Figuring Out the Claims, Counterclaims, and Contracts in Court Filings 

A notable law firm with a finger on the pulse of the Aviation industry has released their take on the Airbus vs. Qatar Airways dispute, breaking down the legalese and tendering an update. 

Airbus maintains that all 21 of the A350s grounded are actually fully airworthy, and that the airline refused to undertake recommended repairs. They also maintain that the Qatari regulator responsible for the grounding has not specified their rationale for grounding them, making the motives behind the grounding seem a little too convenient to be purely in the interests of flight safety. Leeham recalls an Airbus analysis of Qatar Airways' A350 fleet, noting that throughout the pandemic, only 2 of the aircraft were operating at their pre-pandemic levels, meaning that there was a definitive economic incentive to both ground the aircraft and pursue compensation for their demands. 

Airbus filed a counterclaim in court, hoping to recoup the costs that resulted when the airline refused delivery of 2 new A350-1000s which they say led to extensive storage, maintenance, and reconfiguring costs in order to sell them to another customer.

They also look to recover purchase credits of nearly $200 million for the contract for 80 A350s, prorated to those aircraft undelivered. Leeham notes that the company's A321 contention is a branch off of the refused delivery, as Airbus "exercised a cross-default provision to cancel a Qatar order for 50 A321neos. Airbus seeks a refund of nearly $4m in credit memos related to the cross-default for the A320/321neo contract." That issue has been held in limbo after the court issued a stay on the cancellation of the A321neo contract, with the hearing set for early April.

Airbus "prefers a negotiated outcome," according to Leeham's contacts. 

FMI: www.leehamnews.com