TC957 wrote:

Now with this dispute seemingly settled, it'll be interesting to see how quickly the grounded 350's come out of storage, into the paint hanger and back into service.

It will be interesting indeed. It took around 2 days in the hangar to prepare RTS each QR A330, coming from long term storage. And longer when they encountered some problematic surprises (and that was pretty often). Now with the A350s we'll need to add the time airbus requires to do the
skin repair works, and whether it will be done in Doha or they'll be ferried to Airbus.
Another problem right now at QR is the shortage of technical staff (even shortage of tools sometimes). So these works can only be done when no other C-check etc is being done to another aircraft. I'd say this is gonna take a long time.

frigatebird wrote:

Maybe QR can try buying another airline again and place these 737s there Just today a 737 operator went bust

Lol .. or maybe shift them over to Rwandair. As additional equity stake maybe.

Opus99 wrote:

Is there anyone else who has this feeling that this is what QR wants?

I think they believe they really over ordered and don’t need as many planes, so maybe tried to find a way out?

And this by no means has nothing to do with the 350. I just think the 350 commitment was more imminent seeing as Boeing cannot deliver 777Xs. So in effect. Just rather take the 777Xs later, take the 787-9s (these are lower risk and versatile and much cheaper).

This whole thing is weird

No they still going to receive the remaining order plus the cancelled 321neos on 2026

While we don’t know the details of the deal apart from the official statements from either side.

The fundamental claim that was made, I,e, the A350s were unsafe and grounded by the QCAA is being answered with them returning to service.

That sends a very clear message to industry, and to the leasing companies that have had their jets grounded by QCAA and other aircraft of the same type working without issue in other jurisdictions.

My suspicion from the beginning is that Qatar's only real complaint may relate to the cost of maintenance of the coating.

This isn’t quite the resounding victory for Airbus that seemed clear back in December…

“The cancelled orders for 23 undelivered A350s and 50 smaller A321neos have been restored under the new deal, which is also expected to see Airbus pay several hundred million dollars to the Gulf carrier, while winning a reprieve from other claims.”

So Qatar is getting the planes it ordered anyway (albeit slightly later), several hundreds of millions in cash settlement, and Airbus is footing the bill for repairing their existing fleet. This doesn’t sound like a bad deal for Qatar. I wonder if Judge Wacksman’s trial comments about the changes to protection system this month nudged Airbus’s lawyers toward settling with some more favorable concessions than they’d originally wanted.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 023-02-01/

WkndWanderer wrote:

This isn’t quite the resounding victory for Airbus that seemed clear back in December…

“The cancelled orders for 23 undelivered A350s and 50 smaller A321neos have been restored under the new deal, which is also expected to see Airbus pay several hundred million dollars to the Gulf carrier, while winning a reprieve from other claims.”

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 023-02-01/

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.

Pelly wrote:

WkndWanderer wrote:

This isn’t quite the resounding victory for Airbus that seemed clear back in December…

“The cancelled orders for 23 undelivered A350s and 50 smaller A321neos have been restored under the new deal, which is also expected to see Airbus pay several hundred million dollars to the Gulf carrier, while winning a reprieve from other claims.”

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 023-02-01/

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.

WkndWanderer wrote:

Pelly wrote:

WkndWanderer wrote:

This isn’t quite the resounding victory for Airbus that seemed clear back in December…

“The cancelled orders for 23 undelivered A350s and 50 smaller A321neos have been restored under the new deal, which is also expected to see Airbus pay several hundred million dollars to the Gulf carrier, while winning a reprieve from other claims.”

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 023-02-01/

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.

Several hundreds millions against several dozen of billions contracts seems to be really a victory for QR

Not to mention QR had to pay a high proportion of the Air us legal bill.

zeke wrote:

Not to mention QR had to pay a high proportion of the Air us legal bill.

Yes, legal costs in relation to the injunction requested by QR to stop the cancellation of the A321neo contract. The judge dismissed the application for that injunction and that was a separate but related case to the A350 surface degradation case. The costs for the A350 case would have not been determined until after the case concludes.

https://www.ft.com/content/91883252-290 ... 644a4c46da

Sorry if this has been addressed earlier (things are moving fast) but if the A350s and A321s were cancelled, the "restored" 23 x A350 and 50 x A321 must surely now be new orders. No?

A nice start to 2023 for Airbus.

PM wrote:

Sorry if this has been addressed earlier (things are moving fast) but if the A350s and A321s were cancelled, the "restored" 23 x A350 and 50 x A321 must surely now be new orders. No?

A nice start to 2023 for Airbus.

Yes, they were both officially removed from the backlog last year.

WkndWanderer wrote:

This isn’t quite the resounding victory for Airbus that seemed clear back in December…

“The cancelled orders for 23 undelivered A350s and 50 smaller A321neos have been restored under the new deal, which is also expected to see Airbus pay several hundred million dollars to the Gulf carrier, while winning a reprieve from other claims.”

So Qatar is getting the planes it ordered anyway (albeit slightly later), several hundreds of millions in cash settlement, and Airbus is footing the bill for repairing their existing fleet. This doesn’t sound like a bad deal for Qatar. I wonder if Judge Wacksman’s trial comments about the changes to protection system this month nudged Airbus’s lawyers toward settling with some more favorable concessions than they’d originally wanted.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 023-02-01/

I said it earlier, and I'll say it again, the outcome is an example of compromise. Neither side got totally what they wanted, but both have got something to take away. Some of you seem to be finding that concept very hard to grasp!

Pelly wrote:

WkndWanderer wrote:

This isn’t quite the resounding victory for Airbus that seemed clear back in December…

“The cancelled orders for 23 undelivered A350s and 50 smaller A321neos have been restored under the new deal, which is also expected to see Airbus pay several hundred million dollars to the Gulf carrier, while winning a reprieve from other claims.”

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 023-02-01/

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.

We also don't know if Airbus offered this before it all went to court, as some kind of compensation, we do know QR wanted much more than that. Might even be in the form of credits for future Airbus orders, which is not that bad for Airbus. I don't know.

PM wrote:

Sorry if this has been addressed earlier (things are moving fast) but if the A350s and A321s were cancelled, the "restored" 23 x A350 and 50 x A321 must surely now be new orders. No?

A nice start to 2023 for Airbus.

I believe this question was raised in another thread (the Airbus & Boeing 2023 orders thread?), and the answer there was "Yes".

I'd be interested to know what exactly the "repair program" involves. Sure it could just be repainting all the planes, but QR had already been used to having to do touch-up paint jobs to their aircraft. So would Airbus' proposed fixes be possibly more than a full repaint? Do you think its possible that they can retrofit any badly affected areas with new fuselage panels with the updated design?

Sermons wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Indeed. This settlement is all about saving face so that U-Turn-Al doesn't get laughed out of court. As much as many of us wanted to see him eating humble pie, it probably wasn't ever a realistic option.

The fact that he/QR was negotiating via the media until recently, but now is very quiet about the exact terms of the settlement speaks volumes. If Akbar had "won" you can be fairly sure that he would be letting the whole world know.



I'm wondering this too. I doubt they'll be able to easily get out of their 737MAX commitments - Boeing isn't stupid. Maybe the order gets transferred to the Qatari Sovereign Wealth Fund which acts as a lessor and leases them out to third parties. Or maybe there was a clause allowing them to walk away from the order if it wasn't certified by the end of 2022 (the original deadline for certification without an EICAS).

Quite recently a 737MAX was rolled out with a Qatari tail, despite their first MAX not being due for quite a while (as I remember it). I wonder if that's somehow linked? Or maybe it's just a BBJ for their Amiri Flight and all the speculation around it is irrelevant.



Tbh I think one of the main takeaways from this is that the QCAA looks like nothing more than a bunch of rubber stampers. Would appear that they take orders from the airline, rather than their relationship the other way around.


Didn't QR already order 777-8XFs?

They did, but I am wondering if QR will change them to A350F as the paint issues are now settled…

Maybe, maybe not.

They have a huge fleet of young 777Fs ( ave... Age of 6 years), and an order of 50 777-8F ( including 16 options) so seems they are set for the decade.

With the 777-9 still, some years away, they need the capacity of the passenger 35K sooner to cover for those delays.

The 350F could have a chance for possible expansion but since QA is the one that pushed Boeing to launch the 777-8F I think they feel obligated to stick with the 777 as their primary freighter.

AB and QA probably realized they both had soo much to lose with this conflict, so bringing back things to the way they were was the best solution.

AB adds onto the 35K order book which has been struggling to gain numbers for years and QA gets all of its grounded 350s fixed at AB expense, together with more 35Ks to cover for the 777Xs delays.

Win-win

With every other airliner I would have said the orders are solid as rock, but this an ME airliner with a CEo which has nickname called U-turn Al…

Wonder what this is going to do to the 737-Max order?

JonesNL wrote:

Sermons wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

They did, but I am wondering if QR will change them to A350F as the paint issues are now settled…

Maybe, maybe not.

They have a huge fleet of young 777Fs ( ave... Age of 6 years), and an order of 50 777-8F ( including 16 options) so seems they are set for the decade.

With the 777-9 still, some years away, they need the capacity of the passenger 35K sooner to cover for those delays.

The 350F could have a chance for possible expansion but since QA is the one that pushed Boeing to launch the 777-8F I think they feel obligated to stick with the 777 as their primary freighter.

AB and QA probably realized they both had soo much to lose with this conflict, so bringing back things to the way they were was the best solution.

AB adds onto the 35K order book which has been struggling to gain numbers for years and QA gets all of its grounded 350s fixed at AB expense, together with more 35Ks to cover for the 777Xs delays.

Win-win

With every other airliner I would have said the orders are solid as rock, but this an ME airliner with a CEo which has nickname called U-turn Al…

And you believe Boeing is silly and didn't make their contract with QR solid as a rock Thing is, both Airbus and Boeing have been more careful with their contracts, not letting airlines off the hook too easily as sometimes in the past. We saw that in Covid times, airlines could not defer contractual delivery just like that, penalties were high - QR's A350 order is actually just the perfect example.

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 So I'm quite sure Boeing didn't give QR an easy way out of the 777-8F contract, just in case AAB and Airbus settled their dispute and became BFF again

To be honest, I don’t know the details in the contract. What I do know is that ME airlines switched a lot of orders in the previous decade. Personally I can’t imagine that contracts have changed a lot in 10-20 years, but maybe I am not giving enough credit to legal departments…

[threeid][/threeid]

JonesNL wrote:

To be honest, I don’t know the details in the contract. What I do know is that ME airlines switched a lot of orders in the previous decade. Personally I can’t imagine that contracts have changed a lot in 10-20 years, but maybe I am not giving enough credit to legal departments…

So you don't think they might have learned from the experiences of the last decade then......?

frigatebird wrote:

Wow, that went quicker than I expected. And there is something I didn't expect either, the reinstatement of the orders. Although the A321neo order is not completely the same anymore, QR lost their precious production slots and will have to wait 3 years longer. But I have to eat humble pie on this one, I had it wrong.

DCA350 wrote:

Breathe wrote:

I'm looking forward to seeing how AAB spins this.

I have a feeling this came from the Emir or somebody close to him.. France and Qatar have a massive strategic relationship.. AAB had to fall in line on this one..

Macron and the emir met not long ago. Can't help the feeling this is related.

IWMBH wrote:

But what is QR going to do with those 737's they ordered? I thought they were replacements for the A320 order Airbus canceled. Now this order is back on the books does this mean that QR gets more NB's that they need?

Possibly. Although the order was for 25 737MAX, and the A321neo was/is for 50 aircraft. Maybe QR can try buying another airline again and place these 737s there Just today a 737 operator went bust

majano wrote:

It is not being sentimental to choose not to do business with a litigious customer who served the press with damaging images of your product. Airbus has decided to re-establish its relationship with QR, I would say there are further developments to come or to be made public.

I think so too. AAB's retirement can't be far away I'd guess.

They also may switch it to A321xlr with the hot climate for better range options.

DartHerald wrote:

[threeid][/threeid]

JonesNL wrote:

To be honest, I don’t know the details in the contract. What I do know is that ME airlines switched a lot of orders in the previous decade. Personally I can’t imagine that contracts have changed a lot in 10-20 years, but maybe I am not giving enough credit to legal departments…

So you don't think they might have learned from the experiences of the last decade then......?

I have first hand experience of people and organizations not learning from past mistakes. So, I never assume somebody has learned from the past…

JonesNL wrote:

DartHerald wrote:

[threeid][/threeid]

JonesNL wrote:

To be honest, I don’t know the details in the contract. What I do know is that ME airlines switched a lot of orders in the previous decade. Personally I can’t imagine that contracts have changed a lot in 10-20 years, but maybe I am not giving enough credit to legal departments…

So you don't think they might have learned from the experiences of the last decade then......?

I have first hand experience of people and organizations not learning from past mistakes. So, I never assume somebody has learned from the past…

And I have to give you that: Boeing is a prime example. Still, I don't see the reason why QR would dump their 777-8F order, even if they could. It's not a bad aircraft you know, it competes quite well with the A350F looking at the airlines who ordered it. But let's not drift off thread.

WkndWanderer wrote:

This isn’t quite the resounding victory for Airbus that seemed clear back in December…

“The cancelled orders for 23 undelivered A350s and 50 smaller A321neos have been restored under the new deal, which is also expected to see Airbus pay several hundred million dollars to the Gulf carrier, while winning a reprieve from other claims.”

So Qatar is getting the planes it ordered anyway (albeit slightly later), several hundreds of millions in cash settlement, and Airbus is footing the bill for repairing their existing fleet. This doesn’t sound like a bad deal for Qatar. I wonder if Judge Wacksman’s trial comments about the changes to protection system this month nudged Airbus’s lawyers toward settling with some more favorable concessions than they’d originally wanted.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 023-02-01/

I have been following this on the thread, EG:

https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/05/wi ... st-airbus/

Unfortunately the Reuters article is behind a paywall.
Does Judge Wacksman update or modify the comments in the "Aviaconline" extract, such that there is in fact no fix - that AB will end up "patching" every frame sold sooner or later?

cheers

brindabella wrote:

I have been following this on the thread, EG:

https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/05/wi ... st-airbus/

Unfortunately the Reuters article is behind a paywall.
Does Judge Wacksman update or modify the comments in the "Aviaconline" extract, such that there is in fact no fix - that AB will end up "patching" every frame sold sooner or later?

cheers

We don't know much beyond the fact that they have agreed to resolve the dispute amicably. Qatar has now accepted whatever solution Airbus has offered.

There was never any question that the degradation was common and applicable to the A350 platform. However we know from other airlines it is addressable in a reasonable fashion, perhaps with some added attention and maintenance.

I suspect the resolution came down to mutual admissions. From Airbus that it is a chronic issue that will require lifelong attention, from Qatar that the needed attention is not an undue burden on the utility of the aircraft. Now they can both relax and go home.

Pelly wrote:

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).

frigatebird wrote:

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...

frigatebird wrote:

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.

WkndWanderer wrote:

Pelly wrote:

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.

I suspect the "expected to" refers to the cost of repairs, which is somewhat unknown until each frame is inspected and a remedial plan finalised.

zkojq wrote:

Pelly wrote:

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).

In that case the agreement is not all about 'saving face' but for the mutual benefit of both.

zkojq wrote:

frigatebird wrote:

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.

Given the situation that Boeing was in:

- Multi-year delay on the 777X and needing QR to remain committed to their 777X contract despite the ability to walk away.
- Help launching a new model with a big committent from the largest air freight carrier after FedEx and UPS against another very competitive and promising model (A350F).
- Declining 777X backlog when taking into account ASC 606 adjustment.

I would think QR would have had a good deal at least on the 777-8F. They could have leveraged that onto the 737-10 too, as in don't take advantage of QR's situation when ordering the 737-10 and in return Boeing gets a big launch order on the 777-8F and a recommitment to the new schedule on the 777-9.

QR was in no rush or need to sign for the 777-8F if they had a bad deal, they had a young fleet of 777F and plenty of 77W to convert if they needed more. I don't think they would have committed to it if they got a bad deal.

Both Airbus' and QR's CEOs publicly stated that a settlement is the preferred outcome, and it was the likeliest outcome in a corporate dispute of this scale. Boeing would have had to assess the risk of trying to take advantage with very high margins vs the chances that QR/Airbus reconcile and they lose the window to place the 737MAX with long-time A320 operator.

One anecdotal piece of evidence is that Boeing's lawyers tried to convince the judge not to release the 737-10 deal's pricing information to Airbus. They wouldn't have cared if the pricing was unusually high.

'Boeing objected on Friday to Airbus internal lawyers seeing the data.

"The disclosure of pricing information...that is dynamite," Boeing's lawyer Paul Stanley told the court.'

Source: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-10-14/

zkojq wrote:

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.

Good explanation, agreed

piedmontf284000 wrote:

Two years later, after millions in legal fees, and both parties are right back to where it started. No compensation to QR but they get back their airplanes they ordered. Airbus gets a customer back. All this because of some planes losing paint and not looking shiny. Well done Akbar Al Bakar, you showed them!

Do you have a source for your "No compensation to QR" claim?

The official press release said "The terms of the settlement were confidential."

afriwing wrote:

TC957 wrote:

Now with this dispute seemingly settled, it'll be interesting to see how quickly the grounded 350's come out of storage, into the paint hanger and back into service.

It will be interesting indeed. It took around 2 days in the hangar to prepare RTS each QR A330, coming from long term storage. And longer when they encountered some problematic surprises (and that was pretty often). Now with the A350s we'll need to add the time airbus requires to do the
skin repair works, and whether it will be done in Doha or they'll be ferried to Airbus.
Another problem right now at QR is the shortage of technical staff (even shortage of tools sometimes). So these works can only be done when no other C-check etc is being done to another aircraft. I'd say this is gonna take a long time.

frigatebird wrote:

Maybe QR can try buying another airline again and place these 737s there Just today a 737 operator went bust

Lol .. or maybe shift them over to Rwandair. As additional equity stake maybe.

Didn’t QR originally order them for Air Italy? Or what was that Saudi start up they were trying for? 3rd time lucky for QR and the 737s? Lol - QR will find somewhere to stash them. Apart from Rwandair - any other subsidiaries? Rumours VA will be out of up for BAIN could see QR having a dip and sharing some maxes…..

I don't pretend that know exactly how these things work but I would assume that, if say Airbus had actually agreed to pay Qatar large amounts of compensation (i.e. hundreds of millions dollars), then there would have to be some statement to shareholders? An agreement can't be 'confidential' if it hugely affects the balance sheet. All this leads me to suspect that whatever has been agreed is not hugely material to Airbus.

Likely they had to play the PR card to save QR boss skin. Airbus will fix the grounded planes maybe batter than originally, and will male ton of profit as originally or less. Win win for both parties. Basically the real winner were the lawyers involved.

scbriml wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

afriwing wrote:

It will be interesting indeed. It took around 2 days in the hangar to prepare RTS each QR A330, coming from long term storage. And longer when they encountered some problematic surprises (and that was pretty often). Now with the A350s we'll need to add the time airbus requires to do the
skin repair works, and whether it will be done in Doha or they'll be ferried to Airbus.
Another problem right now at QR is the shortage of technical staff (even shortage of tools sometimes). So these works can only be done when no other C-check etc is being done to another aircraft. I'd say this is gonna take a long time.



Lol .. or maybe shift them over to Rwandair. As additional equity stake maybe.

Didn’t QR originally order them for Air Italy? Or what was that Saudi start up they were trying for? 3rd time lucky for QR and the 737s? Lol - QR will find somewhere to stash them. Apart from Rwandair - any other subsidiaries? Rumours VA will be out of up for BAIN could see QR having a dip and sharing some maxes…..

Yes, QR originally ordered MAX 8s for Air Italy, who subsequently went bust. Al Maha was the Saudi-based QR subsidiary, but they were going to operate A230s. While four were delivered, the airline never actually started operations.

I feel like they should start a Qatar Based LLC with those Maxs. Perfect opportunity and the max 10 is made for this.

Pelly wrote:

zkojq wrote:

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.

Good explanation, agreed

And I would like to add: Reuters does not state what the compensation would be for. So let us assume there is one, we can also assume that it will be roughly within the compensation per plane that has been agreed with the other customers that had the same issue - otherwise they would knock on Airbus' door and demand the same - I doubt this will be secret forever. Maybe other forms of compensation in the form of credits or something like that was added, to make the number look nice so that AAB can somehow sell it as a win to the Emir. Again, my guess is as good as anybody else's.

I think what has really happened is that after the meeting between the head of both states, France and Qatar, both has agreed to end the dispute and drop all the cases from AB and QR. which I think the compensation demanded by QR is one of them.

randomdude83 wrote:

I feel like they should start a Qatar Based LLC with those Maxs. Perfect opportunity and the max 10 is made for this.

And call it Al Maha

The relief that QR sought in their claim consisted of 12 items (not just compensation), Airbus in turn in their counterclaim also sought relief that included compensation. A settlement could have addressed some or part of these claims, just because claims are dropped doesn't mean that some or part of what has been sought in these claims has not been agreed in a settlement between a claimant and defendant. Even the financial statements are not definitive, if there was compensation (emphasis on the if), it could for example be in credits towards future deliveries similar to the mechanism for delivery delays or performance penalties where price is adjusted at delivery. All I am trying to say is that we will likely never know the details nor are we entitled to.

I do not understand the desire in some to find winners or losers in this as if we have been personally wronged by one side or another in this affair. Airbus builds fantastic planes including the most successful and in-demand commercial airliner family, QR is one of Airbus' important customers at least on the widebody side where they committed to the A350 concept very early on (prior to the XWB) and launched the aircraft into service. They had a dispute, they settled, and now they are working together again.

xwb777 wrote:

I think what has really happened is that after the meeting between the head of both states, France and Qatar, both has agreed to end the dispute and drop all the cases from AB and QR. which I think the compensation demanded by QR is one of them.

Seen this claim made a few times already, do we really expect a private company to follow what a 11% shareholder tells them? Because that seems to be what people are saying here. I struggle to understand how it seems that the government of France has such a hold over Airbus, but Germany with the same shareholding doesn't seem to have that same influence.

enzo011 wrote:

Seen this claim made a few times already, do we really expect a private company to follow what a 11% shareholder tells them? Because that seems to be what people are saying here. I struggle to understand how it seems that the government of France has such a hold over Airbus, but Germany with the same shareholding doesn't seem to have that same influence.

What if one party asked for help from their 11% shareholder to talk to the 100% shareholder of the other party to nudge it into a win-win resolution?

Alongside the legal process, Airbus has also discussed plans internally to advance its case on multiple political, regulatory and commercial fronts, according to several emails disclosed as part of preparatory hearings.

"Political: visit of Mr Macron & (Airbus CEO) Guillaume Faury last weekend with the Sheik(h). Could bring some levers, not yet seen," a senior Airbus engineer wrote in an email to Chief Technical Officer Sabine Klauke on Dec. 8 last year.

[...]

Other emails suggest parallel negotiations began as early as last December just as the legal fight was becoming public.

"The last 2 aspects (political and commercial) should be continued in parallel to find a quick escape of the crisis with a win-win situation," according to the Dec. 8 Airbus email.

Source:
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-11-10/

enzo011 wrote:

Seen this claim made a few times already, do we really expect a private company to follow what a 11% shareholder tells them? Because that seems to be what people are saying here. I struggle to understand how it seems that the government of France has such a hold over Airbus, but Germany with the same shareholding doesn't seem to have that same influence.

I guess that folks do not believe that French and German govts. owning 11% each just make them a regular 11% owner, personally, I am on their side of the thinking fence.

I suspect the urgency to settle this dispute was more on QR's side because the shortage of aircraft is getting acute.

QR's operations are impacted and a combination of non delivery of A350s and more delays on the B779 certification will impact their fleet planning long term. The cancellation of the A321 order has also impacted QR. As such, operational integrity is compromised and the management has finally realised that it cannot go on much longer as it could permanently damage QRs viability as an airline.

scbriml wrote:

Revelation wrote:

scbriml wrote:

I chose my words carefully. I didn't claim I did know, quite the contrary.

Indeed, so we should agree your post didn't address the "No compensation to QR" claim, despite it being a reply to a request to address that claim:

gensys wrote:

Do you have a source for your "No compensation to QR" claim?

I simply stated a fact - QR was claiming compensation via the courts and dropped that claim. <snip>

We have no information indicating WR "dropped that claim".

We do have information that QR reached a settlement with Airbus on its claims, outside of said courts.