As per reuters, Airbus has revoked its entire outstanding order from Qatar Airways for A350 jets.

https://ca.yahoo.com/finance/news/exclu ... 57714.html

Coincides nicely with QR grounding yet another 350 in DIA:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/airc ... j#2cdc793c

This would take the tally to more than half of the fleet grounded.

...Although I'm interested to know whether legally they have the right to cancel since I thought the court order only allowed them to resell the frames already built?

Also opens up the slots for AI to take them

1. What would happen to all the pre delivery payments made for these aircraft?

2. Is Qatar about to purchase more 777-9’s?

Airbus must have lined up other takers for these aircraft, per orders and deliveries 19 A350-1000 are outstanding. Just wonder who that may be

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

Heavierthanair wrote:

Airbus must have lined up other takers for these aircraft, per orders and deliveries 19 A350-1000 are outstanding. Just wonder who that may be

The ones built will be sold. The ones not built will be slots sold to other airlines. May not necessarily be a 350-1000

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?

There are reasons for such suspicion. Lots of carriers deferred lots of deliveries, even on top of MAX delays, 787 delays, slow A220 production ramp, and this A350 kerfuffle. I don't know how one would prove Qatar's intent here, though.

As for this outcome, I don't think anybody should celebrate it. It demonstrated an inability by Airbus to resolve the issue to QR's satisfaction and retain the customer. (Yes, there's certainly an argument that QR can be difficult - but everybody has known that for years.)

I am pretty sure there is something happening that we don’t know! What has made Airbus to cancel the remaining order? Maybe AAB has pissed them off in a way that has led AB to cancel the order? There is something missing!!

MIflyer12 wrote:

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?

There are reasons for such suspicion. Lots of carriers deferred lots of deliveries, even on top of MAX delays, 787 delays, slow A220 production ramp, and this A350 kerfuffle. I don't know how one would prove Qatar's intent here, though.

As for this outcome, I don't think anybody should celebrate it. It demonstrated an inability by Airbus to resolve the issue to QR's satisfaction and retain the customer. (Yes, there's certainly an argument that QR can be difficult - but everybody has known that for years.)

I don't think QR "wants this" but QR definitely don't want 350s in their current state, no matter what remedies Airbus propose.

Surely the best thing is to cancel the whole order, and IF Airbus comes up with a supposedly "permanent" fix, then QR might come back to the table and reorder, if at all.

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

Well they have 60 777s to replace as well as 10 A380 and 14 A330 so their order book is pretty reasonable for replacement with modest growth. With EY becoming less of a competitor in the region I don't see why QR also needs to shrink. The real question is if they are really that committed to such a large cargo operation when 777-8F comes online.

JohanTally wrote:

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

Well they have 60 777s to replace as well as 10 A380 and 14 A330 so their order book is pretty reasonable for replacement with modest growth. With EY becoming less of a competitor in the region I don't see why QR also needs to shrink. The real question is if they are really that committed to such a large cargo operation when 777-8F comes online.

The 777-8F is replacement for the 777Fs which I’m sure will have absolutely no problem finding a new family

You raise fair points on the QR.

44 35Ks and 40 777-9s and 30 787-9s takes them to about 110 jets.
That’s almost 30 extra jets. Maybe not so bad

Until there is some definitive statement from one or both parties, which there might not be, it's just speculation (obviously) about this. It's easy to jump to conclusions when reports are spun certain ways (using emotive words like 'axes'). However, it's not actually impossible that the two sides have reached some kind of agreement to terminate the rest of the undelivered order (as it's in both sides interests to do so) while agreeing that the dispute over the delivered aircraft is best settled in the pending court case. Not saying that's what's happened, only that there is next to no information available right now and there could be multiple explanations, not just one side acting unilaterally.

Opus99 wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

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

Well they have 60 777s to replace as well as 10 A380 and 14 A330 so their order book is pretty reasonable for replacement with modest growth. With EY becoming less of a competitor in the region I don't see why QR also needs to shrink. The real question is if they are really that committed to such a large cargo operation when 777-8F comes online.

The 777-8F is replacement for the 777Fs which I’m sure will have absolutely no problem finding a new family

You raise fair points on the QR.

44 35Ks and 40 777-9s and 30 787-9s takes them to about 110 jets.
That’s almost 30 extra jets. Maybe not so bad

If they truly have received their last A350 I'd expect a 787 top up with maybe the addition of the 78J for some <5000nm routes

MIflyer12 wrote:

As for this outcome, I don't think anybody should celebrate it. It demonstrated an inability by Airbus to resolve the issue to QR's satisfaction and retain the customer.

It takes two to tango, or in this case, not tango. Your interpretation of events will surprise nobody.

accentra wrote:

However, it's not actually impossible that the two sides have reached some kind of agreement to terminate the rest of the undelivered order (as it's in both sides interests to do so) while agreeing that the dispute over the delivered aircraft is best settled in the pending court case.

I had a feeling of this too. But we will have to wait for the nature of the media quotes to tell whether this was expected by both sides or not. If AAB comments that this was some illegal cancellation blah blah then we will know that it was not agreed.

Opus99 wrote:

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).

Your arguments for the 787-9 are funny when in the same sentence you advocate buying the 777X.

Strato2 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

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).

Your arguments for the 787-9 are funny when in the same sentence you advocate buying the 777X.

Huh? His argument was that QR doesn’t want to take all of the current capacity they were due. 777Xs (which QR has already committed to) aren’t coming into later, so stall/get out of A350s due now. 787-9s were stalled because of Boeing issues, and now as things start to recover they might be interested in taking them because they are cheaper/smaller than the A350s.

Strato2 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

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).

Your arguments for the 787-9 are funny when in the same sentence you advocate buying the 777X.

I’m not advocating for buying the 777X. I’m saying taking the 777X because it’s delayed and the cash commitment is not close. It’s just about cash flow timing. It’s not necessarily because 777X is better than 350 but because 777X is timed better for them and they have too much capacity so it’s easier to dispose of the one that will conserve you cash more effectively. That’s all. Relax

787-9s will be easier to fill and better for cash flow compared to the 350 so they’ll be more receptive to those jets

scbriml wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Is it too hot for any A350 in Qatar? But will a CFRP 787 work based in the glowing heat?

QR has been operating the 787 for quite a while.

One can only assume that peeling paint on the wings isn’t an issue for AAB.

Nothing, not solved as by all airline with tons of duct tape...tons of duct tape per wing and not per jet of course...
https://9gag.com/tag/boeing

MIflyer12 wrote:

As for this outcome, I don't think anybody should celebrate it. It demonstrated an inability by Airbus to resolve the issue to QR's satisfaction and retain the customer. (Yes, there's certainly an argument that QR can be difficult - but everybody has known that for years.)

Interesting way of framing. Blaming Airbus instead of QR and downplay the childish behavior of QR because they “can be difficult”. Looking at the facts it’s clear this customer didn’t want to be satisfied and has done as much as possible -including a grounding- to get rid of those planes.

I think once AAB is gone Airbus and QR will kiss and make up. I wish Boeing's quality control department good luck in the meantime.

MrHMSH wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

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?

There are reasons for such suspicion. Lots of carriers deferred lots of deliveries, even on top of MAX delays, 787 delays, slow A220 production ramp, and this A350 kerfuffle. I don't know how one would prove Qatar's intent here, though.

As for this outcome, I don't think anybody should celebrate it. It demonstrated an inability by Airbus to resolve the issue to QR's satisfaction and retain the customer. (Yes, there's certainly an argument that QR can be difficult - but everybody has known that for years.)

In the worst case scenario, QR has used the issue for their own interest at the expense of the reputation of one of their suppliers. If that is the case to any extent, then it goes well beyond 'being difficult'. We'll never know for sure, but then it is suspicious that the QCAA and QR are the only ones really concerned about it, every other customer and authority has accepted Airbus' recommendations.

There have been other customers complaining about the 'peeling paint' issue.
Messages show Finnair (FIA1S.HE), which operates in the colder north, raised paint concerns as early as 2016, and reported in October 2019 that damage had spread below to the anti-lightning mesh.

Cathay Pacific (0293.HK), Etihad, Lufthansa (LHAG.DE) and Air France (AIRF.PA) - acting in its capacity as maintenance provider for Air Caraibes - also complained of paint damage.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-11-29/

AAB is honestly a aviation meme at this point, he is ruining QR over his own ego and its just sad. The A350-900/1000 are great aircrafts for an airline like QR and its top notch service with QSuites. I think its time to bring a new CEO for QR, AAB is very damaging to the airline and such hissy fit has become ridiculous at this point.

YYZORD wrote:

AAB is honestly a aviation meme at this point, he is ruining QR over his own ego and its just sad. The A350-900/1000 are great aircrafts for an airline like QR and its top notch service with QSuites. I think its time to bring a new CEO for QR, AAB is very damaging to the airline and such hissy fit has become ridiculous at this point.

If the airlines owners thought so he would have been replaced already. The fact of the matter is that Airbus isn’t the only vendor in town.

Ps. The Q suites are available in Boeings too so I’m not too sure what your point is on that discussion.

MrHMSH wrote:

SimpleMan wrote:

There have been other customers complaining about the 'peeling paint' issue.
Messages show Finnair (FIA1S.HE), which operates in the colder north, raised paint concerns as early as 2016, and reported in October 2019 that damage had spread below to the anti-lightning mesh.

Cathay Pacific (0293.HK), Etihad, Lufthansa (LHAG.DE) and Air France (AIRF.PA) - acting in its capacity as maintenance provider for Air Caraibes - also complained of paint damage.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-11-29/

Have these airlines grounded half of their A350 fleet and had their remaining orderbook cancelled by Airbus?

Thank you for your comment but my response was toward, "... but then it is suspicious that the QCAA and QR are the only ones really concerned about it".

I suspect 4 frames will go to ET as a swap for ordered 359s, as recently announced.

The remainder may go to AI - the expected deal seems to have stalled due to inability to agree terms, but that could be overcome, especially if Airbus is able to retain deposit money already paid by QR

marcelh wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

As for this outcome, I don't think anybody should celebrate it. It demonstrated an inability by Airbus to resolve the issue to QR's satisfaction and retain the customer. (Yes, there's certainly an argument that QR can be difficult - but everybody has known that for years.)

Interesting way of framing. Blaming Airbus instead of QR and downplay the childish behavior of QR because they “can be difficult”. Looking at the facts it’s clear this customer didn’t want to be satisfied and has done as much as possible -including a grounding- to get rid of those planes.

What's the contribution margin (revenue - variable cost) on ~fifty widebodies and ~fifty 321neos that Airbus might not sell to Qatar over the next decade? It was very costly for Airbus to walk away. There is no place else to go. Qatar as a carrier isn't going to disappear. Airbus just handed this margin to Boeing. There is no place else to go.

scbriml wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

As for this outcome, I don't think anybody should celebrate it. It demonstrated an inability by Airbus to resolve the issue to QR's satisfaction and retain the customer.

It takes two to tango, or in this case, not tango. Your interpretation of events will surprise nobody.

No, a decision not to tango can be made unilaterally. If that's what Airbus has done we have to wait to see if Qatar challenges the cancellation in court, then wins, loses, or settles.

I guess Air India needs the slots. Not like QR would have ever taken them

A friendly reminder to keep this thread on topic and not to start again speculations and discussions which have been discussed ad nauseam in previous threads, thanks.

MileHFL400 wrote:

YYZORD wrote:

AAB is honestly a aviation meme at this point, he is ruining QR over his own ego and its just sad. The A350-900/1000 are great aircrafts for an airline like QR and its top notch service with QSuites. I think its time to bring a new CEO for QR, AAB is very damaging to the airline and such hissy fit has become ridiculous at this point.

If the airlines owners thought so he would have been replaced already. The fact of the matter is that Airbus isn’t the only vendor in town.

Ps. The Q suites are available in Boeings too so I’m not too sure what your point is on that discussion.

"The ONLY other vendor" would be more precise description

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

I think people in powerful positions have ego's and sometimes those ego's will get them in trouble. I agree they over ordered but I don't see how alienating one of the 2 vendors you buy aircraft from is the way to go. This was a series of events that has now forced the airline to be in a very difficult position. Let us not forget that they were launch customer for the A350 so I am not sure your assertion that the 787 is cheaper is correct.

Now maybe with the 777X delays they are in a better position to only take Boeing aircraft in the near term for very little cash outlay from their side, but this would not be a great from Boeing's perspective. I think this whole spat is a mess that should have been solved long before. Let us not forget that QR is still continually throwing shade at Airbus in a passive aggressive manner while litigation is ongoing. Al Baker does not seem to be of the mind that the relationship is to be repaired, otherwise he would have been more conciliatory. He will not be pushing Boeing if the wings on his 787 start peeling as he has nobody else he can run to to buy aircraft from. So while those posts wishing Boeing well in dealing with him would be accurate if you were dealing with someone reasonable, I think that the CEO of QR is not reasonable at all.

MIflyer12 wrote:

If that's what Airbus has done we have to wait to see if Qatar challenges the cancellation in court, then wins, loses, or settles.

QR refused to accept delivery of multiple A350s and in the end Airbus cancelled them one by one. For some inexplicable reason QR didn't challenge any of those cancellations in court. They tried and failed to overturn the A321neo cancellation in court.

Airbus has clearly decided they're perfectly happy to not have QR as a customer. That situation could change at some point in the future when QR has a different CEO.

MIflyer12 wrote:

marcelh wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

As for this outcome, I don't think anybody should celebrate it. It demonstrated an inability by Airbus to resolve the issue to QR's satisfaction and retain the customer. (Yes, there's certainly an argument that QR can be difficult - but everybody has known that for years.)

Interesting way of framing. Blaming Airbus instead of QR and downplay the childish behavior of QR because they “can be difficult”. Looking at the facts it’s clear this customer didn’t want to be satisfied and has done as much as possible -including a grounding- to get rid of those planes.

What's the contribution margin (revenue - variable cost) on ~fifty widebodies and ~fifty 321neos that Airbus might not sell to Qatar over the next decade? It was very costly for Airbus to walk away. There is no place else to go. Qatar as a carrier isn't going to disappear. Airbus just handed this margin to Boeing. There is no place else to go.

Question is does it hurt Airbus more than keeping QR as a customer at all costs? They may lose the contribution margin, but don’t have to deal with them (making additional costs).

MIflyer12 wrote:

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?

There are reasons for such suspicion. Lots of carriers deferred lots of deliveries, even on top of MAX delays, 787 delays, slow A220 production ramp, and this A350 kerfuffle. I don't know how one would prove Qatar's intent here, though.

As for this outcome, I don't think anybody should celebrate it. It demonstrated an inability by Airbus to resolve the issue to QR's satisfaction and retain the customer. (Yes, there's certainly an argument that QR can be difficult - but everybody has known that for years.)

Or was it that QR showed an inability to satisfactorily buy the aircraft? Was it one, the other, or both

marcelh wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Interesting way of framing. Blaming Airbus instead of QR and downplay the childish behavior of QR because they “can be difficult”. Looking at the facts it’s clear this customer didn’t want to be satisfied and has done as much as possible -including a grounding- to get rid of those planes.

What's the contribution margin (revenue - variable cost) on ~fifty widebodies and ~fifty 321neos that Airbus might not sell to Qatar over the next decade? It was very costly for Airbus to walk away. There is no place else to go. Qatar as a carrier isn't going to disappear. Airbus just handed this margin to Boeing. There is no place else to go.

Question is does it hurt Airbus more than keeping QR as a customer at all costs? They may lose the contribution margin, but don’t have to deal with them (making additional costs).

While I doubt that anyone here has all the information, it would certainly appear that Airbus has decided that having QR as a customer simply isn't worth it.

MIflyer12 wrote:

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?

There are reasons for such suspicion. Lots of carriers deferred lots of deliveries, even on top of MAX delays, 787 delays, slow A220 production ramp, and this A350 kerfuffle. I don't know how one would prove Qatar's intent here, though.

As for this outcome, I don't think anybody should celebrate it. It demonstrated an inability by Airbus to resolve the issue to QR's satisfaction and retain the customer. (Yes, there's certainly an argument that QR can be difficult - but everybody has known that for years.)

Why would you say its shows Airbus' inability to retain QR as a customer? Why can't it be Airbus refuses to deal with an out of bounds customer? Especially since Airbus are the ones cancelling here and not Qatar.

I'm sure Airbus has weighed up the opportunity cost of getting rid of QR and decided that was the better opportunity.

The comment upthread about Airbus failing to keep the customer and margin cost- oh please - get real!

SimpleMan wrote:

There have been other customers complaining about the 'peeling paint' issue.
Messages show Finnair (FIA1S.HE), which operates in the colder north, raised paint concerns as early as 2016, and reported in October 2019 that damage had spread below to the anti-lightning mesh.

Cathay Pacific (0293.HK), Etihad, Lufthansa (LHAG.DE) and Air France (AIRF.PA) - acting in its capacity as maintenance provider for Air Caraibes - also complained of paint damage.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-11-29/

Just as a reminder this article has been “discussed ad nauseam in previous threads”, QR has never complained about paint peel in its court filings, they have complained about the surface degrading. Paint peel is different, it is what is going on with some customers with the 787 wings for example, the surface does not degrade, just the outer polyurethane paint can detach.

So what the other customers have been saying is not relevant to this QR issue and vice versa, what is common is the aircraft type, what is uncommon is the mechanism, and a local regulator that does not want to share its level 1 finding with the rest of the world to justify the grounding.

zeke wrote:

SimpleMan wrote:

There have been other customers complaining about the 'peeling paint' issue.
Messages show Finnair (FIA1S.HE), which operates in the colder north, raised paint concerns as early as 2016, and reported in October 2019 that damage had spread below to the anti-lightning mesh.

Cathay Pacific (0293.HK), Etihad, Lufthansa (LHAG.DE) and Air France (AIRF.PA) - acting in its capacity as maintenance provider for Air Caraibes - also complained of paint damage.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-11-29/

So what the other customers have been saying is not relevant to this QR issue and vice versa, what is common is the aircraft type, what is uncommon is the mechanism, and a local regulator that does not want to share its level 1 finding with the rest of the world to justify the grounding.

And that is the very crux of the matter for many: is the Qatari CAA essentially 'captured' by Qatar Airways and serving their agenda? Unfortunately, the evidence would seem to say 'yes', sadly, as no other regulatory body has agreed with their position.

MIflyer12 wrote:

marcelh wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

As for this outcome, I don't think anybody should celebrate it. It demonstrated an inability by Airbus to resolve the issue to QR's satisfaction and retain the customer. (Yes, there's certainly an argument that QR can be difficult - but everybody has known that for years.)

Interesting way of framing. Blaming Airbus instead of QR and downplay the childish behavior of QR because they “can be difficult”. Looking at the facts it’s clear this customer didn’t want to be satisfied and has done as much as possible -including a grounding- to get rid of those planes.

What's the contribution margin (revenue - variable cost) on ~fifty widebodies and ~fifty 321neos that Airbus might not sell to Qatar over the next decade? It was very costly for Airbus to walk away. There is no place else to go. Qatar as a carrier isn't going to disappear. Airbus just handed this margin to Boeing. There is no place else to go.

scbriml wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

As for this outcome, I don't think anybody should celebrate it. It demonstrated an inability by Airbus to resolve the issue to QR's satisfaction and retain the customer.

It takes two to tango, or in this case, not tango. Your interpretation of events will surprise nobody.

No, a decision not to tango can be made unilaterally. If that's what Airbus has done we have to wait to see if Qatar challenges the cancellation in court, then wins, loses, or settles.

It's hard to imagine that this is what QR wanted.

It would have been far easier and cheaper to have just paid any cancellation fee.

Now they have no A320 family and no A350 orders if this is upheld.

zeke wrote:

SimpleMan wrote:

There have been other customers complaining about the 'peeling paint' issue.
Messages show Finnair (FIA1S.HE), which operates in the colder north, raised paint concerns as early as 2016, and reported in October 2019 that damage had spread below to the anti-lightning mesh.

Cathay Pacific (0293.HK), Etihad, Lufthansa (LHAG.DE) and Air France (AIRF.PA) - acting in its capacity as maintenance provider for Air Caraibes - also complained of paint damage.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-11-29/

Just as a reminder this article has been “discussed ad nauseam in previous threads”, QR has never complained about paint peel in its court filings, they have complained about the surface degrading. Paint peel is different, it is what is going on with some customers with the 787 wings for example, the surface does not degrade, just the outer polyurethane paint can detach.

So what the other customers have been saying is not relevant to this QR issue and vice versa, what is common is the aircraft type, what is uncommon is the mechanism, and a local regulator that does not want to share its level 1 finding with the rest of the world to justify the grounding.

It's your last point I find interesting.

Years ago I dealt with Qatar, right up to and including AAB. I don't claim to know him or anything, but I did deal with the guy. At his level QR (and QCAA, lets not pretend any sort of independence exists) is impressive, but as both organisations have grown so quickly, they are chaotic in my experience and lack technical skill beyond sloppily following standard procedures they somehow copied from elsewhere.

That lack of technical reasoning skill is, from what I observed, why QR couldn't get the A320 NEO Pratt's to work, yet Lufthansa did. My honest guess, is that somebody probably stuffed up this A350 analysis and now the Qatari's don't want to look stupid by backing down.

MIflyer12 wrote:

. It demonstrated an inability by Airbus to resolve the issue to QR's satisfaction and retain the customer. (Yes, there's certainly an argument that QR can be difficult - but everybody has known that for years.)

I don't see that it demonstrated any such thing. Why not equally say that Airbus refused to cede to QR's childishness, or would that conclusion not suit?

Great decision when I'm looking at it from a passenger pov, more airlines should give manufacturers the hardest time if there's any flaws.

MrHMSH wrote:

SimpleMan wrote:

There have been other customers complaining about the 'peeling paint' issue.
Messages show Finnair (FIA1S.HE), which operates in the colder north, raised paint concerns as early as 2016, and reported in October 2019 that damage had spread below to the anti-lightning mesh.

Cathay Pacific (0293.HK), Etihad, Lufthansa (LHAG.DE) and Air France (AIRF.PA) - acting in its capacity as maintenance provider for Air Caraibes - also complained of paint damage.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-11-29/

Have these airlines grounded half of their A350 fleet and had their remaining orderbook cancelled by Airbus?

the REAL Question? Have they raised this much Hell in Public? Sometimes? It's not what you DO? But How you do it? If the airline was looking to get out of new contracts? OR wanted compensation? then raising public HELL might well do the trick. Especially if Airbus didn't give them the result they wanted. A pretty crappy way to do things? But? They might have gotten what they wanted. The question now? Do they like what they Got??

That's a good way of putting it. Another factor that hasn't been discussed is how much did QR pay for the aircraft. I'm willing to bet if it was near list price Airbus would be more tolerant of AAB's rantings, however if deep discounts were involved then patience is a lot thinner. I can imagine the scenes in the Airbus boardroom with senior executives arriving at the conclusion that QR is just too much trouble and not worth the effort- and so what if we lose future sales (copy Ryanair script)- there's only us and Boeing so we'll easily recoup the loss- if anything because if Boeing's production line is tied up then we get the sales by default (and can happen vice versa).

Below the line it is not good to estrange from a key customer like this. Both side's CEOs should be able to negotiate anything instead of parting ways. The red line for Airbus seems to have been to be called flight safety compromised in public. I agree that Qatar might have ordered too many A350s. But wouldn't there be a quieter way out of this? What prices will Qatar have to pay at Boeing now with no other supplier left?

Still the paint must be made robust enough for all climates. It's a big surprise to see problems like this surface after all those years with CFRP.