The Airbus and Qatar Airways are two of the top firms in the aerospace and airline industries, respectively, neither company has been able to settle their legal problems. No suitable solutions have been found as a result of the ongoing dispute between Qatar Airways and Airbus regarding the A350 aircraft’s paint quality. The Reuters team visited the Qatar Airways hangar to evaluate the planes’ paint job.
The Disputes are still being had on both sides despite the fact that both parties have taken the case before an international court. Airbus defends its safety record while Qatar Airways claims that the quality of aircraft paint can compromise airworthiness and safety. Even EASA joined the debate and backed Airbus in its claim that the paint issue may not compromise aviation safety requirements. EASA also denied any connection between the paint issue and the safety of airplanes.
Among the 23 grounded A350s at the center of a $1 billion London court dispute over whether the damage represents a potential safety risk—something Airbus vehemently denies—are Qatar Airways’ A350s, which analysts estimate are worth a combined $300 million.
The problem became so severe that Airbus terminated its agreement with Qatar Airways. However, according to some experts, Qatar Airways did not cancel any Airbus agreements for the purchase of narrow body aircraft; rather, Airbus revoked them. Except for the A350 aircraft, all of Qatar Airways’ Airbus-supplied aircraft are in excellent condition. However, the airline has received criticism for its response, which was to acknowledge the problem and remedy it.
Other airlines have also complained about the A350’s paint quality, although it was only a little issue that was eventually corrected during maintenance. and even the Boeing 787 experienced a problem with paint quality.
Technical terms The primary cause of the paint The composite fiber architectures present quality concerns, which also depend on the ambient temperature. Many aerospace companies still need to conduct a great deal of research in order to resolve this problem. If the temperature is a problem, a new form of layering coat that can stop paint from peeling should be used.
After premature paint deterioration revealed damage to a metallic sub-layer that shields the fuselage from lightning strikes, Qatar’s aviation authority grounded the aircraft. After European regulators deemed the A350 safe, other airlines continued to use it, even though a few recently acknowledged minor flaws that they referred to as “cosmetic.”
Following a request made this week on the sidelines of an airline industry convention in the Qatari capital city of Doha, Reuters journalists were given privileged first-hand access. As a required trade-off for weight savings, Airbus claims that some paint erosion is a characteristic of the carbon-composite technology used to construct all modern long-haul jets.
According to the report, paint, an anti-lightning substance known as ECF, and the composite construction interact to generate fissures. The ECF foil is not present along the entire tail, raising the question of whether damage there is a result of the same issue. A UK court has heard testimony from Qatar Airways that its similar Boeing 787s do not experience the same issues as Airbus’ explanation.
Exclusive: Airbus and Qatar Airways have been locked in a dispute around the plane maker’s A350 jets, which the airline claimed were unfit for flying. @reuters was given access to two of the grounded planes https://t.co/vdn2eobXEJ pic.twitter.com/X5H2yvG5uK
— Reuters (@Reuters) June 23, 2022
Aviation safety is the only concern for EASA in this situation, according to a spokeswoman. Since the disagreement started, Qatar’s own aviation regulator has neglected to comment. Reuters has not been able to independently confirm the cause of the damage within hundreds of pages of contradictory technical court files made by both sides.