Repainting removes the issue now but doesn’t guarantee that it won’t pop up again a few years down the road. Airbus may be willing to pay for the repaint now, that doesn’t mean they will be willing to pay for more frequent repaints throughout the life of the aircraft at QR.
QR’s demands are in part to ensure Airbus treats the issue as a priority to fix rather than a side issue that they’ll eventually fix.
Firstly what may or may not happen in a few years is not relevant here, QR is claiming AOG payments so they are looking for solutions that can get the aircraft airborne again within 12 hours of it being detected. To the best of my knowledge that information has been provided, however the customer is refusing to apply them using your sort of arguments. That is not what AOG is about.
There are a lot of assumptions in your post that are not currently supported by any evidence. There is no evidence that Airbus have not treated this as a priority, and there is no evidence to suggest they do not have a permanent fix. The majority I saw in that last video was paint coming off fastener heads, I would be very surprised if a different product was not available to treat these during surface preparation.
In aerospace terms if something lasts years, that is permanent, it will get through a couple of C checks. A temporary repair would be speed tape that needs to be inspected every sector.
Operators also need to adjust their maintenance programs that fits the way they operate their aircraft. For example NZ have a couple of 77Ws which are significantly damaged by storing them at AKL during covid exposed to moist salt air. The same aircraft if they were taken to a dry climate away from the sea would not have had the same damage. That damage after being stored at AKL is not the fault of the airframe or engine OEMs, it is not an issue with the aircraft. It simply is the was the operator elected to use the aircraft.
One of the types of damage QR had in their court filings related to the edges of dark and light livery changes, the style of livery I trust you would agree is a choice the operator makes, not the OEM.
Nothing about this is clear cut going by what QR has submitted to court, we have only heard one side of the story. Come end of the month we should know the other side’s versions which I would not be surprised to learn has a different perspective.
I think anyone who has worked with the OEMs would think this is very much out of character, it just doesn’t add up. Airbus would have staff in house next to QR maintenance in DOH, they would be very well versed in providing their customer airline with rapid solutions to keep them flying, this is done at a technical manager to technical manager level. I think we will need to wait until Airbus submits their side to understand what has happened, I suspect someone who is not technical has got involved into the process.
That wouldn’t be the first case, one airline CEO was famous for terminating maintenance staff on the basis that new aircraft do not need maintenance.