Gulf Air is attacking Airbus again in the A350 dispute – this time with quotes from a London judge. The manufacturer accuses Qatar Airways of completely misrepresenting it.
It was a call to settle out of court. Last week, London judge David Waxman asked Airbus and Qatar Airways to sit again at the same table in the dispute over damages to the Airbus A350. The judge said, in his opinion, that the costs of the trial proceedings were too high for the parties.
However, a new statement issued by Qatar Airways on Tuesday (May 31) shows how far the litigants are far from settling. “The ruling, delivered by Judge Waxman at a Supreme Court hearing on Thursday (May 26), shattered Airbus’ claim that the A350’s condition was merely a ‘cosmetic’ paint problem exposed by the entire airline industry,” the airline writes. Then you quote from the judge himself.
differential expansion problem
“Airbus itself argued in its defense that the condition is bound to occur during the life of the A350 because it is caused by the differential coefficient of expansion between the CFRP material that makes up the airframe and the expanded copper foil (the ECF layer, according to the airline), said Waxman, according to the airline. It sticks or has been treated with.This is not only limited to aircraft that have been delivered to Qatar Airways.
She added that “the reason for the existence of the ECF is that it acts as a lightning rod, preventing serious damage to the aircraft in the event of a direct lightning strike, which occurs on average once a year for a working passenger aircraft.” Different expansion coefficients mean that these two groups of materials will expand and contract at different rates, causing cracks to develop in the top coatings over time, at least on the A350.
Up to 900 patches is the only solution?
According to Qatar Airways, Waxman wrote that “Airbus’ current position is that for A350s that have already been delivered to Qatar, and possibly for future A350s not yet fully assembled, there is no simple solution to this problem.” “The only thing that can be done is to graft all the damaged areas (especially the structure), which can be as high as 900.”
The judge said the condition itself couldn’t be treated with things like extra paint or a fresh coat of copper foil. He also notes that “the Boeing 787 Dreamliner is also made of carbon-fibre-reinforced plastic and that these aircraft (which first entered service in 2011) are apparently unaffected by the situation.” Qatar Airways confirmed this point. “Airbus, for its part, has not provided any evidence that the 787 showed the condition,” Waxman writes.
Airbus is talking about a complete misrepresentation
When asked by aeroTELEGRAPH, Airbus said it was “surprised by the complete misrepresentation of the British High Court ruling, which excluded all Qatar’s requests for injunctions in relation to the contract for the A321 Neo (on April 26) and A350 (on April 26). May) were rejected. As an indication of what actually happened, the court ordered Qatar to pay 97 percent of Airbus’ legal costs.
“The judge’s refusal of all Qatar Airways requests for injunctions confirms Airbus’ position that the Qatari timetable would have slowed rather than speeded up the process by distracting and diverting resources.” Qatar Airways will continue to defend itself against “distortion of the safety and suitability of the A350” and is pleased that the matter is now being expedited.