote and has repeatedly failed to provide it.

A number of airlines have experienced paint peeling issues on a number of aircraft throughout aviation history. If you have a source for the number of airlines experiencing paint peeling issues on their A350s due to a manufacturing defect then I would love to see it.

Don't understand the issue here, an enthusiast forum should still strive to work with facts and not hyperbole, assumptions and emotion. I don't see anyone trying to defend Airbus here, just people stating facts.

Would also love a source for "all other airlines have addressed the issue with Airbus quietly".

Paint unexpectedly came off of A350s at QR and other airlines. One article describes it as peeling, flaw, issue and degradation. I have not claimed to know the cause of the issue, but that is irrelevant to how we choose to describe it.

Since other airlines haven’t sued Airbus, I presume they’ve addressed the issue quietly.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-11-29/

There is PAINT PEELING on some A350s. There is also PAINT PEELING on some other airplanes that are not A350s!

sxf24 wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

This is a forum for aviation enthusiasts, not a court of law or a CAA office. Each individual is going to describe issues to the best of their ability, even if the chosen words may not be legally or technically precise. In this situation, I think the use of “paint peeling” to describe the spontaneous and unscheduled removal of decorative paint and surface coating from the aircraft fuselage is understandable. If there’s another simple and straightforward way to describe the situation, perhaps we can petition to modify the forum rules to require its usage, therefore limiting unflattering criticism of Airbus.

As QR is not the only airline to experience some degree of “paint peeling” on an A350, it’s difficult to attribute the situation to improper maintenance, though it is certainly convenient to suggest that QR did not properly maintain their aircraft prior to any grounding. What we do know is that various A350 operators have taken very different approaches in working with Airbus. All other airlines have addressed the issue quietly and collaboratively, completing temporary fixes to allow the aircraft to continue flying. QR took an adversarial approach and, in my opinion, raised the stakes by choosing not complete temporary fixes and allowed the aircraft to remain grounded pending maintenance.



The Emir can be key to any decision in Qatar. However, having seen the process and requirements for private companies to get government officials, not to mention heads of state, to lobby on their behalf, I would find it highly unusual for the French government to intervene in a matter that is being litigated in a foreign court.

Still doesn't change the fact that they have been unable to back up the claims he made. QR has never stated their A350s have a paint peeling issues, as far as we know. Whether it is semantics or not, the user said QR said this, was asked for a direct quote and has repeatedly failed to provide it.

A number of airlines have experienced paint peeling issues on a number of aircraft throughout aviation history. If you have a source for the number of airlines experiencing paint peeling issues on their A350s due to a manufacturing defect then I would love to see it.

Don't understand the issue here, an enthusiast forum should still strive to work with facts and not hyperbole, assumptions and emotion. I don't see anyone trying to defend Airbus here, just people stating facts.

Would also love a source for "all other airlines have addressed the issue with Airbus quietly".

Paint unexpectedly came off of A350s at QR and other airlines. One article describes it as peeling, flaw, issue and degradation. I have not claimed to know the cause of the issue, but that is irrelevant to how we choose to describe it.

Since other airlines haven’t sued Airbus, I presume they’ve addressed the issue quietly.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-11-29/

There is PAINT PEELING on some A350s. There is also PAINT PEELING on some other airplanes that are not A350s!

"Presuming" is pretty tricky when stating things as facts (I.e. "Other airlines HAVE HAD issues with peeling paint on their A350s and addressed it quietly" but thanks for the correction.

gatibosgru wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

Still doesn't change the fact that they have been unable to back up the claims he made. QR has never stated their A350s have a paint peeling issues, as far as we know. Whether it is semantics or not, the user said QR said this, was asked for a direct quote and has repeatedly failed to provide it.

A number of airlines have experienced paint peeling issues on a number of aircraft throughout aviation history. If you have a source for the number of airlines experiencing paint peeling issues on their A350s due to a manufacturing defect then I would love to see it.

Don't understand the issue here, an enthusiast forum should still strive to work with facts and not hyperbole, assumptions and emotion. I don't see anyone trying to defend Airbus here, just people stating facts.

Would also love a source for "all other airlines have addressed the issue with Airbus quietly".

Paint unexpectedly came off of A350s at QR and other airlines. One article describes it as peeling, flaw, issue and degradation. I have not claimed to know the cause of the issue, but that is irrelevant to how we choose to describe it.

Since other airlines haven’t sued Airbus, I presume they’ve addressed the issue quietly.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-11-29/

There is PAINT PEELING on some A350s. There is also PAINT PEELING on some other airplanes that are not A350s!

"Presuming" is pretty tricky when stating things as facts (I.e. "Other airlines HAVE HAD issues with peeling paint on their A350s and addressed it quietly" but thanks for the correction.

I think the existence of issues is confirmed as is the absence of other lawsuits. Do you disagree?

The issue raised by Qatar, is that the paint peeling (or cracking, chipping, degradation, whatever you wish to call it), has exposed the lightning protection mesh formed into the top layer of the composite structure, of some 23 A350's. And in some cases that mesh has degraded due to this exposure. In addition, there is a separate issue with paint cracking around the window frames. Airbus has acknowledged both of these issues, and Qatar has published video evidence of them.

Qatar asked Airbus for a root cause determination of these issues, along with permanent fixes. Rightly or wrongly, Qatar was not satisfied with the response from Airbus, which has claimed the issues do not impact airworthiness or safety of flight, and can be addressed with available surface repair & repainting methods. That has led to the current legal dispute, which must be resolved either via settlement or by the court.

Paint peeling (or whatever the preferred term) is not that uncommon for commercial aircraft. It tends to be more problematic for composite surfaces. And so has happened also for other airlines and other aircraft. There have been no reports from other airlines or aircraft of compromised lightning protection mesh material, and no reports of an airworthiness issue, outside of Qatar. There is a photo of exposed mesh from a Finnair A350, but for a small area and with no damage to the mesh itself. Finnair reported the issue to EASA for review, which found it wasn't an airworthiness concern.

zeke wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

I think a normal and reasonable person, without the ability or desire to demonstrate technical knowledge, could believe that the defects, like exposure of lightening protection, require the absence of paint.

A normal reasonable person would not claim an article contained the term "paint peel" when it is not in the article. That is a specific mechanism that not claimed by QR, and that term was not in the article.

Apologies. I thought you were denying that QR had claimed their A350 was suffering from surface degradation. Didn't realize it was about whether QR had or had not refererred to this condition literally as "paint peeling".

BTW, are you able to post a link to the legal document you are referring to? I don't think anybody has posted a link to that document yet.

sxf24 wrote:

zeke wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

I think a normal and reasonable person, without the ability or desire to demonstrate technical knowledge, could believe that the defects, like exposure of lightening protection, require the absence of paint.

A normal reasonable person would not claim an article contained the term "paint peel" when it is not in the article. That is a specific mechanism that not claimed by QR, and that term was not in the article.

sxf24 wrote:

If the paint did not peel off as part of the surface degradation, perhaps you could tell us how the paint was separated from the fuselage.

In my view, improper maintenance in the issue, all external surfaces will degrade over time, does not matter who makes the aircraft, and it does not matter what it is made from. The operator is required to maintain their aircraft, not the manufacturer. It has not been lost on anyone that the aircraft that have been grounded by QR have all been in service for an extended period of time.

This is a forum for aviation enthusiasts, not a court of law or a CAA office. Each individual is going to describe issues to the best of their ability, even if the chosen words may not be legally or technically precise. In this situation, I think the use of “paint peeling” to describe the spontaneous and unscheduled removal of decorative paint and surface coating from the aircraft fuselage is understandable. If there’s another simple and straightforward way to describe the situation, perhaps we can petition to modify the forum rules to require its usage, therefore limiting unflattering criticism of Airbus.

As QR is not the only airline to experience some degree of “paint peeling” on an A350, it’s difficult to attribute the situation to improper maintenance, though it is certainly convenient to suggest that QR did not properly maintain their aircraft prior to any grounding. What we do know is that various A350 operators have taken very different approaches in working with Airbus. All other airlines have addressed the issue quietly and collaboratively, completing temporary fixes to allow the aircraft to continue flying. QR took an adversarial approach and, in my opinion, raised the stakes by choosing not complete temporary fixes and allowed the aircraft to remain grounded pending maintenance.

accentra wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

It would likely be a benign and brief comment about cooperation towards a mutual solution. These type of meetings are fairly scripted and focused on big, strategic issues.

Not so sure about that. Airbus knows the Emir is the key to settling this issue. They have appealed directly to him before over the AAB-imposed delivery delays over 'quality' issues, for example. True, the meeting is likely to focus on Qatar energy supplies (to the EU) and arms (French weapon system sales to Qatar, following on from the latest Rafale deal). But the Airbus issue is not insignificant in the France/Qatar relationship and the best chance to settle it is via the Emir. So I fully suspect it will get more than brief lip service at the meeting. We shall see!

The Emir can be key to any decision in Qatar. However, having seen the process and requirements for private companies to get government officials, not to mention heads of state, to lobby on their behalf, I would find it highly unusual for the French government to intervene in a matter that is being litigated in a foreign court.

Do you have any proof that the fixes other airlines used are only temporary? Also your statement that without the "temporary" fixes, the aircrafts would not be allowed to fly is plain wrong since it is proven by EASA that this is not a safety issue.

WayexTDI wrote:

KingOrGod wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Airbus will most likely happily welcome QR back as a customer... provided AAB is gone and/or not allowed to speak publicly.
Airbus cannot refuse to sell their planes to QR if QR is willing to pay the price: I believe this is simply illegal, and in any case it would against their duty to the shareholders which is to generate profit.

Airbus don't sell to Ryanair

Airbus never refused to sell to Ryanair, Ryanair refused to buy Airbus planes at Airbus prices

Off on a tangent (but somewhat relevant as Airbus has refused to sell to a prospective customer in the past), I believe Airbus did not respond to the RFP from Ryanair. In my view, that equates to not selling to - rather than pricing - Ryanair out.

John Leahy was explicitly quoted as saying that he won't enter into a sales competition with Ryanair. He knew MoL's methods and elected to not compete for the sales.

KingOrGod wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

KingOrGod wrote:

Airbus don't sell to Ryanair

Airbus never refused to sell to Ryanair, Ryanair refused to buy Airbus planes at Airbus prices

Off on a tangent (but somewhat relevant as Airbus has refused to sell to a prospective customer in the past), I believe Airbus did not respond to the RFP from Ryanair. In my view, that equates to not selling to - rather than pricing - Ryanair out.

John Leahy was explicitly quoted as saying that he won't enter into a sales competition with Ryanair. He knew MoL's methods and elected to not compete for the sales.

The bottom line here is that Airbus will not “haggle” prices with Ryanair. If Ryanair is willing to pay a realistic price, then Airbus would gladly sell to them.

sxf24 wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

Paint unexpectedly came off of A350s at QR and other airlines. One article describes it as peeling, flaw, issue and degradation. I have not claimed to know the cause of the issue, but that is irrelevant to how we choose to describe it.

Since other airlines haven’t sued Airbus, I presume they’ve addressed the issue quietly.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-11-29/

There is PAINT PEELING on some A350s. There is also PAINT PEELING on some other airplanes that are not A350s!

"Presuming" is pretty tricky when stating things as facts (I.e. "Other airlines HAVE HAD issues with peeling paint on their A350s and addressed it quietly" but thanks for the correction.

I think the existence of issues is confirmed as is the absence of other lawsuits. Do you disagree?

I do disagree, an absence of other lawsuits in no way confirms an issue exists.

HL300MUC wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

zeke wrote:

A normal reasonable person would not claim an article contained the term "paint peel" when it is not in the article. That is a specific mechanism that not claimed by QR, and that term was not in the article.



In my view, improper maintenance in the issue, all external surfaces will degrade over time, does not matter who makes the aircraft, and it does not matter what it is made from. The operator is required to maintain their aircraft, not the manufacturer. It has not been lost on anyone that the aircraft that have been grounded by QR have all been in service for an extended period of time.

This is a forum for aviation enthusiasts, not a court of law or a CAA office. Each individual is going to describe issues to the best of their ability, even if the chosen words may not be legally or technically precise. In this situation, I think the use of “paint peeling” to describe the spontaneous and unscheduled removal of decorative paint and surface coating from the aircraft fuselage is understandable. If there’s another simple and straightforward way to describe the situation, perhaps we can petition to modify the forum rules to require its usage, therefore limiting unflattering criticism of Airbus.

As QR is not the only airline to experience some degree of “paint peeling” on an A350, it’s difficult to attribute the situation to improper maintenance, though it is certainly convenient to suggest that QR did not properly maintain their aircraft prior to any grounding. What we do know is that various A350 operators have taken very different approaches in working with Airbus. All other airlines have addressed the issue quietly and collaboratively, completing temporary fixes to allow the aircraft to continue flying. QR took an adversarial approach and, in my opinion, raised the stakes by choosing not complete temporary fixes and allowed the aircraft to remain grounded pending maintenance.

accentra wrote:

Not so sure about that. Airbus knows the Emir is the key to settling this issue. They have appealed directly to him before over the AAB-imposed delivery delays over 'quality' issues, for example. True, the meeting is likely to focus on Qatar energy supplies (to the EU) and arms (French weapon system sales to Qatar, following on from the latest Rafale deal). But the Airbus issue is not insignificant in the France/Qatar relationship and the best chance to settle it is via the Emir. So I fully suspect it will get more than brief lip service at the meeting. We shall see!

The Emir can be key to any decision in Qatar. However, having seen the process and requirements for private companies to get government officials, not to mention heads of state, to lobby on their behalf, I would find it highly unusual for the French government to intervene in a matter that is being litigated in a foreign court.

Do you have any proof that the fixes other airlines used are only temporary? Also your statement that without the "temporary" fixes, the aircrafts would not be allowed to fly is plain wrong since it is proven by EASA that this is not a safety issue.

I’m drawing a conclusion from various articles and private conversations. What has been at issue is the root cause and a permanent solution to the paint peeling. I know other airlines have applied temporary patches and we haven’t seen photo evidence otherwise.

It’s important to understand that an unrelated issue could be deemed unsafe, but that temporary or permanent repairs allow an aircraft to remain airworthy.

I don't think anyone here is trying to smear Airbus. Just trying to arrive at an accurate understanding of the issue. It's difficult because there is a dearth of official information, and thus different reports tend to fill in the blanks in different ways. It's clear that the issue goes deeper than simple paint peel through loss of adhesion, as it has affected the upper layers of the composite skin and lightning protection mesh. But not clear that this represents any kind of structural, safety, or airworthiness issue. This is something Qatar and Airbus will have to work out, or have it worked out for them by the court.

I can see Qatar's viewpoint that this level of degradation is not expected on the aircraft, and that they want to be sure that whatever fix is applied, will permanently resolve the issue so that it does not become a chronic repair that extends beyond the warranty period. But at the same time, I also can see the Airbus viewpoint that the issue is not safety-related and does not require either grounding or compensation, beyond their obligation to address the flaw. Somewhere in the middle is a compromise, that they will need to find, or have it found for them.

sxf24 wrote:

I’m drawing a conclusion from various articles and private conversations. What has been at issue is the root cause and a permanent solution to the paint peeling. I know other airlines have applied temporary patches and we haven’t seen photo evidence otherwise.

It’s important to understand that an unrelated issue could be deemed unsafe, but that temporary or permanent repairs allow an aircraft to remain airworthy.

This is utter rubbish, there is no such thing as a temporary repair.

QR has not claimed there is any paint peel, making such statements is false and deliberately misleading.

You are deliberately misrepresenting the situation over and over again.

Avatar2go wrote:

I don't think anyone here is trying to smear Airbus

Of course there is, that is why Airbus stated in public it has to defend its reputation.

Avatar2go wrote:

It's difficult because there is a dearth of official information, and thus different reports tend to fill in the blanks in different ways.

The court proceedings are in the public domain, no one is stopping you as a private individual from obtaining the documents from the court. I have provided the court details and case number on the previous page.

Avatar2go wrote:

It's clear that the issue goes deeper than simple paint peel through loss of adhesion, as it has affected the upper layers of the composite skin and lightning protection mesh.

There is no paint peel issue at QR, I have stated this tens if not hundreds of times. You have clearly read my previous posts yet deliberately post misinformation.

Avatar2go wrote:

It's clear that the issue goes deeper than simple paint peel through loss of adhesion, as it has affected the upper layers of the composite skin and lightning protection mesh.

Again more misinformation, the paint, filler, and mesh are considered cosmetic, they are not structural. It is perfectly acceptable to have holes in these areas, as evidenced by every window.

Avatar2go wrote:

But not clear that this represents any kind of structural, safety, or airworthiness issue.

QRs own court documents does not say it is an airworthiness issue, all it says is there is a potential for an airworthiness issue, same can be said for anything that requires continuing maintenance. You don't perform the maintenance required, it becomes unairworthy,

Avatar2go wrote:

I can see Qatar's viewpoint that this level of degradation is not expected on the aircraft, and that they want to be sure that whatever fix is applied, will permanently resolve the issue so that it does not become a chronic repair that extends beyond the warranty period

This is absolute rubbish, QR was fully aware that aircraft require periodic maintenance and periodic painting.

Zeke, you seem determined to argue the semantics of the case, so will leave you to it.

It goes without saying that the paint must come off the aircraft to expose the composite skin and the underlying mesh. So the paint did come off, however you wish to characterize that. Also visible in the Qatar videos. So that is established fact.

Further Qatar did reference airworthiness & safety concerns in the grounding, that too is established fact. Whether or not those concerns are valid is part of the dispute.

Finally Qatar did reference concerns about the permanency of the problem resolution. That again is established fact, and is again subject to resolution of the dispute.

In your statements, you are expressing your opinion that the case should be resolved in Airbus' favor, and are somewhat intolerant of any other view. That's fine, you are entitled to your own opinions, and I am not disputing them.

All I have said is the case needs to be resolved in some fashion. I don't presume that I personally have the knowledge or ability to resolve it, so have tried to present both sides, for clarity and balance. I would presume that the court will consider it in the same light.

Avatar2go wrote:

Zeke, you seem determined to argue the semantics of the case, so will leave you to it.

That is what we do on here sometimes, arguing semantics. Like when is a fire not a fire. This is not just Zeke but any side will adopt this to ensure accuracy. If you don't like that you may find it troublesome on here as it is sometimes argued to death on the meaning of a word.

Avatar2go wrote:

Zeke, you seem determined to argue the semantics of the case, so will leave you to it.

It goes without saying that the paint must come off the aircraft to expose the composite skin and the underlying mesh. So the paint did come off, however you wish to characterize that. Also visible in the Qatar videos. So that is established fact.

Further Qatar did reference airworthiness & safety concerns in the grounding, that too is established fact. Whether or not those concerns are valid is part of the dispute.

Finally Qatar did reference concerns about the permanency of the problem resolution. That again is established fact, and is again subject to resolution of the dispute.

In your statements, you are expressing your opinion that the case should be resolved in Airbus' favor, and are somewhat intolerant of any other view. That's fine, you are entitled to your own opinions, and I am not disputing them.

All I have said is the case needs to be resolved in some fashion. I don't presume that I personally have the knowledge or ability to resolve it, so have tried to present both sides, for clarity and balance. I would presume that the court will consider it in the same light.

So according to your statements, everything Qatar or its aviation authority says is established fact? What are the statements of Airbus and EASA then?

Can we please adopt some generic language about QR's claim - I suggest simply "surface degradation". Airbus will no doubt coin a more technical term once there is consensus about the underlying problem.

HL300MUC wrote:

So according to your statements, everything Qatar or its aviation authority says is established fact? What are the statements of Airbus and EASA then?

You're conflating my statements of the Qatar position, with agreement with that position. I agree with the facts of the problem existing, as evidenced in the Qatar video and acknowledged by Airbus. I gave the Qatar position but did not say I agreed with it.

I also gave the Airbus position, and agreed with the facts that also support it. But again did not say I agreed with that position. It's not for me to decide which is right or wrong, I leave that to the court.

I think the discussion surrounding this topic has become so polarized, that any acknowledgement of fact on the opposing side, is taken as endorsement or support of that side. Which has led to earlier threads being locked.

Some of us are not taking a side, just trying to understand the facts of the case. The principles involved are interesting, as will be the resolution.

What I don't understand is how long QTR must have left the issues happen.
Surely what was shown on the pictures/videos didn't happen on one flight to the next?

And if you always read about how important their image and appearance is for QTR with every little thing almost being micro-managed from the top - this might have been degrading over time without anything being done to it?
Unless the fix is a longer time in maintenance which would have needed to be planned?

ReverseFlow wrote:

What I don't understand is how long QTR must have left the issues happen.
Surely what was shown on the pictures/videos didn't happen on one flight to the next?

And if you always read about how important their image and appearance is for QTR with every little thing almost being micro-managed from the top - this might have been degrading over time without anything being done to it?
Unless the fix is a longer time in maintenance which would have needed to be planned?

As I understand it, the issue was first discovered in November 2020 when an A350 was stripped of paint for repainting. At that time it was thought to be related to the history of that particular aircraft. Airbus was consulted and asked to propose a resolution, which they did, as a cosmetic issue and repair.

As time went on, it began to surface in other aircraft that did not share that aircraft's history or repainting, which led Qatar (rightly or wrongly) to object to the cosmetic characterization. Qatar first reacted by refusing further delivery of new aircraft, then began pulling the affected aircraft from service in August 2021. So the issue did develop over time, over multiple aircraft, and a period of several months.

https://simpleflying.com/qatar-airbus-a ... t-timeline