Pelly wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I do agree that AAB/QR went public first and Airbus seems that it would have preferrIt is interesting that ed 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.

Thanks for clarifying and correcting the timeline. It is interesting that Airbus took that stance so early on, as if they knew it was important to stake their ground. I do recall reading the comments you posted, but it reads differently in the current context of an upcoming legal action.

accentra wrote:

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?

I think they would have handled this differently in earlier times, and I think they are going to wish they had handled this situation differently in hindsight. These are big ticket items and there are only so many customers buying them. Also IMO other customers who aren't commenting publicly are watching how QR gets treated and aren't particularly liking what they are seeing, as it may be them next who needs to escalate a situation.

I am surprised that AAB hasn't made much of a public fuss about the 787 situation. I imagine compensation is involved, which is the approach Airbus IMO should be taking rather than threatening legal action then finding themselves in court anyway.

LTEN11 wrote:

QR and AAB backed up that opinion about the PW GTF, by switching to the competitors engine. They aren't all froth and bubbles, they're prepared to back it up with their cheque book when necessary.

That's the rub, at the end of the day it is the customer who decides where to spend their money.

Opus99 wrote:

I don’t know for sure. But it’s strange that Airbus will not compensate when that’s much straightforward than ending up in court.

Boeing is probably compensating on 87 like you’ve said. They did say that will compensate American on their cut schedule due to “787 deliveries” even though we know it’s not ONLY 787 deliveries that made them cut those off. But Boeing will do anything to make customers happy at the moment.

Boeing certainly is in a defensive mode these days, and wasn't afraid of criticizing JT's maintenance after the first MCAS crash so they have had their moments in poor customer relations and are now paying the price. Yet the other team might want to look at their incoming cash flow and direct some towards solving this "surface degradation" thing instead of making it the shootout at the OK Corral which IMO will not end well for them.

bikerthai wrote:

Revelation wrote:

It is interesting that Airbus took that stance so early on,

You have to read the statement by the letter.

Airbus stated "not a structural composite issue". Even I would agree to that. Degradation of the lightning mesh is not a structural composite issue. It is a lighting protection issue, which is a subtle difference.

The difference being, depending on the circumstances damaged from unprotected lightning strike does not endanger the aircraft. Damage to structural components will endanger the aircraft.

bt

Right, it never has been structural, but I don't see where AAB/QR said it was structural, just "surface degradation". They haven't said it is a safety issue, all they've said is they won't know if it's a safety issue till they understand the root cause.

By highlighting it as it being non-structural, Team A undermines the whole idea that "surface degradation" is something to be concerned about. They literally used the words superficial and cosmetic. Fine, but as we know, resolving any issue with an airliner is costly, and fixing "superficial/cosmetic" issues who impact square meters of surface of 21 or so airliners is a big, costly and time consuming problem.

Revelation wrote:

That's the rub, at the end of the day it is the customer who decides where to spend their money.

It is patently false as Ryan Air learned.

Olddog wrote:

Revelation wrote:

That's the rub, at the end of the day it is the customer who decides where to spend their money.

It is patently false as Ryan Air learned.

The exception proves the rule?

bikerthai wrote:

Revelation wrote:

By highlighting it as it being non-structural, Team A undermines the whole idea that "surface degradation" is something to be concerned about. They literally used the words superficial and cosmetic. Fine, but as we know, resolving any issue with an airliner is costly, and fixing "superficial/cosmetic" issues who impact square meters of surface of 21 or so airliners is a big, costly and time consuming problem.

So would you say then it has gone from a technical issue and has become a haggling exercise?

I would still like to fing out what the technical facts behind it.

bt

I think Airbus did its best to put it into the superficial/cosmetic box right up front, QR did its best to keep it in the "what the bleep is going on" box. The actual technical issue underlying the surface degradation in the end will determine the amount of haggling. I think the reason Airbus rushed to put it into the superficial/cosmetic box is because the cost of doing anything beyond superficial/cosmetic repairs is clearly going to be huge.

sxf24 wrote:

smartplane 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.

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.

The retrospective credit side agreement includes clawback provisions including the NDA.

Revelation wrote:

I think Airbus did its best to put it into the superficial/cosmetic box right up front, QR did its best to keep it in the "what the bleep is going on" box. The actual technical issue underlying the surface degradation in the end will determine the amount of haggling. I think the reason Airbus rushed to put it into the superficial/cosmetic box is because the cost of doing anything beyond superficial/cosmetic repairs is clearly going to be huge.

If we assume that Airbus has thoroughly studied the issue, spoken to other operators of the same type and inspected their aircraft, and if we assume they have a decent idea of not only what the problem is but also how to fix it for those customers flying affected frames, it makes sense for Airbus to go to court rather than to compensate QR.

Because they would create a massive moral hazard by compensating QR for an issue that they believe is not a safety issue. Once that QR check is written, EVERY operator of the type will line up with the request of a check and many future operators will look for a check in the future.

The cost of a lawsuit that will have a reasonable outcome in terms of saddling them with repair costs is going to cost Airbus way less than writing blank checks.

And there is one other angle that I can see being true...we all know AAB is quite an abrasive personality and when faced with a very diplomatic opponent, he can get away with a lot. But if a party thinks they have been truly wronged, especially if they have held out their hand...the personalities of the leadership can sometimes battle until the bitter end.

I have seen this myself with one of my employers. They were accused of wrongdoing in a case that was clearly fraudulent and spared ZERO cost and trouble to defend themselves in court. I would even say they welcomed it. In the end, the plaintiff dropped the lawsuit and that was that. But in order for this to happen, you need leadership that has 100% confidence they did the right thing and are willing to do whatever it is to prove their integrity no matter the cost. If Airbus leadership feels thusly, I would not discount how far Airbus could go no matter the short term costs.

aaexecplat wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I think Airbus did its best to put it into the superficial/cosmetic box right up front, QR did its best to keep it in the "what the bleep is going on" box. The actual technical issue underlying the surface degradation in the end will determine the amount of haggling. I think the reason Airbus rushed to put it into the superficial/cosmetic box is because the cost of doing anything beyond superficial/cosmetic repairs is clearly going to be huge.

If we assume that Airbus has thoroughly studied the issue, spoken to other operators of the same type and inspected their aircraft, and if we assume they have a decent idea of not only what the problem is but also how to fix it for those customers flying affected frames, it makes sense for Airbus to go to court rather than to compensate QR.

Because they would create a massive moral hazard by compensating QR for an issue that they believe is not a safety issue. Once that QR check is written, EVERY operator of the type will line up with the request of a check and many future operators will look for a check in the future.

Again, QR/AAB has not said it is a safety issue, they've said they don't know if it is or is not a safety issue.

"It is a serious matter; we don't know if it is an airworthiness issue; we also don't know that it is not an airworthiness issue. The real cause of it has not been established by Airbus," he told The Aviation Club in London.

"Now they have, at last, accepted that there are other airlines, several of them that have the same condition."

Ref: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-11-30/

In essence by leaning into the safety issue Airbus is setting up a straw horse argument in the public realm, knowing the average reader is not going to make the effort to understand the subtleties. I doubt that the court arbitrator is going to be as uninformed.

Revelation wrote:

Again, QR/AAB has not said it is a safety issue, they've said they don't know if it is or is not a safety issue.

But hasnt the Qatar authorities said it is a safety issue otherwise why are the aircraft grounded by the regulator?

trex8 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Again, QR/AAB has not said it is a safety issue, they've said they don't know if it is or is not a safety issue.

But hasnt the Qatar authorities said it is a safety issue otherwise why are the aircraft grounded by the regulator?

They could be unsure if it is a safety issue and are erring on the side of caution.

To be fair Airbus is not the only one with paint/composite issues. New Zealand is having issues with the 787 wing skins https://simpleflying.com/air-new-zealan ... t-flaking/

This one looks solvable and doesn't involve the embedded mesh, although the fix will be thoroughly tested before being routinely applied.

trex8 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Again, QR/AAB has not said it is a safety issue, they've said they don't know if it is or is not a safety issue.

But hasnt the Qatar authorities said it is a safety issue otherwise why are the aircraft grounded by the regulator?

If you can find a quote where "the Qatar authorities said it is a safety issue", please share it. To my knowledge, QCAA has said exactly nothing about why the planes are grounded. I've searched their web site and found nothing.

Revelation wrote:

trex8 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Again, QR/AAB has not said it is a safety issue, they've said they don't know if it is or is not a safety issue.

But hasnt the Qatar authorities said it is a safety issue otherwise why are the aircraft grounded by the regulator?

If you can find a quote where "the Qatar authorities said it is a safety issue", please share it. To my knowledge, QCAA has said exactly nothing about why the planes are grounded. I've searched their web site and found nothing.

Odd isnt it they ground planes for non safety issues when it doesnt seem to be due to some bureaucratic regulatory paperwork issue??? I'm not aware of any other reason why a regulatory body would ground planes , especially ones previously flying, except for those two reasons.
Lets face it the Qatar CAA are doing things which are , uh, less than normal. Or they dont really care about safety in this case because if they did they would share potentially important info with other CAAs as one would hope they would not want other nations to have the same safety problem. And if its not safety, they are just shills for QR.

trex8 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

trex8 wrote:

But hasnt the Qatar authorities said it is a safety issue otherwise why are the aircraft grounded by the regulator?

If you can find a quote where "the Qatar authorities said it is a safety issue", please share it. To my knowledge, QCAA has said exactly nothing about why the planes are grounded. I've searched their web site and found nothing.

Odd isnt it they ground planes for non safety issues when it doesnt seem to be due to some bureaucratic regulatory paperwork issue??? I'm not aware of any other reason why a regulatory body would ground planes , especially ones previously flying, except for those two reasons.
Lets face it the Qatar CAA are doing things which are , uh, less than normal. Or they dont really care about safety in this case because if they did they would share potentially important info with other CAAs as one would hope they would not want other nations to have the same safety problem. And if its not safety, they are just shills for QR.

Planes are “grounded” all the time by CAAs for deferred maintenance.

kanban wrote:

To be fair Airbus is not the only one with paint/composite issues. New Zealand is having issues with the 787 wing skins https://simpleflying.com/air-new-zealan ... t-flaking/

This one looks solvable and doesn't involve the embedded mesh, although the fix will be thoroughly tested before being routinely applied.

With all due respect to my fellow A-net member, this is a peculiar remark. Should we take this comment to mean that your assessment of the A350 issue is that it's unsolvable?

sxf24 wrote:

trex8 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

If you can find a quote where "the Qatar authorities said it is a safety issue", please share it. To my knowledge, QCAA has said exactly nothing about why the planes are grounded. I've searched their web site and found nothing.

Odd isnt it they ground planes for non safety issues when it doesnt seem to be due to some bureaucratic regulatory paperwork issue??? I'm not aware of any other reason why a regulatory body would ground planes , especially ones previously flying, except for those two reasons.
Lets face it the Qatar CAA are doing things which are , uh, less than normal. Or they dont really care about safety in this case because if they did they would share potentially important info with other CAAs as one would hope they would not want other nations to have the same safety problem. And if its not safety, they are just shills for QR.

Planes are “grounded” all the time by CAAs for deferred maintenance.

Thx for that info, so QR havent been maintaining their A350s per manufacturer/regulator requirements? Isn't deferred maintenance effectively a safety issue???

trex8 wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

trex8 wrote:

Odd isnt it they ground planes for non safety issues when it doesnt seem to be due to some bureaucratic regulatory paperwork issue??? I'm not aware of any other reason why a regulatory body would ground planes , especially ones previously flying, except for those two reasons.
Lets face it the Qatar CAA are doing things which are , uh, less than normal. Or they dont really care about safety in this case because if they did they would share potentially important info with other CAAs as one would hope they would not want other nations to have the same safety problem. And if its not safety, they are just shills for QR.

Planes are “grounded” all the time by CAAs for deferred maintenance.

Thx for that info, so QR havent been maintaining their A350s per manufacturer/regulator requirements? Isn't deferred maintenance effectively a safety issue???

That’s a loaded, rhetorical question.

So my understanding is that QR have refused the Airbus remedies because they do not know if the repairs are long term or temporary. Is it possible that their CAA have grounded the unrepaired a/c, or that they have decided that a/c with lightning protection exposed should not be flying, in which case the CAA have a case with QR and not Airbus?
As for taking to court, all we heard was that Airbus was seeking legal advise and QR have filed a case in a English court.

majano wrote:

kanban wrote:

To be fair Airbus is not the only one with paint/composite issues. New Zealand is having issues with the 787 wing skins https://simpleflying.com/air-new-zealan ... t-flaking/

This one looks solvable and doesn't involve the embedded mesh, although the fix will be thoroughly tested before being routinely applied.

With all due respect to my fellow A-net member, this is a peculiar remark. Should we take this comment to mean that your assessment of the A350 issue is that it's unsolvable?

So far if Airbus does have a long term fix and or identified why QR is the only airline who has a problem with early degradation and increased life time maintenance, they have not put anything in the public domain. Since no mesh is exposed on the 787 - so far - and the issue has been identified in public as being linked to UV rays, I think we can agree that the repair is more a chemical versus a structural fix...and yes, the cost of the chemicals could cost more than the patch to cover up the mesh....

par13del wrote:

majano wrote:

kanban wrote:

To be fair Airbus is not the only one with paint/composite issues. New Zealand is having issues with the 787 wing skins https://simpleflying.com/air-new-zealan ... t-flaking/

This one looks solvable and doesn't involve the embedded mesh, although the fix will be thoroughly tested before being routinely applied.

With all due respect to my fellow A-net member, this is a peculiar remark. Should we take this comment to mean that your assessment of the A350 issue is that it's unsolvable?

So far if Airbus does have a long term fix and or identified why QR is the only airline who has a problem with early degradation and increased life time maintenance, they have not put anything in the public domain. Since no mesh is exposed on the 787 - so far - and the issue has been identified in public as being linked to UV rays, I think we can agree that the repair is more a chemical versus a structural fix...and yes, the cost of the chemicals could cost more than the patch to cover up the mesh....

thanks you summed up my thoughts .. the UV caused damage is solvable, the separating mesh is going to take some real investigation before a real solution can be determined..

trex8 wrote:

Odd isnt it they ground planes for non safety issues when it doesnt seem to be due to some bureaucratic regulatory paperwork issue??? I'm not aware of any other reason why a regulatory body would ground planes , especially ones previously flying, except for those two reasons.

If you read the FARs (or QCAA's equivalent), you'll find there are myriad reasons why a regulator could ground a plane.

Odd isn't it that something Airbus once referred to as cosmetic/superficial they now refer to as surface degradation and are talking of replacing copper mesh with copper foil.

We live in strange times.

par13del wrote:

So my understanding is that QR have refused the Airbus remedies because they do not know if the repairs are long term or temporary.

They have said that since Airbus is not stating the root cause, they can't determine if the repairs are effective or ineffective. To my knowledge they've never characterized Airbus's "remedies".

Will this be a normal court case or an arbitration? Obviously IF it goes that far.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G781B mit Tapatalk

oschkosch wrote:

Will this be a normal court case or an arbitration? Obviously IF it goes that far.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G781B mit Tapatalk

Rarely do these types of conflicts actually get to court. Airbus does not want any risk of public disclosure of the issue or the contracts. Lawsuits also hurt future sales. I still view this as posturing.

oschkosch wrote:

Will this be a normal court case or an arbitration? Obviously IF it goes that far.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G781B mit Tapatalk

I hadn't thought about this aspect till you asked. All the reports I've read say that QR has filed a claim against Airbus in the High Court in London. I would think that if they were using arbitration, different terminology would be used, but I'm not a legal expert.

So currently we have something that may be or not be a safety issue. There is no concerns for this at other CAA's or airlines with regard to the current fixes as they continue to fly the aircraft. So either this is an isolated problem that QR is having, or it is a widespread problem and QR is behaving out of the norms for this problem.

Is this about it?

enzo011 wrote:

There is no concerns for this at other CAA's or airlines with regard to the current fixes as they continue to fly the aircraft.

Seems to me (IMO) to be an over-simplification.

Just because you continue to fly the aircraft doesn't mean you have no concerns. Just because we don't hear about other airlines expressing concerns doesn't mean they aren't expressing concerns behind closed doors.

Airbus's statement on copper mesh vs copper foil shows to me at least that they have some concerns. These may be getting attention due to internal concerns, or because customers are expressing concerns, or some combination of both.

enzo011 wrote:

So currently we have something that may be or not be a safety issue. There is no concerns for this at other CAA's or airlines with regard to the current fixes as they continue to fly the aircraft. So either this is an isolated problem that QR is having, or it is a widespread problem and QR is behaving out of the norms for this problem.

Is this about it?

QR refuse to take delivery of new A350 due to the type "grounded" by Qatar CAA. That's the actual billion dollar issue

LDRA wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

So currently we have something that may be or not be a safety issue. There is no concerns for this at other CAA's or airlines with regard to the current fixes as they continue to fly the aircraft. So either this is an isolated problem that QR is having, or it is a widespread problem and QR is behaving out of the norms for this problem.

QR refuse to take delivery of new A350 due to the type "grounded" by Qatar CAA. That's the actual billion dollar issue

The first report of QR refusing delivery of new A350s in June 2021 does not mention the regulator's actions at all. It says QR itself had grounded some aircraft at that point in time.

Qatar Airways said on Tuesday the surface below the paint on some of its Airbus (AIR.PA) A350s was deteriorating faster than expected and insisted it would not take more deliveries of the carbon-composite widebody jet until the problem was resolved.
...
The airline has grounded some A350s "until the condition and root cause can be understood and corrected," the spokesperson said, without disclosing how many aircraft were affected.

Ref: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-ea ... 2021-06-08

I guess it's a sexier story the way you tell it, but that's not how it went down.

This is either the most confusing story or we are saddled with a terrible storyteller.

Revelation wrote:

I hadn't thought about this aspect till you asked. All the reports I've read say that QR has filed a claim against Airbus in the High Court in London. I would think that if they were using arbitration, different terminology would be used, but I'm not a legal expert.

QR have not “filed a claim against Airbus in the High Court in London” they filed in the Technology and Construction Court in London.

The Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice has the supervisory jurisdiction over the Technology and Construction Court.

The majority of matters before the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) are dealt with by arbitration, and they may not even be dealt with by a judge. The TCC used to be called the Official Referees' Court.

Much the same time the Official Referees' Court was renamed the Technology and Construction Court the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) were introduced which focuses on alternate dispute resolution to improve access to courts for claimants.

Revelation wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

There is no concerns for this at other CAA's or airlines with regard to the current fixes as they continue to fly the aircraft.

Seems to me (IMO) to be an over-simplification.

Just because you continue to fly the aircraft doesn't mean you have no concerns. Just because we don't hear about other airlines expressing concerns doesn't mean they aren't expressing concerns behind closed doors.

Airbus's statement on copper mesh vs copper foil shows to me at least that they have some concerns. These may be getting attention due to internal concerns, or because customers are expressing concerns, or some combination of both.

Okay, fair enough. There are no concerns to not fly the type at other airlines or CAA's, would that be fairer? QR and the Qatar CAA are the only ones where the aircraft is not being flown at this moment. It could well be that this becomes a flight safety concern and all A350's are grounded, but as of now there are no concerns not to fly the aircraft outside of Qatar, right?

Please remember to provide a link to your source when stating facts, even if you are citing from a link which has been posted before, unless you are directly replying to this post. If you are stating your opinion, please make it clear you are posting your opinion and not stating facts. Thanks.

enzo011 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

There is no concerns for this at other CAA's or airlines with regard to the current fixes as they continue to fly the aircraft.

Seems to me (IMO) to be an over-simplification.

Just because you continue to fly the aircraft doesn't mean you have no concerns. Just because we don't hear about other airlines expressing concerns doesn't mean they aren't expressing concerns behind closed doors.

Airbus's statement on copper mesh vs copper foil shows to me at least that they have some concerns. These may be getting attention due to internal concerns, or because customers are expressing concerns, or some combination of both.

Okay, fair enough. There are no concerns to not fly the type at other airlines or CAA's, would that be fairer? QR and the Qatar CAA are the only ones where the aircraft is not being flown at this moment. It could well be that this becomes a flight safety concern and all A350's are grounded, but as of now there are no concerns not to fly the aircraft outside of Qatar, right?

I don't think we know what the concerns of the world's regulators are. We do have some EASA statements that say they do not see an airworthiness issue. We do know QR's regulator is the only one that has taken actions.

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I hadn't thought about this aspect till you asked. All the reports I've read say that QR has filed a claim against Airbus in the High Court in London. I would think that if they were using arbitration, different terminology would be used, but I'm not a legal expert.

QR have not “filed a claim against Airbus in the High Court in London” they filed in the Technology and Construction Court in London.

The Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice has the supervisory jurisdiction over the Technology and Construction Court.

The majority of matters before the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) are dealt with by arbitration, and they may not even be dealt with by a judge. The TCC used to be called the Official Referees' Court.

Much the same time the Official Referees' Court was renamed the Technology and Construction Court the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) were introduced which focuses on alternate dispute resolution to improve access to courts for claimants.

Thanks for the clarification.

It might be worth pointing out that https://www.airlineratings.com/news/ind ... ion-issues says:

Qatar Airways has issued legal proceedings against Airbus in the Technology and Construction division of the High Court in London over accelerated surface degradation of the A350s in its fleet.

Some if not most media sources shortened this to just saying the High Court in London.

Revelation wrote:

Some if not most media sources shortened this to just saying the High Court in London.

The correct name of the forum this was being heard has been discussed over the previous 3 pages of this thread. The name of the forum was clearly included in the title of the QR press release on the matter which was linked previously https://www.qatarairways.com/en/press-r ... s-releases

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Some if not most media sources shortened this to just saying the High Court in London.

The correct name of the forum this was being heard has been discussed over the previous 3 pages of this thread. The name of the forum was clearly included in the title of the QR press release on the matter which was linked previously https://www.qatarairways.com/en/press-r ... s-releases

Thanks zeke for the link again.
What is very noticeable (at least for me) that only the smallest part of the publication relates to the dispute with Airbus. The largest share relates to self-promotion which even includes the A350 ! Wow , just wow !

It’s not inaccurate to say that it was filed in the High Court of London. The Technology and Construction Court is part of the High Court which encompasses three divisions with various sub divisions (https://www.judiciary.uk/highcourt/). You have to file in the division applicable to your case. There is no general “High Court” that you file in.

oldJoe wrote:

What is very noticeable (at least for me) that only the smallest part of the publication relates to the dispute with Airbus. The largest share relates to self-promotion which even includes the A350 ! Wow , just wow !

You are reading the NOTES TO EDITORS which is a boiler plate general info and not the actual press release release body, it's below every QR press release to provide general info for any editors carrying the story in places where QR isn't as well known.

"One of the common components of a press release is the “Notes to the Editor” section at the very end. This is the section where you can provide a bit of background information for the reporter. It’s typically boilerplate information that doesn’t belong in the story but that lets the reporter know a little bit more about who you are, what you company does, what your background is, etc."

https://www.ereleases.com/pr-fuel/what- ... s-release/


"It’s good practice to include a notes to editor section at the end of your press release. This can include information that’s useful for the media, but doesn’t need to be included in the actual story."

https://prunlocked.com/what-is-a-press- ... -examples/

Pelly wrote :
............ but that lets the reporter know a little bit more about who you are, what you company does, what your background is, etc

Sounds to me that some reporters even don`t know about QR at all in this times ? You know it better ... with carpets etc

oldJoe wrote:

Pelly wrote :
............ but that lets the reporter know a little bit more about who you are, what you company does, what your background is, etc

Sounds to me that some reporters even don`t know about QR at all in this times ? You know it better ... with carpets etc

It might be a good idea for them to include verbiage about carpets which was A.net urban legend that people eventually believed to be true. Here is an old post of mine:

Airbus said Qatar's A380 had been delayed as the airline had been very "demanding" in its specifications. The carrier found fault in the texturing of the paint, the interior cabin decor foils, which are similar to wallpaper, and the jet's non-textile floors, which are prevalent in the galley area. Those large galley structures now have to be removed to lay new flooring in a time-consuming process.

"It's a bit of a job because it has to be done carefully," said Tom Williams, executive vice president of programs at Airbus.

Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/qatar-airw ... 1405358331

The galley floor alignment and sealing is very important due to issues of corrosion [from liquid intrusion] and its necessary to remove the galleys to fix. Galley floors and carpets are not the same thing.

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I hadn't thought about this aspect till you asked. All the reports I've read say that QR has filed a claim against Airbus in the High Court in London. I would think that if they were using arbitration, different terminology would be used, but I'm not a legal expert.

QR have not “filed a claim against Airbus in the High Court in London” they filed in the Technology and Construction Court in London.

The Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice has the supervisory jurisdiction over the Technology and Construction Court.

The majority of matters before the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) are dealt with by arbitration, and they may not even be dealt with by a judge. The TCC used to be called the Official Referees' Court.

Much the same time the Official Referees' Court was renamed the Technology and Construction Court the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) were introduced which focuses on alternate dispute resolution to improve access to courts for claimants.

So it is an arbitration process? Oh dear, this will be very expensive for both parties.

Revelation wrote:

It might be worth pointing out that https://www.airlineratings.com/news/ind ... ion-issues says:

Qatar Airways has issued legal proceedings against Airbus in the Technology and Construction division of the High Court in London over accelerated surface degradation of the A350s in its fleet.

Some if not most media sources shortened this to just saying the High Court in London.

You didn't really quote airlineratings as a reputable source did you?

Polot wrote:

It’s not inaccurate to say that it was filed in the High Court of London. The Technology and Construction Court is part of the High Court which encompasses three divisions with various sub divisions (https://www.judiciary.uk/highcourt/). You have to file in the division applicable to your case. There is no general “High Court” that you file in.

It was filed in the Technology and Construction Court, not in the High Court of Justice. It is like saying a matter filed in the Commercial Court is filed in the High Court of Justice.

Technology and Construction Court matters can be filed electronically, physically at the Rolls Buildings, physically at the Thomas More Building (County Court at Central London) or around 9 other venues across the U.K. the wording used by QR means they were filed in the Rolls Building.

My previous post explaining the divisions within the High Court of Justice was entirely correct.

https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/tec ... tion-court

zeke wrote:

Polot wrote:

It’s not inaccurate to say that it was filed in the High Court of London. The Technology and Construction Court is part of the High Court which encompasses three divisions with various sub divisions (https://www.judiciary.uk/highcourt/). You have to file in the division applicable to your case. There is no general “High Court” that you file in.

It was filed in the Technology and Construction Court, not in the High Court of Justice. It is like saying a matter filed in the Commercial Court is filed in the High Court of Justice.

Technology and Construction Court matters can be filed electronically, physically at the Rolls Buildings, physically at the Thomas More Building (County Court at Central London) or around 9 other venues across the U.K. the wording used by QR means they were filed in the Rolls Building.

My previous post explaining the divisions within the High Court of Justice was entirely correct.

https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/tec ... tion-court

From your link:

Who we are
We are a specialist group of courts, part of the Business and Property Court of the High Court of Justice. We include both the High Court and the County Court.

Our High Court work is handled at the Rolls Building, Londonand at district registries across England and Wales. Cases are heard by a High Court judge and by certain circuit judges and recorders.

(Emphasis mine)

So in other words…QR filed in the High Court in London. Commercial cases are part of the High Court, it’s not just criminal cases. The case will be heard by a High Court judge. I don’t know why this is being argued, it’s not some big deal that it was filed in the High Court. That is not that surprising considering it is an international dispute between two companies none of which are technically based in the UK.

Your quoted link actually backs up everything I state in my reply that you quoted.

Polot wrote:

So in other words…QR filed in the High Court in London

No, practice direction 60:states “ 3.1 TCC claims must be issued in the High Court or in a County Court hearing centre specified in this practice direction” https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/proce ... /pd_part60

This means it was issued in the Rolls Building.

Technology and Construction Court
7 Rolls Buildings
Fetter Lane
London
EC4A 1NL
United Kingdom

The Rolls Building houses the High Court business, property and commercial capability of the Chancery Division (including Bankruptcy and Insolvency), the Admiralty and Commercial Court and the Technology and Construction Court.

Polot wrote:

Commercial cases are part of the High Court, it’s not just criminal cases.

The High Court of Justice divisions are for hearing cases involving business and property disputes, intellectual property claims, estates, contract, tort, libel, slander, marriage, adoption, wardship etc. The matters are heard before specialist courts for those matters, each court has a list of the types of matters it will hear. Criminal cases are heard by Magistrates Court and more serious crimes by the Crown Court.

The TCC will hear the following matters, up particular look at item (l) and cast your mind back how Airbus went down the path of an independent legal assessment before this announcement by QR.

(a) building or other construction disputes, including claims for the enforcement of the decisions of adjudicators under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996;
(b) engineering disputes;
(c) claims by and against engineers, architects, surveyors, accountants and other specialised advisers relating to the services they provide;
(d) claims by and against local authorities relating to their statutory duties concerning the development of land or the construction of buildings;
(e) claims relating to the design, supply and installation of computers, computer software and related network systems;
(f) claims relating to the quality of goods sold or hired, and work done, materials supplied or services rendered;
(g) claims between landlord and tenant for breach of a repairing covenant;
(h) claims between neighbours, owners and occupiers of land in trespass, nuisance etc;
(i) claims relating to the environment (for example, pollution cases);
(j) claims arising out of fires;
(k) claims involving taking of accounts where these are complicated; and
(l) challenges to decisions of arbitrators in construction and engineering disputes including applications for permission to appeal and appeals.

Polot wrote:

The case will be heard by a High Court judge.

That is very unlikely in the first instance. TCC cases are heard by a TCC judge. Any full or part time judge authorised to hear TCC claims is a TCC judge. It is likely in the first instance a recorder (part time judge) will facilitate the alternate dispute resolution process between the parties to focus each party on the legal issues that can be heard.

Polot wrote:

Your quoted link actually backs up everything I state in my reply that you quoted.

No it doesn’t. you are clearly unaware that the Technology and Construction Court is a court in its own standing, https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/proce ... les/part60

enzo011 wrote:

So currently we have something that may be or not be a safety issue. There is no concerns for this at other CAA's or airlines with regard to the current fixes as they continue to fly the aircraft. So either this is an isolated problem that QR is having, or it is a widespread problem and QR is behaving out of the norms for this problem.

Is this about it?

I think the 'grounding' is being beaten way out of proportion. Only the aircraft displaying the problem have been grounded. It's quite likely that until repairs have been made, these aircraft are deemed to be not airworthy. QR doesn't want to make those repairs until they know said repairs will be a permenent solution instead of a temporary fix, therefore the aircraft stay 'grounded'.
That would be why other carriers and CAAs are not grounding their aircraft, as they are happy (enough) with the current fixes.
(This is all my opinion on what is happening, I don't have any insider knowledge etc).

PJ01 wrote :
It's quite likely that until repairs have been made, these aircraft are deemed to be not airworthy.

Nobody even the QCAA said these aircraft are not airworthy

QR doesn't want to make those repairs until they know said repairs will be a permenent solution instead of a temporary fix, therefore the aircraft stay 'grounded'.

If any OEM offers you a fix is there any guarantee they can provide you ? I guess no ! They do their best to keep the customer satisfied !

That would be why other carriers and CAAs are not grounding their aircraft, as they are happy (enough) with the current fixes.

If they are happy enough with the current fixes why even affected airlines like Finnair are accepting new deliveries ?

If QR and QCAA wants to teach Airbus/EASA or Boeing/FAA how to certify an airplane or a fix they have a lesson to learn !
Maybe the next step is if a carpet don`t match their expections they will ground the plane because it`s not airworthy ???