Airbus vs Qatar | What's going on?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 фев 2022
- Get 20% discount on the yearly subscription of Brilliant by using this code 👉🏻 brilliant.org/MentourNow/
Qatar Airways is currently involved in a legal dispute with Airbus Industrie over paint issues with their' fleet of A350's. How has it come to this, what is the root of the problem and can it be resolved? Let's find out...
If you want to support the work I do on the channel, join my Patreon crew and get awesome perks and help me move the channel forward! 👇
👉🏻 / mentourpilot
Get the Mentour Aviation app and discuss what You think about this! Download the app for FREE using the link below 👇
📲
📲 Join the Mentour Pilot Discord server here! 👉🏻 / discord
I have also created an Amazon page with Aviation books, material and flight simulator stuff that I think you will enjoy!
👉🏻 www.amazon.com/shop/mentourpilot
Follow my life on instagram and get awesome pictures from the cockpit!
📲 / mentour_pilot
To find the right HEADSET for YOU, check out BOSE Aviation 👉🏻 boseaviation-emea.aero/headsets
Artwork in the studio 👉🏻 aeroprints.de/?lang=en
Get some Awesome Mentour Pilot merch 👉🏻 mentour-crew.creator-spring.c...
Below you will find the links to videos and sources used in this episode. Enjoy checking them out!
Sources
-----------------------------------------------------
A350: Lawyer Monthly
www.lawyer-monthly.com/Lawyer...
Airbus Building: glimma.com
glimma.com/portfolio_page/air...
Materials: Federal Aviation Administration
www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/te...
Mesh: Reuters
www.reuters.com/business/aero...
Akbar Al Baker: Akbar Al Baker
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar_A...
Airport: iStock
thefederal.com/file/2020/04/Q...
Boeing 777x: Dan Nevill
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_...
Qatar in America: Qatar
static1.simpleflyingimages.co...
737 Max: Boeing
www.boeing.com/commercial/737...
Boeing Paint: UNKNOWN
i.stack.imgur.com/SKpJY.jpg
A321: Airbus
www.airbus.com/en
Qatar Airways:
/ qatarairways
Top Felya:
/ topfelyaairplanes
Boeing:
/ boeing
LHKJBHKFYS1OTKUB
Get 20% discount on the yearly subscription of Brilliant by using this code 👉🏻 brilliant.org/MentourNow/
Hey Petter! Please come up with new designs for your merch! I love your THIS IS HOW I ROLL and POSITIVE ATTITUDE shirts! But I need more varieties! I can't just wear these two over and over again!
I say if the mesh is not damaged then it's not a safety issue. If it is damaged, it is a safety issue. Further, I think Qatar should have QUEITLY negotiated a "Hey. You paint these every year forever" type of deal instead of releasing videos. No. I think this relationship is ended and Boeing is so much the happier about that.
I have to agree with Qatar on this one. And good for them for sticking with their decision over air worthiness concerns. How much do the engines cost on the A350’s? I’m sure they can ingest a certain amount of FOD as required by certification requirements but if chunks of paint are coming off the planes, they are on a very extreme long haul flight of an A350 ULR and are somewhere over the ocean and one or both engines prematurely fails because paint has been getting ingested into the engines. Now you have either very expensive engine components needing to be replaced prematurely in addition to the plane needing to be repainted much sooner in a best case scenario, or a total loss of aircraft in another possible case scenario assuming one or both engines fail or stop producing a sufficient amount of thrust to keep the plane airborne until the pilots can safely divert and land the aircraft elsewhere, or worst case scenario you have countless lives lost, as well as the plane. And possibly, maybe even all lives lost onboard the aircraft and who knows how many on the ground should the plane crash attempting to land over a well populated area.
How many times do we see agencies and companies look the other way, get paid off to say something is safe when it’s not. See the new Boeing 737 Max incidents for example or consider that any customers who are flying on any Qatar Airlines Airbus A350’s and see numerous areas of paint coming off of the plane, will interpret that as Qatar being a cheap airline that does not take very good care of their planes. So if paint is falling off of them, on a long haul plane that as a customer I know that I will be on that plane for at least 10 to 12 hours or more and most likely flying over the middle of the ocean far from land, if I then as a customer perceive that Qatar Airlines does not take very good care of their planes by reasoning of seeing the paint coming off of the plane in numerous areas, then what else are they overlooking and not doing that I can’t see? That perception in turn then causes me to go elsewhere and fly using another airline all together because then as a customer I’ll feel much more safe and secure flying in another airlines planes that look much better on the outside and I perceive from that, that the other airline must also be much more on top of and attentive to airplane maintenance and repairs than Qatar Airlines is even though that may or may not be the case? Good for Qatar Airways and their CEO for sticking to their guns and doing what they feel is the right and much more safer thing to do in spite of a loss of profits and flights. And I hope they will everything that they are seeking in their lawsuit against Airbus!
If the NTSB was one of the authorities calling this a cosmetic issue i would strongly suspect that it IS only cosmetic.
NTSB would have been able to hugely help their own country's aircraft manufacturer by saying that this is not cosmetic and if they did not, it probably IS only cosmetic
Hello Petter!
I'd like to ask a few questions regarding aircraft paintjobs/liveries:
1) Are they made of vinyl wraps or paint, and how often are they re-done on a plane (how long does it take to re-apply, and what has to be disassembled on the plane to do a paintjob)?
2) Is there a way for them to "peel away" and cause accidents?
3) When a plane is repainted, do they remove the previous layers, or add to the existing ones (Also, how much do they add to the overall weight of the aircraft)?
Thank you very much,
Fred
When you said “UV resistant paint layer”. That’s pretty much sun cream for aeroplane wings! How cool 😎😂
There are indoor paints and outdoor paints, one of those are supposed to be used outdoors.
Wait sun cream? Not sun screen? I know this is kinda irrelevant but I just had to mention it
I remember reading some time ago how UPS had discovered that they could save a ton of money on fuel cost by reducing drag just by washing their planes regularly. If that is true, imagine the drag created by huge noticeable flakes in the paint.
Tom Whiteside
You love add infotainment, forgot what it was, lol!
The wife does that for you?
They could save even more by not painting their planes, and fly them in the B 29 way. The paint is expensive and weights a lot, and washing your planes too costs money. I don't see the use of painting cargo planes in orange or pink, who cares ?
@@Retroscoop you mean old American Airlines style (before carbon composites)
@@Retroscoop a passenger will always go for good-looking planes, inadvertently to them it's an indication of a competent airline, thus safer to fly with.
Totally right, Tom! That's why the US stopped painting their heavy bombers during WWII; it dramatically reduced the aircraft's range for little benefit, not to mention the added costs for fuel and adding the paint.
Finally a simple, easy to understand explanation of this situation. To someone picking up their brand new car, any defect in the paint would be unacceptable. For someone spending $300 million on a new aircraft they would be justified in being a little fussy. Airbus owned the problem and took steps to fix it. It looks like Qatar and their regulating body is in partnership here. Thank you for a great channel and the effort it takes to make it. I would feel very secure having you as the captain on any flight.
Unless you’re a new Tesla owner. Then you know that a defect in paint is part and parcel of your purchase and have made arrangements to fix it literally as you pick it up. But yeah if I were buying a Lexus or even a top end Chevy, I’d be furious to see bubbles or flaking or any sort of paint defect on my new vehicle. Or like some sort of paint defect that made my car more likely to ignite on impact. It’s weird putting it in car terms because your average driver never hits 200+ mph, doesn’t need to worry about a paint chip being a harbinger to a catastrophic structure failure, but…on a plane…yeah…
So why is it Qatar that's in partnership with their regulating body and not Airbus with theirs?
I won't buy no "because there's no corruption in Europe" fairy tales.
The aircrafts were not delivered with the paint defects. At least Petter does not point to that here.
You don’t think Airbus and their regulating body EASA are working together as well? We even saw it with the FAA and Boeing!
I disagree. It's one thing to be picky, it's another to be an overly-picky jerk who claims that the paint job is a safety issue, when every authority has said it is not.
Qatar is in the wrong. I don't mean to be rude at all towards you, so please don't take it that way, but when you refer to it as simply a 'defect in paint', that's not accurate - they're not just saying there's a defect in the paint, they're claiming it is more than a cosmetic issue and possibly a safety issue.
In other words, the're accusing Airbus of making unsafe planes, despite the fact that every expert says it is untrue, and despite the fact that every other airline has zero problem with it.
On top if it, they're behaving like spoiled toddlers, by taking an incredibly harsh approach with Airbus, isntead of behaving like reasonable people. Did Airbus then react back to them, in what could be seen as childish? Yes. But you'll notice who started this whole toddler-approach: Qatar.
I don't blame Airbus one bit for giving it back to Qatar....Qatar stated this, good for Airbus for slapping them back.
I hope Qatar looses out big time. Their infantile, spoiled-rotten behavior is unacceptable.
Also, hiding behind the 'but we're a luxury airline' thing is not acceptable, either. They're using it as a excuse to be spoiled little brats.
First of all I am a subscriber from your other channel. I must admit to you that NOW I feel doubly blessed to have found your first channel and found that you give AVIATION and all Aviator's more confidence to be safe out there.
BRAVO on your team helping you create a totally new stream. It is my hope that you have all the more success with this one as I am subscribed to this one too. I love your dedication to the craft and professionalism to what I still consider to be a dangerous profession. Without you out there putting this content out and explaining the intricacies of the reasoning behind every investigation no matter how insignificant it may seem. Gives confidence to many out there to be pilots and passengers alike, SO Congratulations and BRAVO for taking us above and beyond. The world needs people like you to carry the torch. THANKS
Coming from a sales background, sometimes it's easier to walk away from a customer who accounts for 10% of your business but consumes 90% of your time. Yes not selling planes to Qatar will hurt Airbus but it will hurt Qatar more, as now Boeing can sell their planes to them a full list price - where else can Qatar go?
Yes, exactly.
To be fair, they might have priced the planes before Airbus cancelled. Boeing doesn't really have much leverage now with the lawsuits from Max 8. 50 planes long term might be their way to keep stock price up.
@@kokohale I agree, Qatar probably thought if they don't jump on these prices from Boeing (probably been negotiating for a year or two), Boeing will pull the tender and just say "Full list price bitches!"
Speaking facts. I am a consultant which involves quite a bit of sales and negotiating strategy. I am just selling myself instead of a product (lol THAT can be easily taken out of context) Sometimes you get into a relationship with a client with the best of intentions but they really don't want to change and resent the help. It's better to walk before it starts to take time away from more appreciative customers. Sometimes the former is a big dollar client and the latter are not. The latter are more likely to refer and that can lead to even more revenue. You have to know when to cut that cord.
"where else can Qatar go?" - That's the biggest issue. There's barely any competition in aircraft manufacturing.
It is a bit suspicious that at a time when aircraft were grounded due to covid that Qatar had to ground planes for a completely different reason that they could claim money for. Couple that with the fact that everyone else agrees that the issue is only cosmetic, and well It doesn’t look good for Qatar unless they have some pretty strong evidence to back up their claims. I do agree that airbus should definitely fix the issue at their cost regardless of if it affects safety but it seems like they are willing to do this anyway.
I find it suspicious that the Qatari Civil Aviation Authority has not published anything to support the grounding. Flight Aviation requested details and the request was not even acknowledged.
They also were seriously struggling financially after the harsh competition from neighbouring countries... Coincidence? Don't think so
@@brugudel coincidences do happen but when they start piling on top of each other you have to start asking questions.
According several news outlets, Airbus did offer a solution but Qatar refused, and wanted $618 million in compensation instead (as you said, suspicious to say the least).
Airbus did the right thing by cancelling the order.
I agree Claire
Petyr, please stay on top of this story with updates as they become available. Great channel, I subscribed straight away after the first video. Thanks, Rich
A. Pls note KLM also had (has ?) a similar problem with the first 777 with paint/delaminating which took a long time to solve, (if it is solved ?)
B. Airbus must solve THEiR problem
This
Aluminum had issues also and after many years matured to the level of reliability we have today.
Composite is new to aviation body and wings so it will be a interesting next 10 to 15 years to see how aircraft age. The story is only just beginning.
Yes, indeed.
Plenty of carbon fiber planes in the GA space with no paint issues.
@@vtwinbreed Qatar has hundred of planes and they go up and down the troposphere multiple times a day, with huge changes of pressure and temperature. Your average Cirrus flies at 3000 ft AGL for a $100 hamburger twice a month.
@@mathieuclement8011 The Airbus/Qatar issue is not about pressure or altitude but about temperature and exposure to the sun. And I know, this is not the same, but there are gliders that have been around since the 80's and there is data on how those composites behave - and this data can be used to calculate with a decent certainty how the composites will behave on a commercial aircraft.
@@todortodorov940
are you saying qatar should buy gliders now?
I think, Airbus calculated it very well before canceling any orders with Qatar. Qatar has money, Airbus has money as well. Let's who's pocket is bigger or who has more power and connections.
Airbus has more leverage with the Regulators than Qatar do. Like Boeing did. And the last thing Airbus wants is the words 'safety issue' attached to its brand name. Think about it.
Airbus having or not having deep pockets.. is not as important.. as it is almost a monopoly.. supply side
@@davidjma7226 I don't think regulator's would side with Airbus just to make them happy. If we learned anything from the Max disaster it's that regulators have to work independently for a good reason. If regulators around the world say that the A350 is safe and the damage is cosmetic in nature then I think it is safe to say that the aircraft itself is safe.
I feel the escalation between Airbus and Qatar has happened simply because Qatar feels that Airbus isn't finding a solution to the problem fast enough. Other airlines are happy with the repaints even if it means they have to happen more often as it is Airbus that is paying for those repaints. Keeps your aircraft looking clean and fresh on the outside until Airbus finds a painting solution that works.
And what is Qatar going to do when the new Boeing aircraft turns out to have a similar issue? Going to court as well until both Airbus and Boeing will refuse to sell them aircraft because Qatar only complains in a very public way?
@@Hans-gb4mv Regular repaints mean the aircraft cannot move passengers while it is being repainted. That will cost the airlines money unless Airbus also compensates them for the lost revenue.
This sort of discussion makes no sense at all!!! The point is EASA and FAA are not to be straight away trusted after 737 max disaster!!!! This is the real point AND AIRBUS is taking their word to back them up on this metter!!!! Have they actually thoroughly investigated? Or they have done just like the 737 max in Malaysia???????????????
I love this guy....I'm an airplane nut and I am fascinated by the big jets and the huge airline companies...just incredible stuff and I learn so much from him...I'm a professor and he is a wonderful teacher...he knows his aviation!
Petter,
This is an interesting situation which I was not aware of - thank you for posting! And I agree that both side will need to work together to resolve this issue. New technology has its advantages but it must be recognized that it may also come with new problems.
Paul (in MA)
In a year where 90% of airplanes are grounded due to a pandemic Quatar is ''forced to'' ground 50 airplanes because of airworthiness problems no other organization confirms or acknowledges. And they demand compensation for this. Would anyone believe me if I said that it's just a coincidence? I don't know. You decide 🙄
Are you perhaps suggesting that the airline that is owned by the Government of Qatar, whose extremely influential CEO used to work in the Qatari aviation regulator, would actually be able to influence decisions of that regulator based on their financial interests?
Cause yeah, no shit. I'd be surprised if that conclusion wasn't written in Qatar Airways head office.
The thing that worries me most about this (if this is true) is if this also would go in the other direction?
Would the Qatari aviation authority ignore real problems in order to help Qatar airways?
If all of this turns out to be true this could seriously harm the (safety) reputation of Qatar airways.
@@Jehty21 Don't know. Qatar is constantly highest ranked airline. I doubt they have safety issues.
@@Jehty21
An avoidable fatal accident, and the subsequent international investigation, would look bad for Qatar's image. So highly unlikely.
@@megapet777 Fatigued pilots literally nodding off on approach.
I believe this will be resolved by the year's end. Boeing jumped in to profit off the situation (can't blame them, I would also), but they will soon be dealing with Qatar's strict quality expectations head on just like Airbus did. That's going to run them the wrong way, too. By then, a solution for Airbus's paint will be found and all will return to normal.
I also agree with others that the Boeing deal was further ahead than reported. My bet is that phone calls began roughly a year ago.
Qatar just looked for an excuse. They needed the money after the pandemic and struggling with neighbours. And since the company and the Qatari aviation agency are both controlled by the emir... 2+2...Plus, Boeing selling cheap its MAXs...
Half of Quatar's existing fleet are Boeings, they know the expectations pretty well.
@@brugudel yeah Qatar's aviation industry is functionally self regulated. It's all run by the same guy so they more or less make their own rules.
Hasn't Boeing been dealing with Qatar longer than Airbus?
Its not that Qatar Airways is a new customer for Boeing.
What an excellent video! I really liked the pictures and graphics showing the paint, damage and especially the application of paint to the aircraft. How amazing it is to make one of these planes! Thanks!
Hands down. Again you deliver the best explanation on this topic without much effort or at least so it seems. You make the best aviation content on the platform. By far.
It reminds me of a customer for a firm that I was Quality Assurance for. They had to have exactly what they had received previously, with traceable provenance only from chosen suppliers, with chargeable certification and margins at multiple stages. This firstly produced considerable wastage at their cost, on superseded equipment, and allegedly, $1000 zip ties in their service items. Exactitude mistaken for excellence. Money is not an issue for some countries.
"Exactitude mistaken for excellence." I love it. Very apropos to this situation too.
@@peregrina7701 I think I met this guy in "Creative Writing" class.
Big words but still ended your sentence in a preposition. ;-)
@@davidcole333 "Can you end a sentence with a preposition?
There is nothing wrong with ending a sentence in a preposition like to, with, for, or at. English speakers have been doing so since the days of Old English. The people who claim that a terminal preposition is wrong are clinging to an idea born in the 17th century and largely abandoned by grammar and usage experts in the early 20th." Try and keep up! :-)
"The paint doesn't chip off soon and the mesh coating that keeps the hull from exploding when it's hit by lightning remaining in tact" doesn't really seem like a case of "exactitude mistaken for excellence," though. That can certainly apply to Qatar sometimes, but paint flaking on a new aircraft, let alone visible damage to the lightning protection system isn't really one of those cases.
First of all, I'm pretty sure Qatar had already signed the contract with Boeing for the 737. as you say it's impossible to do absolutely everything in one week. Secondly, I think the main reason of all of this was Qatar changing over to Boeing. If Airbus cancels their orders, they don't have to pay the cancellation fee or whatever they call it. From my personal experience, having clients from around the world, the ones from the middle east are pretty difficult to manage. I don't know if it's difference of culture or what.
What middle eastern airlines other than Qatar, had any problems with any aircraft manufacturer?
@@ErdemAltunhan I'm not saying that all have to be "problematic". What I'm saying is that in my experience, I'm not surprised. In any case, these kind of problems should be resolved internally, not "in public". But again, I think everything was very well thought through, so it has been deliberated and very well calculated.
@@javiTests Are you the head of a company that sells to middle eastern airlines and did you personally experience that it’s hard to manage such airlines? I’m just asking for the data you had, to come to the general conclusion of middle eastern airlines being hard to manage. As far as I know only Qatar Airways has had major problems with an airline manufacturer. Is there something I should know more about?
@@ErdemAltunhan I'm not talking about airlines, I'm talking about my personal experience in another field. I'm just giving my opinion, that's it.
@@javiTests My father used to sell overhead cranes as his profession, and indeed, the Middle East clients had quite the extra requests on their products. This did whoever come with a price multiplier. For example some identification/service signs on the machine had to be made specifically of brushed stainless steel with hand-written lettering, of which they wouldn't just take any calligraphy on them. They did pay their eyes out for the product, but were happy about it.
I'm not a pilot, but I've always been interested in aviation. I love your channels! I've learned a lot! Great job!
I'm a retired A&P with composite aircraft construction experience, and I side with Qatar on this one. Composite structures are bonded layers, and evidence of bond failure anywhere in the structural stack strongly suggests that materials and/or processes have gone awry. 'It's just the paint' sounds pathetic when the lightning protection layers are exposed. Also, if water gets into the cells of the honeycomb core structure it can freeze and rupture the cell, which then propagates the leak into adjacent cells in an expanding cascade of hidden, internal structural failure. Paint and UV protection primers are far more than merely cosmetic in composite structures, they are essential protective layers for the load carrying structure.
@@stefnewyork No need to be personally insulting . The EASA and others are politically driven institutions known to have improved/changed their stand on issues after incidents with mere overwork/wrong info from manufacturer/new development statements.
There was absolutely no "evidence of bond failure anywhere in the structural stack" - the structural composite stacking is totally unaffected. Even Qatar had express concerns only about the outer bronze mech layer - that has absolutely no structural function - it works only as a ESN (Electrical Structural Network) add-on. Furthermore - there is absolutely no honeycomb structure in fuselage (except the PAX floor panels - not in discussion). Having these said, your comment is simply sad...
Aren’t composites great?
Cheers
The water/ice expansion point is very important . As you say Sir it isn't a cosmetic issue at all .
This is the best explanation by farrrrrrrrr
I agree that the attention to detail matters big time... Two machines you wanna be absolutely confident all the nuts and bolts are done up right are submarines and airplanes.
Yeah, but the reality is if every plane has to be perfect, there would be no flights. Thats why we have acceptable defects and wear limits, and given the consensus globally that the planes are airworthy along with airbus's honoring of the warranty, I feel that this lawsuit was in bad faith.
Well... actually many others too.. like in the field of medicine/ Operation theatres ans ICUs.. but yes.. i see where you are coming from
@@shotnothing3419 spot on, nothings perfect, but it must be reasonably high on quality and safety.
100% agree
Why hasn't B787 which is made of carbon fiber composite materials (much like the A350) has this paint issue?
Or maybe B787 is using a different type of carbon fiber composite that "works" more like aluminum?
Whoever is right I think this dispute is ruining schedules and destroying value. I guess there may be personality or politics behind it, and it may take different people to de-escalate it.
I think it was Machiavelli who wrote something like "the war between two kings has the same reasons as the dispute between two bakeries", meaning how many of these disputes are just personal and petty. I cannot find the quote, btw. But it was something along those lines.
@@wimpow He also wrote: "... a feared enemy must be crushed completely."
Sounds like an aircraft carrier pushing covid losses up stream to an aircraft supplier.
Seeing as AB wasn't willing to pick up "their part" of the covid hit, Qatar has decided to break their exclusive relationship with AB.
Be careful when quoting Macchiavelli, his overarching vision was to judge a game by it's real rules rather than the rules players pretended to be following.
the moral of the story for me:
do not fly qatar. particularly after the inspecting of vaginas after they found a baby in the toilet. and they never have apologized either.
So, let me see if I've got this: Qatar is worried about the airworthiness of the Airbus planes, and to deal with this...they're going to purchase 737 Max planes? ...OK.
MCAS laughs..
Like everyone else, they just assume the other options are safer than the one you know.
Well the 737 max is now safe since MCAS is dealt with. Also , Qatar airways (or qatar itself) feels it didn't get the required attention it expected and thus felt unrespected , hence the quick reaction
I'll wait for about five years before getting on a 737 Max.
@@pablodebolo after the latest Netflix documentary, I think it will take a while for Boeing to reclaim people’s confidence
as someone who studied marketing and salesmanagement i can tell you that airbus did something kinda normal by canceling the Order. It can be explained on base of the "Pareto Principle", and means: 80% of your income is generated by 20% of your customers. Same gors for timemanagement. 80% use only 20% of your time and 20% use 80% of your time. Also its said that, Time is money. Even though Quatar is kinda loyal as a customer. they have shown more like a hybrid customer with low worth of holding. Because: They are not part of the 20% of who generate 80% of income for airbus. But with their high standards, they are likely to be on the 20% of customers who need 80% of their time. The important 20% for airbus are Airlines like Lufthansa, Indigo, easyjet, airasia. These are the 20% who make 80% of the total income.
Cancelling Quatar was kinda a logical thing. You could arguebly say that airbus just waitet for that, to get rid of a very unpleasent non cooperative customer.
It's just childish on both sides. Okay painting composite is hard and Airbus should admit this looks horrible if you don't know the science, but Qatar should not try to get it's pandemic losses compensates by Airbus, because they did get state of art airplanes with minor paint issue.
Airbus hasn't denied it looks bad, and they *are* working to fix it. "His Excellency", OTOH…
Doesn't look like a "minor paint issue" to me.
The underlying mesh seems compromised in several pictures. Also, Qatar Airways hasn't been the only airline to raise concerns over this.
As for Airbus, they won't admit to anything, ofc, they'll try to downplay the issue and reassure everyone that it's under control, regardless of what the reality is.
Can't trust what manufacturers say in this kind of situation, there's too much at stake for them to be honest about it.
(Also, they have armies of lawyers dedicated to find exquisite ways of not telling the truth)
This must be investigated independently, but I'm afraid that EASA is too close to Airbus, so I also doubt they'll be honest.
Just like I doubt that the FAA is honest in matters concerning Boeing.
When oversight agencies get complacent (or get in bed) with giant companies like Airbus or Boeing, you need to look elsewhere for honesty.
@@Goreuncle Yes, Petter mentioned that other airlines have complained. He also mentioned *several* aviation regulators (not just FAA, EASA, and Qatar's equivalent) investigated, and *only* Qatar's thinks it need more study (even they didn't conclude that it's definitely an airworthiness issue). Can you point to a timestamp showing compromised mesh? Because I didn't see any.
You haven't really adding anything that wasn't in the video.
@@jursamaj
If the bare metal is exposed to atmospheric conditions, unless it's gold or silver - it's compromised. These are not Toyotas, these are several hundred million dollar aircraft. All it takes is time and flying (and they fly A LOT) to escalate "tiny imperfections" into falling-off parts that result in hundreds of deaths. It's not like it hasn't happened dozens of times before throughout the aviation history.
@@mickeypopa "If the bare metal is exposed to atmospheric conditions, unless it's gold or silver - it's compromised" - what, like aluminium? :)
Thank you for this exposition. Simply the best most concise and informative I've seen. For me the most important point remains *no other regulator in the world has deemed this a safety issue.* Why? Are THEY all incompetent while ONLY Qatar's 'regulator' knows what they're doing? Unlikely is putting it mildly.
Anyway - they're Boeing's problem now.
Have those regulators ever failed people before??
Not saying they are right. But should you trust these regulators with %100 or should maybe you question their answeres when you think they could be mistaken?
@@Benji-jj2bg You're right of course you question everything. No one is ever 100% right 100% of the time.
So you look at the whole picture and make a judgement. The premiere regulatory agencies in the world look at the same problem and come to a totally opposite conclusion. A350s are happily flying in all weather conditions as we speak, being struck by lightning just as often as any other aircraft.
The ONE agency that disagrees is under the same national umbrella as the airline in an absolute monarchy.
They reject all offers for repairs as insufficient and want massive compensation for revenue from aircraft that aren't even flying mid pandemic.
You do the math.
@@outermarker5801 maybe qatar is wrong. I'm just sayin
MarkeR Aren’t those the same agencies who would not ground the 737 Max just to piss off China?
I love your videos and particularly appreciate your facts based approach.
I am a PPL licence holder, so I understand most of the issues you discuss. I even spent a day in the cockpit of an A320 simulator invited by a friend (Air France instructor) to witness a training session of a captain and copilot. He explained to me many of the avionics used,. At the end of the day I was exhausted having lived through the various stress tests the crew was subjected to (engine failure, ABS failure, even a Jewish (ficticous) passenger with medical problems while flying over Saudi Arabia).
Your videos explain in meticulous detail how flight safety has been achieved and is now taken for granted. Each incident is analysed (based on established facts) and changes are made to avoid similar incidents in the future.
Too old to fly safely now, I feel as if I were in a cockpit when I listen in. Please keep up this valuable work.
I can't believe that only now have I discovered your great channel. Keep up the good work!
My wife used to work for qatar airways. You are not free there, work your ass off and can be fired easily anytime. Luckily she moved to Lufthansa after one year there....
Very nice balanced report informing me of both viewpoints without any obvious bias. Thank you. Too bad I can't get the news in this fair and balanced way. Airbus had a small problem; Qatar leveraged that into an excuse to ground planes that may have been grounded anyway due to the pandemic. Switching to Boeing was their only option because of their litigation against Airbus. I think Airbus gets hurt more in this conflict than Qatar.
You make the best aviation content on RUclips. PERIOD. I wish RUclips was around when I was flying all the time.
I saw paint flaked off the 737 max I flew to Africa on. I'm sure airbus will create a new paint for the job. These planes go in for regular check ups and will just get sorted out as they always do. I suspect airbus will come out on top.
Flaked paint on a 737 MAX doesn't make much difference. They're aluminum, not carbon composite, and, as such, they do not need or have a protective copper mesh under the paint. The aluminum body itself is quite a sufficient conductor on its own.
Imagine being so angry at a customer that you refuse to sell them planes lol
If they loose in court every new aircraft you sell them is going to be more expensive.
@@midelro97 They should double all their catalogue list prices, and only sell to them at list price!
On the flip side, imagine sueing over a paint job
@@stephen_101 doing that and deciding not to sell them is the same.
@@midelro97 They did not pick it up, it's different, so the French "cancelled" nothing , and the Qatari went to Boeing, Airbus is the French gov, they don't care, how do I know? I worked for them, and customers like when you care.
Daaaaamn… The tea! The shade! Love the channel approach and type of content.
Super. Another channel. I watch everything you post. It's as good as going to the movies with the advantage that you cover true events. I hope you continue posting for a long time. You're doing great and valuable work. I'm subscribed.
You should do a video on the issues connected to switching from one major manufacturer to another. There must be massive costs associated with parts inventories, service contracts, retraining of both flight and maintenance crews, etc. It's definitely not like swapping your Toyota for a Nissan.
He spoke about this at length around the time of the 737MAX issues and subsequent grounding.
Qatar Airways is not a LCC or ULCC. It has a mixed fleet of Boeing and Airbus. So switching is not a big issue there. It already has trained crew and technicians available for both Boeing and Airbus.
Toyota and Nissan are both Japanese cars you should have said swapping a Toyota for a Ford or Chrysler
Qatar has been flying the 777 for much, much longer than it has been flying the A350. It isn't really a switch at all for them. They have plenty of crew already rated on the 777. If anything, it will be cheaper for them, converting crews of their aging 777s to the 777X vs. to the very different A350.
More like switching a Renault to a Ford.
Quality, perfection and Boeing ? Good luck with that.
Coming from an avionics background, specifically in-flight entertainment systems, this seems like a spat and an attempt by Qatar to coerce its supplier (Airbus) to perform better or offer a better deal. Emirates played a similar game with Panasonic, coming over to the competition (my former employer) for the course of a contract or two to express their displeasure with Panasonic and try to negotiate a sweeter deal out of them later. They had no intention of making the transition to my company permanent, it was just a bargaining tool.
I love the way Peter draws you in for a seamless sugue to the ad...Other channels need to take notes...💯
I think the relationship has escalated beyond repair. They have both dug in so deep on their positions and they have both taken measures to show each other that they dont "need" the other. I predict this issue won't be resolved for years, or at least until they both have new CEOs.
yes, and we don't know what really happened
Airbus CEO cannot take such a decision by himself. All directors in the board must have approved it.
@@ursodermatt8809 Yes 'we' do.
@@MikeCaffyn1
ok, if you say so
Petter, Another Wonderful Video and Explanation. This is the reason why you hame 1 million subscribers💖
Still don’t have 100K on this channel though! That’s the new target.
Thank you for your kind words!
I’ve just realised I wasn’t subscribed to this channel. I am now
@@MentourNow I'm subscribing as we speak! ☺
@@MentourNow I was your (approximately) 124th subscriber on Mentour Now Petter!
You explained this controversy much better than the other channels. Thank you
Glad you mentioned this other channel
I’m
A big fan -great channels
Thank you 🙏
Even though I knew quite a lot about the Qatar Airlines - Airbus feud, now I actually understood the details - without which the whole story didn't make much sense. Excellent explanation as always, Petter! Thank you.
I watched several videos about this topis and yours is absolutely the best! Keep on making more videos
Thank you! Make sure you have subscribed to this channel as well to get this type of content. 💕💕
I remember an incident back in the early 1980s when Laker Airways leased one of their DC10 aircraft to LAN Chile. They painted the aircraft at Gatwick and sent it off to Santiago. But something had gone wrong with the painting process, so when it arrived there all the paint had come off and it was back in Laker livery !
More like a question / maybe already asked:
How do you proceed as a pilot with the visual inspection before a flight? What do you do if you notice a visual damage of (maybe just) paint? Don't you thing neglecting paint damage "as usual" might cause to overlook some potential damages? If so, how a pilot responsible can take over an aircraft for operation? No company, operator should suggest the aircrew, to overlook damages, just as "regular", "normal"
This is a very good example of how a fixation with something can turn into a mess.
If Qatar Airways wanted to take Airbus to court, then it should be on damages amounting from their paint coming off, i.e. damages resulting from cosmetic problems.
Airbus would have settled.
But it looks like the airways is trying to strong arm Airbus, especially by trying to make reality look different.
If there's a test that can be done to serve as evidence that the mesh are doing their job well, then it should bolster Airbus's case.
It's silly really. I just hope that the young generation will learn from this and become reality oriented and fair individuals.
Exactly - the warranty would have covered the repairs in due course. It's opportunism and greed that has left Qatar Airway left out in the cold.
@@stephen_101 Yes! But greed is a good thing, it's just a desire for me. They way one gets more, is what determines whether the act was moral or not.
So I'd call the airways' actions as vicious and not truly greedy. A truly greedy person would realize that trying to outsmart reality is bad for them in the long run.
On the point of being fair, it can be hard lol with any sort of indignation from some other offense. I like the remark. To some, fairness is never an issue. 😏
Before watching this video, I would have agreed. But knowing the fact that they’ve been having the paint issue since 2016 and only brought up the safety concern when they saw the lightning protection mesh was damaged tells me that they aren’t just trying to strong-arm airbus. Maybe they are overreacting and making a bigger deal of it but I think it’s a concern coming from the right place.
I will also point out that after a Lufthansa A350 lost a large piece of its mesh, EASA did issue an airworthiness directive saying that in the right circumstances, the loss of a section of mesh over the wings could potentially cause the ignition of fuel in the wing tanks and cause the aircraft to explode. So it’s not really even that Qatar is the only one to raise concerns, they just seem to be taking it much more seriously then others.
@@speed150mph I believe the fact is that composites aren't really suited to Airplane bodies, atleast not at the current levels of engineering.
Both B and A have probs with the 787 and a350, due to the composite material instead of metal
Comparing Boeing's recent safety record (especially with the 737 MAX) and Airbus', these "safety-motivated" decisions to start switching to Boeing 737s and the as-yet-unproven new 777X are a little bit odd to me... I am not in the industry and don't have all of the information that Qatar does in front of me, but the most logical conclusion to "this paint has issues" doesn't seem to be "let's play it safe and go with the guys that implemented some huge software mistakes and poor training standards due to a breakdown of safety culture".
Edit: I am not saying that the 737-MAX issues haven't been resolved; I am just saying that Airbus really hasn't dropped the ball that bad lately.
Who wants a new plane that looks like that?
@@Kenyon712 Oh, Airbus should absolutely fix it. Don't get me wrong there.
Mcdonnell Douglas and its 737 Max are an absolute disgrace.
Yes, but don't forget Qatar has thousands of very cheap children who will be sent deep into the plane structure to collect all the rubbish left during Boeing construction and photo every joint rivet for millimetre mistakes, expect huge ructions and Boeing doing the old Ryanair sales deal of buy 5 get 1 free for poor Qatar!!!
Actually you are right if you say 737-MAX issues haven't been resolved. Only software issues have been resolved. MAX is an unstable aircraft. There is no way to fix it.
Excellent report.
Well studied.
Keep shining 👍
Cheers 🥂.
There's this saying that they have in business that says that the customer is always right. Of course this is an exaggeration but the principle remains that a company needs to make a product that a customer is willing to buy and, if they fail at this, they have no one to blame but themselves if customers are no longer willing to buy their products. The customer gets to be picky and it's the job of the business to compete with other businesses to the customer the product they are looking for. Instead of using their energy to get mad that the customer isn't satisfied, it would be a better use of energy to fix the damn issue instead. My suspicion is that the carbon fiber is perhaps an extremely smooth surface, which also makes it harder for the paint to stick. So I would suggest that they pursue some combination of roughing up the surface so that the paint will stick more effectively and also changing the formulation of the paint so that it adheres better to smoother surfaces. It might not be a super easy fix but the direction in which to go to fix it is quite obvious.
Thank you for the detailed breakdown. Something I wonder about, is one of timeframes and the impact it has on the aircraft surface over time if left unattended. Looking at the damage and the way it's flaking mimics almost a kind of long term paint stripping effect, what I mean is, the longer it goes unattended, the worse it will surely get.
So let's say this issue was addressed on each aircraft on an individual basis when it started as I'm sure Airbus offered and has been doing with other customers, then it's less of an issue until a more permanent fix is found (inconvenience of having aircraft temporarily out of service aside). However, with Qatar grounding so many aircraft, and not letting Airbus repair them, raises two questions for me:
1) Will these aircraft eventually deteriorate to the point that they cannot fly due to their state... then what happens to them, especially considering not every airport has a paintshop, or did they conveniently ground them somewhere where they're ready to be painted?
2) Was the video Qatar released, that of the oldest/worst affected aircraft which only looked that way because they let it get to that point I.e. picked the worst looking plane for dramatic effect?
Whatever the outcome though, it's sad to see such beautiful aircraft left to "rot" like this.
Keep up the great content! P.S. miss the 🐕
For your 2nd question: One of the aircraft in the video is 6,5 years old, the other one is 5,5. Possibly those are the worst ones.
@@hakanevin8545 thank you, makes perfect sense then that after all this time, if left unattended, they will continue to deteriorate.
@Mentour Now! I think you really hit the perfect balance on reporting on this issue.
Nice, and thanks as always. You mentioned the perfectionist and strict attention to detail tradition of Qatar. Can we have some of this?
Thank you for another excellent video. I am sorry to see you go the route of silliness of other channels though; scowling man overlay.
You called Qatar Airway the 'best airline'. In my family we booked three flights, twice we had huge issues! Service is absolutly horrific.
Case 1: my daughter left stranded in JHB, claiming no show because the connecting inbound flight by another operator, but booked through Qatar Airway, was arriving late. They voided the ticket to Doha and onwards to ZRH. Took us a full day on the phone and a visit to the local booking office until finally the booking was honored and my daughter could fly home.
Case 2: They cancelled my wifes inbound flight from DUR a few hours before departure with no rebooking. We had buy another domestic flight to JHB to catch the flight to Doha and onwards. Then made a fuss about not using the first leg, despite the fact the it was them cancelling it. Only after lenghty discussion they let her board. We still wait for reimbursment.
Yes, I was surprised to hear such a subjective statement in a series of videos normally concerned with facts.
I think the biggest problem for Qatar isn't the grounding or that they missing out this beautiful plane
I think the fact, that Qatar screwed up with 1 of the 2 players of the duopoly could be devastating for them
Boeing don't have to grand them big discounts on there order because they also know, that Qatar has no other option any more. Thay HAVE TO buy Boeing planes from now on
I think this also creates a problem because it highlights that most, if not all, airlines are at the mercy of the manufacturers and the potential that this could start a chain reaction throughout the aviation industry. Like you said, if a manufacturer stops doing business with an airline then that allows the other manufacturer to pin their backs to the wall because they have no other options.
For sure, nothing is for sure. But I would be concerned about spare parts and updates from Airbus.
@@duradim1 I don't think this would be an issue tbh
Airbus has to deliver certain things by law and everything else is done by a third party. Like the refurbishment of Quantas's A380 cabins by a company in Dresden (GER)
And often times the airlines don't perform service themselves. They partner with special maintenance companies or even use teams of different airlines to perform maintenance
It wouldn't be reasonable for Qatar A. to have a dedicated team in FRA or NY...
@@duradim1 Airbus is legally bound to continue servicing its operational aircraft.
Qatar has oil, so they can well afford to pay a higher price to Boeing, if nothing else, than just to piss off Airbus.
Whatever the outcome, it will drive the manufacturer to speed up their progress and hopefully, there will be a perfect solution to the paint issue in a few years.
LONG AGO I WAS A CLASS A AIRCRAFT PAINTER AT PLANT 42. WE WERE DRIVEN BY THE THOUGHT OF IF ANY OF OUR PAINT CAME OFF, IT WOULD CAUSE A CASULTY, BY THE PAINT BEING SUCKED INT THE ENGINES. THAT WAS IN THE SIXTIES, BUT TO ME, STILL, FRAGMENTS OF PAINT AND THE FLEX WIRE COULD BE INJESTED INTO THE ENGINES. FROM YOUR VIDEOS, I HAVE LEARNED OF MANY INCIDENTS THAT GO BACK TO THE DESIGN AND TESTED OF SAID PRODUCT. PERHAPS BEING THE ROLLS ROYCE OF THE AIR, DRIVES THEM TO HIGH THAN EXPECTED PRODUCT RELIABILITY AND QUALITY, I.E. CRUDDY PAINT JOBS. THANKS FOR ANOTHER SUPER VIDEO
Pissing contests between billion dollar companies is great entertainment! How many FU's were thrown around! I see the points being raised on both sides, it's a tough situation! I'm sure glad I'm not getting paid tens of millions of dollars to deal with some of the the coolest aircraft being made! 🤨😔
Great video, as always Mentour Pilot!!
PS, if you are ever in Michigan, USA, let us know. I'll buy you a $100 burger!
You provided a fair view of both sides.
Excellent production as usual.
Wheee! Heart you too.
Bill. California
Brilliant video as usual Petter. I have just watched the Netflix documentary about Boeing, Downfall and wondered if you have seen it and what your thoughts would be on that one?
Not every composite component on the aircraft has lightning protection, so it is does not have 100% coverage anyway. What you need to provide is an adequate path for the current around the whole plane, particularly at the extremities where the lightning will typically enter and exit. Small imperfections scattered over the aircraft do not change the fundamental performance of the system - because as I say, there technically already are holes all over the place. This is why it is not a safety issue. Granted, it needs to be fixed and monitored so it doesn't escalate, if large chunks start falling off then maybe you'd be more worried.
This is a very fair point, it is a protection system and after all, the windows are insulating areas. I think I agree that the important thing is to be able to prevent further issues or later damage such as corrosion.
Thank you Petter for another great video!
As far as what I think, I'm interested in knowing how the other operators of the A350 are dealing with this situation, I'm assuming this is common to all A350s. I guess Qatar signing on with Boeing for 777x and the 737 max might mean more costs from training and such
I guess switching from Airbus to Boeing creates the need for all pilots to be type rated to the new planes
No, the problems happened not to all A 350-operators and also not to all A 350. Even at Qatar Airways a lot of A 350 are still in the air. There were next to Qatar Airways Finnair and Lufthansa who had the same issue on some of their A 350. Both, Finnair and Lufthansa, accepted that Airbus painted the affected aircrafts new on its own costs and gave them a compensation for the downtime - and that was it. Qatar is the only airline who made a big public story about it and impugn the airworthiness of the A 350.
The best analysis I’ve seen so far concerning the dispute… and I’ve seen many…
Thank you! 💕
I think every newly introduced Aircraft had many technical issues and it took time for them to settle down. It all worked well when they worked together for the industry.
As you pointed out in the video it's the customer's right to get exactly what he ordered and Airbus should be able to do so.. But the Covid-19-Situation and Boeing's need to sell 737 MAX might also be relevant..
Anyway: I really enjoyed this insight into the airline business!! 👍
incredibly informative video. A lot at stake. De-escalation and resolution imperative for both parties.
I agree!
Interesting video@mentourpilot. Thank you. What would be the pros/cons, and even feasibility of vinyl wrap instead of paint? I'm sure this has been considered even before this latest disagreement started.
I'm guessing that the immediate problem with vinyl is that it's not overly conductive. A quick google search shows that vinyl has a conductivity of 0.17 w/mk. Aluminum is roughly around 160 w/mk. That's not even the same order of magnitude.
Also, vinyl is not a material I would consider durable. Especially when one is flying at several hundred miles an hour at 30000 ft with temperatures that can range from -60c to +40c.
I could be wrong on that last part, but a lot pf vinyl manufacturers advertise non conductivity as a positive. That's not ideal when you need to conduct electricity away from something.
Attentive and clear commentary, that you sir
Kind of a tangent but I love the way planes are painted from a design perspective. Easily our most stylish and beautiful forms of transportation
I worked with the Qatar air force, can confirm they would reject delivery at the tiniest imperfection. Real pain to work with.
Not really, I fully agree with them on that one, you get what you pay for is a saying for a reason. If you quote a high price, then you are bound with all the obligations that come with said figure. You may be thinking of it as a government so abstracting the normal way a human would regard this so you tell me, why the hell would YOU take anything less than what you spent MILLIONS ordering?
I fully agree that you recieve what you pay for, when I have recieved goods and if they arrive not as described or even marked I would return the item for refund or replacement, can you imagine when you scale it up to millions of dollars, its a scary thought of how to rectify this.
Aha - see my comment of today.
You are one of my favorite resources for aviation information. Really like your choice of topics and presentation that even this Southern United States country boy can understand
Thanks again Mentour, always interesting !
Great Info❤️👍❤️ Thank You 😊
I certainly enjoyed your comments on the feud. What I found most interesting was effect that the copper expanded metal had on the paint. You see I was the lead engineer from the US company that made the copper mesh and I worked very closely with the Airbus engineers in incorporating the mesh into the 350 aircraft. To see the side effect that it can caused is interesting. I have since retired so am not in the loop any longer. As a side note, Airbus used copper expanded metal exclusively whereas Boeing uses aluminum but from the same manufacturer, Dexmet which is now a subsidiary of PPG.
So if I read between the lines, this kicked off because of extremely (perhaps unrealisticly) high expectations of quality, how does/will Boeing be any better/different in this regard? I mean: "Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence” ― Vince Lombardi.
As insinuated in the video, it is also possible that Qatar escalated this as a strategic move to cushion the profit losses arising from the pandemic, as many of their actions seem in bad faith. Then again, this is just speculation, and as in many things in politics and business, nobody will know the truth.
if the Qatar planes coming out of S Carolina plant, i wish them all the best
You da Man sir! Thanks so much for the great video.
Great videos mate
Qatar, quite possibly great to be a customer of but a nightmare to contract for 🤷🏻♂️
Paint, composites and operating extremes have always been problematic 😬
They *are* a pain in the ass to contract for. I worked in administration at a hotel, who *they* reached out to, in order to contract for pilot accommodation blocks. The whole process was a complete disaster, their systems clunky and confusing, no one who we were told to contact would answer us, we could never get payment for their trial tour, and if someone ever contacted us it was to tell us we had to jump through this hoop and that hoop.
Absolute nightmare of a company.
@@aquiamorgan2416 Sounds rough! Given their obsession for exaction, you would imagine their backend operations to be smoother.
There is no way the negotiations with Boing only took a week. That deal had probably been in the works for some time.
My thoughts exactly.
And the price would skyrocket if Boeing knew Airbus was not part of the field anymore concerning this contract. So the terms and conditions of this contract with Boeing were already agreed, just not signed yet.
@@mildlemon7866 Yes, that is very likely. So...
Thanks, enjoyed watching this video again.
Used to surface prep, paint, clear coat golf balls. Epoxy paints, spray. We had orders returned for cold weather cracking. Imagine a driver head smashing, deforming the ball. The paint had to look good, flex, adhere, but not abrade off. Lots of variables and art. Then there were new suppliers with tempting deals, savings. Looks like a primer bonding issue. Epoxy paints on yachts, surfboards, cars have been in use for generations now. No excuse for premium high cost product.
Great vid as always! Petter, do you have any plans to review the Netflix documentary about the Boeing 737 MAX?
Shhh! Don't mention ANYTHING that might reflect badly on the 'B' word. Those share prices really, really matter! 😉
Yea, good idea! I watched that documentary on Netflix and I must say the breakdown that was explained in the show was made easier because I already watched Petter’s video on this preventable disaster.
This sounds familiar to me because a certain American charter bus company with a running dog for a logo (namely Greyhound) had a feud with a bus builder (Motor Coach Industries doing business as MCI) over similar issues involving a certain bus model (namely, the MCI G4500) whose carbon composite side panels didn’t hold up and started peeling in a very similar manner to Qatar’s Airbus a350s.
The busses were sent back to MCI and had to be fully rebuilt from the frame up. During the lawsuits caused by this issue, Greyhound ended up switching half their order to models built by Volvo (namely the Prevost X3-45 and a North American version of the Volvo B11R called the 9700).
Very different issue, if there was actual structural defects rather than just paint peeling.
@@todo9633 this wasn't a very different issue. Paint would peel off said bus and cosmetic damage to the skin would occur, VERY much like what's happening to the A350s owned by Qatar Airways.
The differences are 2:
1. Buses don't fly
2. The bus version of this issue was caused by a deliberate decision by Greyhound to ensure the MCI G4500 didn't last 10 years without a rebuild, by using composites instead of aluminum and steel on certain body panels.
So... The damage that took 3-5 years on the MCI G4500 bus is taking just months on the Airbus A350 when using certain paint.
That said, this isn't necessarily a structural issue, and is definitely NOT a safety issue. Much like the G4500 bus, the planes will require more maintenance in order to keep their appearance up.
As a former business owner, we have had customer and provider issues. I know we had our league team and governing authorities handle those complaints. The problem was usually resolved out of court.
LOVE your thumbnail on this one!!!
I love this guy's take on everything about aviation . He is my go to guy when i need to see some detailed and entertaining aviation content . Thanks a lot for these videos 😀 .
Awesome to hear! 💕
@@MentourNow steady now, you'll need to drive widebodies from now-on as 6 across have very small flightdeck headroom!!! lol
Check out Blancolirlo channel.
I agree that grounding the planes during the pandemic is shadey, seems more like a way to cover their losses.
I also think Airbus should have looked more into the paint problem before releasing the planes. It may be just cosmetic but what if for example it leads to problems that go deeper to be overlooked because someone performing a check thinks "that's only the usual surface paint problem we constantly have"? But even if it will only ever be a cosmetic issue it just doesn't make them look good and hurts confidence in the quality of their products.
Thanks for answering my question about that issue.
As a former Quality Control Manager with experience in the aircraft and consumer products industries, I can tell you that there are two rules in the industry:
Rule #1: The customer is always right
Rule #2: If the customer is wrong, please refer to Rule #1
As a young college grad going to work for one of the airframe manufacturers I was presenting the case to the CEO for reimbursement to a customer over an issue. His response was, “sometimes you have to realize there are some customers you can’t afford to have.” Perhaps not applicable here but a good lesson just the same.
QA might very well be the kind of customer that no one wants.
Cosmetics as an excuse for a lawsuit while the only country to ground those planes is the one you're based out of during a time most airlines are grounding anyway. Too good of a coincidence to ignore. I want to say I hope they don't try to pull that crap with Boeing too, but who else would they turn to for their planes?
On a separate note, it would be interesting to see a video on what happens to the continuing maintenance for the existing airbus fleet. It seems like Quatar is torching that airbus bridge pretty hard.
If I'm paying that much money for planes, I want them not to have constant paint issues.
I’ve built experimental aircraft composite parts in school. I want to remember what the instructors said about it. It certainly is risk but it works fine with GA.
This guy has a great talent for making very informative videos ... Or is it just a hard work?
Airbus may be very happy selling those airplanes to other airlines in the queue, and secretly laugh when Qatar pesters Boeing instead...
Assuming they win the lawsuits to be able to do so. Manufacturers can't just unilaterally cancel order contracts without significant penalties, same as customers can't. A firm order for an airliner is a contract and either party has to pay penalties (defined in the contract) if they break it.
I'm sure that Airbus is aware of the legal complications, and conclude that Qatar have broken the terms. Who will prevail in court is obviously an open question.
@@JohnnieHougaardNielsen The final outcome is indeed an open question, however the court has already enjoined Airbus from selling the planes to other customers pending outcome of the litigation, which usually means that the court at least finds Qatar has a significant chance of success in the lawsuit.
I'm concerned with politics being a possible factor in aviation safety at all.
All business *is* politics, and vice versa.
Great thumbnail art!!
Wow! What a deep video! And, What a mess! Keep us posted. AND AS ALWAYS EXCELLENT JOB!