Qatar Airways Says Airbus Exerted Influence Over Regulator in Paint Dispute

Qatar Airways is suing Airbus for damages partly based on the impact on its operations from not being able to use the aircraft. Airbus on Friday said the tally had reached approximately $2 billion and was “continuing to increase on a daily basis.”

At the heart of the dispute is peeling and cracking paint on some of its A350s. Qatar Airways says this exposes the copper mesh underneath that is designed to protect the planes from lightning strikes. Airbus has acknowledged the degradation but says the issue is only cosmetic and not a risk to safety–a position its regulator, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, has agreed with in its own independent assessments.

In written statements to London’s High Court on Friday, ahead of a trial scheduled to start in June, Qatar Airways said “Airbus was able to exert influence over EASA at the highest level” in regards to the paint issue.

The airline gave examples of several instances that it said undermined the independence of the regulator, which–similar to the Federal Aviation Administration’s relationship with

Boeing Co.

—oversees the certification and airworthiness of all aircraft manufactured by Airbus.

Qatar Airways said that documents disclosed by Airbus in the court hearings showed that the plane maker had helped EASA by providing it with a “line to take” when communicating on the paint issue to other airline customers.

A spokeswoman for EASA confirmed that the agency had coordinated with Airbus on communications “to a limited extent only to ensure technical accuracy.”

Qatar Airways also accused EASA of failing to independently verify information provided by Airbus, of not following up on a safety concern it had raised with the plane maker and having two employees involved in the assessment of the A350’s airworthiness who were previously two longtime Airbus employees.

EASA said Airbus had never refused to provide technical information relevant to the regulator’s safety assessments.

Qatar Airways also highlighted an email—disclosed in the hearings—from Airbus Chief Technical Officer

Sabine Klauke

summarizing a phone call with the head of EASA, Patrick Ky. In the email, Ms. Klauke described Mr. Ky as being committed to speaking with his counterpart at Qatar’s aviation regulator after Airbus described how the paint issue was affecting the plane maker’s relationship with the airline. Ms. Klauke wrote that Mr. Ky agreed to discuss how he could “help them to justify putting the aircraft back in the air.”

EASA said it had multiple interactions with the Qatari regulator, which it said were aimed at explaining its technical position and to offer technical support.

In its court submission Friday, Airbus said that Qatar Airways’ allegations were “based entirely on unsubstantiated speculation and innuendo about Airbus’ relationship with EASA.”

An Airbus spokesman added that the company had followed “all relevant procedures which includes the involvement of the EASA which is entirely normal and proper as the governing civil aviation authority.”

Airbus has consistently refuted Qatar Airways’ claims that the paint issue is safety related, which is core to the airline’s claims in the legal dispute. The plane maker has also challenged the decision by the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority to instruct the grounding of the affected aircraft.

Airbus has said it aims to show in the court case that Qatar Airways worked with its local regulator to ground the planes without proper cause so that it can claim compensation for the aircraft. Airbus has complained that the QCAA hasn’t provided documentation detailing its assessment of why the plane’s condition is considered unsafe while reiterating that no other aviation authority has followed Qatar in grounding the plane.

The QCAA didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

In Airbus’s court submission, it said that Qatar continued to operate two A350s that are as badly or worse affected than other grounded aircraft, which it claimed showed that the airline was exaggerating any safety risk associated with the paint damage.

Qatar Airways in its court submissions has disputed that the two aircraft referenced by Airbus were affected as severely as the others that have been grounded. The airline has previously denied any claims of collusion with its regulator on the matter.

The case has led to a broad fallout between Airbus and one of its biggest customers. In August, Airbus ended all new business with Qatar Airways by canceling the airline’s remaining order for 19 A350s, valued at roughly $7 billion according to the latest available list prices, before the hefty discounts plane makers typically give to customers.

The move came after the European company scrapped an order for 50 of its smaller A320 family aircraft from Qatar Airways on the basis that the airline had voided its contractual obligations by refusing to take additional deliveries of ready-built A350s. That deal was touted in 2017 as having a sticker price of $6.35 billion.

Write to Benjamin Katz at [email protected]

Qatar Airways is suing Airbus for damages partly based on the impact on its operations from not being able to use the aircraft. Airbus on Friday said the tally had reached approximately $2 billion and was “continuing to increase on a daily basis.”

At the heart of the dispute is peeling and cracking paint on some of its A350s. Qatar Airways says this exposes the copper mesh underneath that is designed to protect the planes from lightning strikes. Airbus has acknowledged the degradation but says the issue is only cosmetic and not a risk to safety–a position its regulator, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, has agreed with in its own independent assessments.

In written statements to London’s High Court on Friday, ahead of a trial scheduled to start in June, Qatar Airways said “Airbus was able to exert influence over EASA at the highest level” in regards to the paint issue.

The airline gave examples of several instances that it said undermined the independence of the regulator, which–similar to the Federal Aviation Administration’s relationship with

Boeing Co.

—oversees the certification and airworthiness of all aircraft manufactured by Airbus.

Qatar Airways said that documents disclosed by Airbus in the court hearings showed that the plane maker had helped EASA by providing it with a “line to take” when communicating on the paint issue to other airline customers.

A spokeswoman for EASA confirmed that the agency had coordinated with Airbus on communications “to a limited extent only to ensure technical accuracy.”

Qatar Airways also accused EASA of failing to independently verify information provided by Airbus, of not following up on a safety concern it had raised with the plane maker and having two employees involved in the assessment of the A350’s airworthiness who were previously two longtime Airbus employees.

EASA said Airbus had never refused to provide technical information relevant to the regulator’s safety assessments.

Qatar Airways also highlighted an email—disclosed in the hearings—from Airbus Chief Technical Officer

Sabine Klauke

summarizing a phone call with the head of EASA, Patrick Ky. In the email, Ms. Klauke described Mr. Ky as being committed to speaking with his counterpart at Qatar’s aviation regulator after Airbus described how the paint issue was affecting the plane maker’s relationship with the airline. Ms. Klauke wrote that Mr. Ky agreed to discuss how he could “help them to justify putting the aircraft back in the air.”

EASA said it had multiple interactions with the Qatari regulator, which it said were aimed at explaining its technical position and to offer technical support.

In its court submission Friday, Airbus said that Qatar Airways’ allegations were “based entirely on unsubstantiated speculation and innuendo about Airbus’ relationship with EASA.”

An Airbus spokesman added that the company had followed “all relevant procedures which includes the involvement of the EASA which is entirely normal and proper as the governing civil aviation authority.”

Airbus has consistently refuted Qatar Airways’ claims that the paint issue is safety related, which is core to the airline’s claims in the legal dispute. The plane maker has also challenged the decision by the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority to instruct the grounding of the affected aircraft.

Airbus has said it aims to show in the court case that Qatar Airways worked with its local regulator to ground the planes without proper cause so that it can claim compensation for the aircraft. Airbus has complained that the QCAA hasn’t provided documentation detailing its assessment of why the plane’s condition is considered unsafe while reiterating that no other aviation authority has followed Qatar in grounding the plane.

The QCAA didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

In Airbus’s court submission, it said that Qatar continued to operate two A350s that are as badly or worse affected than other grounded aircraft, which it claimed showed that the airline was exaggerating any safety risk associated with the paint damage.

Qatar Airways in its court submissions has disputed that the two aircraft referenced by Airbus were affected as severely as the others that have been grounded. The airline has previously denied any claims of collusion with its regulator on the matter.

The case has led to a broad fallout between Airbus and one of its biggest customers. In August, Airbus ended all new business with Qatar Airways by canceling the airline’s remaining order for 19 A350s, valued at roughly $7 billion according to the latest available list prices, before the hefty discounts plane makers typically give to customers.

The move came after the European company scrapped an order for 50 of its smaller A320 family aircraft from Qatar Airways on the basis that the airline had voided its contractual obligations by refusing to take additional deliveries of ready-built A350s. That deal was touted in 2017 as having a sticker price of $6.35 billion.

Write to Benjamin Katz at [email protected]