A UK court has ordered Qatar Airways to show that the QCAA grounded Airbus A350 planes.
According to the judge presiding over the case, Qatar Airways must present the pertinent communication by April 21st.
The Qatar Civil Aviation Authority (QCAA) has given Qatar Airways 13 weeks to submit any correspondence it may have about the grounding of the Airbus A350. Qatar Airways, which has long argued that the QCAA pressured its action in the A350 affair, claims that the Airworthiness Review Certificates for 22 aircraft were cancelled, taking them out of service.
No “absurd” correspondences exist.
Since months, a $2 billion legal dispute between Airbus and Qatar Airways has focused on whether or not the paint corrosion on the surface of some A350s poses a safety risk. Yesterday, during the most recent court hearing in the ongoing dispute, Airbus revealed that the aircraft had undergone certain design modifications.
More interesting were the judge’s last remarks, in which he recounted the day’s events and made some critical remarks. It is also concerning that Qatar Airways continues to hide any evidence of communication with the QCAA.
Judge David Waksman expressed concern that Qatar had not yet responded to repeated requests for this information in case notes given to Simple Flying, calling the idea that there was no communication between the QCAA and Qatar Airways “absurd.”
Judge Waksman does not typically use the word “absurd,” yet he has used it at least three times in this case. When the two parties are due to meet again in London on April 21st, the judge then ordered Qatar Airways to present evidence of this contact. addressing Al Baker now
Akbar Al Baker, the CEO of Qatar, was not present for the trial and provided no testimony, according to Judge Waksman. He continued, “I reject the notion that Mr. Al Baker has merely played a minor role in this matter.
One of the issues that Mr. Shepherd has brought up with today’s instructions is that Mr. Al Baker asserts that minutes were not routinely minuted. If that is the case, one could be tempted to ponder the following rhetorical question: Why, for the love of God, has Mr.
Al Baker not even offered a witness statement that is limited to this revelation of whether or not specific items are minuted? Whether it be on substantive concerns or disclosure-related issues where he might be able to help, Mr. Al Baker doesn’t seem to be interested in this case.
Simple Flying was informed by insiders that in 2021, months before the A350 issues developed into a legal dispute, attorneys advised the Qatar Airways team not to record anything since it would eventually go to court.
Since then, the Qataris have been repeatedly asked to give evidence to back up nine various claims they have made, but they have always found a reason not to have the required papers on hand.
At this time, Waksman seemed to have had enough. He insisted that Al Baker produce a witness statement stating that there is no evidence or that the proof be provided by April 21.
Due to a lack of supporting evidence, the Qataris now run the risk of having some aspects of their claim denied or, ultimately, having the entire complaint dismissed. Waksman stated,
They (Airbus) will request that I draw an adverse inference, either in relation to his absence or in relation to documentary absence, and there is very well-developed case law in that regard, if those gaps [in the evidence] persist and cannot be explained, especially given that Mr. Al Baker appears to be withholding testimony.
sharing of knowledge
Disagreements over how much email and other information should be released before and throughout the trial have stalled the Qatar-Airbus dispute.
The legal representative for Qatar recently claimed that Airbus had blocked the disclosure of some evidence that would have been crucial to the dispute. In the case from the previous year, the aircraft manufacturer was accused of trying to sway EASA using a “line to take” instructional leaflet.
But there are two sides to every story, and the Qatari airline hasn’t exactly been forthcoming with its own files and correspondence, despite requests from the court.
Given that the QCAA’s decision to halt 22 Airbus aircraft has been at the heart of Qatar’s case, it seems odd that the airline wouldn’t wish to provide information confirming this statement.
The QCAA was recognized early on in the procedure as the primary cause of Qatar Airways refusing to operate the aircraft. In a news release from February of last year, the airline claimed:
We regret to tell you that Qatar Civil Aviation Authority (QCAA) has now cancelled the Airworthiness Review Certificate for a second Airbus A350 aircraft, bringing the current total of A350 aircraft grounded to twenty-two (22) aircraft.
Until a full and conclusive root cause study has been completed, the impact on continued airworthiness has been established, and a long-term solution to address the root cause and repair the damage has been found, the QCAA will not enable the operation of this aircraft again.
The safety of its passengers and staff remains a top priority for Qatar Airways, and as a result, the airline completely endorses the QCAA’s decision.
The regulatory agency undoubtedly informed Qatar of this decision not to fly its aircraft through email or written correspondence. And in that case, wouldn’t it be best for Qatar to give the court the pertinent information?
