[CeePee]

Qatar Airways being the launch customer for both A350-900 and A350-1000 airplanes, and the largest customer for this series, Airbus should have taken efforts to resolve the issue, rather than forcing Qatar Airways to take the legal route.

The unilateral A321neo cancellation seems like an arm twisting tactic by the manufacturer: not too sure if Airbus is within their rights to do so as per contract terms.

I am hoping that good sense will prevail to reach an amicable solution sooner, so that the entire A350s fleet of Qatar Airways will be operational by Q4 2022 to handle the traffic for FIFA World Cup 2022.

[dsr001]

Though airworthiness of affected planes may not see a major impact, this has potential for increasing drag (hence increasing fuel consumption).

[AirbusCapt]

Originally Posted by libranof1987

The aviation world is one with perhaps the most minimal of permissible margins of error. Several accidents have shown that the root cause was an innocent mistake/oversight.

I'm not siding with any party here but paint peel does point to a major issue somewhere? On that note, is Hyundai in the business of painting aircraft?

It's not a paint peeling issue. Certainly not a cosmetic issue. The paint is peeling because the underlying carbon fiber mesh structure is disintegrating. The wing is a carbon composite wing and it is a structural element of the aircraft. This is what Quatar claims, which is denied by airbus who would want it to be a asthetics issue more than anything else. Note: no airworthiness authority has grounded the airplane on structural issue so far.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by AirbusCapt

The wing is a carbon composite wing and it is a structural element of the aircraft. This is what Qatar claims, which is denied by airbus who would want it to be a asthetics issue more than anything else. Note: no airworthiness authority has grounded the airplane on structural issue so far.

Well stated AirbusCapt. Exactly my thoughts.

Folks having been a vendor of some consequence, in my past life, to both Airbus and Qatar my empathy, beyond the fog of accusations and style, is with Qatar. In my earlier life my business had painted over 7000 aircraft. The paint peeling, of such ghastly magnitude, even if very localized, is a consequence not a cause. That root cause could be in either the composite material as AirbusCapt puts it so correctly or in the 6 coats of various foundation materials laid before the paint is applied. Or there might have been a defect in some batch of primers etc. A normal quality paint job rarely, very rarely cracks up like this. Here I am assuming the photos and videos depict an accurate picture. Having said all this when we used to scrape modern airliners (for repainting) we often found that the composites were more vulnerable to wear and tear than the metal structures and surfaces. By more vulnerable I mean it in a very technical sense nothing that I would worry about as a passenger. The composite surfaces were also always more difficult to apply the foundation materials over.

[aashishnb]

Next escalation - Qatar bans use of Airbus aircrafts in its airspace citing safety risk, better still - start charging a 'Airbus premium' to fly in its airspace!!

On the paint issue - while I don't know much about aircrafts, some of the past fatal accidents have happened due to trivial issues like a bolt being too tight or some other factors initially considered immaterial, unless the accident proved everyone wrong. Hope & pray this does not lead to similar incident. Using some conspiracy theory logic & extreme fantasy - some paint peels & flies into the engine or some sensor & it malfunctions, causing an incident.

[DeepCarTalk]

Originally Posted by aashishnb

Next escalation - Qatar bans use of Airbus aircrafts in its airspace citing safety risk, better still - start charging a 'Airbus premium' to fly in its airspace!!

That would be hilarious if Qatar starts charging premium to AIRBUS make planes

what i feel is, more than safety issue is an extra expense this adds to Qatar's bill of repainting the plane and the lost revenue that they could earn by having the plane up and travelling rather than getting repainted. Remember, most airlines run on a very slim margin because the market is extremely competitve.

The only major safety issue i can see rising from this is the heat problem. Planes are painted white because it reflects back sunrays the best and helps lower the cost of keeping the plane cool. As the paints peel off, bare aluminium/alloy underneath would not reflect back as much heat and could lead to other issues.

[Aravind_M92]

I support Airbus' cause in this. As far as I remember, Qatar chose to paint their aircrafts at their facilities rather than at Airbus. Both B787 and A350 are constructed using composite materials and have their own limitations when it comes to painting. No other airline operator, using A350 has reported a similar issue. Maybe the hot and dry climate is to be attributed to the paint flaking up. Most A350 operators are based out of areas with humid climatic conditions. Qatar Airways then went to Airbus for solutions for which Airbus remained clueless and there were some internal issues ( corruption and internal politics). Further to escalate issues, Qatar dragged Airbus to court as they denied any kind of settlement and failed to provide an explanation for the same. Airbus retaliated to these allegations by cancelling their A321 neo orders.

I remember Boeing offered a new paint scheme for Air India's 788. The cheat lines were gone, engines were white with minimal design. This was to avoid paint issues on early deliveries of 787 with newly developed composite surface. As far as I recall, all 787s with GE engines have white nacelles. Only the RR engines (eg British and Virgin Atlantic) had painted nacelles. There was a common comment, ' You can have a 787 in any colour as long as it's white in colour!'

Qatar Airways is now in a state of slump. They had been operating cargo using their existing fleet and opened up new African and Asian routes. Further these routes now have passenger demand for which Qatar doesn't have aircrafts for. They now have brought back their A330s, A380s and B772 for operations. These old aircrafts have their outdated cabins which might me a let down for travelers looking for the fine Qatari product. The 321 neos were to serve the thin African and European airports which which were to replace their existing A320 fleet. The Boeing aircrafts; the 787 is now in a huge backlog, 777x not yet certified and with 737 max still undergoing Retrofit for the MCAS issue, Boeing is unable to provide a solution to Qatar in the near future. With World Cup around the corner and Qatar developing new airport infrastructures based on the Qatar's hub and spoke model have put the airline in a dire status. Qatar now has turned to its partner airlines for leasing options and using those aircrafts for cargo operations and it's aircraft for passenger services. Qatar had already blamed and humiliated Airbus earlier with the A380 calling it a financial failure and disaster. Why should a customer blame a manufacturer for their loses when it was them who chose to purchase the aircraft! It's like blaming a car company because I purchased the car and it has become a financial liability for me. That's plain stupid. They haven't sold them a lemon! The product was in perfect condition when sold!

Qatar's CEO Akbar Al Baker sure is a quick witted and hot headed person. But certain decisions can result in unwanted delays and losses. And Qatar's current situation is a good example. His race to be the launch customer for new aircrafts might sure isn't healthy. In a way Emirates are much more mature. Al Maktoum and Sir Tim Clark do understand the market dynamics much better that Qatar who are trying to grab every opportunity without a proper assesment. In a way Emirates follows a low cost airline strategy! They have only 2 types of aircraft in their fleet, they operate a hub and spoke model. In a way, they are the LCC of the Elite!, Unlike other legacy carriers with much diverse fleets. Qatar sure is in a soup. Hopefully they go for a out of court settlement with Airbus and try and make up before FIFA starts. Let's see how the events unfold!

[ads11]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Ideally, I would side with the customer but the CEO of Qatar Airways does have a history of pettiness.

Originally Posted by Aravind_M92

Qatar Airways is now in a state of slump... With World Cup around the corner and Qatar developing new airport infrastructures based on the Qatar's hub and spoke model have put the airline in a dire status... Qatar had already blamed and humiliated Airbus earlier with the A380 calling it a financial failure and disaster. Why should a customer blame a manufacturer for their loses when it was them who chose to purchase the aircraft! It's like blaming a car company because I purchased the car and it has become a financial liability for me. That's plain stupid. They haven't sold them a lemon! The product was in perfect condition when sold!

Qatar's CEO Akbar Al Baker sure is a quick witted and hot headed person. But certain decisions can result in unwanted delays and losses. And Qatar's current situation is a good example. His race to be the launch customer for new aircrafts might sure isn't healthy.

I've been casually following the developments here and I have to say that even as a casual civil air observer Akbar Al Baker's reputation precedes him. He's a prickly individual who for me first came to prominence when the other Gulf states implemented their blockade of Qatar. At the time I could see why the Qataris would trot out this urbane, sharply spoken executive to be the public voice of their discontent. But I think down the line, Al Baker's statements on why they dumped the A380 for "environmental reasons" were rightfully regarded as hypocritical and just an easy way for him to throw Airbus under the bus for the programme.

I think the Qatar World Cup point is a very salient point! Even COVID related air transport market conditions aside, the build up to this most high profile of high profile events would put tremendous pressure on the airline, probably the most visible of Qatari brands globally (struggle to think of any other that immediately jump to mind). Combine that with the tribulations all airlines are facing in the market, you can tell that the pressure is getting to Qatar's management. The points you made about them having to turn to leasing from others, just suggests that they're in a right pickle with their fleet structure at the worst possible time.

[ZenMaster]

As far as safety goes, some of the biggest crashes have been caused by the smallest of issues and oversight.
What if a paint chip can go and block one of the many tubes(lile pitot tubes) that are critical for flight operation. What if big enough paint chips dislodge and strike a critical component or may be sucked into the engine and cause an issue.

You must also remember that the Aircraft should look presentable especially for luxury airlines like QA and that too at a critical time like the WorldCup.

I personally wouldn't want to fly in a plane which looks like it has a skin disease and with chipped and cracked paint regardless of how structurally strong it is.

[Piyush Kanthak]

I am with Airbus for this matter. Issues are in an AIRCRAFT not some toy which can be fixed by applying feviQuick, it takes time for the manufacturer to sort out the issue,Airbus did offer temporary fix to the issue, but Qatar refused to do so. The step Airbus took by cancelling Neo orders is the right move, they can't keep getting harassed by Qatar. And its not like Airbus had some problems with Qatar, they were the launch customer of the aircraft.
Looking at the video the damages do look bad, but the airline should give some time to Airbus to atleast look into the situation. Its a childish move to drag Airbus to court. Even the Dreamliner is having its paint being chipped off at the wings then what?
I have also heard that Airbus has improved the paint quality in the current Aircrafts(the Aircraft shown in the video is 7 years old)
Definately we need answers as to why did such an issue come at the first place for a manufacturer who had very very few manufacturing issues from the past 50+ years?

[Typhoon]

Originally Posted by AirbusCapt

It's not a paint peeling issue. Certainly not a cosmetic issue. The paint is peeling because the underlying carbon fiber mesh structure is disintegrating. The wing is a carbon composite wing and it is a structural element of the aircraft. This is what Quatar claims, which is denied by airbus who would want it to be a asthetics issue more than anything else. Note: no airworthiness authority has grounded the airplane on structural issue so far.

Also to note that it is just the fuselage that has these issues, the composite wings which are never painted don't have this issue.
Although, the composite makeup of wing and fuselage are different, I suspect the quality and environmental conditions of paint application more here.

In general it's not easy just to line up aircrafts for a re-paint job which could take weeks (disassembly, strip old paint, check and resolve any underlying damage due to exposure, new primer, new paint job etc) for a single one and accounting all the logistical fines which manufacturer would have to pay for while AoG and not ferrying passengers. I think its a case of who blinks first foots the bill.
My sympathies with Qatar here, one should get what one orders.

[theflyingguy]

Agreed. Qatar operates almost 13 different aircrafts as part of its fleet. Compare that to similar sized Emirates which is mainly dependent on only 2 (the A350 would be pressed into service from 2023 making it 3).

Now with this combination and uncertain demand, it is not difficult to comprehend what kind of pressure the Qatar management would in. Now with the cup less than a year away, it becomes even more prominent since even a smallest mistake would end up on social and print media.

Airbus had previously agreed for some sort payment (USD 175,000) a day for the unscheduled grounding of the first A350. Airbus also claims that they had fixed the issue and had given clear instructions on the cause & fix. It was up to Qatar to fix the rest since Qatar planes are not painted by Airbus.

Airbus said that after this incident, the Qatari civil aviation authority looked at European authority who were informed about the same issue by other airlines. Since European authorities had not grounded the planes and indeed termed the issue as "Not a safety concern", there was no need to ground the rest of A350s. Qatari authorities still grounded the planed at the instigation of the airline is what airbus has claimed.

Seems like this issue is far from over. Qatar seems to be feeling the heat now since they have gone on record to say that the 321Neo order has nothing to do with A350 and cannot be cancelled which clearly shows their absolute need for those A321s. Airbus on their part claims that Qatar is in breach of contract by not taking scheduled delivery of 2 A350s and Airbus is now not bound to deliver any further planes. Airbus has apparently given away the delivery slot of at least 1 A350 earmarked for Qatar to a different airline.

Qatar on their part has requested for case expedition from the date of 25th Feb and Airbus has asked the evidence of security findings of the Qatari civil aviation and an independent third party audit.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Aravind_M92

Qatar had already blamed and humiliated Airbus earlier with the A380 calling it a financial failure and disaster. Why should a customer blame a manufacturer for their loses when it was them who chose to purchase the aircraft! It's like blaming a car company because I purchased the car and it has become a financial liability for me. That's plain stupid. They haven't sold them a lemon! The product was in perfect condition when sold!

Permit me to share a different perspective and some facts. When you buy a large aircraft, be it a business jet or an airliner there are performance guarantees on cruise speed, range, fuel consumption, drag coefficient very clearly laid out with technical details of the conditions within which those numbers will be achieved. All this is stated in a manner that can be tested in a court of law. Fuel efficiency, drag and range are among the key criterion of why you buy jet X and not jet Y. So when an airline buys an A380 or A350 or B777 the performance that must get achieved in a certain flight condition is clearly spelt out. How the performance would deteriorate with time is also included. Comparing buying a $50 or $200mm aircraft with a car is like comparing buying a car with a tricycle.

Allow me to share an anecdote from the 2011. We were helping a customer purchase a large (very large) biz jet famed for its non-stop range. Inspecting the machine while it is in assembly is a part of the buying process. In this particular case my audit engineers were not happy with the wing assembly section and we stopped the OEM from mating the wing with the fuselage till our issues were addressed. And after a noisy meeting the OEM obliged. The relationship of an aircraft OEM with its customer is a very deep one. By kicking a launch customer in the teeth on the unrelated A321 order Airbus is sending a very dangerous mixed signal to 90 other customers.

[Sarinkrc]

In the aircraft business its duopoly. Unlike in automobiles where there are numerous car manufacturers. Here there is fault on both the sides , but Qatar Airways seems to be impatient. They should have worked along with Airbus in order to find an amicable solution. Instead they grounded all their aircrafts and for how long nobody knows? If u keep the aircraft on ground its an expense and all other A350s with other Airlines are flying with the paint degrading issues on their aircraft. QA is fighting a lone battle & I don't think QA is gonna win this case in the near future. Airbus needs to step up and sort out the issue or else they should pause the manufacturing of A350 until a solution is found for the paint degrading issues. Never the less its a big blow for QA after Airbus cancelled their A321 orders. They probably would be scratching their on what to do next.

[RGK]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

The composite surfaces were also always more difficult to apply the foundation materials over.

Narayansaab, slight OT here, Have seen some liquids are sprayed on the entire aircraft during severe winter/snow times in many NA airports. Will this affect the composite material, in the long run, making a repaint compulsory?