Update: Qatar Airways has today issued legal proceedings against Airbus in the Technology and Construction division of the High Court in London regarding the accelerated surface degradation condition adversely impacting the Airbus A350 aircraft.
It's Not AIRBUS'S Fault 🤬. When Sh*t Happens These AIRLINERS Can't Keep On Taking The Manufacturers To Court 🤬. Seriously They Need To Take The Blame & At Fault Not AIRBUS,BOEING 🤬
Ohh man, if people only knew what is going on with the 787, it is much worse than the a350. UV damage to the composite wings. Not only is the top coat peeling but the structural coatings/epoxy is yellowing. Boeing does not have a fix yet. I wish other airlines had more balls to stand up the these manufactures like the arabs do.
@@CRAIGKMSBISMARCKTIRPITZ533 - wait ... soo ... ya buy a plane, or a car, and within a couple weeks the paint fails, that's the customers fault? Of course its the manufacturers fault. Just exactly how is an issue like this the customers fault? And if the manufacturer cant fix it, or refuses to fix it or tries to deflect responsibility to the customer ... whats the customers recourse? Court. How can you even possibly justify your comment?
The A380 will go down in history as one of the worst decisions ever made by a company up there with a car that was called Nova (or No Go in spanish) or new Coke. When they built the plane they didn't want to cover the additional cost to make the frame sturdy enough alone but made the second floor base part of the frame so it can't be removed making it not efficient for cargo too. The 777 has more cargo space than the a380 as passenger planes and as cargo. The combi would be the way to go to better use the jet. Passengers on top and enlarge the cargo area to include the cargo hold and the bottom floor.
Nothing says you love your customer like taking them to court. 🙄 Hopefully, Airbus will figure this out, as it may impact the future of composite aircraft, which appears is a critical technology for next generation aircraft.
Laminates r always in danger of delaminating ! In my opinion they have no business in commercial passenger planes. Freighters or military aircraft yes.
airbus has ten years worth of orders already pending, they could hardly care. also it's better to lose one client than let that client pretend your planes are unsafe.
There was a directive from EASA about the improper application of the copper mesh over the wing fuel tanks on the a few A350’s. Not to the same extent as the protective coating! The problem was considered needing immediate remedy as these lightening dissipators could lead to a fuel fire or explosion if struck by lightning!
Just one comment. EASA was very quick to ground all B737 for up to two years. But when it came to Airbus it turned into a tortoise and hare scenario. Such a double standard! Everyone has such a double standard.
There is an old saying "the customer is always right". And in this case, it is hard not to argue if my brand new car of two weeks or even a year had its paint starting to peal causing rust I wouldn't be too happy.
rust that could very easily kill a couple hundred people.... im just imagining that rusty lightning mesh flaping in the wind at 500knots sanding imperfections into metal brackets or the fuselage itself. then they pressurize these planes to higher levels and u have a dehavaland comet 2.0 ready to happen. with all the ground airbus has gained over boeing, you'd think they would chill out and take some blame, and try to show the world they are the safer manufacturer with a different culture of safety over profit
Point is if this tech is ready for general population? This is not a space shuddle, this is a passenger bus. Are the masses prepared to take the risk along with AirBus and Qatar?
@@vevenaneathna again, the paint is NOT an air-worthyness issue. the paint peels off faster than it should, yes, but the plane's structure doesn't get damaged unless your airline is so lazy it cannot just redo a paint job every now and then. if they don't, yes, you'd have a safety risk. but not because of the bad pain, only because they're a shitty company that don't want to do proper maintenance.
@@Lapantouflemagic0 a350 list price is ~350m cut that in half were talking about a loan of 175m per unit at around 6% interest thats about 30k per day of compounded interest how long do you think it takes to fully inspect and sign off on an entire a350 paint job? and how long do you think it takes to tear down and repaint an entire plane. Ive heard a 737 costs ~250k to repaint, so im guessing an a350 is closer to 1.5m since theres probably special training to make sure someone doesnt sand off the wrong layer of the composite So now youre talking about a guaranteed unexpected cost of maybe 4 days for inspection every year, 14 days to repaint every ~2 years the maintenance cost of "simply slap some more paint on it and dont be lazy" is probably somewhere in the ball park of 1m$/year but you have to factor in the lost opportunity cost also. I remember quantus bragging about their a380 earning them around 250k net every time it left the tarmac. So lets say the a350 is at best making around 100k per flight, and that it can do 2 per day 11 days of downtime per year is potentially another 1.1M$/year of lost revenue if things pick back up. and this is best case scenario worst case is one of them goes full dehavaland comment on ur ass and a couple hundred upper middle class people die and permanently tarnish your safety rating like when the russians randomly shot down MH17. That's a recipe for bankruptcy if it happens to a high end carrier. yeah maybe thats an over reaction or a stretch in logic with the facts available now, but it seems like airbus just doesnt want to give up any ground to boeing and is not publicly investigating the issue, or they know about the issue and it cant be easily fixed. That is a big departure from the original contract signed between the two parties, and their response has been to admit no copiability whatsoever and underplay the problem. I hope theyre right, coz if theyre wrong boeing is going to look like a saint here pretty soon, and then the company will literally only have one or two small profitable models left.
I sincerely hope this is not the beginning of another de Havilland Comet tragedy. Poorly protected composite material is very vulnerable to exposures such as elements, UV, and significant temp/stress cycles. Peeling paint is one thing, quite a serious concern if measurable damaged has developed.
When UA-cam comments section does more explaining and taking the matter seriously than the euro air regulator baboons. Legit baboons working at EASA 🤣🤣🤣
Those pictures of the exposed mesh and peeling paint does not look like a minor issue. EASA protects the European Airbus companies. This definitely needs to be be examined in more detail. There appears to be damage to the composite surfaces under the mesh in the photos.
@@dimitrygornomelikov3146 ~ Why would anyone trust corporate controlled governments and incorporated big business world wide, and that's what rules the world?
@@dimitrygornomelikov3146 ~ "The rich rule over the poor and the borrower is servant to the lender." Proverbs 22:7. All the nations of the world are enslaved to the same Monetary System, including China and Russia. Where governments, corporations, and institutions borrow money from privately owned Central Banks, that create fiat money from nothing, and lend it back to these institutions with interest added, the money is made legal tender by a government decree and the interest and debt is paid back by the tax paying public. Creating "money" from nothing is a fraud, which is deception, and stealing from the common man. So our governments are in partnership with the Criminal Central Banks who are defrauding the people of the world. ~ Europeans are just as much enslaved, naive, deceived, and misinformed as the rest of the world by the monetary system. The Owners of the worlds debts are the rulers of the world and the nations of the world are the debtors and not the rulers.
"non-structural surface degradation" commonly followed by "structural exposure and degradation" and ending in "catastrophic failure of the structure". What was the plane that had half the roof ripped off in flight because some bonding agent had degraded, and the stress ended up on rivet points that caused a failure point?
@@1Gadd these so called experts want to make a small problem sound like the max 737 problem i swear they were not this vocal when it emerged that boeing put profits before safety i mean it does look like what airbus said as what could have been a problem on those early models to come out was true since the other A350s still flying have not reported this problem, they want to pretend as if the first 787s didn't have similar paint issues
While peeling paint doesn't compromise the structural integrity of the aircraft, it does expose the underlying metal mesh to corrosion which will impact lightning safety if it gets too bad (I work with electricity, not airplanes, so I have no idea how much aircraft-grade expanded metal mesh costs, but I'm betting at least 6 figures).
@# Mac Copper indeed doesn't rust, but it's still corroded. It's called atmospheric corrosion. It's what turns copper blue green. On thick surface that is ok, since most of the copper underneath that blue-green patina is intact and even protected by it. However, on very thin copper (like copper traces of electronic circuit boards, or this copper mesh on composite materials like 787 or A350), this could eat copper quickly. Plus, continuous exposure to sandy weather scratched off this thin patina unevenly across its surface, promoting localized corrosion that can cut through a very thin copper very fast. This is also the reason copper pipes can and have leaked, since friction and expansion-contraction motion due to heat break off the patina layer on surface allowing copper underneath it to corrode as well.
Airbus suggesting that Quatar reporting the issues go beyond cosmetics somehow "represents a threat to the international protocols on safety manners" is fkin hysterical.
This is a serious issue that must be corrected, I feel that the composition of the covering of the mesh is not sufficient and it is breaking away? this could be due to a number of things, the terrific heat of the middle east would not help, but its something Airbus must be given sufficient time to solve. I have and always will say that Airbus Aircraft are superb design and quality and I am sure the A.350 is no exception, this type of manufacture is New and Boeing have also experienced some problems with the 787, but it has not had the publicity of the A.350 due to the Airline there feeling aggrieved, I am confident it will be sorted.
I'm sure Airbus in on solving this issue. What I can understand tough is them beein pi*** about the dick kmove from Quatar Airways grounding their airplanes, then getting Quatari regulator to ground them as well (smel fishy doesn't it ?) Having inspected the aircarft in Toulouse, they know and have told that this is a surface coating issue that does'nt impact the structural integrity at all. Thus the grounding from Quatar is a very damagable move for Airbus, probably done by Quatar Airways to gain some financial leverage out of this and raise the pressure on Airbus. Airbus must feel stabbed in back by Quatar Airways with this grounding, totally unjustified technically and doing them both a great disservice. I would say Quatar AIrways are coming out as the clowns in this sh** show. ANd Airbus is so pi** off they will not play the "customer is king" game any further with them. Had Quatar Airways not teamed up with their regulator to trick Airbus in this fake grounding, I'm sure Airbus would still be all chocolate and sugar with them. Now it has been escalated too far by Quatar Airways and they will pay the price for it.
The problem has actually already been fixed on newer A350s, they've tweaked the production methods and perahps employed new materials. The problem is that retrofitting the older jets is potentially a nightmare. Also Qatar is blowing the entire thing out of proportion. If someone as serious and respected as Lufthansa Technik accepted Airbus compensation (mostly free re-painting) while the manufacturer works on a retrofit solution, you know Qatar is exaggerating
@@luca7069 Agreed. Making the jump from metal to composite is a real learning curve for the paint suppliers, painters, maintainers and design teams. As long as it is cosmetic, keep flying. If the underlying structure degrades, well, that's a whoopsie.
@@luca7069 exactly, Qatar CEO has proven to be a whiny crybaby more than once. The issue exists, but it seems as if they are trying to obtain benefits through questionable methods
@@osasunaitor The relationship is now forever ruined as QR today has taken Airbus to court. There’s now an 80% chance the remaining A350 orders left for QR to be delivered will be cancelled
Qatar Air is particular about holding standards to meet their customers expectations. In a previous saga they refused delivery of airplanes because the seats painting deviated from their expectations.
I think there most be mock-up model of interior prior for manufacturing and delivery. The mock-up interior will be kept for a while in case for future dispute on quality issue. It is common practice in renovation industry because your expectation and my expectation are difference. Only mock-up model able to narrow this gap.
As a shareholder I'd rather Airbus would focus on finding a technical solution instead of getting an 'independent legal assessment'. I fear that long term that kind of behaviour will hurt their reputation more than anything Qatar can say, even if Airbus was in the right. I'd rather have another year without earnings while Airbus spends it all on appeasing the customer and fixing this issue than having their reputation damaged long term by the same kind of philosophy that worked so well for Boeing. That's going to hurt my investment much more in the long run. Also, what is or isn't an airworthiness issue is decided by the certification authority, not by either the manufactuer or the airline. The manufacturer can advise, but if QCAA decided that for them this is an airworthiness issue, then, at least in Qatar, it is. Trying to win interpretative souvereignty over QCAA on what is or isn't an airworthiness issue smells way too much like what Boeing was getting used to.
You are probably right, but in the case of Qatar, it is painfully obvious that the Qatari authorities grounded the plane under pressure from Qatar Airways, which is a state-owned company and thus involved in the country's politics. It was therefore a politically motivated move, not a technically supported one. It's not too different from what happened in the USA with Boeing and the FAA; both entities worked hand in hand thanks to political influence, leading to the FAA's negligence in certifying the 737MAX that killed hundreds of people.
Airbus seems to have gotten a little bit cocky with how far the playing field was tilting their way, and decided to floor the accelerator instead of taking the extra time needed to really square the corner on how to get aviation paint to stick to composites. I know nothing about this directly, but it's my understanding that Boeing fiddled with it for a *very* long time before they got it right, and it seems -- at least superficially -- that Airbus was rushing its A350 product to market by at least some of that margin in R&D.
It's Qatar being cocky, the issue is years old, but Qatar finds out during a pandemic when the turnover is at its lowest since ever. They just want out of the contract with Airbus and found an excuse for it. Other airlines are aware since at least six years and still operate their flights. Other carrier in the other hand, have never experienced this issue.
@@eslofftschubar206 Thats just BS. Tell me you would fly in that plane. Whether Qatar is right or wrong it is another issue. But the thing is there is a video evidence and there is a problem. Airbus should address it instead of offering to repaint the plane. It seems like Airbus is trying to take the easy way out. Companies like Qatar and Emirates have a reputation and flying a plane whose paints deteriorates every year will be a nightmare in the long run.
Painting carbon fibre is a nightmare due to differential coefficients of thermal expansion between the carbon which has a low CTE and the paint which has a high CTE. There is also a complex interaction with the epoxy resin which bonds the fibres together. I experienced this on the McLaren F1 supercar back in 1995 and spent years developing a potential solution with help from Boeing, I doubt that this particular issue is an immediate safety problem but the thermal interaction between carbon and resins remains a very very serious problem.
The nerve of a customer wanting a $200 million plane purchase is mechanically and cosmetically perfect. Totally unreasonable. Imagine if Tesla cars had to be perfect instead of their poor fit and finish quality. There would be no Teslas on the road.
It's a design issue from Airbus which they cannot admit. Boeing 787 faraday cage is different from Airbus and they don't have this issue as it is able to expand and contact at the same rate as the structure. But Airbus just slapped the old faraday cage from non carbon composite material aircraft which cannot expand and contact at same rate as aircraft body. This is causing the paint issues. And faraday cage deform.
Tesla compared to its price range cars is crappy in terms of build quality. A car won't fall out of sky because of sweaking dash or misaligned door. A LIGHTNING strike on an aircraft with compromised faraday cage has the possibility.
lol! Tesla truly has found the bottom of the barrel of bay area tweakers and stoners to assemble their cars. Of course who can blame the workers for getting hopped up on uppers, what with the slavish hours they force them to do for low pay. I’d be unhappy if I bought a $20,000 car with that ‘quality’ . Let alone ….
MCAS was so "minor" Boeing decided to omit any mention of it to avoid additional training costs and FAA recert. It's only minor until it's not. Thank you Qatar for holding up a safety standard and not budging even at the risk of financial loss.
As a retired engineer (failure analyst) I honestly don’t see anything that alarms me, and agree it doesn’t appear to be structural. I would recommend maintaining the surface and perhaps more focused, regular inspections...and let it go at that. If Qatar Airways wants to negotiate/sue for redress for that cost, fair enough.
So who absorbs the cost of additional maintenance due to poor quality? I mean if Airbus was offering a 30% discount due to the issues I can understand.
Zap the area with 300 million volts and 30,000 amps as if a lightning bolt hit the plane where the lightning protection is exposed and damaged. See what happens.
Those pictures do no paint a rosy picture. Hopefully this can be properly investigated and rectified before it become a 737Max type disaster. Nice video. Keep up the good work.
Carbon fiber flexes more than aluminium. That movement probably stretches the surface paint more to cause cracks. The 787 and 350 are the first in class. Any similar problems with the 787?
That's not what's happening here. The 787 doesn't suffer from this particular issue. Something in the paint isn't reacting well with the copper mesh and carbon composite fuselage. The damage looks much more severe then just a paint issue. The paint is degrading very quickly and damaging the surface underneath it. Not sure if that will lead to a disaster... I wouldn't risk it either though. I don't blame Qatar. They paid over 300 million euros for each plane and this shouldn't have happened. Especially not this quickly.
If I bought a new car and the paint was coming off, I'd be really disappointed. Fix the problem Airbus. Also, when is anything on the outside of an airplane falling off, only Cosmetic?
Al Baker has always complained about each manufacturer. When Qatar Airways had a large stake in Cargolux (the launch customer for the 747-8F), Boeing planned a day with big fanfare to turn present the completed aircraft to Cargolux. Al Baker said the airplanes were bad and he wouldn't accept delivery. Whether it's the A team or the B team, he always complains. If both stop selling to him, where would he get airliners from? Oh, yeah.
I have seen paint issues on the B787 too. It seems paint doesn't adhere to carbon composite as well as expected.So I imagine this will run. Paint damage and composite damage are not the same thing. I seen at least a square meter of paint missing from a B787 wing surface on a Qatar 7 hour flight .
It's shocking to see how lightly safety is being taken by aircraft manufacturers in this era. I thought we would be flying in the safest aircraft and that safety would be of the highest concern but clearly for manufacturers its all about their bottom line and profits just as we saw the boeing 737 max tragedy not long back. I guess EASA is waiting for an accident to happen to react properly. I for one highly regard Qatar Airways and there's a reason they're the world's safest airline with a 5 star skytrax rating. At least they're not putting their customer safety at risk by putting these planes back up in the air like other airlines to make money.
If that's the case why aren't the others with similar paint degradation issues reacting in a similar manner, the other Airbus planes aren't experiencing such paint degradation so it's not something that's structurally wrong with the plane, it looks like Qatar airways and specifically Akbar Al baker is engineering something financial here, my guess is they need a new type of paint specific or special to these new composite planes
One simple question what happens if lightning strikes a350. Can these planes with the paint degradation issues deflect the lightning? No person flying on these planes want to face any serious issue while flying on the plane.
@@MyJerseybean Actually all aircraft can suffer a lightning strike. Just because they say a aircraft is composite it still has metal including the fasteners that attach the sections of the aircraft, the engines, around the APU around various windows the fasteners that hold the windows in place and high strength lightweight metal use throughout the aircraft including the mesh and foil for lightning protection. I watched a 787-8 get a lightning strike leaving Paine Field in 2014 so it happens and then when the 787 returned from the flight it was throughly inspected including x-rays to confirm it suffered no damage.
@@MyJerseybean i've seen more than a hundred lightning strike damages on a single cathay's a350. the worse thing to see in the maintenance log for line maintenance guys is 'suspected lightning strike'. oh BTW cathay's a350 fleet did suffer from the paint issue. the paint of the first few a350 delivered start falling off just after a few flights, and bad enough for flight crew to put the issue in maintenance log in just one or two weeks after delivery of the aircraft. and cathay's 35Ks also have high engine oil consumption problem, which limited the flight time of their 35K fleet to under 16 hours, but thats rr's problem
Amazing video, i would agree if it were just one or two units with production faults but thats not the case. Selling faulty planes then say mischaracterisation to abide paying compensation for the grounded planes us a nice trick. I'd say this video is more in favourable to airbus as it seems.
Airbus has some paint issues with A350 but Boeing has a paint peeling issue too which they claim is caused by UV rays so there is a chance that this may have been caused by UV rays for Airbus too. Airbus should consider UV rays also as a factor
Yes I observed over a square metre of paint exposing the underlying composite in. Qatar B787 flight from Doha to Bangkok .Seems to me it's a paint problem on modern carbon fibre built aircraft
QATAR has every right to ground the planes. Smaller issues if combined together can cause major problem specially when lives are at stake. In fact every airliner must ensure conditions are perfect in their planes. Lives are first not the business.
I have seen paint damage like this on a presurised road trailer, the trailer was presurised to appox 1bar for discharging ,After a couple of years small hair line cracks appeared in the paint work in certain places , eventually pressure washing would take areas of paint off ,the winter was hard on them as water seemed to freeze behind the paint and push it off, after about 5years they had to be repainted ,I blamed the tank expanding when being put under pressure and the paint not being able to keep up with the expansion just cracked ,then the elements got in and did the rest
Of course Airbus should take action to investigate. But at the time there is no serious threat to airworthiness according to them. So as situation evolves (I am pretty much sure they do research on it to find solution), this should be resolved.
Of course they do work together. That’s how they share results and data for tests and so on. Since the sad max story I really really doubt Airbus and easa would do the same as Boeing and faa in regards of safety
Perform lab test at certain degree of heat and observe how the paint react.Repeat in several cycle .If the paint location is dynamic,it must be reinforce to prevent excessively.Paint is stable at certain temperature and rigid base.
That needed change would affect the bottom line, lets just keep it cost effective as is and let the customer deal with it later. Unfortunately that was a miscalculation as the issue is present far to soon for the cost saving to have worked.
I'm pretty sure that rapid, unpredictable wear on any part of the airplane is an "airworthiness issue". The paint is, in fact, *part of* the composite stack. If Airbus want Qatar to shut up, maybe they should fix the issue instead of pretending that Qatar is just being dramatic. Sounds like they need stretchier paint.
To Devamarie MC Do you actually read any of the comments? If you did, you do not have any sort of comprehension of the subject? We were not discussing Boeing’s problem of two years ago. We were discussing Airbuses problems of today!! Just one more thing! Boeing did not try to hide any problems with the 737.
Now I understand the key cause(s) of this paint peeling. a) structure integrity > unlikely b) paint itself > unlikely c) bonding issues between three layers > YES《carbon composite + steel mesh + paint system 》which has different expansion rate. Anyway > this is lack of long term testing before applying the system on real use! "Carbon composite + surface steel mesh + paint system" > bonded issue. This is 100% manufacture defect, whether it is a cosmetic or airworthiness really dependent expert witness statement. When one airline against one aircraft manufacturer...you can anticipate the result. However, painting system serves two features (1) surface protection (2) company image. If damage of item (2) leading to more re-painting job (resulting losing business opportunity) or leading damage of company image than it is a long legal battle... ***************************************** Old understanding without acknowledging that a steel wire mesh were presented between the carbon composite surface & the painting system) ***************************************** The possible cause(s) of Paint cracks 1. Paint material itself / workmanship of spraying. 2. Environment & operation parameters issues. 3. The structure underneath the paints. As paint system are typical and common (if fleet A has the issues, then fleet B likely has similar issues too*). If the cracks is unique only spotted in particular type of model of aircraft, then the cause of cracks might come from the structure underneath, which sounds very alarming!!! 1. The expansion and elongation of a structure might cause cracks. Paint system itself has elasticity and able to cope within a working, when exceeding its limit range > cracks appears... (cracks can be a minor issue as claimed by Airbus as a cosmetic problem or serious structural cracks > a time bomb like de Havilland Comet case). 2. If cracks all overall many areas... then it is likely considered as the paint issues, not structural issues > structural cracks normal found locally at stress concentration corner or joining area during inspection and rarely to be spotted all around everywhere within a structure. *also reported by other airlines operators of A350 with similar issues too. Paint system are designed with constant deteriorate rate. However, the rate of deterioration shall be reasonable. That is why you need to repaint the surface once every few years. For a good painting system it can last for a decade without the needs for repainting (i.e. most private vehicles). If you bought a brand new BMW and peeled paints appears everywhere after 24 months normal use. You bring back the car for to the dealer for examination, then the dealer told you A. Perhaps your car parked too long at dessert areas and accelerate the painting system to be dried quicker than usual. B. Nevertheless your car still safe to drive, there is not safety issues but just a cosmetic problem. C. Don't worry, we will help you to repaint the car within 60 months warranty period free of charge. However once the warranty expired, you have to pay the repainting job at your own cost. D. By the way, we have no spared loan car for borrowing and the repainting job probably last for 3 to 6 months (please also bring your car with your own fuel (return) and driver and fly to our workshop at located somewhere in Europe for the services too😅 E. Last but no least, please bear in mind that according to the sell and purchase agreement, it clearly stated that there is no compensation for the loss of buyer's business operation due to manufacturing defects in any event TOO. What will you react 🤔? Give him a finger immediately 🖕🖕🖕 Right🤣 ? But this is the reality!!! *** By the way, I think litigating between Airbus and Qatar Air is not the best option for resolving this dispute... Either Airbus win or Qatar Air win > the loser has to paid legal cost for the opposite party. But both side also ruin future business relationship too. 1. We all known it is likely due to COVID-19 > Qatar cannot utilize the newly ordered A350 capacity. 2. Qatar already signed the contract without exist clauses for stopping the ordered plane (my guessing anyway > not only loss all down payment, but also with potential liability for Airbus's loss too). 3. From buyer's prospective, it is not uncommon using quality and workmanship excuse(s) for rejecting products and refusing for payment. 4. However, there is also a genuine manufacture defect issues (serious paint peel off issue) on Airbus side, the the scale of problem is controversial... 5. If Airbus / Qatar entering supplementary agreement for reducing the original number of order. It seems better not burning money on legal cost but rather than saving on future relationship (anyway legal cost might be minor in term of this scale of purchase agreement) > it is likely a show and end up with supplementary agreement for both sides. Airbus side > losing VIP buyers (they are bloody rich!!! able to retire all A380 fleet (x10 nos) for with average 5 years only > what a poor business decision / plan from the beginning) Qatar side > losing options for only buying Boeing in the future > too bad. Certainly, it is not the best interests from law firms' prospective for not continuing the litigation proceed until the end. Anyway > I think it is likely a show in the court room and both company likely to settle on supplementary agreement in the somewhere before the ending of the litigation process. Both CEOs from two sides already known about their options and all possible outcomes were already calculated and marked on their dairy too.
It's quite possible that it is indeed only an issue affecting Qatar because Qatar is the only A350 customer (AFAIK) located in such a hot and humid climate; all of the other customers that reported problems with paint, are based in colder or more temperate climates. It would be very interesting to know whether those other airlines' affected A350s were or are used primarily for flights to the Middle East.
To me it looks like paint is not sticking to the surface properly. The mesh looked ok? Or if the underlying mesh is starting to erode there is something in the paint that is corroding the the composite.
Carbon fibre is not exposed. the fibre is used to strengthen the plane in line with the thread of the carbon. The hardness is induced by epoxy resins. On top of that there is a coper mesh witch is painted over.
What happens to a Faraday's cage with a tear or degrading mesh? Epoxy and carbon expand differently than the protective mesh, perhaps 787 has a different protection with the mesh inside or in between and why the 380 does not have the issue?
The cage does not need to be continuous, Afaik its a mesh on the a350. Air France did not experience this issue, at some point in the manufacturing they might have improved their process. The 787 has similar issues with the paint.
I'm guessing environmentalists have tightened paint volatility regulations way too much and the newer paints throughout outer industries have had problems too
I don’t understand the problem with Airbus? Why are they acting like this, clearly something is wrong with the paint! Why are they refusing to accept responsibility
What is it about this paint degradation problem that uniquely requires Qatar to ground their A350 fleet? Al Baker has a long history of diva vitriolic drama. I certainly am inclined to believe Airbus, and the other airlines’ decisions not to ground, over Al Baker.
@@mosca4380 All I’m suggesting is that Al Baker is positioning the problem as being one of ‘airworthiness’ which no other airline or regulator has done. This he presumably believes provides more ‘commercial leverage’ for him than accepting it as other airlines have as a glitch that just needs to be fixed. Certainly this is the view that Airbus is taking and is suing him for distorting of facts. Assuming I’m racist says a lot. I’m basing my opinion on the long history, as I mentioned, of specifically Al Baker dealing with manufacturers and exaggerating the situation. Qatar Airways basically IS the whole Qatari industry. It would not be surprising that the regulator came to their aid in front of Airbus to provide leverage… It would explain why the airworthiness status of this issue is unique to Qatar.
@@mosca4380 I agree. Paint cracking, whilst unsightly and needs to fixed, isn’t directly a problem. But delamination of any sort but especially where it exposes layers such as lightning strike protection - whether caused by or a cause of the paint cracking, is a critical airworthiness issue.
this is probably why other airlines have bad safety records/accidents/crashes and Qatar Airways is one of the safest and most trustworthy airliners to travel in the world.
Airbus needs to look at the paint conditions when they are applying paint and what product is being used on what spots. Clearly the issue is with all paint jobs of the A350 As they most likely will discover a pattern in the adhesion issues / failures if it's in the same spots it is most likely a primer issue right product in the wrong spot. Is the delamination in random areas then it is most likely environmental problem aka dew point minus surface temperature below 3°c Dirt can also play a role in adhesion failures Its nothing more then that.
Paint peeling can be caused by many factors: -Sufficiently thick layer for primer - Painting times are not respected -Paint must be applied in a controlled environment (humidity and temperature); -The anodizing layer is not thick enough so that the paint does not adhere to the metal( this can be big issue)
Looking at the evidence There is a problem and Airbus should deal with it. Stopping future orders is just throwing your toys out of the cot and will not serve Airbus well in the future. At least Boeing took the flak lost orders and have now regrouped and trying to regain confidence. The A350 is a beautiful plane but clearly have a paint problem they need to sort it out before we have a tragedy like the Comet.
I love Airbus , but if customer is not happy then it’s a actually a problem , If several airlines faced the same problem , it’s a issue from thier side and not airline side . And they need to agree and solve it .
Airbus is going to lose big time if they decide to take this matter to court, big time indeed. Imagine you purchased a brand new car from a car dealer and you discovered cracks on the paintwork of the car and the car dealer says 'hey, it does not affect the performance of the car', will you still accept to keep the car? No. So Airbus, fix the damn paint crack problem of your aircraft.....
It does not matter if it is Volkswagen, Boeing or Airbus or any other large company there will always be an economy of truth from senior management about their products. The reasons are obvious. Having to ferry the first stripped 350 to toulouse says a lot.
To say that the painted finish is not an airworthiness issue is nonsense. Paint protects the composite structure underneath and prevents the ingress of water which freezes causing delamination.
I sure hope Airbus isn't going the same route as what Boeing did. Cuz if it's only one airline that's complaining about this issue then I don't think there's any issue in reputation for the manufacturer but now that multiple airlines are complaining the exact same issue then this is a real problem, since most people have already seen what happen when a manufacturer blamed it on the airline. I'd rather see Airbus solve the issue now rather than defending n blame to other customers
Its a shame that Airbus doesn't address the problem with their paint adhesion/degredation issue and makes nothing but excuses. There is no excuse whatsoever for a plane that new to be having such an issue with paint and composite compatibility. NONE!!! I do not blame Qutar for grounding these planes and I do not blame them for standing their ground after spending so much money and having Airbus just slap them down. Airbus has grown so arrogant but I do believe they will be humbled somewhat as their main competitor reaps the reward.
I like the way Airbus downplays this issue. Now say what you wish about Boeing and its' issues, but the 787 does not seem to have a issue with surface cracking on the aircraft. Airbus can say that the cracking is not a safety issue until G-d forbid an A350 suffers a severe event or even loss of the aircraft. If anyone can remember an Hawaiian 737 that suffered metal fatigue and had part of the fuselage ripped off, with only the floor holding the aircraft together. This showed that Boeing built tough aircraft, however with bean counters currently running things at Boeing who knows about current aircraft. Airbus needs to solve this issue before a catastrophe occurs.
Rather than lawyering up, Airbus should just focus on fixing the problem. It is sad that Airbus is choosing a Boeing-style approach to this issue. I expected better of Airbus.
When MANUFACTURE / EASA , says keep flying. They are studying problem will take time to rectify. I strongly believe outer layer of composite materials for taking different operational damage , doesn't effect safety of aircraft. QA should have been flying aircraft with recommendation . Follow maintenance action , inspection / NDT extra task as per Airbus / EASA. OR If QA have smart knowledgeable technical team
Clearly this is why I'm not the CEO of some major company. "I" would think if they spent half the time and money fixing the issue, Qutar would have nothing to talk about. If they have nothing to talk about they have nothing to "mis-communicate".. but..fft.. what do I know. Clearly dragging it out as long a possible and then suing one of your biggest customers is the proper C suite choice.
Yeah and i am amazed that many people are blaming Qatar for it. If i buy a brand new phone and the paint wears off within a year, Even though the plane is solid and works fine, these aesthetic things like paint will make me question the built quality of the phone and a negative image of the manufacturer will be engraved on my mind. Here in this case, if the plane doesnt look aesthetically pleasing People will complain about it and the reputation of Qatar will be hit, no one will blame Airbus for it. They will think Qatar is not maintaining them properly. If Qatar is to save its reputation they will have to repaint their whole fleet every couple of year, that will cost a ton in the long run. Pushing Qatars reputation aside, i wont trust a manufacturer who can't get the paint properly. Like you cant make the paint stick you are expecting me to trust the built quality.
Update: Qatar Airways has today issued legal proceedings against Airbus in the Technology and Construction division of the High Court in London regarding the accelerated surface degradation condition adversely impacting the Airbus A350 aircraft.
It's Not AIRBUS'S Fault 🤬. When Sh*t Happens These AIRLINERS Can't Keep On Taking The Manufacturers To Court 🤬. Seriously They Need To Take The Blame & At Fault Not AIRBUS,BOEING 🤬
Ohh man, if people only knew what is going on with the 787, it is much worse than the a350. UV damage to the composite wings. Not only is the top coat peeling but the structural coatings/epoxy is yellowing. Boeing does not have a fix yet.
I wish other airlines had more balls to stand up the these manufactures like the arabs do.
tito88 b
@@CRAIGKMSBISMARCKTIRPITZ533 - wait ... soo ... ya buy a plane, or a car, and within a couple weeks the paint fails, that's the customers fault? Of course its the manufacturers fault. Just exactly how is an issue like this the customers fault? And if the manufacturer cant fix it, or refuses to fix it or tries to deflect responsibility to the customer ... whats the customers recourse? Court.
How can you even possibly justify your comment?
@Long Haul by Simple Flying 1:12 that name is actually Irish and is pronounced Usheen Teernee
The pictures showing exposed conductive mesh and degraded substrate are pretty concerning.
Footage released today is even worse ua-cam.com/video/ScGozCGxJfg/v-deo.html
And EASA said “nah it’s fine.” And probably got its data from Airbus so
7:49
@@AhmadmaDJamAjam Wow, that's really bad
A few pounds of JB Weld should fix the problem.
There is a positive element to all this. The reactivation of their A380's. 😎
The A380 was never a profitable plane type for any airline!
It was a status symbol for only two airlines both of which flew out of the Middle East.
@@mariombrbovic8188 the aircraft never reached Economies of Scale, only Emirates made it work because they marketed the aircraft in a different way
The A380 will go down in history as one of the worst decisions ever made by a company up there with a car that was called Nova (or No Go in spanish) or new Coke. When they built the plane they didn't want to cover the additional cost to make the frame sturdy enough alone but made the second floor base part of the frame so it can't be removed making it not efficient for cargo too. The 777 has more cargo space than the a380 as passenger planes and as cargo. The combi would be the way to go to better use the jet. Passengers on top and enlarge the cargo area to include the cargo hold and the bottom floor.
@@charfras4767 Nova! jajaa buena eso
😁
Nothing says you love your customer like taking them to court. 🙄
Hopefully, Airbus will figure this out, as it may impact the future of composite aircraft, which appears is a critical technology for next generation aircraft.
The next technology is self-healing surfaces! That's what I hear...
Laminates r always in danger of delaminating !
In my opinion they have no business in commercial passenger planes.
Freighters or military aircraft yes.
Airbus are not alone it seems, I understand that Air New Zealand are having problems with their Boeing 787s… New technologies = new issues…
They are French. What you’d expect lmao
airbus has ten years worth of orders already pending, they could hardly care. also it's better to lose one client than let that client pretend your planes are unsafe.
There was a directive from EASA about the improper application of the copper mesh over the wing fuel tanks on the a few A350’s. Not to the same extent as the protective coating! The problem was considered needing immediate remedy as these lightening dissipators could lead to a fuel fire or explosion if struck by lightning!
I've been hearing a lot about this but wasn't quite sure what exactly was happening. Thanks for the explanation 👍
Just one comment. EASA was very quick to ground all B737 for up to two years.
But when it came to Airbus it turned into a tortoise and hare scenario.
Such a double standard!
Everyone has such a double standard.
Two B737 Max 8 aircraft crashed with loss of all aboard. Pretty sure that’s reason enough to ground an aircraft. Peeling paint, yeah nah.
@@mariombrbovic8188 you're comparing two total losses with hundreds of deaths to a cosmetic issue with no current safety concerns?
@@sncy5303 , so why did they see underlying degradation of the composite AFTER the paint was stripped? You are talking out your arse.
It looks quite bad in the footage they released today ua-cam.com/video/ScGozCGxJfg/v-deo.html
There is an old saying "the customer is always right". And in this case, it is hard not to argue if my brand new car of two weeks or even a year had its paint starting to peal causing rust I wouldn't be too happy.
rust that could very easily kill a couple hundred people....
im just imagining that rusty lightning mesh flaping in the wind at 500knots sanding imperfections into metal brackets or the fuselage itself. then they pressurize these planes to higher levels and u have a dehavaland comet 2.0 ready to happen.
with all the ground airbus has gained over boeing, you'd think they would chill out and take some blame, and try to show the world they are the safer manufacturer with a different culture of safety over profit
Point is if this tech is ready for general population? This is not a space shuddle, this is a passenger bus. Are the masses prepared to take the risk along with AirBus and Qatar?
@@vevenaneathna again, the paint is NOT an air-worthyness issue. the paint peels off faster than it should, yes, but the plane's structure doesn't get damaged unless your airline is so lazy it cannot just redo a paint job every now and then. if they don't, yes, you'd have a safety risk. but not because of the bad pain, only because they're a shitty company that don't want to do proper maintenance.
@@Lapantouflemagic0 a350 list price is ~350m
cut that in half were talking about a loan of 175m per unit at around 6% interest
thats about 30k per day of compounded interest
how long do you think it takes to fully inspect and sign off on an entire a350 paint job? and how long do you think it takes to tear down and repaint an entire plane.
Ive heard a 737 costs ~250k to repaint, so im guessing an a350 is closer to 1.5m since theres probably special training to make sure someone doesnt sand off the wrong layer of the composite
So now youre talking about a guaranteed unexpected cost of maybe 4 days for inspection every year, 14 days to repaint every ~2 years
the maintenance cost of "simply slap some more paint on it and dont be lazy" is probably somewhere in the ball park of 1m$/year
but you have to factor in the lost opportunity cost also. I remember quantus bragging about their a380 earning them around 250k net every time it left the tarmac. So lets say the a350 is at best making around 100k per flight, and that it can do 2 per day
11 days of downtime per year is potentially another 1.1M$/year of lost revenue if things pick back up.
and this is best case scenario
worst case is one of them goes full dehavaland comment on ur ass and a couple hundred upper middle class people die and permanently tarnish your safety rating like when the russians randomly shot down MH17. That's a recipe for bankruptcy if it happens to a high end carrier.
yeah maybe thats an over reaction or a stretch in logic with the facts available now, but it seems like airbus just doesnt want to give up any ground to boeing and is not publicly investigating the issue, or they know about the issue and it cant be easily fixed. That is a big departure from the original contract signed between the two parties, and their response has been to admit no copiability whatsoever and underplay the problem. I hope theyre right, coz if theyre wrong boeing is going to look like a saint here pretty soon, and then the company will literally only have one or two small profitable models left.
Apple: you use our product wrong you should use it with care.
Airbus: our plane belong in museum and for you admire it's beauty,
I sincerely hope this is not the beginning of another de Havilland Comet tragedy.
Poorly protected composite material is very vulnerable to exposures such as elements, UV, and significant temp/stress cycles.
Peeling paint is one thing, quite a serious concern if measurable damaged has developed.
787 is showing this kind of damage on its wings.
@@purotito88 , not even close.
When UA-cam comments section does more explaining and taking the matter seriously than the euro air regulator baboons. Legit baboons working at EASA 🤣🤣🤣
Those pictures of the exposed mesh and peeling paint does not look like a minor issue. EASA protects the European Airbus companies. This definitely needs to be be examined in more detail. There appears to be damage to the composite surfaces under the mesh in the photos.
Just like the FAA with Boeing... just wish that this type of stuff isn't happening.
Why would anyone trust a European nowadays?
@@dimitrygornomelikov3146 ~ Why would anyone trust corporate controlled governments and incorporated big business world wide, and that's what rules the world?
@@martentrudeau6948 Tf you waffling about ?
@@dimitrygornomelikov3146 ~ "The rich rule over the poor and the borrower is servant to the lender." Proverbs 22:7.
All the nations of the world are enslaved to the same Monetary System, including China and Russia. Where governments, corporations, and institutions borrow money from privately owned Central Banks, that create fiat money from nothing, and lend it back to these institutions with interest added, the money is made legal tender by a government decree and the interest and debt is paid back by the tax paying public. Creating "money" from nothing is a fraud, which is deception, and stealing from the common man. So our governments are in partnership with the Criminal Central Banks who are defrauding the people of the world. ~ Europeans are just as much enslaved, naive, deceived, and misinformed as the rest of the world by the monetary system. The Owners of the worlds debts are the rulers of the world and the nations of the world are the debtors and not the rulers.
Okay, the shot of the walls and support of the paint booth going up and the plane pulling in is pretty cool.
"non-structural surface degradation" commonly followed by "structural exposure and degradation" and ending in "catastrophic failure of the structure". What was the plane that had half the roof ripped off in flight because some bonding agent had degraded, and the stress ended up on rivet points that caused a failure point?
Wasn't that proved to be poor repair work?
Think it was Hawaiian Airlines the flight attendant got whisked away instantly
@@1Gadd these so called experts want to make a small problem sound like the max 737 problem i swear they were not this vocal when it emerged that boeing put profits before safety i mean it does look like what airbus said as what could have been a problem on those early models to come out was true since the other A350s still flying have not reported this problem, they want to pretend as if the first 787s didn't have similar paint issues
@@1Gadd It was Aloha Airlines, which is now bankrupt.
While peeling paint doesn't compromise the structural integrity of the aircraft, it does expose the underlying metal mesh to corrosion which will impact lightning safety if it gets too bad (I work with electricity, not airplanes, so I have no idea how much aircraft-grade expanded metal mesh costs, but I'm betting at least 6 figures).
@# Mac Copper indeed doesn't rust, but it's still corroded. It's called atmospheric corrosion. It's what turns copper blue green. On thick surface that is ok, since most of the copper underneath that blue-green patina is intact and even protected by it. However, on very thin copper (like copper traces of electronic circuit boards, or this copper mesh on composite materials like 787 or A350), this could eat copper quickly. Plus, continuous exposure to sandy weather scratched off this thin patina unevenly across its surface, promoting localized corrosion that can cut through a very thin copper very fast.
This is also the reason copper pipes can and have leaked, since friction and expansion-contraction motion due to heat break off the patina layer on surface allowing copper underneath it to corrode as well.
@@FlyingPlastic356 ~ Excellent comment, enlightening, no pun intended.
Airbus suggesting that Quatar reporting the issues go beyond cosmetics somehow "represents a threat to the international protocols on safety manners" is fkin hysterical.
This is a serious issue that must be corrected, I feel that the composition of the covering of the mesh is not sufficient and it is breaking away? this could be due to a number of things, the terrific heat of the middle east would not help, but its something Airbus must be given sufficient time to solve. I have and always will say that Airbus Aircraft are superb design and quality and I am sure the A.350 is no exception, this type of manufacture is New and Boeing have also experienced some problems with the 787, but it has not had the publicity of the A.350 due to the Airline there feeling aggrieved, I am confident it will be sorted.
I'm sure Airbus in on solving this issue. What I can understand tough is them beein pi*** about the dick kmove from Quatar Airways grounding their airplanes, then getting Quatari regulator to ground them as well (smel fishy doesn't it ?) Having inspected the aircarft in Toulouse, they know and have told that this is a surface coating issue that does'nt impact the structural integrity at all. Thus the grounding from Quatar is a very damagable move for Airbus, probably done by Quatar Airways to gain some financial leverage out of this and raise the pressure on Airbus. Airbus must feel stabbed in back by Quatar Airways with this grounding, totally unjustified technically and doing them both a great disservice. I would say Quatar AIrways are coming out as the clowns in this sh** show. ANd Airbus is so pi** off they will not play the "customer is king" game any further with them. Had Quatar Airways not teamed up with their regulator to trick Airbus in this fake grounding, I'm sure Airbus would still be all chocolate and sugar with them. Now it has been escalated too far by Quatar Airways and they will pay the price for it.
The problem has actually already been fixed on newer A350s, they've tweaked the production methods and perahps employed new materials. The problem is that retrofitting the older jets is potentially a nightmare.
Also Qatar is blowing the entire thing out of proportion.
If someone as serious and respected as Lufthansa Technik accepted Airbus compensation (mostly free re-painting) while the manufacturer works on a retrofit solution, you know Qatar is exaggerating
@@luca7069 Agreed. Making the jump from metal to composite is a real learning curve for the paint suppliers, painters, maintainers and design teams. As long as it is cosmetic, keep flying. If the underlying structure degrades, well, that's a whoopsie.
@@luca7069 exactly, Qatar CEO has proven to be a whiny crybaby more than once. The issue exists, but it seems as if they are trying to obtain benefits through questionable methods
@@osasunaitor The relationship is now forever ruined as QR today has taken Airbus to court. There’s now an 80% chance the remaining A350 orders left for QR to be delivered will be cancelled
Qatar Air is particular about holding standards to meet their customers expectations. In a previous saga they refused delivery of airplanes because the seats painting deviated from their expectations.
I think there most be mock-up model of interior prior for manufacturing and delivery.
The mock-up interior will be kept for a while in case for future dispute on quality issue.
It is common practice in renovation industry because your expectation and my expectation are difference. Only mock-up model able to narrow this gap.
As a shareholder I'd rather Airbus would focus on finding a technical solution instead of getting an 'independent legal assessment'. I fear that long term that kind of behaviour will hurt their reputation more than anything Qatar can say, even if Airbus was in the right. I'd rather have another year without earnings while Airbus spends it all on appeasing the customer and fixing this issue than having their reputation damaged long term by the same kind of philosophy that worked so well for Boeing. That's going to hurt my investment much more in the long run.
Also, what is or isn't an airworthiness issue is decided by the certification authority, not by either the manufactuer or the airline. The manufacturer can advise, but if QCAA decided that for them this is an airworthiness issue, then, at least in Qatar, it is. Trying to win interpretative souvereignty over QCAA on what is or isn't an airworthiness issue smells way too much like what Boeing was getting used to.
@@reubenmorris487 I don't think his two shares will be enough 🙄
@@orlovsskibet sorry lol I laughed so hard on this
You are probably right, but in the case of Qatar, it is painfully obvious that the Qatari authorities grounded the plane under pressure from Qatar Airways, which is a state-owned company and thus involved in the country's politics. It was therefore a politically motivated move, not a technically supported one.
It's not too different from what happened in the USA with Boeing and the FAA; both entities worked hand in hand thanks to political influence, leading to the FAA's
negligence in certifying the 737MAX that killed hundreds of people.
Sell your Airbus stock!
Shareholder lol ok boss
b787 has also issues, maybe the new components aren’t that reliable over the time as they thought
Airbus seems to have gotten a little bit cocky with how far the playing field was tilting their way, and decided to floor the accelerator instead of taking the extra time needed to really square the corner on how to get aviation paint to stick to composites. I know nothing about this directly, but it's my understanding that Boeing fiddled with it for a *very* long time before they got it right, and it seems -- at least superficially -- that Airbus was rushing its A350 product to market by at least some of that margin in R&D.
It's Qatar being cocky, the issue is years old, but Qatar finds out during a pandemic when the turnover is at its lowest since ever. They just want out of the contract with Airbus and found an excuse for it. Other airlines are aware since at least six years and still operate their flights. Other carrier in the other hand, have never experienced this issue.
@@eslofftschubar206 BS
@@eslofftschubar206 Thats just BS. Tell me you would fly in that plane. Whether Qatar is right or wrong it is another issue. But the thing is there is a video evidence and there is a problem. Airbus should address it instead of offering to repaint the plane. It seems like Airbus is trying to take the easy way out. Companies like Qatar and Emirates have a reputation and flying a plane whose paints deteriorates every year will be a nightmare in the long run.
@@masoodjalal1152 I would fly it. I wouldn't fly Qatar. The issue has been solved, it's only Qatar that acts up, to unload planes they cannot afford.
I think we viewers are just the general public and probably know not the specific details of the dealings between AB & QA ?
Painting carbon fibre is a nightmare due to differential coefficients of thermal expansion between the carbon which has a low CTE and the paint which has a high CTE. There is also a complex interaction with the epoxy resin which bonds the fibres together. I experienced this on the McLaren F1 supercar back in 1995 and spent years developing a potential solution with help from Boeing, I doubt that this particular issue is an immediate safety problem but the thermal interaction between carbon and resins remains a very very serious problem.
The nerve of a customer wanting a $200 million plane purchase is mechanically and cosmetically perfect. Totally unreasonable. Imagine if Tesla cars had to be perfect instead of their poor fit and finish quality. There would be no Teslas on the road.
Shots fired.
It's a design issue from Airbus which they cannot admit. Boeing 787 faraday cage is different from Airbus and they don't have this issue as it is able to expand and contact at the same rate as the structure. But Airbus just slapped the old faraday cage from non carbon composite material aircraft which cannot expand and contact at same rate as aircraft body. This is causing the paint issues. And faraday cage deform.
Tesla compared to its price range cars is crappy in terms of build quality. A car won't fall out of sky because of sweaking dash or misaligned door. A LIGHTNING strike on an aircraft with compromised faraday cage has the possibility.
lol! Tesla truly has found the bottom of the barrel of bay area tweakers and stoners to assemble their cars. Of course who can blame the workers for getting hopped up on uppers, what with the slavish hours they force them to do for low pay.
I’d be unhappy if I bought a $20,000 car with that ‘quality’ . Let alone ….
@@mohammadzohorul8887 Faraday Cage is something different. Maybe you mean fuselage frame?
Great story on this curious issue, hope Airbus sorts it out soon, this is such a crucial aircraft for so many carriers.
Peace ❤
Is the A380 the only airplane with composite construction?
@@mariombrbovic8188 , it does not, it’s the a350 that is the subject of this video.
It is always bad business for a manufacturer to blame their customers for their problems. Just ask Boeing about that.
not in current market
MCAS was so "minor" Boeing decided to omit any mention of it to avoid additional training costs and FAA recert.
It's only minor until it's not.
Thank you Qatar for holding up a safety standard and not budging even at the risk of financial loss.
Paint technology has to change. These planes are not metal anymore
I mean.. The mesh being painted on is metal - and that's the problem. If it was only composite there would be no problems.
As a retired engineer (failure analyst) I honestly don’t see anything that alarms me, and agree it doesn’t appear to be structural. I would recommend maintaining the surface and perhaps more focused, regular inspections...and let it go at that. If Qatar Airways wants to negotiate/sue for redress for that cost, fair enough.
So who absorbs the cost of additional maintenance due to poor quality? I mean if Airbus was offering a 30% discount due to the issues I can understand.
Zap the area with 300 million volts and 30,000 amps as if a lightning bolt hit the plane where the lightning protection is exposed and damaged. See what happens.
The mesh can have gaps, its just not nice. check out videos about faraday cages.
Those pictures do no paint a rosy picture. Hopefully this can be properly investigated and rectified before it become a 737Max type disaster. Nice video. Keep up the good work.
Carbon fiber flexes more than aluminium. That movement probably stretches the surface paint more to cause cracks. The 787 and 350 are the first in class. Any similar problems with the 787?
That's not what's happening here. The 787 doesn't suffer from this particular issue. Something in the paint isn't reacting well with the copper mesh and carbon composite fuselage. The damage looks much more severe then just a paint issue. The paint is degrading very quickly and damaging the surface underneath it. Not sure if that will lead to a disaster... I wouldn't risk it either though. I don't blame Qatar. They paid over 300 million euros for each plane and this shouldn't have happened. Especially not this quickly.
Does any other A350 operator have similar problems or is this exclusive to Quatar?
@@Veritas2154 No, a bunch of other companies have now come forward with the same problem
@@ejkk9513 Has Delta? I've tried searching without results.
@@Andygarrett357 No, not delta. Mostly European, Asian and Middle Eastern airlines. It could be an atmospheric issue causing this rapid degradation.
Paint peeling is one thing. Exposed mesh and carbon means substrate is separating. Airbus needs to fix this.
If I bought a new car and the paint was coming off, I'd be really disappointed. Fix the problem Airbus. Also, when is anything on the outside of an airplane falling off, only Cosmetic?
Al Baker has always complained about each manufacturer. When Qatar Airways had a large stake in Cargolux (the launch customer for the 747-8F), Boeing planned a day with big fanfare to turn present the completed aircraft to Cargolux. Al Baker said the airplanes were bad and he wouldn't accept delivery. Whether it's the A team or the B team, he always complains. If both stop selling to him, where would he get airliners from? Oh, yeah.
Not a problem there is Illyushin & Antinov if they want a freighter and those Boeings… sell them to Ethiopia.
Ok.... But if the airplane has a problem, the airplane as a problem.
I hope he is just complaining for no reason but the issue needs to be looked at.
It's the Arab way of doing business. Except it's not a carpet bazaar
@@oldmanc2 that....actually sounds....racist.
@Alfred Weber still, a bit of a racist comment and uncalled for.
If they want to haggle, let them. That isn't aggaints the law.
I have seen paint issues on the B787 too. It seems paint doesn't adhere to carbon composite as well as expected.So I imagine this will run. Paint damage and composite damage are not the same thing. I seen at least a square meter of paint missing from a B787 wing surface on a Qatar 7 hour flight .
who was the paint mfg?
It's shocking to see how lightly safety is being taken by aircraft manufacturers in this era. I thought we would be flying in the safest aircraft and that safety would be of the highest concern but clearly for manufacturers its all about their bottom line and profits just as we saw the boeing 737 max tragedy not long back. I guess EASA is waiting for an accident to happen to react properly. I for one highly regard Qatar Airways and there's a reason they're the world's safest airline with a 5 star skytrax rating. At least they're not putting their customer safety at risk by putting these planes back up in the air like other airlines to make money.
If that's the case why aren't the others with similar paint degradation issues reacting in a similar manner, the other Airbus planes aren't experiencing such paint degradation so it's not something that's structurally wrong with the plane, it looks like Qatar airways and specifically Akbar Al baker is engineering something financial here, my guess is they need a new type of paint specific or special to these new composite planes
I love your videos! they cover a variety of topics that normal news dont focus on
BTW whats the music you use in your videos?
One simple question what happens if lightning strikes a350. Can these planes with the paint degradation issues deflect the lightning? No person flying on these planes want to face any serious issue while flying on the plane.
Sarin, there would in my opinion be little possibility of Lightning Strike as only Metal Aircraft would suffer from that problem.
@@MyJerseybean Actually all aircraft can suffer a lightning strike. Just because they say a aircraft is composite it still has metal including the fasteners that attach the sections of the aircraft, the engines, around the APU around various windows the fasteners that hold the windows in place and high strength lightweight metal use throughout the aircraft including the mesh and foil for lightning protection.
I watched a 787-8 get a lightning strike leaving Paine Field in 2014 so it happens and then when the 787 returned from the flight it was throughly inspected including x-rays to confirm it suffered no damage.
@@MyJerseybean i've seen more than a hundred lightning strike damages on a single cathay's a350. the worse thing to see in the maintenance log for line maintenance guys is 'suspected lightning strike'. oh BTW cathay's a350 fleet did suffer from the paint issue. the paint of the first few a350 delivered start falling off just after a few flights, and bad enough for flight crew to put the issue in maintenance log in just one or two weeks after delivery of the aircraft. and cathay's 35Ks also have high engine oil consumption problem, which limited the flight time of their 35K fleet to under 16 hours, but thats rr's problem
@@MyJerseybean , yours is not an informed opinion it would seem.
The exposed mesh is actually there to act as a faraday cage and transport the lightning on the outside of the airplane.
Amazing video, i would agree if it were just one or two units with production faults but thats not the case. Selling faulty planes then say mischaracterisation to abide paying compensation for the grounded planes us a nice trick. I'd say this video is more in favourable to airbus as it seems.
Airbus has some paint issues with A350 but Boeing has a paint peeling issue too which they claim is caused by UV rays so there is a chance that this may have been caused by UV rays for Airbus too. Airbus should consider UV rays also as a factor
Yes I observed over a square metre of paint exposing the underlying composite in. Qatar B787 flight from Doha to Bangkok .Seems to me it's a paint problem on modern carbon fibre built aircraft
Weather may be reason for acceleration of the paint peeling off, as the weather in Middle East is very hot!
QATAR has every right to ground the planes. Smaller issues if combined together can cause major problem specially when lives are at stake. In fact every airliner must ensure conditions are perfect in their planes. Lives are first not the business.
I have seen paint damage like this on a presurised road trailer, the trailer was presurised to appox 1bar for discharging ,After a couple of years small hair line cracks appeared in the paint work in certain places , eventually pressure washing would take areas of paint off ,the winter was hard on them as water seemed to freeze behind the paint and push it off, after about 5years they had to be repainted ,I blamed the tank expanding when being put under pressure and the paint not being able to keep up with the expansion just cracked ,then the elements got in and did the rest
Of course Airbus should take action to investigate. But at the time there is no serious threat to airworthiness according to them. So as situation evolves (I am pretty much sure they do research on it to find solution), this should be resolved.
It seems like EASA and Airbus share similar relation as Boeing and FAA once did. Airbus has strong influence on EASA either directly or indirectly
Of course they do work together.
That’s how they share results and data for tests and so on.
Since the sad max story I really really doubt Airbus and easa would do the same as Boeing and faa in regards of safety
Perform lab test at certain degree of heat and observe how the paint react.Repeat in several cycle .If the paint location is dynamic,it must be reinforce to prevent excessively.Paint is stable at certain temperature and rigid base.
That needed change would affect the bottom line, lets just keep it cost effective as is and let the customer deal with it later. Unfortunately that was a miscalculation as the issue is present far to soon for the cost saving to have worked.
When the paint and composite chips clog the pitot tubes then they'll probably fix it or admit there's an issue
There is no photo about paint chipping near pitot tubes/probes. On the photos it’s near status discharged, pax windows etc.
I'm pretty sure that rapid, unpredictable wear on any part of the airplane is an "airworthiness issue". The paint is, in fact, *part of* the composite stack. If Airbus want Qatar to shut up, maybe they should fix the issue instead of pretending that Qatar is just being dramatic. Sounds like they need stretchier paint.
Please increase your recording volume. Thank you
Welcome new era of Mosaic Paintings 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂 merry xmas &Have a lovely week cheers
So AB wants a legal opinion or pronouncement that Ab 350 is safe regardless of defects. Even though it can't explain nor fix the defects in question?
They actually offered the same repair to qatar as to the other airlines the already had the problem but they declined according to airbus.
At least airbus is not like boeing hiding the facts about their aircraft problems.
To Devamarie MC
Do you actually read any of the comments?
If you did, you do not have
any sort of comprehension of the subject?
We were not discussing Boeing’s problem
of two years ago. We were discussing Airbuses problems of today!!
Just one more thing! Boeing did not try to hide any problems with the 737.
While Airbus may not be "hiding" the problems with the A350, it is certainly trying very hard to dismiss the seriousness of the problem.
Now I understand the key cause(s) of this paint peeling.
a) structure integrity > unlikely
b) paint itself > unlikely
c) bonding issues between three layers > YES《carbon composite + steel mesh + paint system 》which has different expansion rate. Anyway > this is lack of long term testing before applying the system on real use!
"Carbon composite + surface steel mesh + paint system" > bonded issue.
This is 100% manufacture defect, whether it is a cosmetic or airworthiness really dependent expert witness statement. When one airline against one aircraft manufacturer...you can anticipate the result.
However, painting system serves two features (1) surface protection (2) company image. If damage of item (2) leading to more re-painting job (resulting losing business opportunity) or leading damage of company image than it is a long legal battle...
*****************************************
Old understanding without acknowledging that a steel wire mesh were
presented between the carbon composite surface & the painting system)
*****************************************
The possible cause(s) of Paint cracks
1. Paint material itself / workmanship of spraying.
2. Environment & operation parameters issues.
3. The structure underneath the paints.
As paint system are typical and common (if fleet A has the issues, then fleet B likely has similar issues too*). If the cracks is unique only spotted in particular type of model of aircraft, then the cause of cracks might come from the structure underneath, which sounds very alarming!!!
1. The expansion and elongation of a structure might cause cracks. Paint system itself has elasticity and able to cope within a working, when exceeding its limit range > cracks appears... (cracks can be a minor issue as claimed by Airbus as a cosmetic problem or serious structural cracks > a time bomb like de Havilland Comet case).
2. If cracks all overall many areas... then it is likely considered as the paint issues, not structural issues > structural cracks normal found locally at stress concentration corner or joining area during inspection and rarely to be spotted all around everywhere within a structure.
*also reported by other airlines operators of A350 with similar issues too.
Paint system are designed with constant deteriorate rate. However, the rate of deterioration shall be reasonable. That is why you need to repaint the surface once every few years. For a good painting system it can last for a decade without the needs for repainting (i.e. most private vehicles).
If you bought a brand new BMW and peeled paints appears everywhere after 24 months normal use. You bring back the car for to the dealer for examination, then the dealer told you
A. Perhaps your car parked too long at dessert areas and accelerate the painting system to be dried quicker than usual.
B. Nevertheless your car still safe to drive, there is not safety issues but just a cosmetic problem.
C. Don't worry, we will help you to repaint the car within 60 months warranty period free of charge. However once the warranty expired, you have to pay the repainting job at your own cost.
D. By the way, we have no spared loan car for borrowing and the repainting job probably last for 3 to 6 months (please also bring your car with your own fuel (return) and driver and fly to our workshop at located somewhere in Europe for the services too😅
E. Last but no least, please bear in mind that according to the sell and purchase agreement, it clearly stated that there is no compensation for the loss of buyer's business operation due to manufacturing defects in any event TOO.
What will you react 🤔?
Give him a finger immediately 🖕🖕🖕
Right🤣 ?
But this is the reality!!!
***
By the way, I think litigating between Airbus and Qatar Air is not the best option for resolving this dispute...
Either Airbus win or Qatar Air win > the loser has to paid legal cost for the opposite party. But both side also ruin future business relationship too.
1. We all known it is likely due to COVID-19 > Qatar cannot utilize the newly ordered A350 capacity.
2. Qatar already signed the contract without exist clauses for stopping the ordered plane (my guessing anyway > not only loss all down payment, but also with potential liability for Airbus's loss too).
3. From buyer's prospective, it is not uncommon using quality and workmanship excuse(s) for rejecting products and refusing for payment.
4. However, there is also a genuine manufacture defect issues (serious paint peel off issue) on Airbus side, the the scale of problem is controversial...
5. If Airbus / Qatar entering supplementary agreement for reducing the original number of order. It seems better not burning money on legal cost but rather than saving on future relationship (anyway legal cost might be minor in term of this scale of purchase agreement) > it is likely a show and end up with supplementary agreement for both sides.
Airbus side > losing VIP buyers (they are bloody rich!!! able to retire all A380 fleet (x10 nos) for with average 5 years only > what a poor business decision / plan from the beginning)
Qatar side > losing options for only buying Boeing in the future > too bad.
Certainly, it is not the best interests from law firms' prospective for not continuing the litigation proceed until the end.
Anyway > I think it is likely a show in the court room and both company likely to settle on supplementary agreement in the somewhere before the ending of the litigation process.
Both CEOs from two sides already known about their options and all possible outcomes were already calculated and marked on their dairy too.
It's quite possible that it is indeed only an issue affecting Qatar because Qatar is the only A350 customer (AFAIK) located in such a hot and humid climate; all of the other customers that reported problems with paint, are based in colder or more temperate climates. It would be very interesting to know whether those other airlines' affected A350s were or are used primarily for flights to the Middle East.
There are other airlines, 6, like Lufthansa that aren’t in that climate.
Wow I didn't know that Qatar Airways A350's registration is AT ALL(A7-ALL)
@SamuelWrightA350XWB r/youruinedthejoke
Due to COVID period ,many planes have been grounded for several months...did they were parked correctly ?
It's cosmetic. Until the underlying composite degrades, then it's structural (or functional if lightning protection degrades). Just fix it.
To me it looks like paint is not sticking to the surface properly. The mesh looked ok? Or if the underlying mesh is starting to erode there is something in the paint that is corroding the the composite.
Wondering if electrolysis isn't playing a part, carbon fibre, copper mesh and the contents of the paint?
Carbon fibre is not exposed. the fibre is used to strengthen the plane in line with the thread of the carbon. The hardness is induced by epoxy resins. On top of that there is a coper mesh witch is painted over.
who produced the paint and primer?
Time for a reverse gel coat. Had an old fiberglass dune buggy with exposed fiber- had to do it at home.
If airbus can solve this quickly,they will make the media think they solve problems better than boeing
when has the truth mattered to the media? lol
@@jamescollier3 when its not fox
@@windows5096 lol. so CNN & NBC are the truth?
@@windows5096 , that’s a hoot! Brainwashed much?
Fascinating...can you strip old paint off with a laser stripper or is there another process?
Chemical stripper
What happens to a Faraday's cage with a tear or degrading mesh? Epoxy and carbon expand differently than the protective mesh, perhaps 787 has a different protection with the mesh inside or in between and why the 380 does not have the issue?
The cage does not need to be continuous, Afaik its a mesh on the a350. Air France did not experience this issue, at some point in the manufacturing they might have improved their process. The 787 has similar issues with the paint.
Seems that fairing coating and primer are the heart of the issue. Airbus should be investigating the supplier of the aerospace coatings.
I'm guessing environmentalists have tightened paint volatility regulations way too much and the newer paints throughout outer industries have had problems too
I don’t understand the problem with Airbus?
Why are they acting like this, clearly something is wrong with the paint! Why are they refusing to accept responsibility
I’ve seen A380s servicing Washington Dulles again (January 2022). I guess the A350 paint issue is the reason.
It a difficult and time consuming issue. Airbus is struggling to resolve but Qatar can not wait.
What is it about this paint degradation problem that uniquely requires Qatar to ground their A350 fleet? Al Baker has a long history of diva vitriolic drama. I certainly am inclined to believe Airbus, and the other airlines’ decisions not to ground, over Al Baker.
@@mosca4380 Have you been to the Gulf? The Qatar regulator will be Al Baker.
@@mosca4380 All I’m suggesting is that Al Baker is positioning the problem as being one of ‘airworthiness’ which no other airline or regulator has done. This he presumably believes provides more ‘commercial leverage’ for him than accepting it as other airlines have as a glitch that just needs to be fixed. Certainly this is the view that Airbus is taking and is suing him for distorting of facts. Assuming I’m racist says a lot. I’m basing my opinion on the long history, as I mentioned, of specifically Al Baker dealing with manufacturers and exaggerating the situation. Qatar Airways basically IS the whole Qatari industry. It would not be surprising that the regulator came to their aid in front of Airbus to provide leverage… It would explain why the airworthiness status of this issue is unique to Qatar.
@@mosca4380 Maybe calm down a little? Is this EASA airworthiness directive relating to the same issue or this an additional problem?
@@mosca4380 I agree. Paint cracking, whilst unsightly and needs to fixed, isn’t directly a problem. But delamination of any sort but especially where it exposes layers such as lightning strike protection - whether caused by or a cause of the paint cracking, is a critical airworthiness issue.
this is probably why other airlines have bad safety records/accidents/crashes and Qatar Airways is one of the safest and most trustworthy airliners to travel in the world.
Airbus needs to look at the paint conditions when they are applying paint and what product is being used on what spots.
Clearly the issue is with all paint jobs of the A350
As they most likely will discover a pattern in the adhesion issues / failures if it's in the same spots it is most likely a primer issue right product in the wrong spot.
Is the delamination in random areas then it is most likely environmental problem aka dew point minus surface temperature below 3°c
Dirt can also play a role in adhesion failures
Its nothing more then that.
Beautiful aircraft🛫🛫
Just when you thought Boeing had gone down in the eyes of the world, Airbus decided it was now their turn.
Paint peeling can be caused by many factors:
-Sufficiently thick layer for primer
- Painting times are not respected
-Paint must be applied in a controlled environment (humidity and temperature);
-The anodizing layer is not thick enough so that the paint does not adhere to the metal( this can be big issue)
Well the B777F is a proven state of the art freighter and would welcome the business.
Looking at the evidence There is a problem and Airbus should deal with it. Stopping future orders is just throwing your toys out of the cot and will not serve Airbus well in the future. At least Boeing took the flak lost orders and have now regrouped and trying to regain confidence.
The A350 is a beautiful plane but clearly have a paint problem they need to sort it out before we have a tragedy like the Comet.
I am not sure but is it that only qatar airway is suffering from tgis paint issue?
I love Airbus , but if customer is not happy then it’s a actually a problem , If several airlines faced the same problem , it’s a issue from thier side and not airline side . And they need to agree and solve it .
Airbus is going to lose big time if they decide to take this matter to court, big time indeed. Imagine you purchased a brand new car from a car dealer and you discovered cracks on the paintwork of the car and the car dealer says 'hey, it does not affect the performance of the car', will you still accept to keep the car? No. So Airbus, fix the damn paint crack problem of your aircraft.....
maybe Airbus should build the A 350 in North Carolina near the Boeing787 assembly plant.
It does not matter if it is Volkswagen, Boeing or Airbus or any other large company there will always be an economy of truth from senior management about their products. The reasons are obvious.
Having to ferry the first stripped 350 to toulouse says a lot.
Meanwhile in financial news, the price of shares in the manufacturer of David's P38 Body Filler has risen sharply!
To say that the painted finish is not an airworthiness issue is nonsense. Paint protects the composite structure underneath and prevents the ingress of water which freezes causing delamination.
I sure hope Airbus isn't going the same route as what Boeing did. Cuz if it's only one airline that's complaining about this issue then I don't think there's any issue in reputation for the manufacturer but now that multiple airlines are complaining the exact same issue then this is a real problem, since most people have already seen what happen when a manufacturer blamed it on the airline. I'd rather see Airbus solve the issue now rather than defending n blame to other customers
Aircraft paint is super-expensive and Qatar has a valid point. These machines are expensive to maintain and getting ROI takes years.
Its a shame that Airbus doesn't address the problem with their paint adhesion/degredation issue and makes nothing but excuses. There is no excuse whatsoever for a plane that new to be having such an issue with paint and composite compatibility. NONE!!! I do not blame Qutar for grounding these planes and I do not blame them for standing their ground after spending so much money and having Airbus just slap them down. Airbus has grown so arrogant but I do believe they will be humbled somewhat as their main competitor reaps the reward.
I have a Mitsubishi 380 and it too has issues with its paint.
When you get a midair breakup that’s when it’ll be a concern; then a 2nd aircraft breakup will then be a major issue.
Paint is not going to break up an airplane. That’s why they are addressing the issue now not after a couple of hundred dead people
@@MrJimheeren How do you know its only the paint issue?
Why this problem It isn't still big as The 737 MAX? Or are the Airbus company waiting a disaster?
I remember when airbus made fun of Boeing because of their problems. Now looks like the shoe is on their foot lol
Where did Airbus made fun of Boeing? It was pretty shit for the whole industry. Trust is lost from passengers not only in Boeing.
Airbus has to fulfill the request n demand of QA it's a bond that two parties involved.
The entire EU setup is just covering each others mess.
Airbus should fix the problem rather than let lawyers talk.
I like the way Airbus downplays this issue. Now say what you wish about Boeing and its' issues, but the 787 does not seem to have a issue with surface cracking on the aircraft. Airbus can say that the cracking is not a safety issue until G-d forbid an A350 suffers a severe event or even loss of the aircraft. If anyone can remember an Hawaiian 737 that suffered metal fatigue and had part of the fuselage ripped off, with only the floor holding the aircraft together. This showed that Boeing built tough aircraft, however with bean counters currently running things at Boeing who knows about current aircraft. Airbus needs to solve this issue before a catastrophe occurs.
No way would I fly on that rust bucket.
The mighty A380 returns
Rather than lawyering up, Airbus should just focus on fixing the problem. It is sad that Airbus is choosing a Boeing-style approach to this issue. I expected better of Airbus.
When MANUFACTURE / EASA , says keep flying.
They are studying problem will take time to rectify.
I strongly believe outer layer of composite materials for taking different operational damage , doesn't effect safety of aircraft.
QA should have been flying aircraft with recommendation . Follow maintenance action , inspection / NDT extra task as per Airbus / EASA.
OR
If QA have smart knowledgeable technical team
Give suggestions,
Clearly this is why I'm not the CEO of some major company. "I" would think if they spent half the time and money fixing the issue, Qutar would have nothing to talk about. If they have nothing to talk about they have nothing to "mis-communicate".. but..fft.. what do I know. Clearly dragging it out as long a possible and then suing one of your biggest customers is the proper C suite choice.
Yeah and i am amazed that many people are blaming Qatar for it. If i buy a brand new phone and the paint wears off within a year, Even though the plane is solid and works fine, these aesthetic things like paint will make me question the built quality of the phone and a negative image of the manufacturer will be engraved on my mind.
Here in this case, if the plane doesnt look aesthetically pleasing People will complain about it and the reputation of Qatar will be hit, no one will blame Airbus for it. They will think Qatar is not maintaining them properly. If Qatar is to save its reputation they will have to repaint their whole fleet every couple of year, that will cost a ton in the long run.
Pushing Qatars reputation aside, i wont trust a manufacturer who can't get the paint properly. Like you cant make the paint stick you are expecting me to trust the built quality.
Seem like the new elements on these planes is causing a reaction on the paint?
When your marketing is better than your engineers, who fail at a paint job…
the 6 airlines coming up with almost the same problem cant be all just limited to Mr bakar. airbus should just admit and go back sorting it out.
Qatar Airways just wants to complain Airbus as they simply want to cut the purchase cost.
This is down to poor surface preparation.
"A good layer of schadenfreude will sort that out," said an un-named source. 🐘
It was later heard to deny that what goes around, comes around.
Boeing has similar issues with their 787s. it seems to an issue with composite materials and their properties.