Boof02671 wrote:

Independent legal assessment is not arbitration.

And I do believe an independent legal assessment would be the opinion of whomever is giving them their assessment.

I’ve prepared attended and presented arbitration cases in the airline industry over Collective Bargaining Agreements, and not once did anyone ever call it “independent legal assessment”.

The legal assessment is performed by an arbitral tribunal, they cost about €30,000, it is done in larger cases. Each party is represented in the tribunal and it is assessed by one arbitrator instead of 3 arbitrators under full arbitration. The legal assessment gives both parties clarity on the issues and the direction full arbitration would likely decide, however is not as legally enforceable.

If parties cannot agree to the assessment, the next step is full arbitration which then is legally enforceable, that process would probably be more like €500,000 for each side.

This process is used in commercial contracts, I have never had to deal with industrial relations like you have so I don’t know how that process works.

zeke wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

Independent legal assessment is not arbitration.

And I do believe an independent legal assessment would be the opinion of whomever is giving them their assessment.

I’ve prepared attended and presented arbitration cases in the airline industry over Collective Bargaining Agreements, and not once did anyone ever call it “independent legal assessment”.

The legal assessment is performed by an arbitral tribunal, they cost about €30,000, it is done in larger cases. Each party is represented in the tribunal and it is assessed by one arbitrator instead of 3 arbitrators under full arbitration. The legal assessment gives both parties clarity on the issues and the direction full arbitration would likely decide, however is not as legally enforceable.

If parties cannot agree to the assessment, the next step is full arbitration which then is legally enforceable, that process would probably be more like €500,000 for each side.

This process is used in commercial contracts, I have never had to deal with industrial relations like you have so I don’t know how that process works.

What you just described is regular arbitration in the workplace for unionized workforces.

One company member, one union member and the independent arbiter.

zeke wrote:

The legal assessment is performed by an arbitral tribunal, they cost about €30,000, it is done in larger cases. Each party is represented in the tribunal and it is assessed by one arbitrator instead of 3 arbitrators under full arbitration. The legal assessment gives both parties clarity on the issues and the direction full arbitration would likely decide, however is not as legally enforceable.

If parties cannot agree to the assessment, the next step is full arbitration which then is legally enforceable, that process would probably be more like €500,000 for each side.

This process is used in commercial contracts, I have never had to deal with industrial relations like you have so I don’t know how that process works.

So is this arbitrial tribunal set up by only one party in the dispute without the input of the other party? If Airbus has set up this tribunal how are they going to obligate QR to send a representative, since it has only one abitrator presumably paid by Airbus, what would QR expect if they choose to send a representative? I would think they would prefer to the full 9 yards since they would have an input on 2 of the 3 judges on the panel versus none on the Airbus tribunal.

par13del wrote:

So is this arbitrial tribunal set up by only one party in the dispute without the input of the other party? If Airbus has set up this tribunal how are they going to obligate QR to send a representative, since it has only one abitrator presumably paid by Airbus, what would QR expect if they choose to send a representative? I would think they would prefer to the full 9 yards since they would have an input on 2 of the 3 judges on the panel versus none on the Airbus tribunal.

No this is all done via 3rd party organisation, each party pay their own fees. Each party has their own representative.

The arbitrator is assigned by the organisation.

par13del wrote:

zeke wrote:

The legal assessment is performed by an arbitral tribunal, they cost about €30,000, it is done in larger cases. Each party is represented in the tribunal and it is assessed by one arbitrator instead of 3 arbitrators under full arbitration. The legal assessment gives both parties clarity on the issues and the direction full arbitration would likely decide, however is not as legally enforceable.

If parties cannot agree to the assessment, the next step is full arbitration which then is legally enforceable, that process would probably be more like €500,000 for each side.

This process is used in commercial contracts, I have never had to deal with industrial relations like you have so I don’t know how that process works.

So is this arbitrial tribunal set up by only one party in the dispute without the input of the other party? If Airbus has set up this tribunal how are they going to obligate QR to send a representative, since it has only one abitrator presumably paid by Airbus, what would QR expect if they choose to send a representative? I would think they would prefer to the full 9 yards since they would have an input on 2 of the 3 judges on the panel versus none on the Airbus tribunal.

The party asking for the initial arbitration usually pays for the arbiter unless that has been previously contractually negotiated. It should have zero influence on the arbiter's decision making process. If the parties cannot agree to the initial arbitration it goes to a full arbitration panel. Both parties generally split the cost of a full arbitration unless previously contractually negotiated. Both parties must pay for their own legal representation.

I have been to several arbitration proceedings. They were not related to commercial aviation, however I can say in two of the three proceedings I attended the buyer, not the seller prevailed. That is why I was somewhat surprised when an earlier poster claimed arbitration proceedings are typically biased against the buyer and favor the seller. That is not the case in my experience.

I will say again, I have no idea how this case will go. As Spock would say, "insufficient data.".

ElroyJetson wrote:

I have been to several arbitration proceedings. They were not related to commercial aviation, however I can say in two of the three proceedings I attended the buyer, not the seller prevailed. That is why I was somewhat surprised when an earlier poster claimed arbitration proceedings are typically biased against the buyer and favor the seller. That is not the case in my experience.

And I think it will be in this case also, Airbus had offered a number of things, which were not taken up. I would wager very strongly that Airbus will be required to undertake or pay for rectification, there is no chance in my view that they will have to do nothing.

However at the end of it, both parties get heard in an independent forum in front of fresh eyes, and find a get a solution which in the 3rd patties view is fair and reasonable for both sides.

Both sides win, both sides loose.

zeke wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I have been to several arbitration proceedings. They were not related to commercial aviation, however I can say in two of the three proceedings I attended the buyer, not the seller prevailed. That is why I was somewhat surprised when an earlier poster claimed arbitration proceedings are typically biased against the buyer and favor the seller. That is not the case in my experience.

And I think it will be in this case also, Airbus had offered a number of things, which were not taken up. I would wager very strongly that Airbus will be required to undertake or pay for rectification, there is no chance in my view that they will have to do nothing.

However at the end of it, both parties get heard in an independent forum in front of fresh eyes, and find a get a solution which in the 3rd patties view is fair and reasonable for both sides.

Both sides win, both sides loose.

I agree. And at this point, with more information out, I believe I can see this situation from both perspectives. The OEM has been publicly embarrassed, likely as a strong arm move to extract more leverage and money from them, while the airline feels the product they bought and were a launch customer for is not up to standard.

Neither has handled the situation well at times. It has become public which makes both parties look bad, and now money, prestige, and possibly egos are involved. Barring a miracle, an independent arbiter is probably the best avenue for resolution.

I would say any efforts Airbus has made at remediation, and I am sure there have been many offers made to QR, should help Airbus in any legal proceeding. The Law, either Civil or Criminal, seeks a just remedy to parties in conflict. If Airbus has acted in good faith to address QR's concerns, that should be strongly taken into consideration. QR may not be in as strong a position as they might think. Beyond that it will come down to specific contractual terms between the parties. Having no knowledge of the contract, I have no idea how it will play out.

Qatar Airways says they expect to ground more A350’s and are currently looking at leasing a number of aircraft to cover the grounded aircraft

AAB goes saying that he doesn’t know how they can work with Airbus again, says Airbus doesn’t care about its customers only it’s bottom line

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/tra ... a350s-over

This is getting more serious. As a significant shareholder in IAG and CX, Qatar can exert its influence over their purchasing decisions as well as those of QR.

AAB said earlier that this issue would have "industrial ramifications" at Airbus. No wonder Airbus are wanting to resolve this soon. I expect them to trigger binding arbitration (assuming that option is available to them) if and when their legal review gives them comfort that a mutually acceptable solution is achievable.

This seems to be a more recent quote from EASA:

"In a new statement, EASA is backing the Airbus view. “Airbus has identified the root causes of the paint issue. Paint process have been further optimized and additional enhancement initiatives have been launched in accordance with these findings,” an EASA spokesperson stated. “We are in contact with Airbus on the matter and are aware that the root-cause analysis has not identified any safety issue that would have an impact on the continuing airworthiness of the affected aircraft.”

It also gives some more detail about the various layers on top of the structural composite, which tallies with many of the statements in this thread - though the number of layers is greater than I realised:

"The A350 paint system consists of multiple layers that cover the carbon fiber structure and the ECF on top of it. The first layers are the so-called basic primers—all of which are applied before final assembly of the aircraft. Several more are added after final assembly in the paint shop: an adhesion promotor, an external primer, intermediate coat, the basecoats and the clearcoat.

The important learning for Airbus from all the troubles is that the way paint is applied to an aircraft has to differ greatly depending on whether the fuselage is made of metal or composites. The A350 is Airbus’ first aircraft that has an (almost) all-composite fuselage. Aircraft are exposed to very high temperature differences, leading materials to expand and contract substantially. As Airbus found out, it gets vastly more complicated when different materials don’t react in the same way. And that is exactly what appears to be happening on the A350: the carbon structure essentially does not expand at all; its so-called thermal expansion ratio is 1. For the titanium fasteners, the ratio is 10. For the ECF, it varies between 15 and 40. And for the primer and paint, it is between 30 and 40.

Airbus says that the “thermal cycling”—many times going from hot to cold and expansion to contraction—can lead to early surface wear and even expose the ECF, which then gets damaged further with no paint protection. One reason why the problem has been so significant for Qatar Airways is that its aircraft are exposed to particularly large temperature variations between cruise flight and time on the ground in the Gulf summer."

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... -got-worse

Interesting. Let's see if they will dump Airbus. Paying all penalties and using only Boeing planes. Or it's just barking.

I recall that President Macron visited the Middle East just a week or 2 ago, and included a stop in Doha. There was an earlier post in this thread saying that he would raise this problem with his opposite number in Doha

Does anyone have any awareness of the outcome of that discussion that they can share with us here?

I am absolutely gobsmacked by the words attributed to AAB in the article linked in QF789's post of 1 hour ago, unable to comprehend how a commercial relationship between 2 corporates can get to this state

Edited to remove typo

How come the B787 doesn't suffer in the same way - or does it? Seem to me as if AAB is backing himself into a corner that he really would not want to be in, given the 787's chequered history.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

This seems to be a more recent quote from EASA:

"In a new statement, EASA is backing the Airbus view. “Airbus has identified the root causes of the paint issue. Paint process have been further optimized and additional enhancement initiatives have been launched in accordance with these findings,” an EASA spokesperson stated. “We are in contact with Airbus on the matter and are aware that the root-cause analysis has not identified any safety issue that would have an impact on the continuing airworthiness of the affected aircraft.”

It also gives some more detail about the various layers on top of the structural composite, which tallies with many of the statements in this thread - though the number of layers is greater than I realised:

"The A350 paint system consists of multiple layers that cover the carbon fiber structure and the ECF on top of it. The first layers are the so-called basic primers—all of which are applied before final assembly of the aircraft. Several more are added after final assembly in the paint shop: an adhesion promotor, an external primer, intermediate coat, the basecoats and the clearcoat.

The important learning for Airbus from all the troubles is that the way paint is applied to an aircraft has to differ greatly depending on whether the fuselage is made of metal or composites. The A350 is Airbus’ first aircraft that has an (almost) all-composite fuselage. Aircraft are exposed to very high temperature differences, leading materials to expand and contract substantially. As Airbus found out, it gets vastly more complicated when different materials don’t react in the same way. And that is exactly what appears to be happening on the A350: the carbon structure essentially does not expand at all; its so-called thermal expansion ratio is 1. For the titanium fasteners, the ratio is 10. For the ECF, it varies between 15 and 40. And for the primer and paint, it is between 30 and 40.

Airbus says that the “thermal cycling”—many times going from hot to cold and expansion to contraction—can lead to early surface wear and even expose the ECF, which then gets damaged further with no paint protection. One reason why the problem has been so significant for Qatar Airways is that its aircraft are exposed to particularly large temperature variations between cruise flight and time on the ground in the Gulf summer."

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... -got-worse

That jives with the diagram shown upthread. The ECF sits on top of the primary CFRP structure, and the matrix that holds the ECF in place is applied as part of the coatings process.
That does suggest that the basic integrity of the primary structure is not fundamentally compromised - at least not initially.

But what puzzles me is that huge sections of A380 including the whole tailcone and assembly were CFRP, and must have had lightning protection.
I would have thought Airbus had enough knowledge to go through the TRL/MRL process with some confidence on this aspect of the design.

Rgds

DartHerald wrote:

How come the B787 doesn't suffer in the same way - or does it? Seem to me as if AAB is backing himself into a corner that he really would not want to be in, given the 787's chequered history.

For what it’s worth, AAB recently compared the 787 and A350 and was clear that QR was less concerned and more comfortable with the 787.

DartHerald wrote:

How come the B787 doesn't suffer in the same way - or does it?

Of the item listed, the only difference between the A350 and the 777 empenage, which is composite and have been flying for around 30 years is the lightning strike mesh. As noted above, there is a differnce in the type of mesh involved. I suspect even on the A350, they are using different type of mesh in different area.

There may be a difference also in the epoxy system but I suspect that variation is small compared to the expansion of the mesh.

astuteman wrote:

huge sections of A380 including the whole tailcone and assembly were CFRP, and must have had lightning protection.

The tail cone is not primary structure, so perhaps itis designed to take the damage and can be replaced or repaired after landing.

Now if you ask me if/why the 777 tail does not have lightning mesh either? I won't venture to guess.

bt

So now with the latest statement from EASA the QR issue is officially - as far as EASA & Airbus is concerned - a paint issue?

Boof02671 wrote:

If they were taking it arbitration they would say so and serve notice on QR.

As above, QR has "triggering the conflict resolution provisions in the sale contract" which is akin to serving notice on Airbus, according to an Airbus EVP who is being directly quoted by Bloomberg which is a very reliable source.

This flips the narrative that many here have been projecting in that it is QR is instigating the push towards arbitration and it is Airbus who is out getting their "independent legal analysis" in response to prepare for arbitration.

qf789 wrote:

Qatar Airways says they expect to ground more A350’s and are currently looking at leasing a number of aircraft to cover the grounded aircraft

AAB goes saying that he doesn’t know how they can work with Airbus again, says Airbus doesn’t care about its customers only it’s bottom line

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/tra ... a350s-over

Did they speak to any other airlines or the manufacturer to see if “Airbus doesn’t care about its customers only it’s bottom line”. What made AAB the spokesperson for all customers ?

I don’t think the author of that article would gain any recognition from their industry peers for objective, balanced, investigative journalism. They have a long history of posting information “leaked” by airlines as news.

Revelation wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

If they were taking it arbitration they would say so and serve notice on QR.

As above, QR has "triggering the conflict resolution provisions in the sale contract" which is akin to serving notice on Airbus, according to an Airbus EVP who is being directly quoted by Bloomberg which is a very reliable source.

This flips the narrative that many here have been projecting in that it is QR is instigating the push towards arbitration and it is Airbus who is out getting their "independent legal analysis" in response to prepare for arbitration.

Honestly, I think you read this wrong, as this article says the other way around:
[quote]Airbus (AIR.PA) dramatically raised the stakes in a dispute with Qatar Airways over skin flaws on A350 jetliners on Thursday, accusing the Gulf carrier of misrepresenting the problem as a safety issue and calling for independent legal advice.[quote].

When a customer is dragging a provider's name in the dirt publicly, this is considered, by the vendor, as "triggering the conflict resolution provisions in the contract sales".
You do not need to go legal to trigger such provision; you can do so by lambasting the other party's name publicly and the latter will do what it takes to protect their brand and reputation.

zeke wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Qatar Airways says they expect to ground more A350’s and are currently looking at leasing a number of aircraft to cover the grounded aircraft

AAB goes saying that he doesn’t know how they can work with Airbus again, says Airbus doesn’t care about its customers only it’s bottom line

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/tra ... a350s-over

Did they speak to any other airlines or the manufacturer to see if “Airbus doesn’t care about its customers only it’s bottom line”. What made AAB the spokesperson for all customers ?

Yes they did:

Airbus told the Post it had no further comments on the matter beyond its statement last week.

Just because Airbus refused to comment or add more doesn’t mean the paper shouldn’t post Al Baker’s.

A lot of information about the OEM products/sales/etc (both Airbus and Boeing) start out as leaks from customers to journalists. That’s a negotiation tactic.

par13del wrote:

So now with the latest statement from EASA the QR issue is officially - as far as EASA & Airbus is concerned - a paint issue?

Yeah, quite the disconnect. The EASA talks about multiple layers up from the composite, which include many substances other than just paint, and dubs it all a "paint system.". I wasn't aware copper mesh used for lightning protection was a component of paint, but according to the EASA it is. Go figure.

Regardless, as a number of people in this thread have speculated, thermal expansion and contraction is the root cause of the problem. Airbus says they have a solution. My questions are will they retroactively fix the problem for all of their existIng A350 customers, and is the issue with QR definitely going to arbitration?

par13del wrote:

So now with the latest statement from EASA the QR issue is officially - as far as EASA & Airbus is concerned - a paint issue?

That depends on how you parse the following statement:

Airbus says that the “thermal cycling”—many times going from hot to cold and expansion to contraction—can lead to early surface wear and even expose the ECF, which then gets damaged further with no paint protection.

To me it's saying the inability of the "paint system" to deal with thermal expansion is the cause and both "surface wear" and "exposed ECF" are the effects, and all are part of the "issue".

If you look at it from the Airbus/EASA side, it has always been a paint issue, for QR it has been a surface degradation issue.

Polot wrote:

Just because Airbus refused to comment or add more doesn’t mean the paper shouldn’t post Al Baker’s.

A lot of information about the OEM products/sales/etc (both Airbus and Boeing) start out as leaks from customers to journalists. That’s a negotiation tactic.

Danny is not known for posting those sort of leaks, he is known for posting controlled oped statements from management.

ElroyJetson wrote:

par13del wrote:

So now with the latest statement from EASA the QR issue is officially - as far as EASA & Airbus is concerned - a paint issue?

Yeah, quite the disconnect. The EASA talks about multiple layers up from the composite, which include many substances other than just paint, and dubs it all a "paint system.". I wasn't aware copper mesh used for lightning protection was a component of paint, but according to the EASA it is. Go figure.

Regardless, as a number of people in this thread have speculated, thermal expansion and contraction is the root cause of the problem. Airbus says they have a solution. My questions are will they retroactively fix the problem for all of their existIng A350 customers, and is the issue with QR definitely going to arbitration?

Probably they'll stop the production and send all planes to the desert.

ElroyJetson wrote:

The EASA talks about multiple layers up from the composite, which include many substances other than just paint, and dubs it all a "paint system.". I wasn't aware copper mesh used for lightning protection was a component of paint, but according to the EASA it is. Go figure.

You should be aware as I have directly replied to you about this earlier in this thread providing a link to the UAE CAA document and the definition of paint and what is involved in painting composite aircraft. That document has been around long before the A350 and talks about filling and sanding prior to application of the epoxy sealant and polyurethane paint.

To be clear, the method of protection depends on the individual component, the wings and fuselage are different to a control surface or a high lift device. An assumption for example that the construction of a control surface with a bonded static discharger is the representative of a fuselage or wing construction is not factual.

qf789 wrote:

Qatar Airways says they expect to ground more A350’s and are currently looking at leasing a number of aircraft to cover the grounded aircraft

AAB goes saying that he doesn’t know how they can work with Airbus again, says Airbus doesn’t care about its customers only it’s bottom line

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/tra ... a350s-over

Looks like we're up to 21 grounded A350s with more expected.

The rhetoric is only increasing:

“With Airbus, the damage is very severe. I don’t know how we will be able to work with them again.”
...
He also called on Airbus to “come out and admit” there were manufacturing issues behind the problems, and to fix them itself.

“There should be a permanent repair that [the] regulator … is satisfied with,” he said.

“I was looking very positively at freighters. But they have destroyed that relationship,” Al Baker said. “I don’t think that they will ever get a single size of order that we would have placed for the freighter.”

He added: “How would you expect me to ever do business again with a company that doesn’t care about the customer at all? It only cares about its financial statements and bottom line.”

So, if anything, AAB is not backing down, he's escalating...

The carrier says it remains committed to its existing orders with the Franco-German firm, as long as the planes are “technically robust with no problems”.

... yet still staying committed to upcoming A350-1000 and A321neo orders while also closing the door on ordering A350F.

zeke wrote:

Did they speak to any other airlines or the manufacturer to see if “Airbus doesn’t care about its customers only it’s bottom line”. What made AAB the spokesperson for all customers ?

I don’t think the author of that article would gain any recognition from their industry peers for objective, balanced, investigative journalism. They have a long history of posting information “leaked” by airlines as news.

zeke wrote:

Danny is not known for posting those sort of leaks, he is known for posting controlled oped statements from management.

Shooting the messenger?

I'm not sure what your squabble is in this case, the reporter directly quoted AAB.

If you really want grounds to be annoyed, he wrote "At least four Boeing 777s will come from Cathay Pacific"...

I expect a large order from Airbus for more elasticated finishes in all layers of the "paint system".

JerseyFlyer wrote:

I expect a large order from Airbus for more elasticated finishes in all layers of the "paint system".

Yes but more "elasticated paint" may not solve the problem. Thermal expansion in only part of the equation. The other part is bond strength. The primer and paint have been sticking to the composite structure well for years even when facing the same thermal expansion differences. Its just that yhe paint and primer sticks to the composite better than it sticks to the metal mesh.

So they either get a better primer do a better surface prep in the mesh or go back to the mesh system that worked before on other aircrafts. (Which of ourse may be more expensive).

bt

Revelation wrote:

I'm not sure what your squabble is in this case, the reporter directly quoted AAB.

If you really want grounds to be annoyed, he wrote "At least four Boeing 777s will come from Cathay Pacific"...

You need to be a regular reader of Dannys articles to understand, his articles would never be considered as being balanced. He can quote AAB as much as he likes, AAB is not the spokesperson for the industry.

Danny is in Hong Kong, he knows the airlines in China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong are not facing the same issues or groundings with their A350s, why not ask AAB for his explanation as to what that is the case ? Are all airlines treated poorly like AAB claims by Airbus ?

Fact is AABs fleet is the only fleet that is facing groundings, there are over 20 other jurisdictions that are operating the type without issues reported by their regulators.

Edit : I should note that he statement that the 777s will come from CX is factually incorrect. Those leased aircraft were returned to the leasing company by CX, and the leading company placed them with QR.

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I'm not sure what your squabble is in this case, the reporter directly quoted AAB.

If you really want grounds to be annoyed, he wrote "At least four Boeing 777s will come from Cathay Pacific"...

You need to be a regular reader of Dannys articles to understand, his articles would never be considered as being balanced. He can quote AAB as much as he likes, AAB is not the spokesperson for the industry.

Danny is in Hong Kong, he knows the airlines in China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong are not facing the same issues or groundings with their A350s, why not ask AAB for his explanation as to what that is the case ? Are all airlines treated poorly like AAB claims by Airbus ?

Fact is AABs fleet is the only fleet that is facing groundings, there are over 20 other jurisdictions that are operating the type without issues reported by their regulators.

The title of the article is “Qatar Airways expects to ground more Airbus A350s over surface flaws, with CEO accusing planemaker of ‘destroying’ business relationship” with the author quoting statements Al Baker made to him. It’s not “Exclusive: Airbus hates its Customers” or “Exclusive: Every A350 is facing this issue and only Qatar is brave enough to stand against Airbus”

At no point does Danny claims to be speaking for all operators, or that Al Baker is. A majority of the article outside the new quotes is just him recapping the recent Reuters article. You are reading way too much into the statements than what is required. Readers are expected to understand that one person’s statements may be biased.

Just because other authorities have not grounded planes doesn’t mean news about Qatar’s grounding, and statements from QR’s CEO, can’t be reported.

WayexTDI wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

If they were taking it arbitration they would say so and serve notice on QR.

As above, QR has "triggering the conflict resolution provisions in the sale contract" which is akin to serving notice on Airbus, according to an Airbus EVP who is being directly quoted by Bloomberg which is a very reliable source.

This flips the narrative that many here have been projecting in that it is QR is instigating the push towards arbitration and it is Airbus who is out getting their "independent legal analysis" in response to prepare for arbitration.

Honestly, I think you read this wrong, as this article says the other way around:

Airbus (AIR.PA) dramatically raised the stakes in a dispute with Qatar Airways over skin flaws on A350 jetliners on Thursday, accusing the Gulf carrier of misrepresenting the problem as a safety issue and calling for independent legal advice.

.

When a customer is dragging a provider's name in the dirt publicly, this is considered, by the vendor, as "triggering the conflict resolution provisions in the contract sales".
You do not need to go legal to trigger such provision; you can do so by lambasting the other party's name publicly and the latter will do what it takes to protect their brand and reputation.

I think your alluding to a non-disparagement clause. I’ve not personally seen a contract where a non-disparagement clause triggers some type of conflict resolution. If such clause exists, which I find highly unlikely based on how QR and AAB operate, disparaging Airbus would be a default under the contract. You can resolve defaults through conflict resolution, but nearly all commercial contracts would have monetary or economic remedies.

zeke wrote:

Danny is in Hong Kong, he knows the airlines in China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong are not facing the same issues or groundings with their A350s, why not ask AAB for his explanation as to what that is the case ? Are all airlines treated poorly like AAB claims by Airbus ?

Fact is AABs fleet is the only fleet that is facing groundings, there are over 20 other jurisdictions that are operating the type without issues reported by their regulators.

Edit : I should note that he statement that the 777s will come from CX is factually incorrect. Those leased aircraft were returned to the leasing company by CX, and the leading company placed them with QR.

I agree with what you wrote. While the quotes he got were good, the reporter should have asked questions about why QR is more impacted than other airlines, and from various reports the 777s are ones CX has returned to the leasing firm so they are not coming from CX.

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I'm not sure what your squabble is in this case, the reporter directly quoted AAB.

If you really want grounds to be annoyed, he wrote "At least four Boeing 777s will come from Cathay Pacific"...

You need to be a regular reader of Dannys articles to understand, his articles would never be considered as being balanced. He can quote AAB as much as he likes, AAB is not the spokesperson for the industry.

Danny is in Hong Kong, he knows the airlines in China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong are not facing the same issues or groundings with their A350s, why not ask AAB for his explanation as to what that is the case ? Are all airlines treated poorly like AAB claims by Airbus ?

Fact is AABs fleet is the only fleet that is facing groundings, there are over 20 other jurisdictions that are operating the type without issues reported by their regulators.

Edit : I should note that he statement that the 777s will come from CX is factually incorrect. Those leased aircraft were returned to the leasing company by CX, and the leading company placed them with QR.

Fact is that Qatar is the only CAA that is grounding unrepaired airplanes. There are rumors that other CAAs are evaluating fleet actions. While I’d expect that to be ADs, it remains possible that other airplanes could be temporarily impacted.

Reading this all again I think that AAB has found out how far he can push Airbus. The quote from AAB that it is Airbus that is ruining the relationship can be interpreted that way.

Polot wrote:

At no point does Danny claims to be speaking for all operators, or that Al Baker is. A majority of the article outside the new quotes is just him recapping the recent Reuters article. You are reading way too much into the statements than what is required. Readers are expected to understand that one person’s statements may be biased.

AAB is quoted to make statements how Airbus treats customers and only cares about the bottom line, what other customers were spoken to to fact check this.

Polot wrote:

Just because other authorities have not grounded planes doesn’t mean news about Qatar’s grounding, and statements from QR’s CEO, can’t be reported.

Sure they can be reported, however any other balanced publication would ask why this is not happening anywhere else in the world ? Where is the question why they are still flying A350s if it is in fact a airworthiness issue by their regulator ?

Nothing adds up.

zeke wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

The EASA talks about multiple layers up from the composite, which include many substances other than just paint, and dubs it all a "paint system.". I wasn't aware copper mesh used for lightning protection was a component of paint, but according to the EASA it is. Go figure.

You should be aware as I have directly replied to you about this earlier in this thread providing a link to the UAE CAA document and the definition of paint and what is involved in painting composite aircraft. That document has been around long before the A350 and talks about filling and sanding prior to application of the epoxy sealant and polyurethane paint.

To be clear, the method of protection depends on the individual component, the wings and fuselage are different to a control surface or a high lift device. An assumption for example that the construction of a control surface with a bonded static discharger is the representative of a fuselage or wing construction is not factual.

I understand. My comment was in response to the EASA statement outlining all the different layers of material placed on top of the composite structure, and calling it all a " paint system."

They can call it whatever they like, but much of the material is obviously not paint, including the copper mesh used for lightning protection. I guess if it makes everyone feel better to just label it "paint" or call it a "paint" problem so be it.

The important thing is Airbus has said they have identified the problem and have a fix.

ElroyJetson wrote:

I understand. My comment was in response to the EASA statement outlining all the different layers of material placed on top of the composite structure, and calling it all a " paint system."

They can call it whatever they like, but much of the material is obviously not paint, including the copper mesh used for lightning protection. I guess if it makes everyone feel better to just label it "paint" or call it a "paint" problem so be it.

The important thing is Airbus has said they have identified the problem and have a fix.

I agree, that is why I have been saying both sides are posturing.

QR is using their regulator to give this the appearance of a safety issue rather than a cosmetic issue.

Airbus is describing it as a paint issue to give it the appearance of a cosmetic issue and trying to avoid discussion of the degraded composite layer and exposed copper foil as much as they can to avoid this being viewed as a design issue as well as a safety issue.

Both sides are trying to frame the argument to favor their point of view. Millions of dollars are at stake. I can only imagine how many billable hours are behind the recent Airbus presser. Every word is carefully chosen to walk right up to a certain line, but not cross it.

The problem for Airbus is if the QR point of view prevails, their financial exposure extends to the entire A350 fleet. It's probably a big reason why they are willing to go to war publicly with a big customer.

ElroyJetson wrote:

They can call it whatever they like, but much of the material is obviously not paint, including the copper mesh used for lightning protection. I guess if it makes everyone feel better to just label it "paint" or call it a "paint" problem so be it.

If you were to get your house painted, as part of the process they would repair and sand any drywall, redo joins that have cracked, repair areas which have been subject to moisture, use chalking to fill cracks and gaps, remove corrosion and prime corroded metal parts. Many of those materials used are not paint, however it is all part and parcel of the painting process.

For aircraft

“ The term painting embraces the associated processes of stripping and such terms as refinishing and refurbishing, as well as preparation, inspection and return to service.”

“ The process to prepare the composite substrate is a two stage process that is always affected by the quality of the molds used to create the structure and also by the percent solids of the resin. The first step is to insure the shape and contour of the surface with filler. Next, perfect and sand smooth the surface for paint. After a smooth surface has been created, the surface will be ready to start priming. For more information with regard to the use and application for the sandable Epoxy Primer refer to section 10 of this manual and to technical data. Most composite surfaces need to be repaired prior to sanding and painting”

From https://www.gcaa.gov.ae/en/epublication ... E%2001.pdf

zeke wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

They can call it whatever they like, but much of the material is obviously not paint, including the copper mesh used for lightning protection. I guess if it makes everyone feel better to just label it "paint" or call it a "paint" problem so be it.

If you were to get your house painted, as part of the process they would repair and sand any drywall, redo joins that have cracked, repair areas which have been subject to moisture, use chalking to fill cracks and gaps, remove corrosion and prime corroded metal parts. Many of those materials used are not paint, however it is all part and parcel of the painting process.

For aircraft

“ The term painting embraces the associated processes of stripping and such terms as refinishing and refurbishing, as well as preparation, inspection and return to service.”

“ The process to prepare the composite substrate is a two stage process that is always affected by the quality of the molds used to create the structure and also by the percent solids of the resin. The first step is to insure the shape and contour of the surface with filler. Next, perfect and sand smooth the surface for paint. After a smooth surface has been created, the surface will be ready to start priming. For more information with regard to the use and application for the sandable Epoxy Primer refer to section 10 of this manual and to technical data. Most composite surfaces need to be repaired prior to sanding and painting”

From https://www.gcaa.gov.ae/en/epublication ... E%2001.pdf

Again, I understand. See Revelation's post above. My sentiments exactly.

sxf24 wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Revelation wrote:

As above, QR has "triggering the conflict resolution provisions in the sale contract" which is akin to serving notice on Airbus, according to an Airbus EVP who is being directly quoted by Bloomberg which is a very reliable source.

This flips the narrative that many here have been projecting in that it is QR is instigating the push towards arbitration and it is Airbus who is out getting their "independent legal analysis" in response to prepare for arbitration.

Honestly, I think you read this wrong, as this article says the other way around:

Airbus (AIR.PA) dramatically raised the stakes in a dispute with Qatar Airways over skin flaws on A350 jetliners on Thursday, accusing the Gulf carrier of misrepresenting the problem as a safety issue and calling for independent legal advice.

I think your alluding to a non-disparagement clause. I’ve not personally seen a contract where a non-disparagement clause triggers some type of conflict resolution. If such clause exists, which I find highly unlikely based on how QR and AAB operate, disparaging Airbus would be a default under the contract. You can resolve defaults through conflict resolution, but nearly all commercial contracts would have monetary or economic remedies.

Thing is, nowhere did it say that QR has reached out to legal entities to get this resolved; however, their actions (i.e., constant lambasting in the press) is, in my opinion, what triggered Airbus to activate the conflict resolution provisions.
There is a conflict right now between QR and Airbus, with no resolution in sight; there are provisions in the contract on how to resolve conflict. Airbus is saying "enough is enough" and activating those provisions

DartHerald wrote:

How come the B787 doesn't suffer in the same way - or does it? Seem to me as if AAB is backing himself into a corner that he really would not want to be in, given the 787's chequered history.

Boeing learned about this problem years ago on the 767 with the issues surrounding aramid fiber (kevlar) and moisture absorption on sandwich panels. The issue there is that aramid has a negative coefficient of thermal expansion and resin does not want to stick to the fiber, which makes it susceptible to thermal cycles.

So, if this is just a paint issue, however that is defined, is the argument coming down to the frequency with which the planes need to be taken out of service and repainted, and who is going to pay for that over their service life? I could see why both sides would be saying "not-it". A would likely have to offer that service fleet wide for all operators, and Q would have to significantly adjust maintenance related downtime and expenses that were not required when the contracts were being initially drafted.

Concorde used to stretch up to 25cm lengthwise in flight. I guess it's paint was designed to be similarly stretchable as it's metal skin.

That is Airbus's challenge, but with a whole bunch of different materials.

Revelation wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I understand. My comment was in response to the EASA statement outlining all the different layers of material placed on top of the composite structure, and calling it all a " paint system."

They can call it whatever they like, but much of the material is obviously not paint, including the copper mesh used for lightning protection. I guess if it makes everyone feel better to just label it "paint" or call it a "paint" problem so be it.

The important thing is Airbus has said they have identified the problem and have a fix.

I agree, that is why I have been saying both sides are posturing.

QR is using their regulator to give this the appearance of a safety issue rather than a cosmetic issue.

Airbus is describing it as a paint issue to give it the appearance of a cosmetic issue and trying to avoid discussion of the degraded composite layer and exposed copper foil as much as they can to avoid this being viewed as a design issue as well as a safety issue.

Both sides are trying to frame the argument to favor their point of view. Millions of dollars are at stake. I can only imagine how many billable hours are behind the recent Airbus presser. Every word is carefully chosen to walk right up to a certain line, but not cross it.

The problem for Airbus is if the QR point of view prevails, their financial exposure extends to the entire A350 fleet. It's probably a big reason why they are willing to go to war publicly with a big customer.

Nothing brings out the best of both sides like a major money issue. It's like a feuding family over the will of a deceased multi-millionaire father.

I think this is not going to end well. Due to AAB's incessant whining about everything for many years, I am fundamentally not buying that this is a structural issue at heart. It sure sounds like it is a paint issue that has caused some of the lower layers to be exposed and delaminate as a result. The fact that no other airline is seeing problems to the same degree, that none of the other operators are grounding aircraft and no other regulators are doing the same makes this look like AAB is trying to negotiate either an "out" for future deliveries or an "out" for the frames he already has.

Airbus should go ahead and initiate arbitration and get it over with because that is where they are headed either way. Better to be ahead of this than behind the 8-ball. And if I were Airbus, I wouldn't submit anything in response to an RFP from Qatar for some time to come (no matter how attractive the idea of a new order from QR might be).

If I see hard evidence that Airbus is deliberately lying and/or that this is truly a structural and safety issue then I am willing to revise my opinion. But for the time being, AAB's story simply doesn't seem proportionate to what has been reported so far. I mean...MAX operators stressed less with Boeing after several fatal crashes and PROVEN engineering errors than AAB is engaging in in the face of a much smaller issue.

dk1967 wrote:

So, if this is just a paint issue, however that is defined, is the argument coming down to the frequency with which the planes need to be taken out of service and repainted, and who is going to pay for that over their service life? I could see why both sides would be saying "not-it". A would likely have to offer that service fleet wide for all operators, and Q would have to significantly adjust maintenance related downtime and expenses that were not required when the contracts were being initially drafted.

This starts to take us to a point: How durable and reliable will the 'paint fix' be? If regulators set a high frequency on inspections, and/or repairs involve repainting large sections instead of spot fixes, the scheduling issues and out-of-service hours could be significant over the lifetime of the aircraft. That would damage the A350 brand.

// MOL sitting down and taking notes on how to professionally slap an airliner manufacturer //

TaromA380 wrote:

// MOL sitting down and taking notes on how to professionally slap an airliner manufacturer //

Not recommended. He has a single type fleet

Revelation wrote:

So, if anything, AAB is not backing down, he's escalating...
... yet still staying committed to upcoming A350-1000 and A321neo orders while also closing the door on ordering A350F.

Isn't that famous carrot-stick tactics? It's all your fault, if you agree, we will consider 350F though.

I have more and more reasons in guts to feel this is only "who pays" problem. It's not final solution anymore, or what is a paint. It's as simple as "who pays".

Cheers, Adam