AIR CARGO ACFT IS ACCUSED OF FAILING TO GIVE WAY TO SECOND ACFT ON LOOP TXWY.

Narrative

FLT WAS TAXIING FROM THE CARGO RAMP GATE TO RWY 27. THE TAXI CLRNC RECEIVED FROM CDG GND WAS 'TAXI HOLDING POINT 27.' WHILE ON TXWY N12 APCHING KILO LOOP THE CREW OBSERVED AN ACR ACFT ENTERING THE KILO LOOP VIA N20.1. OUR ACFT APPEARED TO BE WELL AHEAD OF THE AIRBUS AND CONTINUED VIA THE BYPASS TO N-13 TXWY ENRTE TO RWY 27. THE AIRBUS THEN ON THE KILO LOOP HAD A CONVERSATION IN FRENCH WITH THE GND CTLR. THE GND CTLR THEN SAID IN ENGLISH TO OUR FLT 'YOU SHOULD HAVE GIVEN WAY TO THE AIRBUS ON THE 'UNCTLED' KILO LOOP.' OUR ACFT NEVER ENTERED THE KILO LOOP AND WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION ALL OF CDG ARPT WAS CTLED. WE APOLOGIZED AND CONTINUED AN UNEVENTFUL FLT. IF THE ACTIONS OF OUR ACFT WERE INCORRECT; AND AT THIS POINT; I'M NOT SURE THEY WERE; THE COMMERCIAL CHART TO CDG SHOULD HAVE REMARKS STATING THE TXWYS ARE 'UNCTLED.' WE; AS ALL UNITED STATES CARRIERS; ASSUME A CLRNC TO TAXI HAS NO RESTRICTIONS IF NOT XING AN ACTIVE RWY. THE CDG GND CTLRS SHOULD ALSO GIVE 'GIVE WAY' INSTRUCTIONS WHEN A POTENTIAL CONFLICT EXISTS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 283019: THE AIRBUS CREW COMPLAINED TO GND THAT WE HAD NOT GIVEN HIM RIGHT OF WAY. GND THEN EXPLAINED TO US THAT ACFT ON THE K LOOP HAD RIGHT OF WAY. THIS DID NOT OCCUR ON THE K LOOP; BUT WE APOLOGIZED ANYWAY AND STATED THAT WE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THAT RULE. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF GND HAD JUST TOLD US TO GIVE WAY TO THE ACFT APCHING FROM THE S.