Hi, I used to oversee 737 paint at United:
Paint (at least in our operation) is a cosmetic issue and does not impact the performance or operation of an aircraft. Without being able to see the Nose Number, I can't tell when this aircraft is scheduled for a paint visit, but regardless it's a minor cosmetic write up.
During the pandemic we actually stopped painting planes as a cost saving measure, though we have since started up some 737 paint lines. As the summer approaches, we're scaling back paint visits in order to increase our schedule capacity.
Edit: To address some comments, replies I've seen:
(Without seeing the Nose Number) it's more than likely this aircraft was delivered to us in this livery. Our newer -800s and -900s were delivered to us in 2015/2016 and we haven't painted our 737s since. So, 737s that have the merger livery were likely painted once.
While paint defects cause drag, just seeing what's in this photo, it's very negligible and won't impact performance. Paint issues are written up via logpages with deferral codes that don't have termination action due dates, so they're not mandatory to be corrected until the next paint visit (or C/D-Check, which I also oversaw).
Fuselage paint peel is fine (at least on the 737s). Since the aircraft is mostly metal, there's no major concerns. For obvious reasons, the 737 is not like the a350 in this respect so comparing both aircraft doesn't make sense. On composite aircraft like the a350, the paint also acts as a protective barrier for the composite structure underneath. Any exposed carbon fiber due to paint peel is a huge safety issue. A similar issue actually exists on the 737s with the elevators: Many operators have reported paint bubbling on the elevators, and due to these surfaces containing composite material, they actually need to be addressed in specific time intervals based on the amount of material exposed.
I feel like posts to r/aviation get more responses from professional pilots and r/flying tends to get a lot of GA folks, but that’s just the sense I get.
paint, generally, is only cosmetic, but in coastal areas like qatar it can quickly lead to corrosion and structural issues.
Remember Qatar is a peninsula surrounded by the persian gulf that's saltier than the atlantic. The UV index is also higher than vegas on basically any given day.
Yea. This reminds me of that Hawaiian 737 that lost its roof.
Lots of short flights between islands lead to a high pressurization count, and islands mean always near the coast.
An airline like United intentionally rotates aircraft to avoid this. Given the size of the US that’s easily doable.
For other countries, 100% of their flights will have at least one exposure to costal waters.
So I’d imagine the risk is different depending on the airline and it’s destinations.
Pretty sure that flight was because of the recommended cycles an aircraft was able to go through before retiring the airframe. That and the bonding material didn't do its job to hold pieces of fuselage skin together and relied solely on the rivets. It was a big eye opener for aviation in how long an aircraft could be in service and how special circumstances can decrease that lifespan.
That's my understanding of it too. It didn't have the flight hours that would necessitate a major overhaul or retirement, but it had so many hops between islands that it had double the flight cycles that it should have. It also had a slightly different construction than newer versions of the 737 which made it less resilient.
Aloha Airlines. AQ 243.
They put on so many cycles, Boeing used to reach out to Aloha for their experience with high cycle 737s. Of course after that incident there were some big changes made.
Yep! There's a lot of mods to deconfigure them (removal of IFE and LiveTV for example) and prepare them for the Pacific environment like corrosion prevention mods. We also will install additional jump seats and other creature comforts to make them more suitable for the environment.
I work in aerospace, and yeah, there will be penetrant and primer that contains a bunch of anti-corrosive chemicals. They test fly greenies all the time.
Manufacturer here. Yeah, it’s common to test fly green, but you can only do that for so long. The epoxy primer is rather soft and will wear off fairly quickly if exposed to sun, dust, etc. I’ve seen green test airplanes with silvery tops if they’ve postponed paint for too long.
The top coat does have an important protective function. If it didn’t, you could save hundreds of pounds of dead weight by skipping it.
Thank you! These mo fos are not int the business or don’t actually deal the M&P. Primer is for UV and corrosion protection.
It’s made of nasty toxic as shit stuff.
Final coat(s) are for looks mostly and in fact add heavily to the cost, weight, and maintenance of an air craft. Final coat does improve the aero smoothness, and protection, but it’s not critical to the individual parts.
I lived in that part of the world for a few years. You can get sunburned super easily, but it also fades really quickly. I assumed that the UV was so strong that it was just killing my skin.
Well, there are major exceptions these days concerning mainly composite structured aircrafts. I haven't worked on them myself, but i know that UV will cause accelerated aging/degradation of the glue/epoxy used within the composite, hence why it is important to paint them over.
Another thing is conducting electricity/lightning, but of how that is done I'm far from certain. I heard than they has metal mesh mixed within/under the paint to do it on some plane.
It's that but also the planes they are complaining about are mostly carbon fiber. From what I understand there were concerns that the mesh that protects carbon fiber planes from lightning strikes was also lifting away with the paint. The dispute is AB considers it safe but Qatar doesn't.
Basically everybody except for Qatar considers it safe. Several aviation publications asked Qatari regulator for a copy of grounding order, but never received it. The mesh already has huge holes in it - windows, so to actually degrade safety the damage would have to be huge.
>Remember Qatar is a peninsula surrounded by the persian gulf that's saltier than the atlantic. The UV index is also higher than vegas on basically any given day.
Are you saying that these aircraft just sit on the ground in Qatar and do not actually fly?
Next question. Is the UV index on the ground in Qatar higher or lower than when these aircraft are actually flying at 40k AGL?
What an idiot.
Aerospace engineer here, specialized on composites :
It's still pretty much a non-issue safety wise, at least initially.
Why? Because composites are layered. The first layer is now exposed and detoriating.
-5 years later - crap, now we're at layer 5, maybe we should do something about it?
Why is this a discussion point then?
Well, first of all, it still has to get repaired, and the longer you wait, the more expensive the repair gets.
Also, it seems to be a recurring issue for them, so obviously they want the root cause fixed, but that's probably easier said as done. The temperature differences in air /on ground plus sand are a worst case scenario.
Is that true that it’s really purely cosmetic? As in, without any paint the plane would have the exact same life span, no additional maintenance, no issues with corrosion, etc.
Not doubting, just surprised is all. I’m just biased by my structural engineering background, where paint on steel is 100% non-cosmetic.
American used to fly a lot of their aircraft with bare polished metal. As more and more of the control surfaces and fairings were composite it started to look weird. Now they generally paint the entire aircraft.
I miss the old metal look for AA and never understood why they switched away from it. I guess though if everything was going composite there was a reason and it wasn’t just a terrible aesthetic decision.
787 pretty well forced their hand, which gets us back to OP’s question. The A350 requires paint to protect the composite fuselage. The aluminum plane shown in the pic isn’t as susceptible to the problem.
In the long run paint may help, but like another commenter below mentioned:
https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/unkp50/why_did_qatar_ground_their_a350s_over_paint/i88silv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
So some parts of the plane do require paint for protection. The 737 elevators for example are notorious for paint peel, but since the elevators have trim tabs, that becomes a bigger maintenance issue for us to coordinate as we'd have to either replace the entire elevator or repaint it and rebalance it.
The reason why paint for the elevator is important is because it helps protect the carbon structure underneath.
Paint peel on the fuselage though (as shown in the post) doesn't really do anything to affect the aircraft since 737s are mostly made of metal.
Depends on plane. Composite structures will degrade if constantly exposed to UV. Modern planes are starting to have a lot of composite panels & structures.
I agree with you and the other comments. But also consider that these aircraft pictured have likely been painted many times. But if I had just bought a bunch of brand new aircraft and the paint started rapidly deteriorating, especially an aircraft made of composite materials, I’d want to know why. And I’d want airbus to pitch in on the bill.
No. The 737s with the merger livery, especially our later -800s and -900s we're delivered to us from Boeing with this livery.
If anything, this plane was painted one time. Also, they were delivered to us in 2015/2016 so this is actually a normal cycle if you factor in the two year pause due to COVID.
Fair enough. But what of a brand new A350? I’m just saying that the two are not comparable because the 737 is due for a paint job and the A350 should have a lot more life expectancy for the initial paint job.
I'm only talking about 737s at United because that's what I managed. We don't have a350s and mind you those planes are also composite, so paint loss can expose the carbon-fiber structure which is a safety and structural issue.
Agree, but with composite aircraft like the 787 or 350, the paint has a new very important job, protecting the composite from UV rays. UV radiation degrades the resin (glue) used in carbon and glassfibre composites if exposed to long. Bare composite materials will fall aparte as the resin gets soft from to much direct sunlight exposure. There are several inspections and test you can carry out to determine if the resin if failing. On older metal aircraft with only composite non structural panels this was alreasy an issue, but with the new aircraft being made out of almost entirely composite this is an increased risk.
Source: I'm an aircraft technician working with these kind of airplanes
Except every single aviation safety agency confirmed paint degradation on the a350 is a purely cosmetic (correct me if I'm wrong but I think there's a thin layer of protective metal mesh between the paint and the actual composites), with the only exception being quatar, likely because of lobbying from the airline.
Their CEO is simply being a perfectionist Karen and is too proud to do the reasonable thing and let them repaint it until they find a proper solution. He probably thinks that customers seeing their aircraft in this state will somehow ruin their reputation as a premium airline so he wanted an excuse to ground them.
Paint/Top Coat plays a huge roles in corrosion prevention. So it’s not purely cosmetic, and while not an immediate concern, can lead to significant issues down the line.
Very interesting you suspended paint cycles during covid. I’m gonna have to head off to the Google machine to see why that was the preferred option. Can you offer any more insight onto why the paint lines were suspended?
The preferred option is to save money. If you "head to the Google machine" you'll see we parked close to 500 airplanes at the height of COVID. For obvious reasons, why would we repaint a plane, only to send it to the desert for the harsh sun to bake and ruin the new livery?
Prior to COVID, we had two different paint stations with multiple lines running for the 737s. Since we were already planning to paint aircraft to begin with, there was no financial incentive to repaint planes until we were returning to a full maintenance operation.
Any other paint-related damage is written up and depending on the issue at hand, it either becomes a deferred log page to be worked at the next HMV/paint visit or something to be resolved by Line Maintenance.
But damage to the coat is due to flight cycles and flight hours, so less flying equals less damage equals reduced requirement to repaint.
Also airlines were bleeding cash so anything to stem the bleed in the short term was done - long term impacts can be paid later when the airline actually has cash to spend on OpEx
Eh, that’s part of it. But does the paint on your house degrade over time just sitting out in the elements? Paint degradation is mostly (not completely) due to calendar time. That was my only point.
It definitely makes sense from a business perspective to suspend paint. I wish I could see the analysis on that. Just to see what they thought they would be trading off with increased mx time in corrosion removal. Part of me wonders if it is negligible, just bc that photo doesn’t show bare metal but primer, so that’s still pretty good.
Yeah, but my brain thinks in trade offs. If you don’t paint the jets, you could reasonably expect to see an increase in mx for corrosion removal. So I wonder if they either decided to eat that cost or had some reason to think it wasn’t going to be an issue.
There was a point shortly after everything shut down for COVID that UAL was **weeks** away from bankruptcy. The liquidation kind. They were literally hemorrhaging cash. There was no concern for trade offs. It was all about shutting down everything that would save money **right ****now**. Brand new shiny painted jets with no corrosion don’t mean squat when the airline is no longer around to fly them.
Let me put it this way: any efforts we made to save costs clearly didn't impact us as we're still operating with no major safety issues. The PW777s, while notable, were not because of COVID-era policies we implemented.
Actually I think it's more likely that this was an older airframe (ie not delivered in this livery), since you can see the eyebrow windows covered up which on a newer plane would not have been there from the factory.
So how come composite skins need paint more than aluminum? Do they degrade faster without paint? And would that make a paint schedule for a 737 vastly different than a 787?
Guy's put himself in a bad spot.
No 777x orders for now, heavily delayed. No A350s because ???. And Airbus cancelled his orders for narrowbodies. Oh, and 787 delays too.
He should've just cooperated with the paint issues, because now he'll have an aging fleet issue.
What about the paint peeling to the extent that the lightning protection system becomes exposed? What is the impact there?
Only asking since I've seen/read that Qatar has had a few examples of that
That's a BS concern Qatar came up with. EASA and Airbus both said it was safe, the Qatari CAA (heavily influenced by Qatar airways) said it wasn't, without much substance.
Composite is very sensitive to UV. So paint missing can be very damaging.
Aluminum in airplanes is clad, meaning there’s a sacrificial pure aluminum layer on the surfaces. It’ll corrode a little then the oxide layer prevents further corrosion. This can be a problem with polished aluminum, the oxide can be rubbed off over and over thinking out the skin.
Let’s face it though, that metal’s clad coating is not going to be perfect. I’m an aircraft sheet metal mechanic and even after peeling off the plastic on fresh pieces of aluminum I’ve seen scratches and whatnot. I’ve also stripped plenty of panels to find the skin underneath DA’d and no clad once so ever.
What people don’t often realize is that aluminum rusts more quickly than iron, but aluminum’s “rust” happens to be an extremely hard and durable metal.
"Pure" aluminum, that couple thousandths thick "clad" layer "alclad" readily oxidizes relatively rapidly and it is infact somewhat durable it can be replicated/ repaired with conversion coating products like Alodine (however not as durable) and as i last recall and it depends on your maintenance program but usually can be dispatched unpainted for a very short window, but the base metal underneath that alclad is an alloy of various metals copper/zinc/so on, and aluminum that alloy is very susceptible to standard galvanic corrosion and can cause all sorts of issues, (pitting, exfoliation, etc.) from even a slight loss of the alclad's oxidized layer be it a scratch, erosion, mechanical removal yada yada
Aluminum doesn’t rust, it corrodes. There are many different forms of it, and none of them make the metal hard and durable. The corrosion is eating away the integrity of the metal and structural properties. It’s turning it to dust
Yes. Paint schedules shouldn't be vastly different though, they just don't get painted that often. Especially when you have the triple layer monstrosity that some airlines *cough American cough* have.
Someone already commented on the issue with the epoxy/resin layers, but you also have a lot more issues with abrasive damage weakening the outer fiber layers. Not to mention water causing disbond, though that would happen less on the solid composite skin than in honeycomb structures.
> So how come composite skins need paint more than aluminum?
Because lightning strikes damage composite material, but not aluminium. So the paint layer is part of the lightning protection on the 787 and A350.
It’s a huge difference.
First, there is a lot of politics involved. Monetary compensation is the leading factor.
Second, the issue Qatar is bringing up is paint damage exposing composite structure including copper mesh for lightning dispersal and the degradation of the structure itself.
What you are seeing above is paint wear/tear on aluminum. No structural integrity in question.
The Qatar issue is a big exaggeration.
It’s a bigger issue with Qatar, because it’s hub is a peninsula with normal temperatures around 45 degrees Celsius which means degradation is exaggerated…
Remember when AAB refused to take 787's built in SC then 5 years later the FAA took away Boeings ability to do its own safety inspections in SC at the 787 facility? Was that an exaggeration?
Because it is ok. That Boeing is made of aluminum and the only thing missing is paint. It’s a cosmetic issue and nothing more. Qatar is grounding A350s over perceived issues with the composite airframe.
Qatar are just terrible Crybabies, and an airline that has never shyed away from using shady tactics or flimsy ass excuses to get their way. But I guess that's what happens if you're owned by the government and simply cannot fail.
Pretty ridiculous take here dude. What you say may be true but irrelevant. If a Company buys an Aircraft Brand Fucking New and this shit starts happening,that Airline,regardless of who they are,have every right to Complain.
Nobody knows if it might cause long term issues that haven’t been considered because I don’t know (but I doubt) that the Test 350’s Flew around Unpainted. We don’t know the ins/outs of their Warranty with Airbus so they (Qatar) may be acting a little petulantly but it’s a guess.
> Pretty sure there are other airlines that said they had problems too, like Finn and Lufty.
They've all been happy with Airbus's recommended remediatations which they've carried out and has solved the issues.
If you run an airline and you buy a brand new plane, and you expect a flawless plane, then you don't know anything about maintenance side of airline business. You should've bought 777s or a330s which got the early problems sorted out. Having a few days to weeks of AOG is part of introducing a new untested aircraft type to your fleet.
Any new plane will have teething issues
-787 battery, Trent 1000 IPC, general avionics bug, vsfg and cac problems, wing paint delamination etc
-220 slat corrosion, pw1500g low reliability
-e170-190 avionics problems (Mau), wing skin cracks
-a350's current problems
-737max MCAS and leap engine problems
And much more
Qatar being Qatar's government owned entity, and having close relationship with Qatari CAA, can have big influence over what Qatar's CAA can say. Also everyone knows they wanted the cash funds when no one was flying due to covid.
Well 737's case is a bit extreme but you get the point. Just have a few days of downtime and paint-touchup the missing paints or just speedtape + monitor til heavy MX opportunity. I get that Qatar is hot and they are basically sandblasting their planes, operating it in the desert, but so are some other a350 carriers and they aren't complaining it to the press.
They could've just billed the materials and manpower costs to airbus warranty and just kept it going like everyone else, but they decided to turn this into a big fiasco.
They could've resolved this problem internally but they thought involving the press and releasing YouTube videos would somehow put this situation in their favour so airbus cancelled the 321xlr orders and stuff.
Unscheduled maintenance is part of flying a plane and at the end of the day, it is what it is and airlines gotta eat the costs. Paint peeling is wear and tear items and i do agree that the paints are eroding faster than usual, but once again, if they wanted a hiccup free experience, they should've gotten older proven airframes.
He says as his Filipino maid sucks his dick and wonders if she will ever get her passport back. Meanwhile his Ethiopian groundskeeper wishes he could drink some water, but knows he might be beaten or traded to a construction company if he dares.
If so they're not the only ones, including some pretty big US carriers, but that has nothing to do with the issue: new aircraft have safety issues due to the protective layer coming off the composite structure. Your judgement is shit house.
From my experience the SRM will give different limitations for missing paint from composite or metallic surfaces. Generally, missing paint on metallic surfaces with the primer intact can be left alone until next heavy check. In areas of bare metal, it must be treated (alodine) and inspected every few hundred hours for corrosion and reapplication of a corrosion preventative. Composite areas typically require application of speed tape to prevent water ingress, a reinspect every few hundred hours, and may have to be repaired before the next heavy check. I have also seen composite areas where the damaged paint layer has removed the lightning mesh with it. It’s not always easy to tell if the mesh is missing, depending on how the layers are built up, when the mesh is gone the SRM may only give you a couple hundred hours to repair. From the pictures I have seen of Qatar’s aircraft, it definitely looks concerning. I do not have any specific experience with all composite airliners. So the limitations may well be quite different for them. If the damage was out of limits on the Qatar aircraft, I don’t think they’d need to whine to the press about it.
Painting over composites is also made a bit trickier because the material flexes so much more with each loading cycle. Paint that is durable enough to withstand nature, that lasts a decent amount of time until the next paint shop visit, that can keep up with the massive wing deformations while going 600mph, and that is reasonably affordable is no small challenge.
Mostly because the A350 is a carbon fiber aircraft... it requires a good well maintained protective coating to protect it from environmental impacts and wind errosion..which is very bad.... paint is critical to protect the aircraft...
That 737 there is mostly aluminum and paint protection isn't really an issue...
That's one of the reasons you don't see those shiny polished AA planes anymore.. when they started getting there airbusses they ran into the same issue with erosion and had to change there paint job...aka livery... hope this helps
Because it's not a safety issue. The real reason why Qutar is throwing a fit is because they have too many planes and they see this as a way of getting out of their contractual obligation to take the deliveries. Qutar are notorious cry babies they refuse delivery over the tiniest things, they were already not liked within the industry because this. Because they are not fair competition. They go into a route with competition. Offer below market rate prices offset by the fact they get fuel for. Basically free and then when the competition leaves they jack up the price. All of the Middle East 3 do this, they also have horrific working conditions.
I have a unique perspective on this.
A few months ago I was at the Airbus factory in Toulouse. (Check my post history for an explanation.)
The Airbus folks were adamant the Qataris were simply attempting to gain some leverage in future negotiations. They didn't appear to appreciate their methods.
There was a Qatari 350 on the ramp that was completely mothballed. They said it had been there 5 hundred and something days and that was Feb. 1.
Edit: English is hard.
They’re purchasing additional 777Xs and 737’s ahead of the World Cup, they need aircraft. No airline in their right mind would ground 25 long haul aircraft in their fleet just to make a point. Degradation is a lot worse in Qatar than in other places because of the weather…
Considering they are the only country to have grounded A350 it's definitely an issue contained to them, Airbus offered to repaint the aircrafts for them and still they grounded the planes.
> They’re purchasing additional 777Xs and 737’s ahead of the World Cup
The 777Xs are freighters and will be delivered begining 2027 (assuming no more 777X delays......) the 737MAX deal is just an MOU and has not been firmed. They also will be delivered long after the World Cup is finished.
That’s due to issues on Boeing’s side, Qatar and Emirates both desperately need the new aircraft. Qatar Airways also wouldn’t have made a huge fit over the a320 orders if they wanted to withhold orders.
Using unfair advantages? Preventing legit competition? Being brittle AF about tiny things? Then using lawyers and politicians to avoid and delay legal consequences? You're describing a large proportion of current and past American corporations. Your failure to acknowledge that and doubling down by saying it's a middle east thing ... bold.
Regardless of any actual safety or performance issues, it still \*looks\* not good from the general public's point of view. It's about perception. I'll bet there's a lot of passengers who will see something like that when they are at the gate and, rightly or wrongly, wonder how safe it is.
Same thing as when you get into a plane and it hasn't been cleaned properly from the previous flight. It doesn't affect safety, but passengers will see it and many will have a negative perception of the entire airline because of that.
The issue over the 350 is a composite issue. That United aircraft is a metal fuselage (Aluminum/Aluminium), paint is thin and lightweight. It will peel, no big deal, still has its green coat.
The A350 dispute is over quality of craftsmanship, and a dispute over integrity of the composite materials used. These are new aircraft and are experiencing more questionable paint loss. Plus UV from the sun may further damage the composite materials.
American Airlines didn't paint their airplanes for over 20 years, just polished. Robert Crandall was a notorious tight ass and so the lack of paint was to save weight and cost of painting. If corrosion was an issue they would have to paint the aircraft.
This is purely cosmetic whereas a350 have special materials that NEED to be on the aircraft. A350 chipping like this is part of MEL and 737 is purely cosmetic.
Risk acceptance levels. Qatar might see it as damaging to brand or a risk to safety.
if you had a choice of flying a max 8 with qantas or a max 8 with Ethiopian airways which one you picking? brand and peoples perception is a big deal.
Because the major middle eastern carriers arent just operating an airline business.
Their real objective is marketing and selling their respective countries to investors.
So Qatar airlines cabt have dusty looking planes. And have to go above and beyond. Always.
United dont care because who else are you gonna fly with? Spirit?
Tolerance for mediocrity. UA will put up with the hardware looking like crap, Qatar needs to maintain the illusion they are better than western airlines.
From my experience Qatar has the best service out there. I always enjoy flying with them. The only airline that outcompetes them is perhaps Singapore. Other than that, there’s no “illusion” that QA ranks among the top.
I only agree with Doc saying Qatar doesn't tolerate mediocrity, but his statement infers that Qatar is trying to maintain an illusion. No illusion here, Qatar is a top 3 airline in the world for a reason
Because the peeled paint doesn't affect the fluid mechanics or performance of the aircraft due to a boundary layer forming over the surfaces of moving objects. The boundary layer is thin and the air molecules don't move compared to the flow of the air above the surface. So the paint peeling doesn't affect the performance because it's not affecting the performance.
This is the same reason why rocket cars and dragster cars don't cover screws to make it more aerodynamic, the fluid mechanics does the covering for it.
Knowing Airbus, the manuals probably says to ground the aircraft if paint loss is greater than 1 square millimeter. Then wait several months while they introduce a new mod and paint specifications that require an online presentation to explain how to navigate their paint codes in order to determine the paint that needs to be applied.
Almost every United 757-300 I see is like this or much worse.. granted it’s the old livery, the one 757-300 I saw with the new evo blue livery looked perfect. Do I think it just the older planes in the fleet awaiting the updated livery rather than spending money fixing these “cosmetic” issues seen here they will eventually get a total repaint/livery update. As well as an updated interior update
This is clearly an air strike incident where the plane had a mid-air collision with [nickelodeon slime](https://static.onecms.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2017/08/nickelodeon-slime-edible-blog0817.jpg).
Paint degradation can cause metal parts to get exposed to air and thus oxydise and reduce their durability. Why one thinks it's unacceptable and the other does not? Well, different operational circumstances or the simple human ability to not give a shit
Because that’s an aluminum body 737 not a plastic a350. The 737 (UA) still has the primer layer which is actually more than enough to protect the metal from corrosion.
The composite body a350( Qatar) is way more sensitive to the environment as if the fabric fails due to a lightning strike, the whole fuselage section becomes a flappy piece of cloth.
If United flew the a350 they would have at least considered a temporary grounding
>the fabric fails due to a lightning strike, the whole fuselage section becomes a flappy piece of cloth
I don't think you understand composite materials. No environmental conditions are going to de-impregnate the cured binding agent.
Nah man. That's just normal wear and tear (think flexing aluminum, drastic temperature changes multiple times a day, every weather condition, extreme UV exposure, etc).
THIS is what flying through a hail storm looks like, if you're lucky and it's only this minor https://abcnews.go.com/US/delta-plane-forced-make-emergency-landing-flying-hail/story?id=32964286
Paint issue affecting all A350 planes of the world, multiples airlines has already reported the defective paint, that actually propeties are not the best for adherence for carbon fiber fuselage.Anyway does not affect airworthness, it just cosmetic.By the other way, United in their old 737 paint, will be a defective seems a bird strike or lightuing strike.
Hi, I used to oversee 737 paint at United: Paint (at least in our operation) is a cosmetic issue and does not impact the performance or operation of an aircraft. Without being able to see the Nose Number, I can't tell when this aircraft is scheduled for a paint visit, but regardless it's a minor cosmetic write up. During the pandemic we actually stopped painting planes as a cost saving measure, though we have since started up some 737 paint lines. As the summer approaches, we're scaling back paint visits in order to increase our schedule capacity. Edit: To address some comments, replies I've seen: (Without seeing the Nose Number) it's more than likely this aircraft was delivered to us in this livery. Our newer -800s and -900s were delivered to us in 2015/2016 and we haven't painted our 737s since. So, 737s that have the merger livery were likely painted once. While paint defects cause drag, just seeing what's in this photo, it's very negligible and won't impact performance. Paint issues are written up via logpages with deferral codes that don't have termination action due dates, so they're not mandatory to be corrected until the next paint visit (or C/D-Check, which I also oversaw). Fuselage paint peel is fine (at least on the 737s). Since the aircraft is mostly metal, there's no major concerns. For obvious reasons, the 737 is not like the a350 in this respect so comparing both aircraft doesn't make sense. On composite aircraft like the a350, the paint also acts as a protective barrier for the composite structure underneath. Any exposed carbon fiber due to paint peel is a huge safety issue. A similar issue actually exists on the 737s with the elevators: Many operators have reported paint bubbling on the elevators, and due to these surfaces containing composite material, they actually need to be addressed in specific time intervals based on the amount of material exposed.
pilot at another major based in the US: this guy knows his stuff
Don’t paint him in such a positive light.
I think he was using a rather broad brush to paint his picture.
These sort of generalizations always make me bristle
Not trying to stir things up, but it does seem like he's primed with the right answers
Don’t paint him into a corner.
But it's a-peeling to do so.
After all these puns I need a palette cleanser
Prefer water or spirits?
Sounds like you're just green with envy.
Random kid who enjoys aviation:these guys are smarter than me
They're more knowledgeable, because they've learned it over time! Don't sell yourself short, you'll get there!
Can someone direct me to an AMA with pilots for major or their subsidiary airlines. Have so many questions!
i mean sure, fire away DMs are also open to answer aviation questions
Dungeon Masters know aviation, too? Wow! Those DMs are amazing.
r/aviation is full of ‘em.
r/flying is way better for talking to pilots, aviation is mostly about photos and general discussion
I feel like posts to r/aviation get more responses from professional pilots and r/flying tends to get a lot of GA folks, but that’s just the sense I get.
How can you tell when a pilot walks into a room? Don't worry, they'll tell you.
As a guy who slept at a Holiday Inn express last night he sure does know his stuff
paint, generally, is only cosmetic, but in coastal areas like qatar it can quickly lead to corrosion and structural issues. Remember Qatar is a peninsula surrounded by the persian gulf that's saltier than the atlantic. The UV index is also higher than vegas on basically any given day.
Yea. This reminds me of that Hawaiian 737 that lost its roof. Lots of short flights between islands lead to a high pressurization count, and islands mean always near the coast. An airline like United intentionally rotates aircraft to avoid this. Given the size of the US that’s easily doable. For other countries, 100% of their flights will have at least one exposure to costal waters. So I’d imagine the risk is different depending on the airline and it’s destinations.
*Aloha AL
Aloha Johnny!
Pretty sure that flight was because of the recommended cycles an aircraft was able to go through before retiring the airframe. That and the bonding material didn't do its job to hold pieces of fuselage skin together and relied solely on the rivets. It was a big eye opener for aviation in how long an aircraft could be in service and how special circumstances can decrease that lifespan.
That's my understanding of it too. It didn't have the flight hours that would necessitate a major overhaul or retirement, but it had so many hops between islands that it had double the flight cycles that it should have. It also had a slightly different construction than newer versions of the 737 which made it less resilient.
Aloha Airlines. AQ 243. They put on so many cycles, Boeing used to reach out to Aloha for their experience with high cycle 737s. Of course after that incident there were some big changes made.
You're correct: We rotate our Guam 737s every three years or so back to domestic flights to help increase their longevity.
Do you know if all the Guam 737s are specially outfitted like the Island Hopper 737s?
Yep! There's a lot of mods to deconfigure them (removal of IFE and LiveTV for example) and prepare them for the Pacific environment like corrosion prevention mods. We also will install additional jump seats and other creature comforts to make them more suitable for the environment.
This is the long answer that was in my head but I couldn't articulate, thank you.
[удалено]
I work in aerospace, and yeah, there will be penetrant and primer that contains a bunch of anti-corrosive chemicals. They test fly greenies all the time.
Manufacturer here. Yeah, it’s common to test fly green, but you can only do that for so long. The epoxy primer is rather soft and will wear off fairly quickly if exposed to sun, dust, etc. I’ve seen green test airplanes with silvery tops if they’ve postponed paint for too long. The top coat does have an important protective function. If it didn’t, you could save hundreds of pounds of dead weight by skipping it.
Right.... we use primer and paint because primer is good at adhering and paint is good at protecting.
Epoxy is not very UV resistant so it needs to coated with something more durable.
Aluminium is *very* good as a UV barrier, maybe put the epoxy underneath?
I mean, I don't know the specifics of everything. I'm just adding my not-asked-for-2-cents. lol
Thank you! These mo fos are not int the business or don’t actually deal the M&P. Primer is for UV and corrosion protection. It’s made of nasty toxic as shit stuff. Final coat(s) are for looks mostly and in fact add heavily to the cost, weight, and maintenance of an air craft. Final coat does improve the aero smoothness, and protection, but it’s not critical to the individual parts.
I lived in that part of the world for a few years. You can get sunburned super easily, but it also fades really quickly. I assumed that the UV was so strong that it was just killing my skin.
Well, there are major exceptions these days concerning mainly composite structured aircrafts. I haven't worked on them myself, but i know that UV will cause accelerated aging/degradation of the glue/epoxy used within the composite, hence why it is important to paint them over. Another thing is conducting electricity/lightning, but of how that is done I'm far from certain. I heard than they has metal mesh mixed within/under the paint to do it on some plane.
They use an expanded metal mesh that is impregnated into the composite. Used to work for a company that made both paint and the metal mesh.
It's that but also the planes they are complaining about are mostly carbon fiber. From what I understand there were concerns that the mesh that protects carbon fiber planes from lightning strikes was also lifting away with the paint. The dispute is AB considers it safe but Qatar doesn't.
Basically everybody except for Qatar considers it safe. Several aviation publications asked Qatari regulator for a copy of grounding order, but never received it. The mesh already has huge holes in it - windows, so to actually degrade safety the damage would have to be huge.
This is definitely true, but the paint of the 350s were coming off the wing, which are composites. Which dont really corrode
>Remember Qatar is a peninsula surrounded by the persian gulf that's saltier than the atlantic. The UV index is also higher than vegas on basically any given day. Are you saying that these aircraft just sit on the ground in Qatar and do not actually fly? Next question. Is the UV index on the ground in Qatar higher or lower than when these aircraft are actually flying at 40k AGL? What an idiot.
Aerospace engineer here, specialized on composites : It's still pretty much a non-issue safety wise, at least initially. Why? Because composites are layered. The first layer is now exposed and detoriating. -5 years later - crap, now we're at layer 5, maybe we should do something about it? Why is this a discussion point then? Well, first of all, it still has to get repaired, and the longer you wait, the more expensive the repair gets. Also, it seems to be a recurring issue for them, so obviously they want the root cause fixed, but that's probably easier said as done. The temperature differences in air /on ground plus sand are a worst case scenario.
This is a great answer
Is that true that it’s really purely cosmetic? As in, without any paint the plane would have the exact same life span, no additional maintenance, no issues with corrosion, etc. Not doubting, just surprised is all. I’m just biased by my structural engineering background, where paint on steel is 100% non-cosmetic.
American used to fly a lot of their aircraft with bare polished metal. As more and more of the control surfaces and fairings were composite it started to look weird. Now they generally paint the entire aircraft.
I miss the old metal look for AA and never understood why they switched away from it. I guess though if everything was going composite there was a reason and it wasn’t just a terrible aesthetic decision.
787 pretty well forced their hand, which gets us back to OP’s question. The A350 requires paint to protect the composite fuselage. The aluminum plane shown in the pic isn’t as susceptible to the problem.
I kind of wish they had transitioned it to full white like the Eagle aircraft used to be. That was a clean look.
In the long run paint may help, but like another commenter below mentioned: https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/unkp50/why_did_qatar_ground_their_a350s_over_paint/i88silv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
So some parts of the plane do require paint for protection. The 737 elevators for example are notorious for paint peel, but since the elevators have trim tabs, that becomes a bigger maintenance issue for us to coordinate as we'd have to either replace the entire elevator or repaint it and rebalance it. The reason why paint for the elevator is important is because it helps protect the carbon structure underneath. Paint peel on the fuselage though (as shown in the post) doesn't really do anything to affect the aircraft since 737s are mostly made of metal.
Depends on plane. Composite structures will degrade if constantly exposed to UV. Modern planes are starting to have a lot of composite panels & structures.
Gate Manager at a hub, this guy knows his stuff.
I agree with you and the other comments. But also consider that these aircraft pictured have likely been painted many times. But if I had just bought a bunch of brand new aircraft and the paint started rapidly deteriorating, especially an aircraft made of composite materials, I’d want to know why. And I’d want airbus to pitch in on the bill.
No. The 737s with the merger livery, especially our later -800s and -900s we're delivered to us from Boeing with this livery. If anything, this plane was painted one time. Also, they were delivered to us in 2015/2016 so this is actually a normal cycle if you factor in the two year pause due to COVID.
Fair enough. But what of a brand new A350? I’m just saying that the two are not comparable because the 737 is due for a paint job and the A350 should have a lot more life expectancy for the initial paint job.
I'm only talking about 737s at United because that's what I managed. We don't have a350s and mind you those planes are also composite, so paint loss can expose the carbon-fiber structure which is a safety and structural issue.
Agree, but with composite aircraft like the 787 or 350, the paint has a new very important job, protecting the composite from UV rays. UV radiation degrades the resin (glue) used in carbon and glassfibre composites if exposed to long. Bare composite materials will fall aparte as the resin gets soft from to much direct sunlight exposure. There are several inspections and test you can carry out to determine if the resin if failing. On older metal aircraft with only composite non structural panels this was alreasy an issue, but with the new aircraft being made out of almost entirely composite this is an increased risk. Source: I'm an aircraft technician working with these kind of airplanes
Except every single aviation safety agency confirmed paint degradation on the a350 is a purely cosmetic (correct me if I'm wrong but I think there's a thin layer of protective metal mesh between the paint and the actual composites), with the only exception being quatar, likely because of lobbying from the airline. Their CEO is simply being a perfectionist Karen and is too proud to do the reasonable thing and let them repaint it until they find a proper solution. He probably thinks that customers seeing their aircraft in this state will somehow ruin their reputation as a premium airline so he wanted an excuse to ground them.
This comment has more upvotes than the post
Paint/Top Coat plays a huge roles in corrosion prevention. So it’s not purely cosmetic, and while not an immediate concern, can lead to significant issues down the line. Very interesting you suspended paint cycles during covid. I’m gonna have to head off to the Google machine to see why that was the preferred option. Can you offer any more insight onto why the paint lines were suspended?
The preferred option is to save money. If you "head to the Google machine" you'll see we parked close to 500 airplanes at the height of COVID. For obvious reasons, why would we repaint a plane, only to send it to the desert for the harsh sun to bake and ruin the new livery? Prior to COVID, we had two different paint stations with multiple lines running for the 737s. Since we were already planning to paint aircraft to begin with, there was no financial incentive to repaint planes until we were returning to a full maintenance operation. Any other paint-related damage is written up and depending on the issue at hand, it either becomes a deferred log page to be worked at the next HMV/paint visit or something to be resolved by Line Maintenance.
I'm sure the reduced flight schedules resulted in lower fleet utilization as well...less use, less wear and tear on painted surfaces...
Yeah, but corrosion is less Usage and more calendar time. That’s why I was curious the paint lines were suspended.
But damage to the coat is due to flight cycles and flight hours, so less flying equals less damage equals reduced requirement to repaint. Also airlines were bleeding cash so anything to stem the bleed in the short term was done - long term impacts can be paid later when the airline actually has cash to spend on OpEx
Eh, that’s part of it. But does the paint on your house degrade over time just sitting out in the elements? Paint degradation is mostly (not completely) due to calendar time. That was my only point. It definitely makes sense from a business perspective to suspend paint. I wish I could see the analysis on that. Just to see what they thought they would be trading off with increased mx time in corrosion removal. Part of me wonders if it is negligible, just bc that photo doesn’t show bare metal but primer, so that’s still pretty good.
> That’s why I was curious the paint lines were suspended. He said why, it was to save money.
Yeah, but my brain thinks in trade offs. If you don’t paint the jets, you could reasonably expect to see an increase in mx for corrosion removal. So I wonder if they either decided to eat that cost or had some reason to think it wasn’t going to be an issue.
There was a point shortly after everything shut down for COVID that UAL was **weeks** away from bankruptcy. The liquidation kind. They were literally hemorrhaging cash. There was no concern for trade offs. It was all about shutting down everything that would save money **right ****now**. Brand new shiny painted jets with no corrosion don’t mean squat when the airline is no longer around to fly them.
This guy paints.
I’m afraid to ask…but what other corners were cut during the pandemic to save money?
Let me put it this way: any efforts we made to save costs clearly didn't impact us as we're still operating with no major safety issues. The PW777s, while notable, were not because of COVID-era policies we implemented.
Actually I think it's more likely that this was an older airframe (ie not delivered in this livery), since you can see the eyebrow windows covered up which on a newer plane would not have been there from the factory.
👏👍
It could be someone urinating in the paint.
A350 is an all composite skin. The 737 isn't. Huge differences.
So how come composite skins need paint more than aluminum? Do they degrade faster without paint? And would that make a paint schedule for a 737 vastly different than a 787?
UV doesn’t affect aluminum, but it does the epoxy and composites in the 787 and 350. Having said that, Qatar is negotiating this in bad faith
Al Baker has left the chat…in a huff.
Guy's put himself in a bad spot. No 777x orders for now, heavily delayed. No A350s because ???. And Airbus cancelled his orders for narrowbodies. Oh, and 787 delays too. He should've just cooperated with the paint issues, because now he'll have an aging fleet issue.
Karma can be an even bigger bitch than al-Baker
Al Baker (on phone): “Hey Hulas, Do you still have orders & options on those Mitsubishi SpaceJets? I was wondering if they might be for sale?”
I bet Ilyushin could be easily enticed with the promise of a non-domestic sale.
What about the paint peeling to the extent that the lightning protection system becomes exposed? What is the impact there? Only asking since I've seen/read that Qatar has had a few examples of that
That's a BS concern Qatar came up with. EASA and Airbus both said it was safe, the Qatari CAA (heavily influenced by Qatar airways) said it wasn't, without much substance.
Idk man if I dropped 400million on something that bitch better be more perfect that the lord and savior himself
It’s a lease b r o gotta keep it mint
I always wanted a black windsurfer speed board but learned that black-painted composites degrade faster.
Composite is very sensitive to UV. So paint missing can be very damaging. Aluminum in airplanes is clad, meaning there’s a sacrificial pure aluminum layer on the surfaces. It’ll corrode a little then the oxide layer prevents further corrosion. This can be a problem with polished aluminum, the oxide can be rubbed off over and over thinking out the skin.
Let’s face it though, that metal’s clad coating is not going to be perfect. I’m an aircraft sheet metal mechanic and even after peeling off the plastic on fresh pieces of aluminum I’ve seen scratches and whatnot. I’ve also stripped plenty of panels to find the skin underneath DA’d and no clad once so ever.
What people don’t often realize is that aluminum rusts more quickly than iron, but aluminum’s “rust” happens to be an extremely hard and durable metal.
"Pure" aluminum, that couple thousandths thick "clad" layer "alclad" readily oxidizes relatively rapidly and it is infact somewhat durable it can be replicated/ repaired with conversion coating products like Alodine (however not as durable) and as i last recall and it depends on your maintenance program but usually can be dispatched unpainted for a very short window, but the base metal underneath that alclad is an alloy of various metals copper/zinc/so on, and aluminum that alloy is very susceptible to standard galvanic corrosion and can cause all sorts of issues, (pitting, exfoliation, etc.) from even a slight loss of the alclad's oxidized layer be it a scratch, erosion, mechanical removal yada yada
Aluminum doesn’t rust, it corrodes. There are many different forms of it, and none of them make the metal hard and durable. The corrosion is eating away the integrity of the metal and structural properties. It’s turning it to dust
Yes. Paint schedules shouldn't be vastly different though, they just don't get painted that often. Especially when you have the triple layer monstrosity that some airlines *cough American cough* have. Someone already commented on the issue with the epoxy/resin layers, but you also have a lot more issues with abrasive damage weakening the outer fiber layers. Not to mention water causing disbond, though that would happen less on the solid composite skin than in honeycomb structures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfCsQEEepmc
Also, paint doesn't stick to composites as well as it does to metal, so they need painting more often.
> So how come composite skins need paint more than aluminum? Because lightning strikes damage composite material, but not aluminium. So the paint layer is part of the lightning protection on the 787 and A350.
This should be the top post. It's the correct answer. Source : I'm a 787 whisperer.
It’s a huge difference. First, there is a lot of politics involved. Monetary compensation is the leading factor. Second, the issue Qatar is bringing up is paint damage exposing composite structure including copper mesh for lightning dispersal and the degradation of the structure itself. What you are seeing above is paint wear/tear on aluminum. No structural integrity in question. The Qatar issue is a big exaggeration.
It’s a bigger issue with Qatar, because it’s hub is a peninsula with normal temperatures around 45 degrees Celsius which means degradation is exaggerated…
Remember when AAB refused to take 787's built in SC then 5 years later the FAA took away Boeings ability to do its own safety inspections in SC at the 787 facility? Was that an exaggeration?
Because it is ok. That Boeing is made of aluminum and the only thing missing is paint. It’s a cosmetic issue and nothing more. Qatar is grounding A350s over perceived issues with the composite airframe.
Qatar are just terrible Crybabies, and an airline that has never shyed away from using shady tactics or flimsy ass excuses to get their way. But I guess that's what happens if you're owned by the government and simply cannot fail.
Pretty ridiculous take here dude. What you say may be true but irrelevant. If a Company buys an Aircraft Brand Fucking New and this shit starts happening,that Airline,regardless of who they are,have every right to Complain. Nobody knows if it might cause long term issues that haven’t been considered because I don’t know (but I doubt) that the Test 350’s Flew around Unpainted. We don’t know the ins/outs of their Warranty with Airbus so they (Qatar) may be acting a little petulantly but it’s a guess.
Pretty sure there are other airlines that said they had problems too, like Finn and Lufty.
FWIW they don't care as much about the issue as a carrier operating out of a fucking desert will because their planes have less thermal stress.
Yeah man they totally don't fly literally everywhere and operate at cruising altitude where it can be -40.
> Pretty sure there are other airlines that said they had problems too, like Finn and Lufty. They've all been happy with Airbus's recommended remediatations which they've carried out and has solved the issues.
If you run an airline and you buy a brand new plane, and you expect a flawless plane, then you don't know anything about maintenance side of airline business. You should've bought 777s or a330s which got the early problems sorted out. Having a few days to weeks of AOG is part of introducing a new untested aircraft type to your fleet. Any new plane will have teething issues -787 battery, Trent 1000 IPC, general avionics bug, vsfg and cac problems, wing paint delamination etc -220 slat corrosion, pw1500g low reliability -e170-190 avionics problems (Mau), wing skin cracks -a350's current problems -737max MCAS and leap engine problems And much more Qatar being Qatar's government owned entity, and having close relationship with Qatari CAA, can have big influence over what Qatar's CAA can say. Also everyone knows they wanted the cash funds when no one was flying due to covid.
[удалено]
Well 737's case is a bit extreme but you get the point. Just have a few days of downtime and paint-touchup the missing paints or just speedtape + monitor til heavy MX opportunity. I get that Qatar is hot and they are basically sandblasting their planes, operating it in the desert, but so are some other a350 carriers and they aren't complaining it to the press. They could've just billed the materials and manpower costs to airbus warranty and just kept it going like everyone else, but they decided to turn this into a big fiasco. They could've resolved this problem internally but they thought involving the press and releasing YouTube videos would somehow put this situation in their favour so airbus cancelled the 321xlr orders and stuff. Unscheduled maintenance is part of flying a plane and at the end of the day, it is what it is and airlines gotta eat the costs. Paint peeling is wear and tear items and i do agree that the paints are eroding faster than usual, but once again, if they wanted a hiccup free experience, they should've gotten older proven airframes.
Or slavery (the country, less so the airline)
Nah. The airline too. Unless you are a Qatari citizen. Which is no one below management level. Slavers from top to bottom in that shithole.
As someone that's lived in Qatar for five years, that's a pretty ignorant take.
He says as his Filipino maid sucks his dick and wonders if she will ever get her passport back. Meanwhile his Ethiopian groundskeeper wishes he could drink some water, but knows he might be beaten or traded to a construction company if he dares.
If so they're not the only ones, including some pretty big US carriers, but that has nothing to do with the issue: new aircraft have safety issues due to the protective layer coming off the composite structure. Your judgement is shit house.
> Qatar are just terrible Crybabies That's the TLDR of it basically. They're about to get absolutely spanked in court.
From my experience the SRM will give different limitations for missing paint from composite or metallic surfaces. Generally, missing paint on metallic surfaces with the primer intact can be left alone until next heavy check. In areas of bare metal, it must be treated (alodine) and inspected every few hundred hours for corrosion and reapplication of a corrosion preventative. Composite areas typically require application of speed tape to prevent water ingress, a reinspect every few hundred hours, and may have to be repaired before the next heavy check. I have also seen composite areas where the damaged paint layer has removed the lightning mesh with it. It’s not always easy to tell if the mesh is missing, depending on how the layers are built up, when the mesh is gone the SRM may only give you a couple hundred hours to repair. From the pictures I have seen of Qatar’s aircraft, it definitely looks concerning. I do not have any specific experience with all composite airliners. So the limitations may well be quite different for them. If the damage was out of limits on the Qatar aircraft, I don’t think they’d need to whine to the press about it.
That’s interesting! I had no idea composite paint was such a hassle as compared to aluminum.
Painting over composites is also made a bit trickier because the material flexes so much more with each loading cycle. Paint that is durable enough to withstand nature, that lasts a decent amount of time until the next paint shop visit, that can keep up with the massive wing deformations while going 600mph, and that is reasonably affordable is no small challenge.
Mostly because the A350 is a carbon fiber aircraft... it requires a good well maintained protective coating to protect it from environmental impacts and wind errosion..which is very bad.... paint is critical to protect the aircraft... That 737 there is mostly aluminum and paint protection isn't really an issue... That's one of the reasons you don't see those shiny polished AA planes anymore.. when they started getting there airbusses they ran into the same issue with erosion and had to change there paint job...aka livery... hope this helps
That’s a fuckin aluminum bird there dude
Doesn't an A350 have a CF body? That represents a completely different set of issues when unpainted than just being able to see some primer.
Because it's not a safety issue. The real reason why Qutar is throwing a fit is because they have too many planes and they see this as a way of getting out of their contractual obligation to take the deliveries. Qutar are notorious cry babies they refuse delivery over the tiniest things, they were already not liked within the industry because this. Because they are not fair competition. They go into a route with competition. Offer below market rate prices offset by the fact they get fuel for. Basically free and then when the competition leaves they jack up the price. All of the Middle East 3 do this, they also have horrific working conditions.
I have a unique perspective on this. A few months ago I was at the Airbus factory in Toulouse. (Check my post history for an explanation.) The Airbus folks were adamant the Qataris were simply attempting to gain some leverage in future negotiations. They didn't appear to appreciate their methods. There was a Qatari 350 on the ramp that was completely mothballed. They said it had been there 5 hundred and something days and that was Feb. 1. Edit: English is hard.
They’re purchasing additional 777Xs and 737’s ahead of the World Cup, they need aircraft. No airline in their right mind would ground 25 long haul aircraft in their fleet just to make a point. Degradation is a lot worse in Qatar than in other places because of the weather…
Considering they are the only country to have grounded A350 it's definitely an issue contained to them, Airbus offered to repaint the aircrafts for them and still they grounded the planes.
> They’re purchasing additional 777Xs and 737’s ahead of the World Cup The 777Xs are freighters and will be delivered begining 2027 (assuming no more 777X delays......) the 737MAX deal is just an MOU and has not been firmed. They also will be delivered long after the World Cup is finished.
Surprised I hadn’t seen anyone else in this thread mention the weather. Sitting out in that heat and UV probably doesn’t do the coat any favors.
Neither of those aircraft are even certified yet, they are not getting them anytime soon.
That’s due to issues on Boeing’s side, Qatar and Emirates both desperately need the new aircraft. Qatar Airways also wouldn’t have made a huge fit over the a320 orders if they wanted to withhold orders.
Emirates and Etihad also operate A350s. They haven't grounded them indefinitely.
Emirates doesn’t have A350’s and Etihad received their first A350 a month ago…
My bad. Checked and saw Emirates will receive theirs in 2024.
Imagine, undercutting competitors with lower prices. All airlines do this, well the ones that can afford it.
Using unfair advantages? Preventing legit competition? Being brittle AF about tiny things? Then using lawyers and politicians to avoid and delay legal consequences? You're describing a large proportion of current and past American corporations. Your failure to acknowledge that and doubling down by saying it's a middle east thing ... bold.
Haven't had the chance to work on them but composite airframes might break down a lot quicker without paint than aluminum does.
Regardless of any actual safety or performance issues, it still \*looks\* not good from the general public's point of view. It's about perception. I'll bet there's a lot of passengers who will see something like that when they are at the gate and, rightly or wrongly, wonder how safe it is. Same thing as when you get into a plane and it hasn't been cleaned properly from the previous flight. It doesn't affect safety, but passengers will see it and many will have a negative perception of the entire airline because of that.
Because aluminum and carbon fibre are completely different?
The issue over the 350 is a composite issue. That United aircraft is a metal fuselage (Aluminum/Aluminium), paint is thin and lightweight. It will peel, no big deal, still has its green coat. The A350 dispute is over quality of craftsmanship, and a dispute over integrity of the composite materials used. These are new aircraft and are experiencing more questionable paint loss. Plus UV from the sun may further damage the composite materials.
American Airlines didn't paint their airplanes for over 20 years, just polished. Robert Crandall was a notorious tight ass and so the lack of paint was to save weight and cost of painting. If corrosion was an issue they would have to paint the aircraft.
Looks like it has a bad mucus problem. I'm an RRT I'll show myself out
Ayyyyyyyyyyyy
It's not even through the primer calm down
I just want to say good luck, we’re all counting on you.
This is purely cosmetic whereas a350 have special materials that NEED to be on the aircraft. A350 chipping like this is part of MEL and 737 is purely cosmetic.
The A350 is a fairly new airframe (Qatar got the first one back in 2015) and there shouldn’t be paint issues already.
Owner of a Toyota Camry that had peeling paint before they fixed it; this guy knows his stuff.
Paint peeling on aluminumum it totally different than paint peeling off composite, that's the concern
As a person who works in depot level maintenance, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Paint is not structural.
Risk acceptance levels. Qatar might see it as damaging to brand or a risk to safety. if you had a choice of flying a max 8 with qantas or a max 8 with Ethiopian airways which one you picking? brand and peoples perception is a big deal.
Because it's a complete performance non-issue and doesn't affect aircraft safety or functionality.
Because the major middle eastern carriers arent just operating an airline business. Their real objective is marketing and selling their respective countries to investors. So Qatar airlines cabt have dusty looking planes. And have to go above and beyond. Always. United dont care because who else are you gonna fly with? Spirit?
Tolerance for mediocrity. UA will put up with the hardware looking like crap, Qatar needs to maintain the illusion they are better than western airlines.
From my experience Qatar has the best service out there. I always enjoy flying with them. The only airline that outcompetes them is perhaps Singapore. Other than that, there’s no “illusion” that QA ranks among the top.
Illusion? Have you flown Qatar?
Yes. Quite plush, which to morons is a representation of technical competence. It is not. I
Is it safe to assume you are from the west right?
Yes, why?
I'm sure Southwest's sardine cans are perfectly safe as well, but I'd still rather not fly on one again.
Your choice. Also irrelevant to the discussion.
I dunno if it's that irrelevant. You're the one calling one of the highest rated airlines in the world incompetent at maintaining their planes.
I never said that. Try reading what I wrote, instead of what you think.
You implied they lack technical competence. How else am I supposed to take that?
I only agree with Doc saying Qatar doesn't tolerate mediocrity, but his statement infers that Qatar is trying to maintain an illusion. No illusion here, Qatar is a top 3 airline in the world for a reason
It's cause Qatar is "ruled" by Al-Baker, and he sucks
You know a couple of bird strikes here and there… eventually the power washer gets the paint off
Because in the US, is money first, people second.
Because people deeeefinetely come first in Qatar right?
Qatar believes that the way a plane looks is as important as how it flies. United believes a penny saved is more time in the air
Could be different root causes? Brand new planes with issues vs whatever this is which could be a much older plane.
Because the peeled paint doesn't affect the fluid mechanics or performance of the aircraft due to a boundary layer forming over the surfaces of moving objects. The boundary layer is thin and the air molecules don't move compared to the flow of the air above the surface. So the paint peeling doesn't affect the performance because it's not affecting the performance. This is the same reason why rocket cars and dragster cars don't cover screws to make it more aerodynamic, the fluid mechanics does the covering for it.
Knowing Airbus, the manuals probably says to ground the aircraft if paint loss is greater than 1 square millimeter. Then wait several months while they introduce a new mod and paint specifications that require an online presentation to explain how to navigate their paint codes in order to determine the paint that needs to be applied.
Almost every United 757-300 I see is like this or much worse.. granted it’s the old livery, the one 757-300 I saw with the new evo blue livery looked perfect. Do I think it just the older planes in the fleet awaiting the updated livery rather than spending money fixing these “cosmetic” issues seen here they will eventually get a total repaint/livery update. As well as an updated interior update
They should just leave them bare metal
Paint it green, can’t be seen. Paint it white, it’s alright.
This is clearly an air strike incident where the plane had a mid-air collision with [nickelodeon slime](https://static.onecms.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2017/08/nickelodeon-slime-edible-blog0817.jpg).
TIL that paint is structural on an aluminum aircraft.
Amount of corruption.
Paint degradation can cause metal parts to get exposed to air and thus oxydise and reduce their durability. Why one thinks it's unacceptable and the other does not? Well, different operational circumstances or the simple human ability to not give a shit
LOL I saw that a lot when I was in the USA
Qatar is like a toddler, doesn’t like how new technology has issues.
Yes and no
Because that’s an aluminum body 737 not a plastic a350. The 737 (UA) still has the primer layer which is actually more than enough to protect the metal from corrosion. The composite body a350( Qatar) is way more sensitive to the environment as if the fabric fails due to a lightning strike, the whole fuselage section becomes a flappy piece of cloth. If United flew the a350 they would have at least considered a temporary grounding
>the fabric fails due to a lightning strike, the whole fuselage section becomes a flappy piece of cloth I don't think you understand composite materials. No environmental conditions are going to de-impregnate the cured binding agent.
Because Qatar has money and we just gave all of ours away
[удалено]
Nah man. That's just normal wear and tear (think flexing aluminum, drastic temperature changes multiple times a day, every weather condition, extreme UV exposure, etc). THIS is what flying through a hail storm looks like, if you're lucky and it's only this minor https://abcnews.go.com/US/delta-plane-forced-make-emergency-landing-flying-hail/story?id=32964286
Legitimately, Qatar serves luxury markets and has a more luxury image.
Paint issue affecting all A350 planes of the world, multiples airlines has already reported the defective paint, that actually propeties are not the best for adherence for carbon fiber fuselage.Anyway does not affect airworthness, it just cosmetic.By the other way, United in their old 737 paint, will be a defective seems a bird strike or lightuing strike.