What interest does Airbus have in agreeing to a settlement that is all about 'saving face' for AAB?
23 A35Ks and 50 A321neos back in the order book (with the neo order being several years back in the queue, allowing the near-term neo slots to be unsold for a margin even higher).
And you believe Boeing is silly and didn't make their contract with QR solid as a rock
If Boeing isn't meeting their obligations (777X/737-10 MAX certification/delivery timelines or performance guarentees) the contract might not be so rock solid after all and leave the customer an avenue to walk away. In the case of QR, the 737MAX grounding allowed them to walk away from the remainder of their original order (only a few of which were delivered to Air Italy).
As I said earlier though, I don't believe QR will be able to easily walk away from the 737MAX order. I think it's testament to U-Turn-Al's competence...
And Boeing was in a perfect position when dealing with AAB, it was not that he would just run to Airbus and sign an A350F order there, he ruled that practically out himself
Exactly! Given the position QR were in, you can be sure that Boeing got some very healthy margins on both the 777-8F and 737-10MAX orders.
I wouldn't trust this wording in the Reuters article, they preface it by "expected", expected by whom? The settlement details are confidential so anything unsourced out there is speculation in my opinion.
Reuters has had the best source reporting throughout this whole ordeal and broken many of the developments in it. in spite of the details being technically confidential, I trust their reporting on the topic.
Reuters are great and I don't disagree with what you say about the quality of their informants, but I agree with Pelly on this.
Look again at the exact wording. They didn't say something like "sources close to the deal say that Airbus will pay several hundred million dollars to the Gulf carrier" nor "Qatar Airways insiders claim that Airbus is obligated to pay several hundred million dollars to the Gulf carrier in compensation". They instead say "expected to", implying that the source isn't actually party to the agreement and that the figure is therefore speculative.
The source who expects said payment to be of the size specified in the article could be Richard Aboulafia or Scott Hamilton. It could be an executive at another A350 operator basing the figure on the amount of compensation they received per affected A350. Similarly, it could be expected by the article's author based maybe on something less solid (737MAX compensation, gut feeling?). As such I wouldn't take the figure too seriously. Publications are usually very careful with the exact terminology they use when quoting unnamed or anonymous sources.