Talk:Airbus A330

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Airbus A330 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Airbus A330 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 20, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
February 28, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
March 18, 2011	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
May 1, 2011	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
July 10, 2011	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
Current status: Good article

Aviation: Aircraft

	Aviation portal This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
	This article is supported by the aircraft project.
	This article has passed an A-Class review.

Europe Mid‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by jjron, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on May 2, 2011.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

This article contains a summary of Air France Flight 447.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Rolls-Royce Trent#Trent 600 – First proposal|Trent 600]] The anchor (#Trent 600 – First proposal) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

The section: In service engine shutdowns is currently very biased[edit]

It implies that only Trent 700 powered A330s have experienced in flight shutdowns. This is not the case, each of the 3 engine manufacturers have had in service issues with their products.

WP:Undue weight perhaps, please provide references for other engine issues.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is too many to list completely, just a few from the last couple of years: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] 2A00:23C4:3699:EC00:91C3:FB2:FE05:7E09 (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"А330" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect А330. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

misleading picture needs to be removed[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There is a black and white picture of the A330 production line. Removed it three times already but 2 other editors undid the removal because they just want to win. Patch455 (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it misleading? BilCat (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested that you feel you know my motivation when you allege because they just want to win. Do you have psychic powers? If so, they are misfiring. DBaK (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The black and white makes the picture look pretty old.

The A330 is still a very modern aircraft and its a shame that you would put a picture of the production line of a magnificent modern aircraft in black and white even worse publish it on Wikipedia. Patch455 (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it's not a valid reason to remove a photo. BilCat (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry but this picture simply does not fit to the article. Patch455 (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While you're welcome to your opinion, that reasoning isn't likely to convince anyone the photo needs to be removed. BilCat (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you a question? Are we here talking about the A330 or the DC-3? Patch455 (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing inherently wrong with a photograph in black and white. If this means old to you I suggest that is your problem not anyone elses. You are welcome to replace the picture with a better one and or maybe add a date (2007) to the caption to avoid any confusion or impression you are seeing. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Patch455: And reverting as an IP once you have run out of reverts is a very dangerous persuit. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You just don’t put a black and white picture to an article of an aircraft that is not even 30 years old. Patch455 (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Andrewgprout (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I’m making the case against the wrong person. Apparently black and white has no meaning to you which is not normal and unhealthy too. I wish you all the best. Patch455 (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, not just the one wrong person. Plenty of us cannot see the point in your complaints. Black and white is a valid form of photograph. There is no more to say, except that if you don't like it you should find a better one and gain consensus for replacing it, as stated below. Thank you. DBaK (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fnlayson adding the year doesn’t make it any better. black and white simply does not fit to the year of 2007. Patch455 (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors here, me included, seems to be fine with a BW picture. If you can find a good free picture of the assembly line in colour, you can propose it here in talk. Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Marc Lacoste is absolutely correct here. Patch455, you might want to read up on consensus in WP editing. There is a load of useful information for a new user that I and others put on your Talk page: you would do very well to read it. Thank you DBaK (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you all know that your behavior is pretty disrespectful towards this magnificent, modern aircraft. What a shame. Patch455 (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is sad. I'll be glad to pitch in for some therapy for the A330. I understand it's doing the A380 a lot of good since its cancellation. BilCat (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

‘Inappropriate black and white picture needs to be removed from the article’ Patch455 (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So let me see if I understand you correctly. You believe the black and white picture is inappropriate and needs to be removed from the article. Is that correct? BilCat (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this is becoming an appalling waste of time as the OP is apparently not listening and apparently does not understand how Wikipedia works, or else is having fun yanking our chains, but let's WP:AGF. I am not sure I have the energy to continue, except that if there is actually a vote or an RfC or something I suppose I will weigh in. However, Patch455 did say one interesting thing in their edit summary here where they wrote someone please contact José and put the original picture up there. Now, given that it seems we will not tolerate the removal of this image just because you don't like B&W – that is, we think that it is better to have the current photo than no factory photo – and given that you, Patch455, are apparently the only person who feels strongly about this: I would certainly support replacing the current B&W one with the same one in colour or with another factory image of equivalent quality. So you could, if you wished, contact the photographer and see whether it exists in colour and whether he would be willing to make it available. Of course, it may simply not exist, and the photographer, whose work shows a load of really excellent B&W and colour photography, may not like being told that B&W is not proper photography in some way. But, if you feel that strongly about it (and it seems that you do – this is a lot of energy expended on one minuscule issue) – why not take your own advice and ask him? Here he is: https://www.flickr.com/photos/goulao/albums and at the very least you could enjoy his other work, which I thought was well worth a look, however many colours he likes it in. That's all I have for you at the moment, and I would urge you, with the greatest respect, to either do something productive about it or just stop: on its current trajectory this looks fated not to end well. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

responding to BilCat: Yes that is correct. Patch455 (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will not contact him nor will I look at his other photos. It was a pretty bad idea to put the production line in black and white. But I believe you that he sure has made some good photos. No doubt. Patch455 (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The black and white picture needs to be removed. It’s misleading, unfitting and inappropriate. You all know I’m right. You just won’t remove it because you think “I have something against B&W photography”. How ridiculous. Patch455 (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can't see much point in responding further though like many others I will probably continue to watch. Have a good day. DBaK (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight. You will not remove the picture because you think I don’t like B&W photography. But that’s something you want to think and not because it’s true. Only so I don’t get my way. Now I ask you what does this make you as an editor? I can already tell you that this does not show a very good picture of you. Patch455 (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing misleading or inappropriate about the photo. That's why we're against removing it. BilCat (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it’s inappropriate. This aircraft is from the 90s and not the 30s. Patch455 (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone on far too long. There's no point in essentially repeating the same comments here. Time to close this discussion, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not long enough for you to understand. Patch455 (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We understand. We simply disagree. BilCat (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to go there (ad hominem argument). -Fnlayson (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The black and white does not fit to the article. It puts the A330 in the wrong light. You can’t disagree on that because it’s true. Patch455 (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Number built[edit]

There have been 1544 a330s built as of March 15th 2021

https://www.airfleets.net/listing/a330-25.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:1F94:1501:1DF0:E7BF:17A7:A09B (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid conflicting information from unofficial sites such as this one, by consensus, Airbus and Boeing airliner articles use the data released monthly on each company's official website. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Display section missing 4-5 airframes[edit]

The aircraft on display section lacks a 4-5? A330s, all in Thailand. Three or two? are at a place called Coffee War 331, and curiously two had their wings swapped while being reassembled, another one is at the Air Diamond Cafe, and finally the last one is at the Airways Land Cafe, repurposed after being damaged beyond repair in a runway incident. All seem to be Ex-Thai airways. 112.211.13.224 (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A330 Beluga[edit]

Shouldn't the six A330-700L Beluga be added as delivered aircraft? All six have now been delivered to Airbus transport services. https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/airbus-rolls-out-sixth-and-final-belugaxl-transport/153988.article 84.213.85.235 (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Counting the original A330 deliveries and the A330-700L Beluga deliveries would be double counting aircraft here. The Beluga deliveries should be covered at Airbus BelugaXL instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]