I have never seen these photos before. Impressed by how paint is peeling from the fuselage.


https://ca.yahoo.com/finance/news/exclu ... 39495.html

Giving access to journalists to publish photos - Exactly the type of goodwill and trust that can help towards a settlement. Feels like the court of public opinion again.

This would be a slap in the face after the 2 CEOs had just met for the IATA AGM. I can only reason that the 2 sides are still so far apart in their communication that QR needed this to swing settlement talks closer to their favour.

Gar1G wrote:

Giving access to journalists to publish photos - Exactly the type of goodwill and trust that can help towards a settlement. Feels like the court of public opinion again.

This would be a slap in the face after the 2 CEOs had just met for the IATA AGM. I can only reason that the 2 sides are still so far apart in their communication that QR needed this to swing settlement talks closer to their favour.

And it'll swing so far that it will go past them without even a discussion.
This kind of PR stunt is sure to blow in QR's face.

Please, don’t make us rehash this entire issue again. The paint looks horrible, but the previous thread extensively explained why.

Yes, allowing a news reporter and photographer into the hanger with these aircraft with bad paint/finishes may be a PR stunt to push for some kind of financial settlement, but it may force parties to figure out what went wrong and how to deal with it. To me several issues have to be determined.
Was this a bad or improperly prepared batch of paint and/or primer from the maker of the product.
Was the wrong mix used that didn't bond fully with the lighting mesh and underlying body of the aircraft.
Did Airbus not have a correct specification for the paint, that didn't properly bond with the underlying surfaces.
Was there improper procedures or conditions when the paint was applied.
Was improper chemicals, mix of them or how applied for cleaning or de-icing used.
Was the paint/finish wrong for the extremes in temperature the plane was subject to.
Sadly this deterioration of the paint/finishes and the underlying materials may make these aircraft not airworthy or require so much replaced to make it economically unfeasible.

The situation is newsworthy with many details in the public domain from court filings. Reuters would also argue the public has a right to know about potential issues on airplanes they fly on.

Expecting the situation to remain hidden in the absence of an order from the court to do so is naive, particularly since photos of these and other aircraft have circulated through industry WhatsApp chats.

I'm not taking sides,, but there's there's a serious lack of context in those pics for all those of you pontificating already - there are no wider shots to show the actual scale of the area of the damage. Close up, a mole hill can be made to look like a mountain!

DartHerald wrote:

I'm not taking sides,, but there's there's a serious lack of context in those pics for all those of you pontificating already - there are no wider shots to show the actual scale of the area of the damage. Close up, a mole hill can be made to look like a mountain!

A sense of scale can be determined in the first pic, as that is clearly the inward face of the wingtip.

The comments in this thread are indicative of how much the posters paid attention to the prior threads (...meaning not at all). There is absolutely ZERO news coming from this article beyond a few extra pictures that don't make the issue look any worse than it did when QR leaked the first set of images.

All this does is to further divide the parties. For those of you who think this will help reach a settlement, I have news for you...it does the exact opposite. It also shows how panicked QR is that they are going to lose the high court case. If they thought they were winning, they would never have allowed this PR stunt. This is a hail mary of sorts. And it all but ensures AB will not sell them another airplane for many years or decades to come.

Just when you think QR couldn't possibly be any dumber, they surprise on the under.

aaexecplat wrote:

The comments in this thread are indicative of how much the posters paid attention to the prior threads (...meaning not at all). There is absolutely ZERO news coming from this article beyond a few extra pictures that don't make the issue look any worse than it did when QR leaked the first set of images.

All this does is to further divide the parties. For those of you who think this will help reach a settlement, I have news for you...it does the exact opposite. It also shows how panicked QR is that they are going to lose the high court case. If they thought they were winning, they would never have allowed this PR stunt. This is a hail mary of sorts. And it all but ensures AB will not sell them another airplane for many years or decades to come.

Just when you think QR couldn't possibly be any dumber, they surprise on the under.

still a valid thread. Not everyone has bandwidth to read all previous threads. I certainly don't. If moderators believe this thread is not needed, they can go ahead and delete it.

For my part, I will keep posting new threads when I think they are worthy, and mods are free to delete if they think is not...

720B wrote:

aaexecplat wrote:

The comments in this thread are indicative of how much the posters paid attention to the prior threads (...meaning not at all). There is absolutely ZERO news coming from this article beyond a few extra pictures that don't make the issue look any worse than it did when QR leaked the first set of images.

All this does is to further divide the parties. For those of you who think this will help reach a settlement, I have news for you...it does the exact opposite. It also shows how panicked QR is that they are going to lose the high court case. If they thought they were winning, they would never have allowed this PR stunt. This is a hail mary of sorts. And it all but ensures AB will not sell them another airplane for many years or decades to come.

Just when you think QR couldn't possibly be any dumber, they surprise on the under.

still a valid thread. Not everyone has bandwidth to read all previous threads. I certainly don't. If moderators believe this thread is not needed, they can go ahead and delete it.

For my part, I will keep posting new threads when I think they are worthy, and mods are free to delete if they think is not...

Nobody said the thread isn't valid. Totally valid in fact. But is it too much to ask for some of the commenters to read prior threads to understand the problem and the facts on the ground? Instead of commenting here cluelessly with nothing but hate for either AB or QR? Because I (and I am sure others) am done trying to explain the same thing to haters over and over. All you need to know right now is how the high court has been ruling to this point at every step. And this is a court that specializes in these disputes AND has ALL the photo evidence and info from both parties. Some posters on this board have read EVERY filing from any party in this dispute...

sxf24 wrote:

Reuters would also argue the public has a right to know about potential issues on airplanes they fly on.

They may say that but, without context and a little bit of understanding of the complex underlying situation, this video does not inform a non aviation-literate public about anything. They mostly do it for the shock value of the images.

Not that I blame them. If it hadn't been them, it would have been someone else. In an age of ubiquitous cameras and quasi-infinite anonymous online outlets, nothing of that sort remains a secret for long.

I think nobody is denying the horrible coating quality. It seems more about blocking a solution for other reasons.

Please flag A vs. B posts. No moderator likes going through deleting every post that referenced a post that violates forum rules.

In my opinion a valid post because it presents more evidence, both visual and anecdotal, of the problem. I won't conjecture as to the Court case, they are always unpredictable, but there is nothing routine in the damage shown in those photographs. QR has every right to be unhappy. And I will not rehash who has handled what poorly or well. Either the Court will decide, or a settlement will be reached. My only hope is Airbus has a genuine solution to the problem. Airworthiness or not, I would not want to fly on a plane in that condition.

aaexecplat wrote:

There is absolutely ZERO news coming from this article beyond a few extra pictures that don't make the issue look any worse than it did when QR leaked the first set of images.

Agreed. Seems to me to just be an attempt by QR to bump the story up the news agenda again - presumably with the intention of putting more pressure on Airbus.

Worthy of a thread though since the photos are new.

720B wrote:

still a valid thread. Not everyone has bandwidth to read all previous threads. I certainly don't.

agreed.

What is the point of releasing another video right know? Is QR feeling that they r going to loose the battle thus inviting reporters to the hangers? Or is QR aiming to win public support ?

These are the first photos I've ever seen of it, and I have to admit, it's worse than I expected.
Thank you for sharing the link.

Looking at the Photo? QR Has a point but only to make Airbus Pay for a complete Paint job with the prep needed for the repair And? They should supply a full crew to Observe the Prep and the paint job. to KNOW how and why the prep was needed. This is NOT a normal occurrence in aircraft paint.Aircraft paint this BAD?
Was due to "Lousy" prep work or NO Prep work!

lightsaber wrote:

Please flag A vs. B posts. No moderator likes going through deleting every post that referenced a post that violates forum rules.

Isn`t this rather about AkzoNobel Aerospace Coatings?

It still doesn't make any sense to me (what exactly QR have done) / (what has happened to their planes to cause this) remove what you want.

I have seen countless A350 (LH/SQ/ET/TG/CX) rather up close and personal and absolutely nothing looks like that.

I cannot honestly believe this is all AIB's fault... Having followed the other threads continuously, all I can surmise is that QR's non-compliance with paint has somehow contributed to this... That paint that's lifted looks *awfully* thick...

KingOrGod wrote:

It still doesn't make any sense to me (what exactly QR have done) / (what has happened to their planes to cause this) remove what you want.

I have seen countless A350 (LH/SQ/ET/TG/CX) rather up close and personal and absolutely nothing looks like that.

I cannot honestly believe this is all AIB's fault... Having followed the other threads continuously, all I can surmise is that QR's non-compliance with paint has somehow contributed to this... That paint that's lifted looks *awfully* thick...

The planes would have been painted by Airbus prior to delivery. To my knowledge, QR has only attempted to repaint one of the aircraft, which was abandoned due to surface degradation and flown to Toulouse for inspection by Airbus.

Are you saying QR has repainted all the aircraft in question and did so improperly? Not sure what point you are trying to make.

To me, this seems another calculated (but very clumsy) attempt by QR to try and bolster their position by attempting to publicly shame Airbus in the media. As others have said, this is all presented without any context whatsoever (eg did QR actually follow Airbus repair guidelines before the aircraft got in to this state, etc). Ultimately, it will be for the independent court to decide the rights and wrongs and relative merits of the claims. However, the fact that QR have attempted to pre-empt that decision by releasing this stuff signals to me that they fear they will lose the court case. Just my opinion, obviously. But I would imagine a confident claimant would not resort to these tactics (ie attempting 'trial by media', rather than 'trial by impartial court')..

Francoflier wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

Reuters would also argue the public has a right to know about potential issues on airplanes they fly on.

They may say that but, without context and a little bit of understanding of the complex underlying situation, this video does not inform a non aviation-literate public about anything. They mostly do it for the shock value of the images.

Not that I blame them. If it hadn't been them, it would have been someone else. In an age of ubiquitous cameras and quasi-infinite anonymous online outlets, nothing of that sort remains a secret for long.

The surface of a new airplane is coming off and we don’t understand why. The manufacturer and their regulator say it’s not a safety issue. What other facts do non aviation-literate folks need to know?

The argument to keep factual information like these videos out of the public domain Is nothing more than a defensive posture, trying to prevent criticism of a subject you champion.

The quality control of that paint/process gives me 100% confidence in the quality control of the structural carbon-fiber resin/process.

WayexTDI wrote:

This kind of PR stunt is sure to blow in QR's face.

aaexecplat wrote:

If they thought they were winning, they would never have allowed this PR stunt. This is a hail mary of sorts. And it all but ensures AB will not sell them another airplane for many years or decades to come.

Just when you think QR couldn't possibly be any dumber, they surprise on the under.

accentra wrote:

To me, this seems another calculated (but very clumsy) attempt by QR to try and bolster their position by attempting to publicly shame Airbus in the media.

The Reuters article had this sentence:

Reuters journalists were granted rare first-hand access after requesting the visit on the sidelines of an airline industry meeting in the Qatari capital, Doha, this week.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-06-22/

DartHerald wrote:

I'm not taking sides,, but there's there's a serious lack of context in those pics for all those of you pontificating already - there are no wider shots to show the actual scale of the area of the damage. Close up, a mole hill can be made to look like a mountain!

Reuters posted a video with wider shots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLsjLdi2PCE

ElroyJetson wrote:

KingOrGod wrote:

It still doesn't make any sense to me (what exactly QR have done) / (what has happened to their planes to cause this) remove what you want.

I have seen countless A350 (LH/SQ/ET/TG/CX) rather up close and personal and absolutely nothing looks like that.

I cannot honestly believe this is all AIB's fault... Having followed the other threads continuously, all I can surmise is that QR's non-compliance with paint has somehow contributed to this... That paint that's lifted looks *awfully* thick...

The planes would have been painted by Airbus prior to delivery. To my knowledge, QR has only attempted to repaint one of the aircraft, which was abandoned due to surface degradation and flown to Toulouse for inspection by Airbus.

Are you saying QR has repainted all the aircraft in question and did so improperly? Not sure what point you are trying to make.

This has been addressed in the other thread if you had read it; To answer your question, or your point, Airbus may have painted it, but it was to QRs spec which at times were outside of "in service tolerance levels"

Quoting reidar76 post on that thread;

According to the Airbus document, the paint thickness
on some Qatar delivered aircraft was exceeding the engineering specification. This was done on the request from Qatar, with the documentation updated to show that the paint layers was to thick in certain areas. Thicker paint layers will be more prone to cracking.

Quote from the document:
"In this regard, it is averred that, on occasion, the aircraft delivered to QTR have been repainted prior to delivery, at QTR’s request and/or to enhance their cosmetic appearance, and that this may have resulted in the paint thickness exceeding the engineering specification. Airbus provides QTR with a production quality report for each A350 aircraft that it delivers which includes details of the average total paint thickness. It is noted that QTR has accepted delivery of a number of A350 aircraft in the knowledge that the paint thickness was outside ‘in service’ tolerance levels."

Pelly wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

This kind of PR stunt is sure to blow in QR's face.

aaexecplat wrote:

If they thought they were winning, they would never have allowed this PR stunt. This is a hail mary of sorts. And it all but ensures AB will not sell them another airplane for many years or decades to come.

Just when you think QR couldn't possibly be any dumber, they surprise on the under.

accentra wrote:

To me, this seems another calculated (but very clumsy) attempt by QR to try and bolster their position by attempting to publicly shame Airbus in the media.

The Reuters article had this sentence:

Reuters journalists were granted rare first-hand access after requesting the visit on the sidelines of an airline industry meeting in the Qatari capital, Doha, this week.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-06-22/

QR was under no obligation to grant Reuters access to the hangar.
They saw the opportunity to smear more crap at the issue, under the disguise that Reuters asked; hence why people (including myself) call this a PR stunt.

ShamrockBoi330 wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

KingOrGod wrote:

It still doesn't make any sense to me (what exactly QR have done) / (what has happened to their planes to cause this) remove what you want.

I have seen countless A350 (LH/SQ/ET/TG/CX) rather up close and personal and absolutely nothing looks like that.

I cannot honestly believe this is all AIB's fault... Having followed the other threads continuously, all I can surmise is that QR's non-compliance with paint has somehow contributed to this... That paint that's lifted looks *awfully* thick...

The planes would have been painted by Airbus prior to delivery. To my knowledge, QR has only attempted to repaint one of the aircraft, which was abandoned due to surface degradation and flown to Toulouse for inspection by Airbus.

Are you saying QR has repainted all the aircraft in question and did so improperly? Not sure what point you are trying to make.

This has been addressed in the other thread if you had read it; To answer your question, or your point, Airbus may have painted it, but it was to QRs spec which at times were outside of "in service tolerance levels"

Quoting reidar76 post on that thread;

According to the Airbus document, the paint thickness
on some Qatar delivered aircraft was exceeding the engineering specification. This was done on the request from Qatar, with the documentation updated to show that the paint layers was to thick in certain areas. Thicker paint layers will be more prone to cracking.

Quote from the document:
"In this regard, it is averred that, on occasion, the aircraft delivered to QTR have been repainted prior to delivery, at QTR’s request and/or to enhance their cosmetic appearance, and that this may have resulted in the paint thickness exceeding the engineering specification. Airbus provides QTR with a production quality report for each A350 aircraft that it delivers which includes details of the average total paint thickness. It is noted that QTR has accepted delivery of a number of A350 aircraft in the knowledge that the paint thickness was outside ‘in service’ tolerance levels."

I doubt that the QC department at Airbus would let the plane out the paint shop, regardless of the customer's willingness to accept it as is. It would violate many aspects of ISO standards. Excessive thickness does not mean you exceed the spec. It means you didnt meet the spec; you failed.

Is there record that this has happened to other planes using the same paint? Anything to do with the desert environment vs rainy and damp Toulouse?

Gar1G wrote:

This would be a slap in the face after the 2 CEOs had just met for the IATA AGM. I can only reason that the 2 sides are still so far apart in their communication that QR needed this to swing settlement talks closer to their favour.

It also appears not to be following the judgement handed down in March in which the court said the QR should with the help of Airbus be working with the QCAA to unground the aircraft. Looks like nothing at all is being done, there is absolutely no evidence in the photos of any maintenance being done. If anything it is evidence that maintenance is not being performed.

This is more evidence of hinderance and unwillingness of QR to have their aircraft back flying.

strfyr51 wrote:

Looking at the Photo? QR Has a point but only to make Airbus Pay for a complete Paint job with the prep needed for the repair And? They should supply a full crew to Observe the Prep and the paint job. to KNOW how and why the prep was needed. This is NOT a normal occurrence in aircraft paint.Aircraft paint this BAD?
Was due to "Lousy" prep work or NO Prep work!

Airbus has offered to repaint the aircraft, QR will not let them perform the work. The aircraft flown from Ireland to TLS, Airbus proposed to QR over 900 individual repairs and to repaint, QR would not let Airbus do the work.

This case is not like depp v amber, there is no jury in the court

stewartg wrote:

I doubt that the QC department at Airbus would let the plane out the paint shop, regardless of the customer's willingness to accept it as is. It would violate many aspects of ISO standards. Excessive thickness does not mean you exceed the spec. It means you didnt meet the spec; you failed.

Is there record that this has happened to other planes using the same paint? Anything to do with the desert environment vs rainy and damp Toulouse?

I have seen the QC process used at Airbus before, the have specific sample points all over the aircraft where they non destructively measure the paint thickness and other paint qualities as part of the QA process. All that data is on file.

If there was any direction from QR to Airbus to make the paint thicker that would also be in writing and signed off.

ShamrockBoi330 wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

KingOrGod wrote:

It still doesn't make any sense to me (what exactly QR have done) / (what has happened to their planes to cause this) remove what you want.

I have seen countless A350 (LH/SQ/ET/TG/CX) rather up close and personal and absolutely nothing looks like that.

I cannot honestly believe this is all AIB's fault... Having followed the other threads continuously, all I can surmise is that QR's non-compliance with paint has somehow contributed to this... That paint that's lifted looks *awfully* thick...

The planes would have been painted by Airbus prior to delivery. To my knowledge, QR has only attempted to repaint one of the aircraft, which was abandoned due to surface degradation and flown to Toulouse for inspection by Airbus.

Are you saying QR has repainted all the aircraft in question and did so improperly? Not sure what point you are trying to make.

This has been addressed in the other thread if you had read it; To answer your question, or your point, Airbus may have painted it, but it was to QRs spec which at times were outside of "in service tolerance levels"

Quoting reidar76 post on that thread;

According to the Airbus document, the paint thickness
on some Qatar delivered aircraft was exceeding the engineering specification. This was done on the request from Qatar, with the documentation updated to show that the paint layers was to thick in certain areas. Thicker paint layers will be more prone to cracking.

Quote from the document:
"In this regard, it is averred that, on occasion, the aircraft delivered to QTR have been repainted prior to delivery, at QTR’s request and/or to enhance their cosmetic appearance, and that this may have resulted in the paint thickness exceeding the engineering specification. Airbus provides QTR with a production quality report for each A350 aircraft that it delivers which includes details of the average total paint thickness. It is noted that QTR has accepted delivery of a number of A350 aircraft in the knowledge that the paint thickness was outside ‘in service’ tolerance levels."

So Airbus violated their own "in service tolerance levels" by applying paint too thickly at the airlines' request? Why would Airbus ever agree to that if they knew it was improper? If that is the Airbus defense it is a very poor one. Ex: "We built the aircraft with no rudder because the airline said the rudder was too heavy and not fully necessary."

ElroyJetson wrote:

ShamrockBoi330 wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

The planes would have been painted by Airbus prior to delivery. To my knowledge, QR has only attempted to repaint one of the aircraft, which was abandoned due to surface degradation and flown to Toulouse for inspection by Airbus.

Are you saying QR has repainted all the aircraft in question and did so improperly? Not sure what point you are trying to make.

This has been addressed in the other thread if you had read it; To answer your question, or your point, Airbus may have painted it, but it was to QRs spec which at times were outside of "in service tolerance levels"

Quoting reidar76 post on that thread;

According to the Airbus document, the paint thickness
on some Qatar delivered aircraft was exceeding the engineering specification. This was done on the request from Qatar, with the documentation updated to show that the paint layers was to thick in certain areas. Thicker paint layers will be more prone to cracking.

Quote from the document:
"In this regard, it is averred that, on occasion, the aircraft delivered to QTR have been repainted prior to delivery, at QTR’s request and/or to enhance their cosmetic appearance, and that this may have resulted in the paint thickness exceeding the engineering specification. Airbus provides QTR with a production quality report for each A350 aircraft that it delivers which includes details of the average total paint thickness. It is noted that QTR has accepted delivery of a number of A350 aircraft in the knowledge that the paint thickness was outside ‘in service’ tolerance levels."

So Airbus violated their own "in service tolerance levels" by applying paint too thickly at the airlines' request? Why would Airbus ever agree to that if they knew it was improper? If that is the Airbus defense it is a very poor one. Ex: "We built the aircraft with no rudder because the airline said the rudder was too heavy and not fully necessary."

Because they got a signed waiver? Its the only way a PLC should operate if they are going outside of any agreement.

Airbus basically says this in the quote. This is not particularly unusual but Airbus legal department would crawl all over any out of spec items just in case the variation becomes a court case. So we get to see if Airbus's lawyers are up to the job, I think they are.

BoeingVista wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

ShamrockBoi330 wrote:

This has been addressed in the other thread if you had read it; To answer your question, or your point, Airbus may have painted it, but it was to QRs spec which at times were outside of "in service tolerance levels"

Quoting reidar76 post on that thread;

According to the Airbus document, the paint thickness
on some Qatar delivered aircraft was exceeding the engineering specification. This was done on the request from Qatar, with the documentation updated to show that the paint layers was to thick in certain areas. Thicker paint layers will be more prone to cracking.

Quote from the document:
"In this regard, it is averred that, on occasion, the aircraft delivered to QTR have been repainted prior to delivery, at QTR’s request and/or to enhance their cosmetic appearance, and that this may have resulted in the paint thickness exceeding the engineering specification. Airbus provides QTR with a production quality report for each A350 aircraft that it delivers which includes details of the average total paint thickness. It is noted that QTR has accepted delivery of a number of A350 aircraft in the knowledge that the paint thickness was outside ‘in service’ tolerance levels."

So Airbus violated their own "in service tolerance levels" by applying paint too thickly at the airlines' request? Why would Airbus ever agree to that if they knew it was improper? If that is the Airbus defense it is a very poor one. Ex: "We built the aircraft with no rudder because the airline said the rudder was too heavy and not fully necessary."

Because they got a signed waiver? Its the only way a PLC should operate if they are going outside of any agreement.

Airbus basically says this in the quote. This is not particularly unusual but Airbus legal department would crawl all over any out of spec items just in case the variation becomes a court case. So we get to see if Airbus's lawyers are up to the job, I think they are.

I hesitate to comment because much of what is being said ultimately is speculation. But if Airbus did in fact agree to exceed their own "in service tolerance levels," even at the request of the airline, I think there could be shared liability, waiver or no waiver. Personally, I find it implausible that Airbus would ever agree to this. As the OEM Airbus establishes the standards and tolerance levels for every aspect of the aircraft in conjunction with their regulator the EASA. In my opinion Airbus is too savvy to violation their own standards if they know them to be outside of service tolerance levels, even if it is "only" the paint protection system.

I guess when the facts fully come out we will all know. But right now call me skeptical.

I see QR is back fighting the battle in the press again. While the photo's are new, they are not new. We have seen a variation of these before, especially the crown photo's. While Reuters would have requested access, it is up to QR to provide it. They could have said no.

I also just want to add, so these aircraft with the exposed mesh is just left open to the elements? QR is not doing anything to cover them up to avoid further damage?

ElroyJetson wrote:

So Airbus violated their own "in service tolerance levels" by applying paint too thickly at the airlines' request? Why would Airbus ever agree to that if they knew it was improper? If that is the Airbus defense it is a very poor one. Ex: "We built the aircraft with no rudder because the airline said the rudder was too heavy and not fully necessary."

What happened to the customer is always right? Adding paint layers will not affect safety of the aircraft, but it may lead to earlier peeling as it is not as per specs that Airbus has. If the customer has been warned and still wants it, are you saying the OEM should not comply? We have to see if Airbus notified QR that this may the result, the court case, if it goes that far, should settle that.

You argument talking about the rudder is just silly and it may help to choose a more relevant comparison.

ElroyJetson wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

So Airbus violated their own "in service tolerance levels" by applying paint too thickly at the airlines' request? Why would Airbus ever agree to that if they knew it was improper? If that is the Airbus defense it is a very poor one. Ex: "We built the aircraft with no rudder because the airline said the rudder was too heavy and not fully necessary."

Because they got a signed waiver? Its the only way a PLC should operate if they are going outside of any agreement.

Airbus basically says this in the quote. This is not particularly unusual but Airbus legal department would crawl all over any out of spec items just in case the variation becomes a court case. So we get to see if Airbus's lawyers are up to the job, I think they are.

I hesitate to comment because much of what is being said ultimately is speculation. But if Airbus did in fact agree to exceed their own "in service tolerance levels," even at the request of the airline, I think there could be shared liability, waiver or no waiver. Personally, I find it implausible that Airbus would ever agree to this. As the OEM Airbus establishes the standards and tolerance levels for every aspect of the aircraft in conjunction with their regulator the EASA. In my opinion Airbus is too savvy to violation their own standards if they know them to be outside of service tolerance levels, even if it is "only" the paint protection system.

I guess when the facts fully come out we will all know. But right now call me skeptical.

Its implausible that Airbus would agree to it without total indemnity, but is it implausible that our friend AAB would be so set on getting his way that he signed it?

ElroyJetson wrote:

So Airbus violated their own "in service tolerance levels" by applying paint too thickly at the airlines' request?

The livery and type of paint used is a customer option. It is like saying why would Airbus ever agree non standard cabin modifications, because the customer requested it and they pay for it.

zeke wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

So Airbus violated their own "in service tolerance levels" by applying paint too thickly at the airlines' request?

The livery and type of paint used is a customer option. It is like saying why would Airbus ever agree non standard cabin modifications, because the customer requested it and they pay for it.

But as you have pointed out in the past, Airbus must approve the paint, how the paint is applied, and the proper thickness of the the paint. Airbus establishes all of those "in service tolerance levels."

But now, allegedly, Airbus has ignored their own " in service tolerance levels" at the request of the airline? That is the argument being made.

Do you believe Airbus would violate their own standards at the insistence of an airline? My guess is you do not believe that, nor do I.

Now if the evidence shows Airbus has violated their own " in service tolerance levels," I will be the first to say I am wrong. But right now I am skeptical.

Some people refer to the paint thickness claim from Airbus as if it is a or root cause or reason for the issue. Airbus itself doesn't say that. Even the claim itself from Airbus has several qualifiers in their statement:

"In this regard, it is averred that, ON OCCASSION, the aircraft delivered to QTR have been repainted prior to delivery, at QTR’s request and/or to enhance their cosmetic appearance, and that this MAY have resulted in the paint thickness exceeding the engineering specification. Airbus provides QTR with a production quality report for each A350 aircraft that it delivers which includes details of the average total paint thickness."

ElroyJetson wrote:

But as you have pointed out in the past, Airbus must approve the paint, how the paint is applied, and the proper thickness of the the paint. Airbus establishes all of those "in service tolerance levels."

But now, allegedly, Airbus has ignored their own " in service tolerance levels" at the request of the airline? That is the argument being made.

Do you believe Airbus would violate their own standards at the insistence of an airline? My guess is you do not believe that, nor do I.

Now if the evidence shows Airbus has violated their own " in service tolerance levels," I will be the first to say I am wrong. But right now I am skeptical.

I don’t believe I would have stated Airbus has to approve paints, they have paint specifications which various paint manufactures state they meet or exceed. This is typical with any sort of consumable item, for example fuel they will state the specifications allowed, they don’t go around approving the individual fuels around the world.

If something is not standard, it does not mean it is a violation. For example the FCOM, MEL, CDL, AMM used by QR are not the standard manuals, they are all customized. These are not violations.

You work with electrical substations, if your customer insisted on using a a heavier cable gauge than code required, that would not be a violation of the code.

It costs more to apply more paint both in materials and manpower, it weighs more, and it has continuing payload, performance and airworthiness implications, all of which the customer would be made aware of and consent to.

zeke wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

So Airbus violated their own "in service tolerance levels" by applying paint too thickly at the airlines' request?

The livery and type of paint used is a customer option. It is like saying why would Airbus ever agree non standard cabin modifications, because the customer requested it and they pay for it.

That’s not a great analogy. All cabin fittings must be certified and documented as meeting the relevant regulatory requirements (eg G force requirements, flammability requirements, etc) before the aircraft can get its certificate to carry passengers. All “standard” cabin options are are fittings where Airbus has already done all the certifications and has contracts with the vendor, making things cheaper and easier for the customer and cheaper and easier for Airbus themselves (encourages less build variability). You have to pay for non standard requirements because Airbus is not going to eat the certification costs for you. If you ask for a modification that is not certifiable then yes, Airbus will tell you no-no matter how much money you offer to throw at them (or at least I would hope Airbus would hold firm and say no…).

If the paint thickness tolerance is any way enshrined in the aircraft certification than Airbus made a mistake delivering planes out of spec. Neither Airbus nor the customer has the authority to determine which certification requirement can be ignored/stretched/waived away.

If the paint thickness tolerance is an internal metric than the lawyers will fight it out on whether QR was properly informed (both before and after paint was reapplied that put it out of spec) and notified of possible ramifications.

Polot wrote:

All cabin fittings must be certified and documented as meeting the relevant regulatory requirements (eg G force requirements, flammability requirements, etc) before the aircraft can get its certificate to carry passengers. All “standard” cabin options are are fittings where Airbus has already done all the certifications and has contracts with the vendor, making things cheaper and easier for the customer and cheaper and easier for Airbus themselves (encourages less build variability).

Cabin products like paint are not part of the TCDS. Companies life SAFRAN design, certify, and manufacture galleys, and the seat suppliers they do the seat certification, not the OEM. An airline may say they want a more plush seat covering, as long as the manufacturer of that seat covering meet the applicable standard it can be used.

Polot wrote:

If the paint thickness tolerance is any way enshrined in the aircraft certification

It isn’t, you can find many pictures around of A350s flying about without any paint.

Polot wrote:

If the paint thickness tolerance is an internal metric than the lawyers will fight it out on whether QR was properly informed (both before and after paint was reapplied that put it out of spec) and notified of possible ramifications.

As I mentioned above, applying more paint than standard costs more, Airbus is not a charity they would have passed the costs on the QR with the usual disclaimer. Airbus would issue something called a Non Technical Objection (NTO), that is a technical term to mean there is no safety implications of the customer request however the customer carries the can for the change. Same thing happens when airlines want to customize manuals or checklists.

I doubt if Airbus charged QR for extra paint. More than likely (almost certain?) that QR rejected some/all of the first attempt at applying their livery and demanded that a repaint be performed to meet their five star quality expectations (as they were probably contractually entitled to do) and refused to accept the aircraft in question until the repaint was completed FOIC and to their satisfaction. Repaint requests are not unknown, but I suspect that QR were never slow to seek out imperfections, be they paint related or other.

zeke wrote:

Polot wrote:

All cabin fittings must be certified and documented as meeting the relevant regulatory requirements (eg G force requirements, flammability requirements, etc) before the aircraft can get its certificate to carry passengers. All “standard” cabin options are are fittings where Airbus has already done all the certifications and has contracts with the vendor, making things cheaper and easier for the customer and cheaper and easier for Airbus themselves (encourages less build variability).

Cabin products like paint are not part of the TCDS. Companies life SAFRAN design, certify, and manufacture galleys, and the seat suppliers they do the seat certification, not the OEM. An airline may say they want a more plush seat covering, as long as the manufacturer of that seat covering meet the applicable standard it can be used.

I never said they were part of the TCDS. I said they had to be certified to meet regulatory requirements. Saying standard options are ones where Airbus has done all the certification was perhaps a poor choice of words- standard options are ones in which certifications are already in hand, and Airbus has contracts with the vendors to get the parts at special bulk discounted prices.

Airbus will want proof of certification before they hand it over to a customer.

Wildlander wrote:

I doubt if Airbus charged QR for extra paint. More than likely (almost certain?) that QR rejected some/all of the first attempt at applying their livery and demanded that a repaint be performed to meet their five star quality expectations (as they were probably contractually entitled to do) and refused to accept the aircraft in question until the repaint was completed FOIC and to their satisfaction. Repaint requests are not unknown, but I suspect that QR were never slow to seek out imperfections, be they paint related or other.

Also important to remember QR was the first operator and is or was the largest A350 customer. Airbus would be more accommodating with some demands especially with earlier deliveries when everyone is working through production teething and optimization, and the full impact of some things (like too thick paint) not fully known.

I suspect when Airbus (re)painted parts of the aircraft before delivery they were not expecting the paint to get into this shape this quickly. Which is why they offered repaint despite the possibility of a NTO which they could technically use to try and absolve them of responsibly.

Polot wrote:

Airbus will want proof of certification before they hand it over to a customer.

This isn’t true, you probably don’t remember however at the start of the A350 deliveries there were worldwide problems with interior suppliers, particularly seats, we accepted many unfinished aircraft and completed the interiors in our own facilities. Like most airlines we have our own Part 21 design organization that can design and certify interiors, and have a certificate of airworthiness issued.

Polot wrote:

I suspect when Airbus (re)painted parts of the aircraft before delivery they were not expecting the paint to get into this shape this quickly.

This is pure speculation on your part, the reason for the thicker paint was in the court documents, it was as I recall a customer request to make their livery look better. From what I recall reading the thicker layer was the clear topcoat.

zeke wrote:

Polot wrote:

Airbus will want proof of certification before they hand it over to a customer.

This isn’t true, you probably don’t remember however at the start of the A350 deliveries there were worldwide problems with interior suppliers, particularly seats, we accepted many unfinished aircraft and completed the interiors in our own facilities. Like most airlines we have our own Part 21 design organization that can design and certify interiors, and have a certificate of airworthiness issued.

So in other words…Airbus did not provide your airline an aircraft with equipment that does not meet regulatory requirements aboard and my statement still stands. Absence of fittings is not the same as having non certified equipment on board. OEMs will gladly provide an empty aircraft if the customer would rather install and certify all the fittings themselves. They do that all the time with private/business/government jets.

If you want Airbus to do it for you though they will want to see proof of certification from vendor before handing it over to customer, if just for liability reasons. Remember this discussion started because we were talking about actions Airbus did on jets they technically owned and were in their possession.

Polot wrote:

zeke wrote:

Polot wrote:

Airbus will want proof of certification before they hand it over to a customer.

This isn’t true, you probably don’t remember however at the start of the A350 deliveries there were worldwide problems with interior suppliers, particularly seats, we accepted many unfinished aircraft and completed the interiors in our own facilities. Like most airlines we have our own Part 21 design organization that can design and certify interiors, and have a certificate of airworthiness issued.

So in other words…Airbus did not provide your airline an aircraft with equipment that does not meet regulatory requirements aboard and my statement still stands. Absence of fittings is not the same as having non certified equipment on board. OEMs will gladly provide an empty aircraft if the customer would rather install and certify all the fittings themselves. They do that all the time with private/business/government jets.

If you want Airbus to do it for you though they will want to see proof of certification from vendor before handing it over to customer, if just for liability reasons. Remember this discussion started because we were talking about actions Airbus did on jets they technically owned and were in their possession.

I've worked in cases where Boeing delivered aircraft to customers who were awaiting interior certifications; the planes did not enter service until certification was granted, but it happens AFTER the plane was handed over to the customer.

Polot wrote:

So in other words…Airbus did not provide your airline an aircraft with equipment that does not meet regulatory requirements aboard and my statement still stands. Absence of fittings is not the same as having non certified equipment on board. OEMs will gladly provide an empty aircraft if the customer would rather install and certify all the fittings themselves. They do that all the time with private/business/government jets.

If you want Airbus to do it for you though they will want to see proof of certification from vendor before handing it over to customer, if just for liability reasons. Remember this discussion started because we were talking about actions Airbus did on jets they technically owned and were in their possession.

What you are saying is wrong. Absence of items from a configuration does make an aircraft unairworthy, that is why during covid airlines that removed seats to load cargo on the main deck needed an STC to fly in that new configuration.

Airbus sell the airframe, the customer options are just that, choices customers make that are in addition to the base airframe, the OEMs don’t certify them they are certified by the equipment manufacturer like RECARO, SAFRON etc. Airlines routinely do their own interiors and even their own paint work. The majority of paint jobs a year worldwide are performed by airlines, not the OEMs.

This is a typical paint data sheet, you can see how the paint manufacturer states their product meets the Airbus paint specification
https://prdakzodecodocumentssa.blob.cor ... ts_tds.pdf
The livery and type of paint system used is a customer option, that is one of the many factors why different airlines have different experiences.