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.