So, we know that the planes are in this condition.
We may also know that the typical other A350 customers do not fliy planes in this condition. So they may do arecommended maintanance.

I expect that Qatar will make even more noise when it comes to the next big airshow in UK in July.
They still want to go with the head throgh the wall.

For me it looks like: Oh shit, a bird left something on the roof of my lovely car. What will I do? Probably wash the car, at least remove the the item from the roof because my paint may look different at the location of shit later. Also Scratches from some light parking accident: I may take some actions before rust is spreading. All this is obviously missed at the qatar planes, but not at the planes all other airlines.

Here someone wanted to use the pandemic to get some big bucks from Airbus which so far failed.

I think this is unsolvable with AB on board.

Looking forward to to the famous airshow and how much Qatar wants to disturb it in their favor.

Just spectator.

ElroyJetson wrote:

KingOrGod wrote:

It still doesn't make any sense to me (what exactly QR have done) / (what has happened to their planes to cause this) remove what you want.

I have seen countless A350 (LH/SQ/ET/TG/CX) rather up close and personal and absolutely nothing looks like that.

I cannot honestly believe this is all AIB's fault... Having followed the other threads continuously, all I can surmise is that QR's non-compliance with paint has somehow contributed to this... That paint that's lifted looks *awfully* thick...

The planes would have been painted by Airbus prior to delivery. To my knowledge, QR has only attempted to repaint one of the aircraft, which was abandoned due to surface degradation and flown to Toulouse for inspection by Airbus.

Are you saying QR has repainted all the aircraft in question and did so improperly? Not sure what point you are trying to make.

As was clarified after my post,

the aircraft delivered to QTR have been repainted prior to delivery, at QTR’s request and/or to enhance their cosmetic appearance, and that this may have resulted in the paint thickness exceeding the engineering specification.

AAB/QR are all about vanity. Just make it look flashy. That's the norm there. And AAB *will* get his way, or refuse delivery - Airbus were always going to be in a predicament. This is not new. The boss wants it super shiney, we paint it super shiney. It may have been a contributing factor in moisture getting in.

I personally believe that the real crux of the matter (ulterior motive) never had anything to do with the airworthiness of the frames, and this theory of mine is borne out by the fact that the rest of the world's airlines are plying the world's routes in all sorts of climates, and not appearing to have had the same "issues" as QR. And I don't know of the others having to constantly remove them from service to do incessant patching - none of the crews I have talked to have admitted or even alluded to this happening, and running repairs certainly haven't been easily visible on the frames I have been around.

That, and the fact that QR and their buddies at the QCAA don't really want to co-operate with anyone on the issue is also telling.

Sounds like Reuters asked Qatar for access, which they granted. They have no reason to hide the issue, nor should they be criticized for granting the request. However as others have noted, visual inspection is not the same as an engineering understanding of the causes and consequences of the issue. That is under dispute and the last information we had, was that Airbus would share their full root cause analysis with Qatar, with the aim of alleviating Qatar's concerns, along with their civil aviation authority. Those concerns were that Airbus had not considered causes apart from external factors and wear, or potential manufacturing causes. So if Airbus can rule out those causes to Qatar's satisfaction, the dispute should end. That in turn would allow settlement of the remaining contract and order disputes. Thus this coverage does not really change anything. As the judge said, it's up to the two sides to work together to reach agreement, and also convince the Qatari regulator, in the year before he issues his ruling.

Flyglobal wrote:

So, we know that the planes are in this condition.
We may also know that the typical other A350 customers do not fliy planes in this condition. So they may do arecommended maintanance.

I expect that Qatar will make even more noise when it comes to the next big airshow in UK in July.
They still want to go with the head throgh the wall.

For me it looks like: Oh shit, a bird left something on the roof of my lovely car. What will I do? Probably wash the car, at least remove the the item from the roof because my paint may look different at the location of shit later. Also Scratches from some light parking accident: I may take some actions before rust is spreading. All this is obviously missed at the qatar planes, but not at the planes all other airlines.

Here someone wanted to use the pandemic to get some big bucks from Airbus which so far failed.

I think this is unsolvable with AB on board.

Looking forward to to the famous airshow and how much Qatar wants to disturb it in their favor.

Just spectator.

Best way is to get the ferry permission from QCAA; join the airshow as an exhibitor, fly that plane to the airshow to show the world how bad that 350 is.
I will definitely don't want to fly on a plane which such defects.

Avatar2go wrote:

Sounds like Reuters asked Qatar for access, which they granted. They have no reason to hide the issue, nor should they be criticized for granting the request. However as others have noted, visual inspection is not the same as an engineering understanding of the causes and consequences of the issue. That is under dispute and the last information we had, was that Airbus would share their full root cause analysis with Qatar, with the aim of alleviating Qatar's concerns, along with their civil aviation authority. Those concerns were that Airbus had not considered causes apart from external factors and wear, or potential manufacturing causes. So if Airbus can rule out those causes to Qatar's satisfaction, the dispute should end. That in turn would allow settlement of the remaining contract and order disputes. Thus this coverage does not really change anything. As the judge said, it's up to the two sides to work together to reach agreement, and also convince the Qatari regulator, in the year before he issues his ruling.

As you mentioned the judge have asked both parties to try and get to a settlement. You seem to think QR throwing more fuel on the fire while they are supposed to be working this out is okay and not a problem at all for the current proceedings. Do you think Airbus just thinks it is fine to have new photos of the same issues back in the news again when they are supposed to be working this out?

Your assessment of what will end the dispute is interesting as well, as soon as Airbus supplies QR with the information that QR wants and deems it is exactly what they need and want, it will sort this all out. Funny that puts all of the power with QR which seems to imply they have done nothing wrong in this case. Aircraft are still sitting with what they deem as possible safety issues and they are just leaving them uncovered and prone to more damage. Would have thought for an airline desperate to get this resolved and the aircraft back in the air they would have at least take steps to ensure further damage does not happen, but then again you could say that would be what a reasonable airline would be doing in this situation.

enzo011 wrote:

As you mentioned the judge have asked both parties to try and get to a settlement. You seem to think QR throwing more fuel on the fire while they are supposed to be working this out is okay and not a problem at all for the current proceedings. Do you think Airbus just thinks it is fine to have new photos of the same issues back in the news again when they are supposed to be working this out?

Your assessment of what will end the dispute is interesting as well, as soon as Airbus supplies QR with the information that QR wants and deems it is exactly what they need and want, it will sort this all out. Funny that puts all of the power with QR which seems to imply they have done nothing wrong in this case. Aircraft are still sitting with what they deem as possible safety issues and they are just leaving them uncovered and prone to more damage. Would have thought for an airline desperate to get this resolved and the aircraft back in the air they would have at least take steps to ensure further damage does not happen, but then again you could say that would be what a reasonable airline would be doing in this situation.

I made no statement as to which side is right or wrong, I just gave the fundamental question of the dispute. Qatar is not satisfied with the root cause determination provided by Airbus.

So they need to come to some form of agreement about that. Since Qatar and their regulator believe that other causes are involved, it would seem best that Airbus provide information to show that is not the case. Airbus says they have done this, Qatar says they have not.

In the Airbus legal filing, they explained how the issue could occur as a result of normal wear and exposure. Qatar feels the issue is too severe for that to be the sole cause. It should be possible to demonstrate:

1. That normal wear can produce the issue
(Airbus has done this)
2. That manufacturing would not produce the issue
(Qatar wants to see this)

I don't think these images change that situation. They are a factual record of the issue, but lend no understanding as to the cause. In the end, if the two sides can't work it out, that will be done for them by the court.

[


Best way is to get the ferry permission from QCAA; join the airshow as an exhibitor, fly that plane to the airshow to show the world how bad that 350 is.
I will definitely don't want to fly on a plane which such defects.[/quote]

I woudn't put it past AAB to do exactly that at Farnborough.
Zeke....how many CX 350's have suffered paint defects and how was it resolved ? Just an in-house repaint ?

Avatar2go wrote:

Qatar is not satisfied with the root cause determination provided by Airbus.

The judgement handed down in March in the case QR brought against Airbus said nothing about Airbus having to provide a root cause analysis. The judge ordered QR with the assistance of Airbus to engage with the QCAA to lift the grounding.

These are quotes from the judgement.

“Here, one has the most unfortunate situation of the EASA (European Union Aviation Safety Agency) taking the view that there are presently no airworthiness implications (although it appears that it expects updates from Airbus on its investigations into the Condition), while the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority (“QCAA”) considers that there are. Or at least there might be, and that is sufficient for it to ground Qatar’s A350s. On Airbus’s case, there is no rational basis for the QCAA to have grounded these aircraft. It seems to me that the QCAA should be capable of being persuaded to change its position, provided that Airbus, as the manufacturer, can demonstrate (as it contends it can) with all the information and expertise at its disposal, that in truth there are no airworthiness concerns. So persuading the QCAA must be in Airbus’s general interests. It is, of course, also in Qatar’s commercial interests, since it says that what it seeks, above all else, is to get its grounded A350s back in the air. Indeed, that was one of the hoped-for results of the proposed Preliminary Issue Trial which it has proposed. Airbus does not accept that Qatar really does seek that, but this does not matter for present purposes.”

“When I asked why there had not been detailed and intensive contact between Airbus and the QCAA to date, I was told first by Airbus that this is essentially a regulatory matter between Qatar and the QCAA and it was not for Airbus to intervene. That does not seem a very sensible or proactive approach. I was then told that Airbus had asked to join with Qatar in dealing with the QCAA at the outset but Qatar did not invite it to participate. If that is true, that is not a very sensible approach either. Whatever else happens in this case, I now expect Qatar and Airbus to work proactively together to try and satisfy the QCAA that its current approach is wrong. The fact that, if the QCAA is prepared to change its approach, this might adversely affect Qatar’s position in the litigation, in that the aircraft, whatever other faults they may have, might not now be regarded as unairworthy, is irrelevant. Moreover, it seems to me to be at least highly arguable that if Qatar does not work with Airbus in seeking to change the QCAA’s mind it would be failing reasonably to mitigate its losses.”

QR have been warned.

TC957 wrote:

Zeke....how many CX 350's have suffered paint defects and how was it resolved ? Just an in-house repaint ?

Quite a few, however it was a different mechanism, it was paint peel. Paint peel is when the aerodynamic exposure just lifts the paint from the surface, I saw this mostly starting from the front edge of access panels on the underside of the fuselage very soon after delivery. They would just repaint the area during a routing check and send the bill to Airbus. We had paint peel on new 777s, 747s, A330s, and I bet there will be some on the A321s. You can find a heap of threads on a.net of people asking about paint peel going back 20 years.

zeke wrote:

The judgement handed down in March in the case QR brought against Airbus said nothing about Airbus having to provide a root cause analysis.

Zeke, please note we can all read, so no need to endlessly quote long passages. I was presenting the Qatar point of view, from their statement after the ruling:

Qatar Airways will receive full disclosure on the details of the accelerated surface degradation condition from Airbus for the first time, in advance of the trial, however, for the time being Mr. Justice Waksman’s independent assessment of the Condition is an important milestone.

Qatar Airways is of the opinion that the impact of the condition on safety of the affected aircraft can only be established once the condition has been properly investigated and the full root cause conclusively established.

The required early disclosure from Airbus will give us an insight into the true nature of surface degradation affecting the A350s.

This is what Qatar believes, is their current position, and is the fundamental question governing the dispute, as I correctly represented in my post.

QR can write whatever they like in a press release, they can invite everyone to take photos and videos.

It means nothing to the court except a blatant demonstration of contempt towards the order handed down in a case they brought before the court.

If QR keep this up I see the case being dismissed..

zeke wrote:

QR can write whatever they like in a press release, they can invite everyone to take photos and videos.

It means nothing to the court except a blatant demonstration of contempt towards the order handed down in a case they brought before the court.

If QR keep this up I see the case being dismissed..

Zeke, no offense, but it's clear you have already adjudicated the case and rendered a verdict. Some of us have not.

In every case there are two points of view, and it's advantageous to learn and understand both viewpoints. One can do that without rendering judgement.

If the two parties cannot work this out, the judge will resolve it for them. Not you, not me, and not anyone here.

You seem offended by the opinion of the court, mind you they did order QR pay 95% of Airbus costs.

The court does not care what QR feels or believes, it wants the dispute resolved, and have handed down an order on what it expects.

Can you cite a case where a litigant has disregarded what the court has placed in a judgement and still prevail in their complaint ?

Avatar2go wrote:

zeke wrote:

QR can write whatever they like in a press release, they can invite everyone to take photos and videos.

It means nothing to the court except a blatant demonstration of contempt towards the order handed down in a case they brought before the court.

If QR keep this up I see the case being dismissed..

Zeke, no offense, but it's clear you have already adjudicated the case and rendered a verdict. Some of us have not.

In every case there are two points of view, and it's advantageous to learn and understand both viewpoints. One can do that without rendering judgement.

If the two parties cannot work this out, the judge will resolve it for them. Not you, not me, and not anyone here.

The problem is that QR doesn't really have a viewpoint. They have a position that is a means to an end and that they are trying to hold on to at all cost, even though the judge already told them to work things out with AB. We also know that contrary to what QR has claimed, Airbus has dedicated SIGNIFICANT resources to researching and testing the condition in dispute and has provided hundreds or thousands of pages of test and research results to QR and QR simply keep saying "we don't know what is causing this, but this isn't it, so our dispute continues".

And I don't mind Zeke posting some of the passages of the filings because most of us have never read them. Knowing what the judge has said and what has transpired in the court case so far is critical to understanding the issues and possible outcomes.

Even if Zeke has already come to a verdict of his own, he is countering others that have come to the opposite verdict, often without presenting even a fraction of the evidence and display of command of the issues that Zeek has. So let's agree that if you are allowed to share your interpretation of QR's POV, he and others are allowed to share their POV, even if it may support his mind being made up on the case.

aaexecplat wrote:

The problem is that QR doesn't really have a viewpoint. They have a position that is a means to an end and that they are trying to hold on to at all cost, even though the judge already told them to work things out with AB. We also know that contrary to what QR has claimed, Airbus has dedicated SIGNIFICANT resources to researching and testing the condition in dispute and has provided hundreds or thousands of pages of test and research results to QR and QR simply keep saying "we don't know what is causing this, but this isn't it, so our dispute continues".

And I don't mind Zeke posting some of the passages of the filings because most of us have never read them. Knowing what the judge has said and what has transpired in the court case so far is critical to understanding the issues and possible outcomes.

Even if Zeke has already come to a verdict of his own, he is countering others that have come to the opposite verdict, often without presenting even a fraction of the evidence and display of command of the issues that Zeek has. So let's agree that if you are allowed to share your interpretation of QR's POV, he and others are allowed to share their POV, even if it may support his mind being made up on the case.

Yes, but he responds to me directly when I have not expressed an opinion either way. Both he and you object to Qatar's position, which means you have already decided it's wrong. I'm suggesting that the discussion is better served by acknowledging both sides, rather than insisting one or the other is correct. Zeke presumes that my explaining the Qatar position is a defense of Qatar, but it's not. It's just a fair framing of the issue.

We have not seen what Airbus has provided to Qatar, only their legal filing describing such. Qatar believes they will have greater access to those materials during the discovery phase of the trial. So that needs to play out, Qatar will have total access and can evaluate whether Airbus considered & ruled out manufacturing causes, which seems to be the sticking point. If Qatar is satisfied of that, the dispute is ended. If they are not, it's going to trial and the judge will decide.

This has been going on for two years or so, and I have not rendered a judgement. I have an opinion on how both parties have handled the issue publicly (usually, not well), but I am not privy to the true facts of the case.

The court filings that many here are citing can be material or meaningless. They are by no means necessarily factual. They are designed to put forth the best case for each litigant. The truth or relative value of each submission is what the judge will decide.

The ultimate mission of the Law is remedy. The judge is looking for the best remedy to solve this dispute under the Law. Without truly knowing all the facts involved I have no idea what the appropriate remedy should be.

Vicenza wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

They may say that but, without context and a little bit of understanding of the complex underlying situation, this video does not inform a non aviation-literate public about anything. They mostly do it for the shock value of the images.

Not that I blame them. If it hadn't been them, it would have been someone else. In an age of ubiquitous cameras and quasi-infinite anonymous online outlets, nothing of that sort remains a secret for long.

The surface of a new airplane is coming off and we don’t understand why. The manufacturer and their regulator say it’s not a safety issue. What other facts do non aviation-literate folks need to know?

So you are saying because a manufacturer or regulator says something non-aviation folks need to know nothing more.....but yet you also clearly said that the public have a right to know about issues on the aircraft they fly.

You’re trying to twist my words into statements I have not made.

I support journalists ability to report on issues of public interest, even if they make powerful parties uncomfortable. We saw this with the 737 MAX, when journalists regularly uncovered items that made Boeing, and supporters of Boeing, uncomfortable. The issues with the A350 are of public interest, if only because of the on-going litigation between Airbus and QR. I think much of the reporting makes Airbus, and supporters of Airbus, uncomfortable. One argument against reporting is that the public may not be smart enough to understand what they see in the pictures without a lot of technical details to provide the necessary context. My point was that while there are complex technical issues at play, public interest reporting is valid and valuable without many of those details.

Avatar2go wrote:

Both he and you object to Qatar's position, which means you have already decided it's wrong.

I don’t object to all of QRs positions, if they feel they will encounter higher life cycle costs that is a legitimate complaint. I do object to the notion that the aircraft could not be returned to service rather promptly. These are cosmetic issues which could be rectified in a couple of days. You can literally unbolt a winglet and replace one in less than a shift.

Howver the following evidence is in the public domain
QR is not performing prescribed maintenance, this is evidenced in the photos in the OP
QR is not permitting Airbus to to engage with QCAA to resolve the groundings
QR is not permitting Airbus to repair and repaint the aircraft
QR is not accepting deliveries
QR is not paying Airbus contracted sums
QR was not granted an injunction to stop deliveries
QR was not granted an injunction to prevent Airbus from terminating contracts

There is no objective follow up on this issue, why didn’t Reuters ask the simple question regarding the progress QR are making with the assistance of Airbus to unground the aircraft with the QCAA. I suspect QR granted Reuters access to the aircraft on the condition that no questions be asked of QR.

You don’t need to be an aircraft mechanic or an aeronautical engineer to know aircraft don’t end up in this condition overnight. Why hasn’t Reuters asked the obvious question, when did QR first notice the condition in that location on that airframe, and what maintenance was done on that airframe in that location since it was discovered. I would suggest we are looking at 1-2 years, with nothing being done to prevent it getting worse.

The court has already warned QR that it should be taking steps to “reasonably to mitigate its losses”. Why hasn’t Reuters asked that question, what steps has QR taken to mitigate losses since the judgement has been handed down in March ?

zeke wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Both he and you object to Qatar's position, which means you have already decided it's wrong.

I don’t object to all of QRs positions, if they feel they will encounter higher life cycle costs that is a legitimate complaint. I do object to the notion that the aircraft could not be returned to service rather promptly. These are cosmetic issues which could be rectified in a couple of days. You can literally unbolt a winglet and replace one in less than a shift.

Howver the following evidence is in the public domain
QR is not performing prescribed maintenance, this is evidenced in the photos in the OP
QR is not permitting Airbus to to engage with QCAA to resolve the groundings
QR is not permitting Airbus to repair and repaint the aircraft
QR is not accepting deliveries
QR is not paying Airbus contracted sums
QR was not granted an injunction to stop deliveries
QR was not granted an injunction to prevent Airbus from terminating contracts

There is no objective follow up on this issue, why didn’t Reuters ask the simple question regarding the progress QR are making with the assistance of Airbus to unground the aircraft with the QCAA. I suspect QR granted Reuters access to the aircraft on the condition that no questions be asked of QR.

You don’t need to be an aircraft mechanic or an aeronautical engineer to know aircraft don’t end up in this condition overnight. Why hasn’t Reuters asked the obvious question, when did QR first notice the condition in that location on that airframe, and what maintenance was done on that airframe in that location since it was discovered. I would suggest we are looking at 1-2 years, with nothing being done to prevent it getting worse.

The court has already warned QR that it should be taking steps to “reasonably to mitigate its losses”. Why hasn’t Reuters asked that question, what steps has QR taken to mitigate losses since the judgement has been handed down in March ?

You're focusing on the financial issues, but as mentioned, that is not the fundamental question. The redress of Qatar depends on the cause of the problem. If it is normal wear and tear, they are only entitled to the repair offered by Airbus for this instance, and must accept that cost for all future instances. That also affects all their other claims.

If the cause is instead related to manufacturing, then there is potentially compensation to Qatar for the defect, and all future consequences of the defect.

That is a major difference. Which is why having them agree on the cause is an important part of the case, as the judge also noted.

The portion of the case you cite, that of the grounding, is a separate issue. Regardless of the cause of the issue, the conclusion of EASA is that it's insufficient to affect safety of the aircraft, thus does not require grounding.

Qatar is tying the safety/grounding issue to the cause, saying they cannot be certain of the former without being certain of the latter. The judge found that the claims tied to the grounding, which Qatar is seeking from Airbus, are not justified in the evaluation of the EU regulator.

But he has no authority over the Qatari regulator, which is not a party to the litigation. Nor does EASA. So he encouraged Qatar and Airbus to work together with the regulator to resolve the grounding issue.

Thus again, we come back to the need for agreement on the root cause. Which has been my point all along. Once that is achieved, the regulator has a common basis for the grounding decision, and the judge has a common basis to adjudicate the financial issues.

If they can't agree, then the judge has to make a ruling on the technical cause, which he obviously would prefer not to do. But he will if that is the only remaining resolution to the dispute. Once the cause is established, either as an agreement or as a judicial ruling, it clarifies the merit of all the other claims.

The court does not agree with any of what you are saying. The cause does not need to be known for the aircraft to returned to service, that is a delaying tactic and doing the exact opposite of what the court put in its judgement. The court wanted progress and ordered QR and Airbus to consult with the QCAA.

The Judge is into the QR tactics, there is no legitimate effort being made by QR to get the aircraft back into service. They are not taking reasonable steps to limit their losses.

From the judgement

“So persuading the QCAA must be in Airbus’s general interests. It is, of course, also in Qatar’s commercial interests, since it says that what it seeks, above all else, is to get its grounded A350s back in the air. Indeed, that was one of the hoped-for results of the proposed Preliminary Issue Trial which it has proposed. Airbus does not accept that Qatar really does seek that, but this does not matter for present purposes.”

And you have not addressed why Reuters has not asked any of the obvious questions of QR.
What progress is being made with the QCAA ?
Has the QCAA stated that QR cannot repair the aircraft ?
Has the QCAA stated that it will not let the aircraft be returned to service if repaired ?

Why do we need a root cause to fix this?? Obviously its usually better to have a root cause to fix anything but Boeing never had a root cause for the battery fires on the 787. They just put it in a fire proof box and vented it to mitigate the problem should it happen again. Isn't there a similar solution for this paint issue even if it's an ongoing maintenance item?

So Zeke, this debate comes down to your having already ruled on this case, whereas I am describing the positions of both sides. The judge did not order cooperation, nor does he have the power to do so, he suggested that it was the best way to resolve that particular issue. And by so doing, the resulting agreement on the cause informs the resolution of the remaining claims.

As I mentioned, the Reuters article has no influence and changes nothing. In the end, we have to see what unfolds during the discovery phase. Qatar will either be satisfied or they won't, and that will manifest in how they pursue the case going forward.

trex8 wrote:

Why do we need a root cause to fix this?? Obviously its usually better to have a root cause to fix anything but Boeing never had a root cause for the battery fires on the 787. They just put it in a fire proof box and vented it to mitigate the problem should it happen again. Isn't there a similar solution for this paint issue even if it's an ongoing maintenance item?

Boeing did have a root cause determination, in terms of thermal runaway of the Lithium batteries. That was a manufacturer issue, and they began the process of acquiring improved batteries, but that takes time and certification of the new components, so needed to mitigate the units they had. Hence the fire proof box. The box still exists but the risk of a fire is now vastly reduced.

In the case of the Qatar A350 issue, they could accept the Airbus offer to remediate the aircraft, but are concerned there is a defect that will only surface again, or in other aircraft. They have 13 examples now. Establishing the root cause answers that question. That's why it's the crux of the dispute.

Avatar2go wrote:

So Zeke, this debate comes down to your having already ruled on this case, whereas I am describing the positions of both sides. The judge did not order cooperation, nor does he have the power to do so, he suggested that it was the best way to resolve that particular issue. And by so doing, the resulting agreement on the cause informs the resolution of the remaining claims.

As I mentioned, the Reuters article has no influence and changes nothing. In the end, we have to see what unfolds during the discovery phase. Qatar will either be satisfied or they won't, and that will manifest in how they pursue the case going forward.

I don't think we need someone to keep putting forward the case of either side though. It seems more to me like you are trying to appear neutral but by pushing only one side in your posts, most of them, it appears as if you have already formed an opinion. And then you can get to claim the higher ground or ignorance if questions are being asked about the position you are supposed to be clarifying. This is a discussion forum, I expect posters to have biases. Heck, the moderators have their own biases and favourite OEMs/airlines and they don't work half as hard as some posters to try and stay "neutral".

The article in the OP sets out the position of both so not sure why you feel the need to keep pushing the QR position.

Airbus acknowledges quality flaws on the A350s, but denies they pose any safety risk because of the number of backup systems and tolerance built into the design.

Qatar Airways has argued this can't be known until further analysis, and is refusing to take more of the planes.

Airbus has argued that some paint erosion is a feature of the carbon-composite technology used to build all modern long-haul jets - a necessary trade-off for weight savings.

It says the cracks are caused by the way paint, anti-lightning material called ECF and the composite structure interact. The tail does not all contain the ECF foil, prompting a debate over whether damage there comes from the same problem.

Qatar Airways has questioned Airbus' explanation, telling a UK court its similar Boeing 787s do not have the same problems.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-inside-hangar-centre-1-034939495.html

Avatar2go wrote:

So Zeke, this debate comes down to your having already ruled on this case, whereas I am describing the positions of both sides.

The information I have posted in this thread comes from the TCC judgement in March. They are the words of the court. And yes the court has ruled already on a number of matters, and QR was unsuccessful, and QR was ordered to pay 95% of the Airbus costs.

Avatar2go wrote:

The judge did not order cooperation, nor does he have the power to do so, he suggested that it was the best way to resolve that particular issue.

The judgment states “ Qatar’s position in the litigation, in that the aircraft, whatever other faults they may have, might not now be regarded as unairworthy, is irrelevant. Moreover, it seems to me to be at least highly arguable that if Qatar does not work with Airbus in seeking to change the QCAA’s mind it would be failing reasonably to mitigate its losses. The converse, of course, is that Airbus must be a willing partner in all of this, so as to enable Qatar to mitigate such losses.”

And yes, courts routinely make orders for parties to cooperate, hand over information, hand over assets.

Avatar2go wrote:

In the case of the Qatar A350 issue, they could accept the Airbus offer to remediate the aircraft, but are concerned there is a defect that will only surface again, or in other aircraft. They have 13 examples now.

Remediation and ongoing maintenance are commercial arrangements, it has nothing to do with airworthiness.

Avatar2go wrote:

Establishing the root cause answers that question. That's why it's the crux of the dispute.

No, and this is why you are fundamentally misguided in what you are posting.

A root cause analysis does not provide a solution to prevent it happening again. It just tells what happened, it does not tell you how to fix it or how to prevent it happening again.

“Correcting a problem is not formally part of RCA, however; these are different steps in a problem-solving process known as fault management in IT and telecommunications, repair in engineering, remediation in aviation, environmental remediation in ecology, therapy in medicine, etc.”

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_cause_analysis

This discussion is just going around in circles, and has become fairly ridiculous. You don't want to acknowledge that there are two sides, and that's fine. In the court of Zeke, Airbus is the only side.

You also don't want to acknowledge that the root cause establishes whether the issue is due to wear or is a flaw in workmanship, even though that question forms the basis of all the other claims. Which again is fine.

As I said, Qatar will continue into the discovery phase and have full access to the Airbus root cause analysis, in accordance with their statement. Which will in turn allow them to evaluate whether Airbus has legitimately ruled out a flaw or defect. Then we will see what their further actions are in the case, whether they accept the Airbus position, or continue to dispute it, or they reach some compromise.

I know you don't acknowledge this sequence either, but again that's fine. We can't resolve the case in this forum.

Subject has been discussed ad nauseam and thread is running in cicles, hence it will be locked.