JonesNL wrote:

Scoreboard wrote:

Couldn't see this posted previously - sorry if it has been. Airbus have posted a response

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... m-by-qatar

Toulouse, 20 December 2021 - Airbus received a formal legal claim in the English courts filed by Qatar Airways, relating to the dispute over the degradation of surface and paint on certain of Qatar Airways' A350XWB aircraft. Airbus is in the process of analysing the contents of the claim. Airbus intends to vigorously defend its position.

Vigorously… quite though language…

I noted the same myself. It seems like Airbus is fully prepared and willing to loose Qatar as a customer if that will be the result of this disagrement.

Scoreboard wrote:

Couldn't see this posted previously - sorry if it has been. Airbus have posted a response

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... m-by-qatar

Toulouse, 20 December 2021 - Airbus received a formal legal claim in the English courts filed by Qatar Airways, relating to the dispute over the degradation of surface and paint on certain of Qatar Airways' A350XWB aircraft. Airbus is in the process of analysing the contents of the claim. Airbus intends to vigorously defend its position.

It's funny how Airbus description of the issue went from " COSMETIC " to " DEGRADATION OF SURFACE AND PAINT " shortly after the leaking of some affected planes photos ,

only God knows how things gonna escalate in the future

Lawyers are going to party as usual on this one

This will end up as a settlement. These disagreements typically don't go to court that often. Don't trust the lawyers' overhyped verbiage. That's normal. I've seen way worse and it's business as usual after the settlement.

Rifitto wrote:

Scoreboard wrote:

Couldn't see this posted previously - sorry if it has been. Airbus have posted a response

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... m-by-qatar

Toulouse, 20 December 2021 - Airbus received a formal legal claim in the English courts filed by Qatar Airways, relating to the dispute over the degradation of surface and paint on certain of Qatar Airways' A350XWB aircraft. Airbus is in the process of analysing the contents of the claim. Airbus intends to vigorously defend its position.

It's funny how Airbus description of the issue went from " COSMETIC " to " DEGRADATION OF SURFACE AND PAINT " shortly after the leaking of some affected planes photos ,

only God knows how things gonna escalate in the future

I liked how QR's lawyers turned "surface degradation" into "accelerated surface degradation".

Intense verbal warfare is being waged!

If the case goes forward and Qatar Airways loses it, i really want to see Akbar’s face.

xwb777 wrote:

If the case goes forward and Qatar Airways loses it, i really want to see Akbar’s face.

Why? He'll be telling you he won, no matter what happens. Same for Faury.

Shouldn't this thread be moved to the "non aviation" section? Deciphering lawyers 'arguments has little relation to aviation. Or at least, let's keep this thread to discuss the actual paint issues if we ever get any new information about them.

tomcat wrote:

Shouldn't this thread be moved to the "non aviation" section? Deciphering lawyers 'arguments has little relation to aviation. Or at least, let's keep this thread to discuss the actual paint issues if we ever get any new information about them.

Sure, the discussion of the fate of A350 fleet at QR and potentially the entire A350 fleet and QR's relationship with Airbus belongs in non-aviation.

Revelation wrote:

tomcat wrote:

Shouldn't this thread be moved to the "non aviation" section? Deciphering lawyers 'arguments has little relation to aviation. Or at least, let's keep this thread to discuss the actual paint issues if we ever get any new information about them.

Sure, the discussion of the fate of A350 fleet at QR and potentially the entire A350 fleet and QR's relationship with Airbus belongs in non-aviation.

I'm not vigorously convinced that commenting each word of a press release will bring us more clarity about the fate of the A350 at QR. I consider that sort of discussion doesn't belong to an aviation forum. Hopefully the thread title will be updated again when new aviation-related facts will surface. In the meantime, I will avoid this thread then.

tomcat wrote:

updated again when new aviation-related facts will surface.

I see what you did there

sxf24 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

There’s no indication there’s an AD from the QCAA.

So what is the grounding based on then?

As I’ve described before, grounding may not be the correct term as a portion of the fleet remains in service.

We don’t know what action the QCAA took on the parked airplanes. It is plausible to assume they would require the accelerated paint degradation be corrected and that it hasn’t been. Insuring adequate maintenance and airworthiness is a core duty of a CAA. Withdrawing or withholding certification would be highly unusual.

But even then, the QCAA would have to give an official reasoning why QR is not allowed to fly the aircraft based on their risk assessment. They would have to give an explanation why and also would have to share this information with other CAAs. It does not have to be the grounding of the whole type, it is entirely possible to just ground a number of aircraft. The fact that there is no official document presented on why the QCAA decided that a number of QR aircraft is not airworthy is strange.

FluidFlow wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

So what is the grounding based on then?

As I’ve described before, grounding may not be the correct term as a portion of the fleet remains in service.

We don’t know what action the QCAA took on the parked airplanes. It is plausible to assume they would require the accelerated paint degradation be corrected and that it hasn’t been. Insuring adequate maintenance and airworthiness is a core duty of a CAA. Withdrawing or withholding certification would be highly unusual.

But even then, the QCAA would have to give an official reasoning why QR is not allowed to fly the aircraft based on their risk assessment. They would have to give an explanation why and also would have to share this information with other CAAs. It does not have to be the grounding of the whole type, it is entirely possible to just ground a number of aircraft. The fact that there is no official document presented on why the QCAA decided that a number of QR aircraft is not airworthy is strange.

Does CAA intervention allow affected operators to set aside certain elements of the NDA in the sale / purchase agreement?

smartplane wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

As I’ve described before, grounding may not be the correct term as a portion of the fleet remains in service.

We don’t know what action the QCAA took on the parked airplanes. It is plausible to assume they would require the accelerated paint degradation be corrected and that it hasn’t been. Insuring adequate maintenance and airworthiness is a core duty of a CAA. Withdrawing or withholding certification would be highly unusual.

But even then, the QCAA would have to give an official reasoning why QR is not allowed to fly the aircraft based on their risk assessment. They would have to give an explanation why and also would have to share this information with other CAAs. It does not have to be the grounding of the whole type, it is entirely possible to just ground a number of aircraft. The fact that there is no official document presented on why the QCAA decided that a number of QR aircraft is not airworthy is strange.

Does CAA intervention allow affected operators to set aside certain elements of the NDA in the sale / purchase agreement?

I dont think the CAA intervention has to disclose anything of the NDA. What they should disclose is the reason for the grounding. Actually the CAA does not even need to name the operator, they can just state that certain aircraft (listing them by registration or serial number) are not airworthy due to xyz. How it got to this state is not really important in the first place. The reason why the QCAA would have to state that is, because if QR decides to fly the aircraft out of the QCAA jurisdiction, so to any other country, the local CAA might want to know that these aircraft pose a safety risk. At the moment the QR aircraft are airworthy everywhere except in Qatar. To find a solution QCAA has to publish why they deem the aircraft not airworthy and why other CAAs should follow. As long as the QCAA does not publish anything QR is in limbo because there is no official paper that gives them any leverage to why they can not fly their aircraft except for themself. That is ok, but I do not think you can demand any compensation for reactivating old aircraft if you just decide yourself that your aircraft can not fly.

FluidFlow wrote:

smartplane wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

But even then, the QCAA would have to give an official reasoning why QR is not allowed to fly the aircraft based on their risk assessment. They would have to give an explanation why and also would have to share this information with other CAAs. It does not have to be the grounding of the whole type, it is entirely possible to just ground a number of aircraft. The fact that there is no official document presented on why the QCAA decided that a number of QR aircraft is not airworthy is strange.

Does CAA intervention allow affected operators to set aside certain elements of the NDA in the sale / purchase agreement?

I dont think the CAA intervention has to disclose anything of the NDA. What they should disclose is the reason for the grounding. Actually the CAA does not even need to name the operator, they can just state that certain aircraft (listing them by registration or serial number) are not airworthy due to xyz. How it got to this state is not really important in the first place. The reason why the QCAA would have to state that is, because if QR decides to fly the aircraft out of the QCAA jurisdiction, so to any other country, the local CAA might want to know that these aircraft pose a safety risk. At the moment the QR aircraft are airworthy everywhere except in Qatar. To find a solution QCAA has to publish why they deem the aircraft not airworthy and why other CAAs should follow. As long as the QCAA does not publish anything QR is in limbo because there is no official paper that gives them any leverage to why they can not fly their aircraft except for themself. That is ok, but I do not think you can demand any compensation for reactivating old aircraft if you just decide yourself that your aircraft can not fly.

Being a Qatari airline, and having the A350’s registered in Qatar, QR is never outside of QCAA’s jurisdiction no matter where the plane is located. If QR sells the plane to someone else (outside Qatar) and the local CAA decides the plane is airworthy with no repairs/changes that is their prerogative.

Polot wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

smartplane wrote:

Does CAA intervention allow affected operators to set aside certain elements of the NDA in the sale / purchase agreement?

I dont think the CAA intervention has to disclose anything of the NDA. What they should disclose is the reason for the grounding. Actually the CAA does not even need to name the operator, they can just state that certain aircraft (listing them by registration or serial number) are not airworthy due to xyz. How it got to this state is not really important in the first place. The reason why the QCAA would have to state that is, because if QR decides to fly the aircraft out of the QCAA jurisdiction, so to any other country, the local CAA might want to know that these aircraft pose a safety risk. At the moment the QR aircraft are airworthy everywhere except in Qatar. To find a solution QCAA has to publish why they deem the aircraft not airworthy and why other CAAs should follow. As long as the QCAA does not publish anything QR is in limbo because there is no official paper that gives them any leverage to why they can not fly their aircraft except for themself. That is ok, but I do not think you can demand any compensation for reactivating old aircraft if you just decide yourself that your aircraft can not fly.

Being a Qatari airline, and having the A350’s registered in Qatar, QR is never outside of QCAA’s jurisdiction no matter where the plane is located. If QR sells the plane to someone else (outside Qatar) and the local CAA decides the plane is airworthy with no repairs/changes that is their prerogative.

Yes and No. Any other CAA can disallow QR to fly a certain aircraft into their airspace if they give a directive that states that. Remember the MAX saga? MAX aircraft were banned to fly into certain airspace even though the FAA did not ground the aircraft initially. So Airlines could not fly their aircraft into another jurisdiction that already banned the MAX.

Right now QRs aircraft are actually airworthy everywhere around the globe just not in Qatar because QR says so. It is not even QCAA that says so because they did not publish a directive stating that the aircraft is not airworthy.

FluidFlow wrote:

Polot wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

I dont think the CAA intervention has to disclose anything of the NDA. What they should disclose is the reason for the grounding. Actually the CAA does not even need to name the operator, they can just state that certain aircraft (listing them by registration or serial number) are not airworthy due to xyz. How it got to this state is not really important in the first place. The reason why the QCAA would have to state that is, because if QR decides to fly the aircraft out of the QCAA jurisdiction, so to any other country, the local CAA might want to know that these aircraft pose a safety risk. At the moment the QR aircraft are airworthy everywhere except in Qatar. To find a solution QCAA has to publish why they deem the aircraft not airworthy and why other CAAs should follow. As long as the QCAA does not publish anything QR is in limbo because there is no official paper that gives them any leverage to why they can not fly their aircraft except for themself. That is ok, but I do not think you can demand any compensation for reactivating old aircraft if you just decide yourself that your aircraft can not fly.

Being a Qatari airline, and having the A350’s registered in Qatar, QR is never outside of QCAA’s jurisdiction no matter where the plane is located. If QR sells the plane to someone else (outside Qatar) and the local CAA decides the plane is airworthy with no repairs/changes that is their prerogative.

Yes and No. Any other CAA can disallow QR to fly a certain aircraft into their airspace if they give a directive that states that. Remember the MAX saga? MAX aircraft were banned to fly into certain airspace even though the FAA did not ground the aircraft initially. So Airlines could not fly their aircraft into another jurisdiction that already banned the MAX.

That doesn’t apply here. Other CAA’s have seen no reason to disallow A350s into their airspace. QCAA (or any CAA) doesn’t have to notify every country every time a plane is deemed nonairworthy awaiting repairs (there are thousands of planes worldwide that are not airworthy at this very moment because they need a repair, inspection, whatever). If Qatar says a QR plane is not airworthy QR can’t fly it no matter what airspace it is in. It doesn’t matter if it is exclusively flying GRU-EZE and never touching Qatar airspace.

Right now QRs aircraft are actually airworthy everywhere around the globe just not in Qatar because QR says so.

No, they are not airworthy because QCAA says so. What the rest of the world thinks is of no importance to QR, they must follow what the QCAA says.


I’m not sure you are fully parsing what some of us have been saying. Qatar has not deemed the A350 unsafe. Other airlines are free to fly in and over Qatar with the plane, and QR is free is to fly their non grounded A350s. Qatar has decided that the grounded planes do not meet airworthy standards and they must be repaired to become airworthy again. That is no different than if a specific 737 in the US had a a giant crack it in it-that plane is grounded and not airworthy until the crack is repaired. The issue is QR has not applied/agreed to a specific repair to fix the issue because things seem to have broken down between them and Airbus (which like most things ultimately traces down to money). There is no agreed upon repair so QCAA has not issued an AD forcing QR to take a specific action to make the planes airworthy again.

Polot wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

Polot wrote:

Being a Qatari airline, and having the A350’s registered in Qatar, QR is never outside of QCAA’s jurisdiction no matter where the plane is located. If QR sells the plane to someone else (outside Qatar) and the local CAA decides the plane is airworthy with no repairs/changes that is their prerogative.

Yes and No. Any other CAA can disallow QR to fly a certain aircraft into their airspace if they give a directive that states that. Remember the MAX saga? MAX aircraft were banned to fly into certain airspace even though the FAA did not ground the aircraft initially. So Airlines could not fly their aircraft into another jurisdiction that already banned the MAX.

That doesn’t apply here. Other CAA’s have seen no reason to disallow A350s into their airspace. QCAA (or any CAA) doesn’t have to notify every country every time a plane is deemed nonairworthy awaiting repairs (there are thousands of planes worldwide that are not airworthy at this very moment because they need a repair, inspection, whatever). If Qatar says a QR plane is not airworthy QR can’t fly it no matter what airspace it is in. It doesn’t matter if it is exclusively flying GRU-EZE and never touching Qatar airspace.

Right now QRs aircraft are actually airworthy everywhere around the globe just not in Qatar because QR says so.

No, they are not airworthy because QCAA says so. What the rest of the world thinks is of no importance to QR, they must follow what the QCAA says.


I’m not sure you are fully parsing what some of us have been saying. Qatar has not deemed the A350 unsafe. Other airlines are free to fly in and over Qatar with the plane, and QR is free is to fly their non grounded A350s. Qatar has decided that the grounded planes do not meet airworthy standards and they must be repaired to become airworthy again. That is no different than if a specific 737 in the US had a a giant crack it in it-that plane is grounded and not airworthy until the crack is repaired. The issue is QR has not applied/agreed to a specific repair to fix the issue because things seem to have broken down between them and Airbus (which like most things ultimately traces down to money). There is no agreed upon repair so QCAA has not issued an AD forcing QR to take a specific action to make the planes airworthy again.

Ah ok thanks for the information. But how will QR then get any compensation for bringing back old aircraft into service?

There is a fix that makes their aircraft temporary airworthy so they have no ground to claim compensation then. I understand the demand for a long term fix but not accepting a solution and then demanding compensation for costs that could have been avoided is a stretch.

While I agree Airbus has to pay for the fix, I can not see how QR will get anything else if the additional costs they had was of their own making. They could get something for the downtime of the aircraft while it is in repair and we know other airlines had a similar problem so the actual time it takes to fix is known.

Is the huge Qatari Rafale fighter jet order related to the skin hiccups? At least the timing is.

FluidFlow wrote:

There is a fix that makes their aircraft temporary airworthy so they have no ground to claim compensation then. I understand the demand for a long term fix but not accepting a solution and then demanding compensation for costs that could have been avoided is a stretch.

While I agree Airbus has to pay for the fix, I can not see how QR will get anything else if the additional costs they had was of their own making. They could get something for the downtime of the aircraft while it is in repair and we know other airlines had a similar problem so the actual time it takes to fix is known.

When discussing the interim proposed fixes proposed by Airbus as well as the responses of the other airlines compared to QR, keep in mind the following:

1. In previously linked articles, Airbus itself says that extreme temperature swings make the issue affect certain customers more than others, currently there is no airline that has operated the aircraft in the same weather conditions for as long as Q. People bring up SQ or VN but average max temperatures are about 10 degrees centigrade higher in DOH. The issue is more apparent for QR, and the difference could be significant between it and other operators so the level of concern could be different as well as the level of repairs. For one operator it could be some minor touch up in a small area while on QR it could be in multiple locations on the same aircraft and more frequently.

2. Some talk about the issue as if its one time thing, the issue pops up, you fix it and move on. From the previously linked articles you will see that QR claim that different parts of the aircraft are affected differently. This means that at a certain aircraft age, you could have the issue pop up one location, you do the repairs, then shortly after it potentially pops up on another location and with increasing frequency. Doing many repairs can affect drag and weight.

3. Some assume that QR has not been doing any temporary fixes prior to the issue coming to the public, remember that when A7-ALL's paint was stripped the surface degradation issue was more apparent than when the paint was on the aircraft.

4. There is no indication on who pays for the interim fixes currently, and even if the temporary fix is paid for, who will do the permanent fix? If the aircraft are temporarily fixed and are flying again would the manufacturer be liable for the permanent fix if the issue comes up again?

5. There is too much speculation on this thread, that is fine but when people build narratives on the speculation and believe their speculation to be fact it distorts the discussion. An example is the assumption that QR wants to save on paying leases on their A350 and leasing in cheaper aircraft such as the 77W, this doesn't stand up to scrutiny if you see that some of the lessors of additional aircraft leased in are the same lessors of some of the grounded A350s.

Noshow wrote:

Is the huge Qatari Rafale fighter jet order related to the skin hiccups? At least the timing is.

Qatar Rafale deal was signed 7 years ago. Maybe are you confusing with the new UAE deal.

In fact I did. Thanks.

Noshow wrote:

Is the huge Qatari Rafale fighter jet order related to the skin hiccups? At least the timing is.

Rafale is a military aircraft made by Dassault; nothing to do with commercial aircraft made by Airbus.
While some civilian aircraft orders are political in nature, military orders are even more political.
Linking the Rafale order to the A350 skin issue is a far stretched idea...

Both are made in France.

Has anyone seen the image of a large section of fuselage that has blistered? I haven't seen it in any of this thread, so I don't know if it's from the A350 or not, but it looked excessive.

Pelly wrote:

When discussing the interim proposed fixes proposed by Airbus as well as the responses of the other airlines compared to QR, keep in mind the following:
...
2. Some talk about the issue as if its one time thing, the issue pops up, you fix it and move on. From the previously linked articles you will see that QR claim that different parts of the aircraft are affected differently. This means that at a certain aircraft age, you could have the issue pop up one location, you do the repairs, then shortly after it potentially pops up on another location and with increasing frequency. Doing many repairs can affect drag and weight.
...

Most importantly, this is an operational nightmare for an airline where most routine maintenance actions are now squeezed in on overnights. And with the A350 operating long haul, these airplanes are flying the majority of the day with not much flexibility for operators to coordinate the schedules for mechanics needed to maintain these airplanes. There isn't time or ability on a turn-around to manage an extensive number of repairs.

Regulators will permit dispatch with a time-limited repair, e.g. speed-tape that is aero-sealed around the perimeter, with checks every 50 flights or so. However, time-limited repairs have a calendar time-limit of 1 year and then the component/aircraft must be brought back into type design. Speculation on my part that the Qatari regulators may not have permitted restoring the lightning strike protection (LSP) system to type-design as it was known that the system would subsequently fail, which is why a root-cause analysis is required along with any repairs that create a terminating action.

I was initially on Airbus's side because I don't like the QR CEO because he has a bully mentality but after looking at the photos... might have to err on their side.

Polot wrote:

If Qatar says a QR plane is not airworthy QR can’t fly it no matter what airspace it is in. It doesn’t matter if it is exclusively flying GRU-EZE and never touching Qatar airspace.

Well they can, and have. Think about how the aircraft got from the paint shop in Ireland to TLS. The document is called a permit to fly. The same mechanism was used to fly grounded Max aircraft to storage.

And if you intend to fly an aircraft with a permit to fly internationally you need to seek approval for every overflying country that an unairworthy aircraft will enter their airspace. Generally this is approved for one off ferry flights.

Noshow wrote:

Both are made in France.

The dispute is with Airbus not France.

zeke wrote:

Polot wrote:

If Qatar says a QR plane is not airworthy QR can’t fly it no matter what airspace it is in. It doesn’t matter if it is exclusively flying GRU-EZE and never touching Qatar airspace.

Well they can, and have. Think about how the aircraft got from the paint shop in Ireland to TLS. The document is called a permit to fly. The same mechanism was used to fly grounded Max aircraft to storage.

And if you intend to fly an aircraft with a permit to fly internationally you need to seek approval for every overflying country that an unairworthy aircraft will enter their airspace. Generally this is approved for one off ferry flights.

Well yes, airlines can get permits for ferry flights to get aircraft to mx or storage locations. I was clearly talking about commercial flights. QR wants planes so they can operate them in commercial service for revenue.

ULA340 wrote:

I was initially on Airbus's side because I don't like the QR CEO because he has a bully mentality but after looking at the photos... might have to err on their side.

There is no need to take sides. Neither Airbus or QR are charities and both have a responsibility to look after their interests. To me they both seem to be acting rationally with the situation and I can understand the position of each. I can also understand why QR might be having a different approach to this compared to other airlines based on the comments attributed to Airbus that airlines operating in conditions similar to QR may be more affected. I also don't share the expectations that some have of the future of the relationship after the legal proceedings, disputes happen and if they can't be resolved mutually then that is what the contract and the legal system is for. Plenty of companies work together after legal proceedings, and even during legal proceedings see the Apple-Samsung relationship, it is not a marriage and corporations don't have emotions. Even with personal relationships between both corporations, personnel and management change.

Another article
https://www.airlinerwatch.com/2021/12/q ... dings.html

FluidFlow wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

As I’ve described before, grounding may not be the correct term as a portion of the fleet remains in service.

We don’t know what action the QCAA took on the parked airplanes. It is plausible to assume they would require the accelerated paint degradation be corrected and that it hasn’t been. Insuring adequate maintenance and airworthiness is a core duty of a CAA. Withdrawing or withholding certification would be highly unusual.

But even then, the QCAA would have to give an official reasoning why QR is not allowed to fly the aircraft based on their risk assessment.

Really? They are not asserting this is a safety issue, yet.

FluidFlow wrote:

What they should disclose is the reason for the grounding. Actually the CAA does not even need to name the operator, they can just state that certain aircraft (listing them by registration or serial number) are not airworthy due to xyz.

They have not said the aircraft is not airworthy. The only thing that has been said is QR has been requested to ground the planes by QCAA. There's many reasons why this could be.

Polot wrote:

I’m not sure you are fully parsing what some of us have been saying. Qatar has not deemed the A350 unsafe. Other airlines are free to fly in and over Qatar with the plane, and QR is free is to fly their non grounded A350s. Qatar has decided that the grounded planes do not meet airworthy standards and they must be repaired to become airworthy again. That is no different than if a specific 737 in the US had a a giant crack it in it-that plane is grounded and not airworthy until the crack is repaired. The issue is QR has not applied/agreed to a specific repair to fix the issue because things seem to have broken down between them and Airbus (which like most things ultimately traces down to money). There is no agreed upon repair so QCAA has not issued an AD forcing QR to take a specific action to make the planes airworthy again.

True, and I'll go a step further and say QCAA has said exactly zero about why the planes are grounded, so the idea that it's an airworthiness issue is just an assumption many are making. I get it, QR is certainly OK with people making that assumption, but still it is an assumption.

Funny thing in the midst of Airbus's "vigorous defense of their position" is I have not seen them call on QCAA to clarify their position. It's almost as if they are afraid to do so.

Revelation wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

As I’ve described before, grounding may not be the correct term as a portion of the fleet remains in service.

We don’t know what action the QCAA took on the parked airplanes. It is plausible to assume they would require the accelerated paint degradation be corrected and that it hasn’t been. Insuring adequate maintenance and airworthiness is a core duty of a CAA. Withdrawing or withholding certification would be highly unusual.

But even then, the QCAA would have to give an official reasoning why QR is not allowed to fly the aircraft based on their risk assessment.

Really? They are not asserting this is a safety issue, yet.

FluidFlow wrote:

What they should disclose is the reason for the grounding. Actually the CAA does not even need to name the operator, they can just state that certain aircraft (listing them by registration or serial number) are not airworthy due to xyz.

They have not said the aircraft is not airworthy. The only thing that has been said is QR has been requested to ground the planes by QCAA. There's many reasons why this could be.

Polot wrote:

I’m not sure you are fully parsing what some of us have been saying. Qatar has not deemed the A350 unsafe. Other airlines are free to fly in and over Qatar with the plane, and QR is free is to fly their non grounded A350s. Qatar has decided that the grounded planes do not meet airworthy standards and they must be repaired to become airworthy again. That is no different than if a specific 737 in the US had a a giant crack it in it-that plane is grounded and not airworthy until the crack is repaired. The issue is QR has not applied/agreed to a specific repair to fix the issue because things seem to have broken down between them and Airbus (which like most things ultimately traces down to money). There is no agreed upon repair so QCAA has not issued an AD forcing QR to take a specific action to make the planes airworthy again.

True, and I'll go a step further and say QCAA has said exactly zero about why the planes are grounded, so the idea that it's an airworthiness issue is just an assumption many are making. I get it, QR is certainly OK with people making that assumption, but still it is an assumption.

Funny thing in the midst of Airbus's "vigorous defense of their position" is I have not seen them call on QCAA to clarify their position. It's almost as if they are afraid to do so.

QR and AAB have been willing to speak on this matter in the press. Airbus, on the other hand, has not been commenting or communicating in public. The majority on this forum seems to agree that negotiating behind closed doors is the "norm", and QR's approach is not! Airbus will defend itself with vigour in the courtroom, but not doing so for in public is in keeping with a more normal manner of conducting business affairs. I am almost sure that you are unaware of the court submissions that any of these parties has made, or any requests submitted requiring disclosure!

FluidFlow wrote:

smartplane wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

But even then, the QCAA would have to give an official reasoning why QR is not allowed to fly the aircraft based on their risk assessment. They would have to give an explanation why and also would have to share this information with other CAAs. It does not have to be the grounding of the whole type, it is entirely possible to just ground a number of aircraft. The fact that there is no official document presented on why the QCAA decided that a number of QR aircraft is not airworthy is strange.

Does CAA intervention allow affected operators to set aside certain elements of the NDA in the sale / purchase agreement?

I dont think the CAA intervention has to disclose anything of the NDA. What they should disclose is the reason for the grounding. Actually the CAA does not even need to name the operator, they can just state that certain aircraft (listing them by registration or serial number) are not airworthy due to xyz. How it got to this state is not really important in the first place. The reason why the QCAA would have to state that is, because if QR decides to fly the aircraft out of the QCAA jurisdiction, so to any other country, the local CAA might want to know that these aircraft pose a safety risk. At the moment the QR aircraft are airworthy everywhere except in Qatar. To find a solution QCAA has to publish why they deem the aircraft not airworthy and why other CAAs should follow. As long as the QCAA does not publish anything QR is in limbo because there is no official paper that gives them any leverage to why they can not fly their aircraft except for themself. That is ok, but I do not think you can demand any compensation for reactivating old aircraft if you just decide yourself that your aircraft can not fly.

You may have misunderstood my question.

OEM / customer contracts include an NDA. A pretty watertight one, which in recent years have been strengthened with greater disincentives.

There are few instances where the NDA doesn't apply, but think you will find responding to CAA issues is one of them.

smartplane wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

smartplane wrote:

Does CAA intervention allow affected operators to set aside certain elements of the NDA in the sale / purchase agreement?

I dont think the CAA intervention has to disclose anything of the NDA. What they should disclose is the reason for the grounding. Actually the CAA does not even need to name the operator, they can just state that certain aircraft (listing them by registration or serial number) are not airworthy due to xyz. How it got to this state is not really important in the first place. The reason why the QCAA would have to state that is, because if QR decides to fly the aircraft out of the QCAA jurisdiction, so to any other country, the local CAA might want to know that these aircraft pose a safety risk. At the moment the QR aircraft are airworthy everywhere except in Qatar. To find a solution QCAA has to publish why they deem the aircraft not airworthy and why other CAAs should follow. As long as the QCAA does not publish anything QR is in limbo because there is no official paper that gives them any leverage to why they can not fly their aircraft except for themself. That is ok, but I do not think you can demand any compensation for reactivating old aircraft if you just decide yourself that your aircraft can not fly.

You may have misunderstood my question.

OEM / customer contracts include an NDA. A pretty watertight one, which in recent years have been strengthened with greater disincentives.

There are few instances where the NDA doesn't apply, but think you will find responding to CAA issues is one of them.

Contract confidential clauses are far from watertight and technical issues are generally outside their scope.

Yes. It would be obvious that Airbus would ask the Qatari regulator why the 21 A350's are grounded. To be fair, perhaps they have but have not made the information public.

My guess is QR notified their regulator regarding the damaged aircraft. Perhaps they were mandated to do so, I am not sure.

I think to assume the Qatari regulator is acting in bad faith is not justified. Based on the leaked photos, the damage looks pretty bad. If I were the regulator I would want the aircraft repaired before I would allow them to fly again. Also, I know many are frustrated the QCAA has not issued a public statement, but in this circumstance they would only be required to notify QR since it is specific aircraft in their fleet.

While people are still making weird assumptions about what Airbus is doing or not doing or even is afraid of, they are receiving new orders not to mention all the units currently operating.

JannEejit wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Both are made in France.

The dispute is with Airbus not France.

You don't really think AAB compartmentalizes that way, or that Macron lacks influence with Airbus? See the official French poop-storm over Australia's cancelled submarine order. The French government is arm-in-arm with French industry, be it aerospace, nuclear, or yogurt (seriously).

sassiciai wrote:

QR and AAB have been willing to speak on this matter in the press. Airbus, on the other hand, has not been commenting or communicating in public.

Sorry, but there's plenty of evidence in this thread and elsewhere that Airbus has commented and communicated on this topic in public via the media and via press releases on their official site. I do agree that AAB/QR went public first and Airbus seems that it would have preferred to keep the conversations private, but we're well past that point now. AAB/QR has a tendency to do this. He was quite vocal about PW's early issues with GTFs on A32x for instance.

Revelation wrote:

sassiciai wrote:

QR and AAB have been willing to speak on this matter in the press. Airbus, on the other hand, has not been commenting or communicating in public.

Sorry, but there's plenty of evidence in this thread and elsewhere that Airbus has commented and communicated on this topic in public via the media and via press releases on their official site. I do agree that AAB/QR went public first and Airbus seems that it would have preferred to keep the conversations private, but we're well past that point now. AAB/QR has a tendency to do this. He was quite vocal about PW's early issues with GTFs on A32x for instance.

OK, I accept that

My earlier post was in response to your quote "Funny thing in the midst of Airbus's "vigorous defense of their position" is I have not seen them call on QCAA to clarify their position. It's almost as if they are afraid to do so", where I think that such requests can be made in camera without us public being aware of that, so you vigorously proclaiming that you had not seen it does not prove that such a request has not been made!

MIflyer12 wrote:

JannEejit wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Both are made in France.

The dispute is with Airbus not France.

You don't really think AAB compartmentalizes that way, or that Macron lacks influence with Airbus? See the official French poop-storm over Australia's cancelled submarine order. The French government is arm-in-arm with French industry, be it aerospace, nuclear, or yogurt (seriously).

The submarine order was a military order (i.e., requiring Government approval for export) with Naval Group (of which the French Government owes 62.49%).
By contrast, Airbus orders with QR are civilian orders (i.e., NOT requiring Government approval) and the French Government owes only 11% of Airbus.
You're comparing apples to tomatoes...

Revelation wrote:

sassiciai wrote:

QR and AAB have been willing to speak on this matter in the press. Airbus, on the other hand, has not been commenting or communicating in public.

Sorry, but there's plenty of evidence in this thread and elsewhere that Airbus has commented and communicated on this topic in public via the media and via press releases on their official site. I do agree that AAB/QR went public first and Airbus seems that it would have preferred to keep the conversations private, but we're well past that point now. AAB/QR has a tendency to do this. He was quite vocal about PW's early issues with GTFs on A32x for instance.

Airbus has publicly said the bare minimum about the issue; they could not stay quiet while being lambasted in public.

WayexTDI wrote:

Revelation wrote:

sassiciai wrote:

QR and AAB have been willing to speak on this matter in the press. Airbus, on the other hand, has not been commenting or communicating in public.

Sorry, but there's plenty of evidence in this thread and elsewhere that Airbus has commented and communicated on this topic in public via the media and via press releases on their official site. I do agree that AAB/QR went public first and Airbus seems that it would have preferred to keep the conversations private, but we're well past that point now. AAB/QR has a tendency to do this. He was quite vocal about PW's early issues with GTFs on A32x for instance.

Airbus has publicly said the bare minimum about the issue; they could not stay quiet while being lambasted in public.

Correct. I would posit that Airbus feels essentially 'slandered' by AAB, hence why Airbus is utterly comfortable with this heading to court.

However, I say again that this (potentially non) issue is simply a convenient way to bring the already irretrievably fractured Airbus/AAB relationship to a head by AAB. As soon as Airbus attempted to 'run around' AAB, by essentially going over his head with the original quality issues (ie appealing to his 'masters' over the alleged quality issues that halted the initial deliveries), it was a distinct possibility that AAB would hit back and hit back hard. This (potentially non) issue has given him that golden opportunity.

The well documented history of the individual involved speaks volumes. All while no other jurisdiction or airline has chosen to see this 'issue' as a flight safety consideration. Enough said really!

As an aside, you do have to wonder if this would have ever happened under John Leahy's watch? I would contend that this would have all unfolded quite differently under him. But it demonstrates a new, no-nonsense, approach from Airbus, as they perhaps become the dominant force in the duopoly?

Revelation wrote:

I do agree that AAB/QR went public first and Airbus seems that it would have preferred to keep the conversations private, but we're well past that point now.

The aircraft went to Ireland 11/2020, issue first came to public via Twitter and online press in 01/2021 and Airbus at the time commented on it:

“Whilst undergoing a repaint at Shannon, Qatar Airways’ Airbus A350-900 aircraft was observed to have some irregularities on the surface coating. The issue is superficial/cosmetic and only visible when the top coat of paint is stripped. It is not a structural composite issue! In agreement with Qatar Airways the aircraft will be flown to Toulouse for further inspection -as a precaution- and re-painting. There is no safety concern.“

https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/qata ... rbus-a350/

The first public comments by QR/AAB came around 05/2021 or 06/2021.

Pelly wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I do agree that AAB/QR went public first and Airbus seems that it would have preferred to keep the conversations private, but we're well past that point now.

The aircraft went to Ireland 11/2020, issue first came to public via Twitter and online press in 01/2021 and Airbus at the time commented on it:

“Whilst undergoing a repaint at Shannon, Qatar Airways’ Airbus A350-900 aircraft was observed to have some irregularities on the surface coating. The issue is superficial/cosmetic and only visible when the top coat of paint is stripped. It is not a structural composite issue! In agreement with Qatar Airways the aircraft will be flown to Toulouse for further inspection -as a precaution- and re-painting. There is no safety concern.“

https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/qata ... rbus-a350/

The first public comments by QR/AAB came around 05/2021 or 06/2021.

So a few years after other airlines noted a "surface degradation" issue on their A350's which we all said was unrelated, is this correct?

par13del wrote:

So a few years after other airlines noted a "surface degradation" issue on their A350's which we all said was unrelated, is this correct?

My response was on who brought the issue to the public, it was neither QR or Airbus (it was a tweet about the aircraft departing SNN unpainted), and AAB/QR's first public comment was about 6 months after the issue with A7-ALL and a few months after Airbus' statement in January 2021 meaning there was time given to deal with this behind closed doors before going to the media.

I don't know, also we don't know whether its related or not to the previous aircraft, or whether QR had quietly dealt with the issue on a limited basis before the first full repaint of a 4 year old aircraft revealed the issue to be more extensive. Airbus' statement at the time noted "The issue is superficial/cosmetic and only visible when the top coat of paint is stripped." Meaning the previously reported issue with other airlines might have been more obvious without having to strip the paint and also more localised since they aren't as affected by the heat cycles as QR, it could also be totally un-related.

If we look at the UA PW 777 groundings, we see a CAA being public about an issue and working with their peers (Japan) in the name of safety. The Qatari regulator hasn't shared any information with other CAA. If it is a safety issue that warrants the grounding of aircraft, it should be made public so that other operators can keep us safe.