Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

LTEN11 · Mon May 16, 2022 1:46 pm

aaexecplat wrote:
keesje wrote:
TC957 wrote:
If only it were that simple. But I suspect that's how Airbus handled other airlines that reported minor A350 paint issues. You don't see other airlines's CEO's making such a shutzpah over this issue. And none of their countries aviation regulators have deemed the grounding necessary of the affected frames so what we have come to now is down to how QR have handled this.

I don't know all the details & it seems the way QR handled it was more personal then regular by I guy who isn't used to handling "no" as an answer.

On the other hand I don't want to downplay the paint damage issues, they look bad enough to me.

But I assume there is a reason & solution for it that can be worked out by operations.

And Al Baker probably doesn't want to bet the company on 777-9 & 737-10s iso proven A35Xs and A321NEOs.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-11-29/

https://simpleflying.com/qatar-airways- ... 50-damage/

Reminder...

1) QR used paint outside of Airbus specs/recommendation
2) QR used stripping techniques during repaint in contravention of published Airbus methods

It is entirely possible that the severity of the images you show is due to their continued defiance of Airbus paint and maintenance protocol. I think the images look bad, but they have to be viewed with the previously mentioned facts as the background.

When did QR use paint outside of Airbus specs ? Wasn't the 350 that had been stripped of paint the first to have been done so, otherwise all the 350's delivered would've been painted by Airbus ?

sxf24 · Mon May 16, 2022 1:48 pm

aaexecplat wrote:
JohanTally wrote:
aaexecplat wrote:

Reminder...

1) QR used paint outside of Airbus specs/recommendation
2) QR used stripping techniques during repaint in contravention of published Airbus methods

It is entirely possible that the severity of the images you show is due to their continued defiance of Airbus paint and maintenance protocol. I think the images look bad, but they have to be viewed with the previously mentioned facts as the background.

Did the five other airlines with similar paint defects also do this? There's an issue but QR and their regulators have most likely overstated the significance of the problem although it still needs to be remedied.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-11-29/

No airline has had the same level of defects. No other airline has sued AB and no other regulator has grounded the A350. Beyond that, no other airline has released information about their paint specs, but my best guess is that other airlines followed both the AB paint specs and recommended repainting steps. Which may explain why no other airline has chosen to sue AB. I don't think anyone can deny there is a problem with paint peeling on A350 fuselages just as there is/was a problem with paint peeling on 787 wings. But the severity of the issue is almost certainly (based on the documentation provided by both aprties in court so far) due to QR's dogged insistence of doing things differently from what AB recommends for best results.

We don’t know that other airlines don’t have the same level of defects. This conclusion is being drawn with limited information, particularly the lack of litigation and regulatory action.

frigatebird · Mon May 16, 2022 2:35 pm

aaexecplat wrote:
frigatebird wrote:
Keesje, I fully agree with you. Emotions have taken the upper hand IMO. Not just in Qatar, but I suspect to a lesser extent also in Toulouse, and definitely in this thread. So it's time to be regain our senses again. It's in the interest of all parties to settle this out of court now. Realizing I will be called naïve I'm hopeful there will be a settlement, and I believe QR will accept eventually the same solutions Airbus provided to other airlines. I also believe the A350 deliveries will restart after the dust has settled, and the cancelled A350 orders will reappear in Airbus' order book (maybe converted to and added with A359s). Airbus needs QR's A350 order IMO, it's not that A350 orders kept rolling in the past few years.

Different story with the A321neo order. Airbus possibly may want to take advantage and sell these with higher margins. QR can either lease neo's or firm their 737-10 LoI.

Won't be surprised to see AAB announce his retirement half a year afterwards. Which, both AAB, QR and the emir will stress, will have no relationship whatsoever with this court battle, it was always in their plans, thanks you so much AAB, etc etc

I doubt it. Apparently, the A35k that QR isn't taking are already planned to be sent off to LH. Once that happens, the entire deal is done IMO.

There is only a few media reports LH is apparently looking at getting some A350s sooner than planned, but this hasn't led to a firm order yet. Unlike the additional 787s LH is acquiring from Boeing. LH has no A350-1000 on order yet, and a subfleet of 3 aircraft is not efficient. And finally, if LH decides to take NTU A350s, the SU ones are far more likely, as these are -900s. And even if the 3 A350-1000s now sitting at TLS won't go to QR, Airbus can always produce 3 new ones - it will just take a little longer for QR to receive these ;-)

DartHerald · Mon May 16, 2022 2:51 pm

frigatebird wrote:

I doubt it. Apparently, the A35k that QR isn't taking are already planned to be sent off to LH. Once that happens, the entire deal is done IMO.

There is only a few media reports LH is apparently looking at getting some A350s sooner than planned, but this hasn't led to a firm order yet. Unlike the additional 787s LH is acquiring from Boeing. LH has no A350-1000 on order yet, and a subfleet of 3 aircraft is not efficient. And finally, if LH decides to take NTU A350s, the SU ones are far more likely, as these are -900s. And even if the 3 A350-1000s now sitting at TLS won't go to QR, Airbus can always produce 3 new ones - it will just take a little longer for QR to receive these ;-)

[/quote]

Of coursethere are other possibilities: If QR were to lose the case there may be other upcoming examples from the QR order that may become available if the have a fit of pique and cancel all their remaining orders, some of which may already be in production to add to the two already on offer - and potentially more as yet unbuilt ones whether intended for QR, SU or just currently vacant slots. It's a buyers market at the moment.

MrHMSH · Mon May 16, 2022 2:54 pm

frigatebird wrote:
aaexecplat wrote:
frigatebird wrote:
Keesje, I fully agree with you. Emotions have taken the upper hand IMO. Not just in Qatar, but I suspect to a lesser extent also in Toulouse, and definitely in this thread. So it's time to be regain our senses again. It's in the interest of all parties to settle this out of court now. Realizing I will be called naïve I'm hopeful there will be a settlement, and I believe QR will accept eventually the same solutions Airbus provided to other airlines. I also believe the A350 deliveries will restart after the dust has settled, and the cancelled A350 orders will reappear in Airbus' order book (maybe converted to and added with A359s). Airbus needs QR's A350 order IMO, it's not that A350 orders kept rolling in the past few years.

Different story with the A321neo order. Airbus possibly may want to take advantage and sell these with higher margins. QR can either lease neo's or firm their 737-10 LoI.

Won't be surprised to see AAB announce his retirement half a year afterwards. Which, both AAB, QR and the emir will stress, will have no relationship whatsoever with this court battle, it was always in their plans, thanks you so much AAB, etc etc

I doubt it. Apparently, the A35k that QR isn't taking are already planned to be sent off to LH. Once that happens, the entire deal is done IMO.

There is only a few media reports LH is apparently looking at getting some A350s sooner than planned, but this hasn't led to a firm order yet. Unlike the additional 787s LH is acquiring from Boeing. LH has no A350-1000 on order yet, and a subfleet of 3 aircraft is not efficient. And finally, if LH decides to take NTU A350s, the SU ones are far more likely, as these are -900s. And even if the 3 A350-1000s now sitting at TLS won't go to QR, Airbus can always produce 3 new ones - it will just take a little longer for QR to receive these

Would a subfleet of A35Ks really be inefficient for a carrier with A359s?

HL300MUC · Mon May 16, 2022 3:35 pm

sxf24 wrote:
aaexecplat wrote:
JohanTally wrote:
Did the five other airlines with similar paint defects also do this? There's an issue but QR and their regulators have most likely overstated the significance of the problem although it still needs to be remedied.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-11-29/

No airline has had the same level of defects. No other airline has sued AB and no other regulator has grounded the A350. Beyond that, no other airline has released information about their paint specs, but my best guess is that other airlines followed both the AB paint specs and recommended repainting steps. Which may explain why no other airline has chosen to sue AB. I don't think anyone can deny there is a problem with paint peeling on A350 fuselages just as there is/was a problem with paint peeling on 787 wings. But the severity of the issue is almost certainly (based on the documentation provided by both aprties in court so far) due to QR's dogged insistence of doing things differently from what AB recommends for best results.

We don’t know that other airlines don’t have the same level of defects. This conclusion is being drawn with limited information, particularly the lack of litigation and regulatory action.

We also don´t know that other airlines have the same level of defects.

Pelly · Mon May 16, 2022 4:04 pm

aaexecplat wrote:
Reminder...

1) QR used paint outside of Airbus specs/recommendation
2) QR used stripping techniques during repaint in contravention of published Airbus methods

It is entirely possible that the severity of the images you show is due to their continued defiance of Airbus paint and maintenance protocol. I think the images look bad, but they have to be viewed with the previously mentioned facts as the background.

Reminder, it is important to differentiate between the claims from both sides and what is established fact. The points you refer to are Airbus claims:

1) Airbus filings said the following on the paint specs:
“on occasion, the aircraft delivered to QTR have been repainted prior to delivery, at QTR’s request and/or to enhance their cosmetic appearance”
“this may have resulted in the paint thickness exceeding the engineering specification”

2) That is Airbus' claim, QR denies that claim. A spokesman for Qatar Airways said: “Accelerated surface degradation has impacted all 23 of our grounded aircraft, yet only one has been stripped of its paint. The stripped aircraft was dealt with in accordance with written instructions given by Airbus to an Airbus approved contractor in Shannon."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... world-cup/

QR also filed this

"the paint stripping and mechanical abrasion process on MSN 036 was commenced in November 2020 in Shannon by one of the Claimant’s contractors, which was approved by the Defendant to strip paint from Airbus aircraft. The paint strippers were instructed by the Claimant to follow the procedures that were set out in the Defendant’s ASR manual, and so far as the Claimant is aware the paint strippers did so act. Further, during the paint stripping the paint strippers sought and obtained advice from the Defendant on the paint stripping process. Even further, during that process, cracking, delamination and degradation of (i) the primer and top paint layer, (ii) the ECF and (iii) the CFRP were observed. At that stage, the paint stripping process was immediately halted, and the Defendant notified of the observed defects. The Defendant subsequently sent a team to Shannon to investigate, and that team permitted the continuation of the process under its supervision."

"Further, ECF is missing from Grounded Aircraft other than MSN 036."

Source: Document linked by user Zeke

Pelly · Mon May 16, 2022 4:17 pm

accentra wrote:
Aircellist wrote:
BoeingVista wrote:

Anybody think that this goes back to QR's carpet bullshit with the first A350 deliveries? That must have chaffed and irked Airbus.

I would not go that far. It certainly ruffled some feathers, but that was still, I'd guess, "par for the course" with such a customer. The thing is that this recent affair was AAB really doing his best for Airbus to lose face. I believe this is where he went too far.

Only my musician's opinion, of course

I'm of the opinion that this whole thing does indeed date back to the 'carpet issue'. In fairness, the spat wasn't over carpets per se. It was a fair bit more complex than that. However, it escalated, as AAB has a habit of doing, with deliveries of A350s stalled, and it ended up with a thoroughly frustrated Airbus attempting to 'run around' AAB and appeal directly to the Emir to sort things out. Who knows what transpired from that approach but A350 deliveries restarted. Go figure! Things have been distinctly dicey between Airbus and AAB ever since. Hardly a surprise as it's no secret that AAB isn't the type to let any slight go 'unpunished'.

There was never a carpet issue, the carpet issue took a life of its own on A.net due to mistranslation of flooring, the issue was in relation to the A380 galley flooring.

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

The prior A350 issues were mostly related to cabin and supply chain issues and QR weren't the only ones affected.

"“So far the feedback on the A350-1000 product was substantially better, both in terms of the Zodiac business class seats as well as all the other issues that we have from the lavatory that is more an Airbus issue.”

Calling the lavatory situations on B-LRQ “really one of the worst examples” of the problems, Lo highlighted that Cathay Pacific is dealing with Airbus as the catalogue supplier of lavatories, rather than Safran Cabin"

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2018/12/c ... new-a350s/

Airbus acknowledged those issues at that time:

"Deliveries of the new wide-body jet have been held up by delays or quality problems in the supply of cabin equipment, including seats and lavatories from Zodiac Aerospace: a situation recently criticised by the president of Airbus.

“For the cabin, we are back to a very few suppliers who are critical and Zodiac is probably the most critical one. Zodiac has not recovered yet,” Airbus Group Chief Procurement Officer Klaus Richter told Reuters."

https://www.reuters.com/article/airbus- ... SL8N19K52J

other links:

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2016/06/i ... -schedule/

There were also delays caused by QR's selected suppliers:

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2018/02/a ... programme/

I think it is important not to conflate the prior QR A350 issues with this current issue.

accentra · Mon May 16, 2022 5:13 pm

I don't think it is a matter of 'conflating' the prior issues with the current one but rather looking at the current situation through the lens of the previous confrontations between Airbus and AAB, and especially Airbus' previous attempt to 'run around' AAB to the Emir. Personally, I would be very surprised if the current situation, including where both parties are coming from and their attitude to the other, hasn't been entirely influenced by the past difficulties.

frigatebird · Mon May 16, 2022 5:38 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
frigatebird wrote:
aaexecplat wrote:

I doubt it. Apparently, the A35k that QR isn't taking are already planned to be sent off to LH. Once that happens, the entire deal is done IMO.

There is only a few media reports LH is apparently looking at getting some A350s sooner than planned, but this hasn't led to a firm order yet. Unlike the additional 787s LH is acquiring from Boeing. LH has no A350-1000 on order yet, and a subfleet of 3 aircraft is not efficient. And finally, if LH decides to take NTU A350s, the SU ones are far more likely, as these are -900s. And even if the 3 A350-1000s now sitting at TLS won't go to QR, Airbus can always produce 3 new ones - it will just take a little longer for QR to receive these

Would a subfleet of A35Ks really be inefficient for a carrier with A359s?

I think so, yes. Certainly for an airline the size of LH. The A35K is far more than just a stretched A359, unlike the 787-10 vs the 787-9. Quite a bit of unique parts for the -1000, partly because Airbus decided to give it more range than originally designed. The engines are not identical either, RR needed to redesign the original Trent-XWB to give it enough thrust for the increased range specs.

By no means I'm ruling out LH operating the -1000, but they will place a larger order then.

enzo011 · Mon May 16, 2022 5:59 pm

Pelly wrote:
Reminder, it is important to differentiate between the claims from both sides and what is established fact. The points you refer to are Airbus claims:

1) Airbus filings said the following on the paint specs:
“on occasion, the aircraft delivered to QTR have been repainted prior to delivery, at QTR’s request and/or to enhance their cosmetic appearance”
“this may have resulted in the paint thickness exceeding the engineering specification”

2) That is Airbus' claim, QR denies that claim. A spokesman for Qatar Airways said: “Accelerated surface degradation has impacted all 23 of our grounded aircraft, yet only one has been stripped of its paint. The stripped aircraft was dealt with in accordance with written instructions given by Airbus to an Airbus approved contractor in Shannon."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... world-cup/

QR also filed this

"the paint stripping and mechanical abrasion process on MSN 036 was commenced in November 2020 in Shannon by one of the Claimant’s contractors, which was approved by the Defendant to strip paint from Airbus aircraft. The paint strippers were instructed by the Claimant to follow the procedures that were set out in the Defendant’s ASR manual, and so far as the Claimant is aware the paint strippers did so act. Further, during the paint stripping the paint strippers sought and obtained advice from the Defendant on the paint stripping process. Even further, during that process, cracking, delamination and degradation of (i) the primer and top paint layer, (ii) the ECF and (iii) the CFRP were observed. At that stage, the paint stripping process was immediately halted, and the Defendant notified of the observed defects. The Defendant subsequently sent a team to Shannon to investigate, and that team permitted the continuation of the process under its supervision."

"Further, ECF is missing from Grounded Aircraft other than MSN 036."

Source: Document linked by user Zeke

The filing wording is interesting. Qatar Airways does not deny the Airbus filing that the process used was not approved, only that the provider was approved by Airbus and that they asked the provider to follow the Airbus manuals. So they are not denying that the paint stripping was not as per what Airbus advises, only that they are not aware of the process used and they washed their hands of it as they asked the provider in Shannon to follow the correct process.

Not sure how that will play in court though, they seem to be throwing the company under the bus here but they are ultimately responsible for their contractors work and not Airbus. If Airbus can back up that the wrong process was used then it is on QR and it will between them and the provider to discuss that particular frame and compensation that has kept it out of service. What we have is separate claims as well, the aircraft that was stripped and then the other aircraft. Airbus filed that the aircraft that was stripped did not follow the correct procedure as above.

The other aircraft may be due to QR requesting a repaint before delivery. Even QR seems to be trying to conflate all issues into one when it seems to me there are different issues as play here. And as we see with Boeing and the 787, paint issues are not confined to only one provider. Will be interesting to see when this is eventually ruled on or a settlement is reached to see the details of this case. At the moment we have both sides stating what they believe.

smartplane · Mon May 16, 2022 7:33 pm

accentra wrote:
I don't think it is a matter of 'conflating' the prior issues with the current one but rather looking at the current situation through the lens of the previous confrontations between Airbus and AAB, and especially Airbus' previous attempt to 'run around' AAB to the Emir. Personally, I would be very surprised if the current situation, including where both parties are coming from and their attitude to the other, hasn't been entirely influenced by the past difficulties.

Could the point where Airbus started taking a firmer line, coincide with the cessation of fitting mule engines for ground tests, up to and including RTO?

RR has been very quiet throughout this dispute. Could they be shedding a few crocodile tears at the possible loss of QR business?

accentra · Mon May 16, 2022 9:27 pm

smartplane wrote:
accentra wrote:
I don't think it is a matter of 'conflating' the prior issues with the current one but rather looking at the current situation through the lens of the previous confrontations between Airbus and AAB, and especially Airbus' previous attempt to 'run around' AAB to the Emir. Personally, I would be very surprised if the current situation, including where both parties are coming from and their attitude to the other, hasn't been entirely influenced by the past difficulties.

Could the point where Airbus started taking a firmer line, coincide with the cessation of fitting mule engines for ground tests, up to and including RTO?

RR has been very quiet throughout this dispute. Could they be shedding a few crocodile tears at the possible loss of QR business?

It's not widely known that before the skin/paint issue came up, AAB was actually gunning for RR, claiming that the Trent engines were inadequately supported and that he wanted X, Y and Z from RR. That was heating up to be a major spat between AAB and Airbus/RR. Again, no other Trent XWB operator had had this kind of supposed issue with RR. And, strangely, it went away... when the paint/skin issue emerged! Some.might say it plays in to the narrative that AAB was simply looking for something to bash Airbus with. Whatever, I would imagine that RR is probably of the same mind as Airbus re this particular customer.

Pelly · Tue May 17, 2022 2:22 am

enzo011 wrote:

The filing wording is interesting. Qatar Airways does not deny the Airbus filing that the process used was not approved, only that the provider was approved by Airbus and that they asked the provider to follow the Airbus manuals. So they are not denying that the paint stripping was not as per what Airbus advises, only that they are not aware of the process used and they washed their hands of it as they asked the provider in Shannon to follow the correct process.

Same documents has the following QR claims:

"The Defendant’s assertion that “the chemical paint stripping and mechanical abrasion went beyond Airbus’ recommendations” is vague anddenied."

"it is denied that the paint stripping and mechanical abrasion process significantly caused and/or contributed to the Condition. Further, ECF is missing from Grounded Aircraft other than MSN 036."

Pelly · Tue May 17, 2022 2:24 am

smartplane wrote:
accentra wrote:
I don't think it is a matter of 'conflating' the prior issues with the current one but rather looking at the current situation through the lens of the previous confrontations between Airbus and AAB, and especially Airbus' previous attempt to 'run around' AAB to the Emir. Personally, I would be very surprised if the current situation, including where both parties are coming from and their attitude to the other, hasn't been entirely influenced by the past difficulties.

Could the point where Airbus started taking a firmer line, coincide with the cessation of fitting mule engines for ground tests, up to and including RTO?

RR has been very quiet throughout this dispute. Could they be shedding a few crocodile tears at the possible loss of QR business?

I would assume this is contractual as Airbus was still doing this with the frames that they are going through the motions with during the dispute, at least in the early part of it.

Furthermore these announcements will not come from RR if they have issues with QR (and their owners).

Qatar Foundation and Rolls-Royce sign strategic partnership to invest, develop, and scale-up climate-tech businesses in UK and Qatar (Nov 2021)
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... rship.aspx

Rolls-Royce plc, Qatar Investment Authority, Announce Agreement to Invest in New Low Carbon Nuclear Power Business (Dec 2021)
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... ement.aspx

Pelly · Tue May 17, 2022 2:26 am

accentra wrote:
It's not widely known that before the skin/paint issue came up, AAB was actually gunning for RR, claiming that the Trent engines were inadequately supported and that he wanted X, Y and Z from RR.

Can you provide more info on your claim? was not aware of this...

zkojq · Tue May 17, 2022 3:40 am

keesje wrote:
And Al Baker probably doesn't want to bet the company on 777-9 & 737-10s iso proven A35Xs and A321NEOs.

Let him.

Actions; meet consequences.

zeke · Tue May 17, 2022 5:58 am

Strategically I think it would be best for Airbus if QR were required to take all of their contractural A350 with penalties

packsonflight · Tue May 17, 2022 7:27 am

It is not wise to to piss off one provider in a duopoly to that point that he will no longer do buisness with you.
MOL aparently is going to the seccond hand market now because Boeing has stopped giving him the deep discount as they did before because Airbus refuses to submit offers.

enzo011 · Tue May 17, 2022 7:57 am

Pelly wrote:
enzo011 wrote:

The filing wording is interesting. Qatar Airways does not deny the Airbus filing that the process used was not approved, only that the provider was approved by Airbus and that they asked the provider to follow the Airbus manuals. So they are not denying that the paint stripping was not as per what Airbus advises, only that they are not aware of the process used and they washed their hands of it as they asked the provider in Shannon to follow the correct process.

Same documents has the following QR claims:

"The Defendant’s assertion that “the chemical paint stripping and mechanical abrasion went beyond Airbus’ recommendations” is vague anddenied."

"it is denied that the paint stripping and mechanical abrasion process significantly caused and/or contributed to the Condition. Further, ECF is missing from Grounded Aircraft other than MSN 036."

Not sure what you are trying to cover here. I know QR disputes what Airbus is saying and Airbus is disputing what QR is saying, hence the court case. I just found the part you quoted interesting where they didn't commit to knowing what process was used, only that it is an Airbus approved contractor that did the work. Seems we are exactly where I said we are, as below...

enzo011 wrote:
At the moment we have both sides stating what they believe.

accentra · Tue May 17, 2022 9:25 am

Pelly wrote:
accentra wrote:
It's not widely known that before the skin/paint issue came up, AAB was actually gunning for RR, claiming that the Trent engines were inadequately supported and that he wanted X, Y and Z from RR.

Can you provide more info on your claim? was not aware of this...

This was reported by FlightGlobal and others at the time. It wasn't that long before the paint debate publicly erupted. RR kept pretty quiet about it and, I think, refused to comment. Suspect that was strategic (i.e. always seek to sort stuff out behind closed doors, especially when Qatar is a significant customer of yours for both aeroengines, both military and civil, and other tech).

majano · Tue May 17, 2022 10:52 am

zeke wrote:
Strategically I think it would be best for Airbus if QR were required to take all of their contractural A350 with penalties

I understand that the position you posit above is only your view, but as a contributor who has been close to this issue and studied the various submissions of Airbus and QR in detail, can you please enlighten us on the following:

The Airbus demand in relation to the A321NEO's was clearly that the court allows them to implement the cancellation of the Qatar order. The court recently granted that order.

In Airbus' statement of defence, an important request of the court in relation to the A350 dispute is for the court to dismiss the QR claim for USD600 million and other remedies.

Having said the above, my question is: has Airbus, either in their statement of defence or the counter-claim, demanded that Qatar honour their A350 contract?

The active cancellation by the manufacturer of some individual frames would suggest to me that Airbus is not gunning for all ordered frames to be delivered to Qatar, IMHO.

Pelly · Tue May 17, 2022 11:14 am

enzo011 wrote:
Not sure what you are trying to cover here. I know QR disputes what Airbus is saying and Airbus is disputing what QR is saying, hence the court case. I just found the part you quoted interesting where they didn't commit to knowing what process was used, only that it is an Airbus approved contractor that did the work. Seems we are exactly where I said we are, as below...

enzo011 wrote:
At the moment we have both sides stating what they believe.

I was covering what you said here:

enzo011 wrote:
Qatar Airways does not deny the Airbus filing that the process used was not approved,

QR did deny that:

'The Defendant’s assertion that “the chemical paint stripping and mechanical abrasion went beyond Airbus’ recommendations” is vague and denied.'

I agree that these are just claims by both sides, that is what I wrote in the first place in response to the post by aaexecplat

Pelly · Tue May 17, 2022 11:17 am

accentra wrote:

This was reported by FlightGlobal and others at the time. It wasn't that long before the paint debate publicly erupted. RR kept pretty quiet about it and, I think, refused to comment. Suspect that was strategic (i.e. always seek to sort stuff out behind closed doors, especially when Qatar is a significant customer of yours for both aeroengines, both military and civil, and other tech).

I think you might have confused QR with someone else, can't find anything about this on FlightGlobal's search engine or Google.

zeke · Tue May 17, 2022 11:19 am

I saw no injunction by Airbus to modify the contract terms, I did see a request for an injunction from QR to halt deliveries. That was not granted in the public records available.

My personal opinion as a bystander is that it appears Airbus continues to meet its obligations under the contract.

My personal opinion is unless modified by a court, the existing contract is still in effect.

accentra · Tue May 17, 2022 11:56 am

Pelly wrote:
accentra wrote:

This was reported by FlightGlobal and others at the time. It wasn't that long before the paint debate publicly erupted. RR kept pretty quiet about it and, I think, refused to comment. Suspect that was strategic (i.e. always seek to sort stuff out behind closed doors, especially when Qatar is a significant customer of yours for both aeroengines, both military and civil, and other tech).

I think you might have confused QR with someone else, can't find anything about this on FlightGlobal's search engine or Google.

It was reported. Some articles seem to have been removed. However, look at this one:

https://aviationanalyst.co.uk/2019/10/2 ... facturers/

Scroll down for AAB allegedly 'slamming' RR.

Quote from the article:

Al Baker confirmed the first A321neo delivery to the airline is now pencilled in for September 2020.

It’s not just single-aisle production that is causing a worldwide hold-up. Sitting down with Aviation Analyst in Malaysia, Al Baker slammed A350 XWB engine supplier Rolls-Royce over poor performance. He said “We are very disappointed in Rolls-Royce. They are failing — failing to meet performance, failing to meet the timeline, failing to give us the comfort we require on the reliability of their engines, and so we are very disappointed with Rolls Royce. This is in specific reference to the A350″

Al Baker added “The performance of the engines in service is not what we expected. The turnaround of the overhauls of our engines is not happening”

While Al Baker agreed with me that the dispatch reliability for the A350 remains high, “it’s only ever brought down by part-supply chain, and part-Rolls-Royce” Al Baker explained.

Pelly · Tue May 17, 2022 1:11 pm

accentra wrote:
He said “We are very disappointed in Rolls-Royce. They are failing — failing to meet performance, failing to meet the timeline, failing to give us the comfort we require on the reliability of their engines, and so we are very disappointed with Rolls Royce. This is in specific reference to the A350″

Al Baker added “The performance of the engines in service is not what we expected. The turnaround of the overhauls of our engines is not happening”

Thank you for providing that article, I respect but don't share your interpretation of the quotes in that single article ("AAB was actually gunning for RR, claiming that the Trent engines were inadequately supported and that he wanted X, Y and Z from RR. That was heating up to be a major spat between AAB and Airbus/RR. Again, no other Trent XWB operator had had this kind of supposed issue with RR. And, strangely, it went away") especially that RR at that time was occupied with the Trent 1000 issues and RR has acknowledged and fixed issues that they didn't expect with the Trent XWB (which is pretty normal for any aircraft engine).

"Cracks were found in isolated blades in 20% of the approximately 100 higher time engines inspected to-date. Rolls has so far built around 800 Trent XWB-84s and accumulated six million hours of flight time in what the manufacturer calls the “smoothest entry-into-service of any widebody engine we have developed.”

"Describing the cracks as “clear wear and tear in the actual bedding area of the first stage rotor blade,” Haselbach added “we didn’t expect that to happen on the XWB.”

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... wear-issue

While Rolls-Royce says it is too early to identify the root cause of the lower durability, Frank Haselbach, chief engineer for large engine programmes, says it is “pretty convinced” the issues are unrelated.

He says the problem was discovered during routine inspections of “high-life” engines – those with 2,300-3,400 cycles, which have been in operation for four to five years – as part of their first shop visits. The component would normally expected to have double that lifespan.

https://www.flightglobal.com/engines/a3 ... 08.article

accentra · Tue May 17, 2022 1:33 pm

Pelly wrote:
accentra wrote:
He said “We are very disappointed in Rolls-Royce. They are failing — failing to meet performance, failing to meet the timeline, failing to give us the comfort we require on the reliability of their engines, and so we are very disappointed with Rolls Royce. This is in specific reference to the A350″

Al Baker added “The performance of the engines in service is not what we expected. The turnaround of the overhauls of our engines is not happening”

Thank you for providing that article, I respect but don't share your interpretation of the quotes in that single article ("AAB was actually gunning for RR, claiming that the Trent engines were inadequately supported and that he wanted X, Y and Z from RR. That was heating up to be a major spat between AAB and Airbus/RR. Again, no other Trent XWB operator had had this kind of supposed issue with RR. And, strangely, it went away") especially that RR at that time was occupied with the Trent 1000 issues and RR has acknowledged and fixed issues that they didn't expect with the Trent XWB (which is pretty normal for any aircraft engine).

"Cracks were found in isolated blades in 20% of the approximately 100 higher time engines inspected to-date. Rolls has so far built around 800 Trent XWB-84s and accumulated six million hours of flight time in what the manufacturer calls the “smoothest entry-into-service of any widebody engine we have developed.”

"Describing the cracks as “clear wear and tear in the actual bedding area of the first stage rotor blade,” Haselbach added “we didn’t expect that to happen on the XWB.”

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... wear-issue

While Rolls-Royce says it is too early to identify the root cause of the lower durability, Frank Haselbach, chief engineer for large engine programmes, says it is “pretty convinced” the issues are unrelated.

He says the problem was discovered during routine inspections of “high-life” engines – those with 2,300-3,400 cycles, which have been in operation for four to five years – as part of their first shop visits. The component would normally expected to have double that lifespan.

https://www.flightglobal.com/engines/a3 ... 08.article

One of the points I was making was that no other Trent XWB operator had publicly complained about RR's support, other than AAB. The Trent 1000 operators, and their experience with RR, is another subject.

How this relates to this thread is that it would be naive to think that all these past issues between AAB and Airbus/RR, including the spat over the engines, are not what's colouring each side's position in the current dispute. That's the context. And that context paints a picture. Of course, how you interpret it is up to the individual.

ElroyJetson · Tue May 17, 2022 3:41 pm

zeke wrote:
I saw no injunction by Airbus to modify the contract terms, I did see a request for an injunction from QR to halt deliveries. That was not granted in the public records available.

My personal opinion as a bystander is that it appears Airbus continues to meet its obligations under the contract.

My personal opinion is unless modified by a court, the existing contract is still in effect.

I have written a lot of contracts. Virtually all have cancellation clauses for non performance as defined contractually.

I have obviously not seen the contract(s) between Airbus and QR, but my guess is one or both parties is alleging non-performance. Whether QR can cancel the remaining A350's due to non performance is likely what is being decided by the Court. My guess is under specific circumstances QR is within their rights to cancel. Now, I assume the Court will decide that question unless a settlement can be reached.

majano · Tue May 17, 2022 4:01 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
zeke wrote:
I saw no injunction by Airbus to modify the contract terms, I did see a request for an injunction from QR to halt deliveries. That was not granted in the public records available.

My personal opinion as a bystander is that it appears Airbus continues to meet its obligations under the contract.

My personal opinion is unless modified by a court, the existing contract is still in effect.

I have written a lot of contracts. Virtually all have cancellation clauses for non performance as defined contractually.

I have obviously not seen the contract(s) between Airbus and QR, but my guess is one or both parties is alleging non-performance. Whether QR can cancel the remaining A350's due to non performance is likely what is being decided by the Court. My guess is under specific circumstances QR is within their rights to cancel. Now, I assume the Court will decide that question unless a settlement can be reached.

Why speculate when it is already known what relief QR is seeking from the court?

ElroyJetson · Tue May 17, 2022 5:09 pm

There is a legal question regarding either parties' right to cancel the contract. QR can ask for whatever relief they want. The ultimate remedy at this point will be determined by the Court unless a settlement is reached. Asking for relief and getting it are two different things.

MIflyer12 · Tue May 17, 2022 5:20 pm

packsonflight wrote:
It is not wise to to piss off one provider in a duopoly to that point that he will no longer do buisness with you.
MOL aparently is going to the seccond hand market now because Boeing has stopped giving him the deep discount as they did before because Airbus refuses to submit offers.

Emphasis mine.

Unless you can cite a source I'm going to call that simple speculation on your part.

We don't know what Boeing is doing on pricing, but, agreed, buyers of $Billions of aircraft need to be able play both sides in the duopoly.

eta unknown · Tue May 17, 2022 8:58 pm

You can't really bluff your way around for long in a duopoly though... I guess MOL is learning this the hard way now.

accentra · Tue May 17, 2022 9:33 pm

eta unknown wrote:
You can't really bluff your way around for long in a duopoly though... I guess MOL is learning this the hard way now.

I'm conscious this is drifting off topic. But an observation would be that everything is cyclical. I would posit that we went through a period where AAB, STC and MOL held all the power and behaved in a way that came with that power. Things seem to be changing though. With the boot now on the other foot perhaps? That's perhaps a consequence of this market being a duopoly. And you can only play one off against the other for a finite time.

Breathe · Tue May 17, 2022 9:59 pm

accentra wrote:
eta unknown wrote:
You can't really bluff your way around for long in a duopoly though... I guess MOL is learning this the hard way now.

I'm conscious this is drifting off topic. But an observation would be that everything is cyclical. I would posit that we went through a period where AAB, STC and MOL held all the power and behaved in a way that came with that power. Things seem to be changing though. With the boot now on the other foot perhaps? That's perhaps a consequence of this market being a duopoly. And you can only play one off against the other for a finite time.

I think you can certainly say this is true for Airbus at the moment. All of their programmes have a good solid backlog of orders (perhaps you could argue against the A330neo), their only real issue at the moment is having to push the A321XLR back by 1 year.

While losing /cancelling orders from Qatar isn't obviously great, in the grand scheme of things, it wouldn't be the end of the world, in the long-run it basically sends the message to any would be future AAB wannabe, that they won't be messed around with any more.

zeke · Wed May 18, 2022 12:36 am

majano wrote:
Why speculate when it is already known what relief QR is seeking from the court?

QR in their filings have stated they plan on accepting the remaining A350s, they have not expressed any intention to cancel the contract. Likewise Airbus appears to be conducting itself with a live contract still delivering QR A350s, Qar have nit been there to accept them. This conduct in my opinion will backfire on QR.

JerseyFlyer · Thu May 26, 2022 11:36 am

The court has stopped an injunction that would have obliged Airbus to cease A350 deliveries to QR:

"Qatar Airways must therefore continue to purchase and pay for Airbus A350-1000 aircraft, even if the legal dispute continues."

https://www.aero.de/news-42695/Qatar-Ai ... ehmen.html

DCA350 · Thu May 26, 2022 11:58 am

Huge win for Airbus.. This doesn't look like it will end well for Qatar, but there is still more to go.. I wonder will they accept them since they have to pay for them regardless..

JerseyFlyer · Thu May 26, 2022 12:06 pm

This sounds good for Airbus, but it does preclude Airbus using the frames as early deliveries to fulfil orders from other airlines - Air India and Lufthansa have both been suggested in this context

enzo011 · Thu May 26, 2022 12:28 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
This sounds good for Airbus, but it does preclude Airbus using the frames as early deliveries to fulfil orders from other airlines - Air India and Lufthansa have both been suggested in this context

Doesn't this just mean QR would be obliged to accept the aircraft as per the contract or default and face the consequences? If they have told Airbus they are not taking the aircraft then I am sure they will be preparing for that and once a particular delivery milestone is reached and missed and it allows Airbus to cancel the delivery for that aircraft, then they will. It just strengthens the Airbus position and would make it more likely for QR to back down.

HKAusFlyer · Thu May 26, 2022 3:17 pm

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-05-26/

Another source from Reuters

Heavierthanair · Thu May 26, 2022 3:43 pm

I don't see U-turn Al taking any of the completed planes, that would mean he has to jump over his own shadow or perform multiple U-turns. So I guess the completed aircraft and other Qatar aircraft on the production line will be sold elsewhere. I would love to see future Air India flights to Doha on an ex QR A 350-1000 :bouncy:

Heavierthanair · Thu May 26, 2022 4:02 pm

Another tidbit on interpretations:

https://thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/26/05/2022/qatar-airways-issues-statement-on-airbus-a350-aircraft

I particularly love the part where it says quote:
Qatar Airways assured that it remains committed to its collective mission to achieve “Excellence in everything that we do,” at all levels across its airline.
Unquote

No idea what that "excellence" is supposed to refer to, certainly not supplier relations :crazy:

3rdGen · Thu May 26, 2022 4:06 pm

https://www.qatarairways.com/en/press-r ... s-releases

Things seemed to be getting very confusing. QR have released a statement claiming that they are very pleased with the decision. Specifically, the desire to speed up the trial to decide on the 20 grounded aircraft. But according to the Reuters article there that trial will only take place in June of next year! So that’s another year with the aircraft parked up on the ground.

So they’ve been forced to either take the undelivered aircraft (and all those to be built in the future) right now or accept that they’ll be transferred to other customers, have lost the entire A321NEO order, and will have to wait until June of next year to get a decision on the grounded A350s. Yet they somehow release a statement spinning it as though they’ve won. Mind boggling.

In the meantime Boeing are in the worst condition they’ve possibly ever been in as a company in their entire history, and are unable to deliver a single aircraft to QR or almost anyone else. As we speak the future of QR’s fleet is entirely unknown and they’ve been relegated to bringing back to service aircraft they had plan to sell, scrap or which their CEO described as their biggest ever mistake.

Given the result of the decisions so far QR might want to tone down the hubris, eat a bit of humble pie and realize that they’re in a terrible situation that could only get worse for them if they lose their main case for damages against Airbus. But somehow I doubt that’ll happen.

The following article best summarizes the entire course of events up to now as well as today’s decision https://onemileatatime.com/news/airbus- ... 350-order/

par13del · Thu May 26, 2022 4:06 pm

DCA350 wrote:
Huge win for Airbus.. This doesn't look like it will end well for Qatar, but there is still more to go.. I wonder will they accept them since they have to pay for them regardless..

The contract should include cancellation clauses with appropriate penalties to Airbus, so if they really do not want to accept the a/c they can simply cancel and pay the penalty.

JerseyFlyer · Thu May 26, 2022 4:58 pm

I imagine cancellation of a completed airframe would attract a penalty of the full price.

JerseyFlyer · Thu May 26, 2022 5:05 pm

The Reuters piece throws a different light on the court decision:

"The procedural ruling means Airbus is free to attempt to trigger payment clauses as more planes are built. It can also try to sell A350s that Qatar has rejected to carriers like Air India, which industry sources say could step in as a buyer."

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-05-26/

Avatar2go · Thu May 26, 2022 5:32 pm

Seems like the judge basically advised them both to settle before the trial date next year. In the meantime,. Airbus is free to continue production with the expectation of delivery, and if rejected, the freedom to consider other customers. So the judge is encouraging them to continue doing business and work it out. Which seems pretty smart as that's the likely outcome anyway.

enzo011 · Thu May 26, 2022 7:14 pm

Avatar2go wrote:
Seems like the judge basically advised them both to settle before the trial date next year. In the meantime,. Airbus is free to continue production with the expectation of delivery, and if rejected, the freedom to consider other customers. So the judge is encouraging them to continue doing business and work it out. Which seems pretty smart as that's the likely outcome anyway.

He did, no judge would ever want a case to come before him if a settlement can be reached. There is no sense for either company to spend lots of money on legal fees if they can come to a settlement. Airbus has always indicated they are ready to find resolution outside of the court.

I am no lawyer but seeing that other jumped on the order for Airbus not to sell the slots before the judge could rule on whether the were allowed to cross link contracts, what do those that saw it that was see the judge allowing Airbus to continue to deliver aircraft to QR and not stop it at this point? Surely that points to the judge believing the aircraft are safe to fly otherwise he would have sided with QR. :duck:

Looking at the QR statement linked above this jumped out at me,

We entered into this process to secure an expedited trial and early disclosure from Airbus that will give us an insight into the true nature of surface degradation affecting the A350s. We are extremely pleased to have secured these in today’s judgement. We will finally be able assess the cause of the damage to our aircraft and the expedited trial will provide a swift resolution of this unprecedented dispute.

Get out found. If QR settles with Airbus in a few months time they will claim they have gotten what they were looking for all along, root cause analysis and they are happy with the fixes proposed and Airbus provided it to them due to the disclosure of the court case. Whether this would be what happened or not, Airbus will gladly allow QR to spin it this way with an order to show how satisfied QR is and how confident they are in the products. QR gets to save face and Airbus gets to sell their aircraft. That is my prediction in any case.

If it goes to court then the relationship will be broken as details Airbus does not want to come out will and they will hold QR responsible for this. By details I mean contract language between them and QR and also design and production information they may not want in the public sphere but are forced to use. QR will not care as they are state owned and the state does not worry about cash, even if they have to pay more for Boeing Aircraft as Airbus is not willing to work with them any longer.

Duke91 · Fri May 27, 2022 12:36 am

enzo011 wrote:
Avatar2go wrote:
Seems like the judge basically advised them both to settle before the trial date next year. In the meantime,. Airbus is free to continue production with the expectation of delivery, and if rejected, the freedom to consider other customers. So the judge is encouraging them to continue doing business and work it out. Which seems pretty smart as that's the likely outcome anyway.

He did, no judge would ever want a case to come before him if a settlement can be reached. There is no sense for either company to spend lots of money on legal fees if they can come to a settlement. Airbus has always indicated they are ready to find resolution outside of the court.

I am no lawyer but seeing that other jumped on the order for Airbus not to sell the slots before the judge could rule on whether the were allowed to cross link contracts, what do those that saw it that was see the judge allowing Airbus to continue to deliver aircraft to QR and not stop it at this point? Surely that points to the judge believing the aircraft are safe to fly otherwise he would have sided with QR.

Looking at the QR statement linked above this jumped out at me,

We entered into this process to secure an expedited trial and early disclosure from Airbus that will give us an insight into the true nature of surface degradation affecting the A350s. We are extremely pleased to have secured these in today’s judgement. We will finally be able assess the cause of the damage to our aircraft and the expedited trial will provide a swift resolution of this unprecedented dispute.

Get out found. If QR settles with Airbus in a few months time they will claim they have gotten what they were looking for all along, root cause analysis and they are happy with the fixes proposed and Airbus provided it to them due to the disclosure of the court case. Whether this would be what happened or not, Airbus will gladly allow QR to spin it this way with an order to show how satisfied QR is and how confident they are in the products. QR gets to save face and Airbus gets to sell their aircraft. That is my prediction in any case.

If it goes to court then the relationship will be broken as details Airbus does not want to come out will and they will hold QR responsible for this. By details I mean contract language between them and QR and also design and production information they may not want in the public sphere but are forced to use. QR will not care as they are state owned and the state does not worry about cash, even if they have to pay more for Boeing Aircraft as Airbus is not willing to work with them any longer.

I wouldn't say that a state doesn't care about money. They just are very unlikely to go bankrupt. Still, money is money that will be missing somewhere else.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net