Talk:Airbus A220/Archive 1

Rewrite
Now that the CSeries has had its launch order placed, I think we can begin to rewrite the main text. Currently, it is basically a series of paraphrased press releases (not a criticism, as its future was not clear at the time thoes sections were made.) I think we have enough date to condense the pre-launch info into a "Background" sub-section, and to begin a "Design" section. Thoughts? And volunteers? ;) (I can start it, but anyone else is welcome to try also.) - BillCJ (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * With the firm order, Bombardier changed their variant designations. I'll try to write a sentence explaining that better.  I don't understand the background well enough to condense the early development/background.  I should be able to write some design text though. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That would fine. I'm adding the current text belore so that we can try to work on it without disrupting the article itself. Anyone can edit it here, but realize it may be changed before it's put in the main article. - BillCJ (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Text for rewriting

 * See Talk:Bombardier CSeries/Rewrite

I moved the text to a subpage linked above. I think that it will be easier to work on there. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Orders box
In earlier review of the "orders" box, i was going to make adjustments to the spreadsheet as it is unclear. It is difficult to understand how many orders and how many options. Usually the options are associated with a specific type. Also the "90" at the bottom is total of all types? This is unclear. If someone can edit, appreciate.--Firelife 21:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KGoldberg (talk • contribs)

ER versions
This article mentions the CS100ER having a specced range of 2950 nm, and the regular CS100 having less. I don't see the ER versions mentioned in any official specs though. BA's spec sheet on the CS100 lists the nominal range at 2950 nm

http://media.bombardiercms.com/cseries/medias/cseries/galleries/cseries_path_large_en_00eeb7.pdf

User BonusOnus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.12.214 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems like Bombardier removed any reference to the ER and XT versions for both CS100 and CS300 from their brochures... I checked right now the current available versions online and it states 2950nm nominal range for both CS100 and CS300 without any XT/ER versions. Remembering well the original sources (I followed this aircraft program closely) I checked the brochures that I got in my downloads folder (the older ones) and those ER/XT version were there. Shall we remove the respective data from the article? --CeruttiPaolo (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅, Bombardier and also Pratt&Whitney removed any reference to the ER/XT versions in all their documents. CeruttiPaolo (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Edits regarding specifications
The reference used by Tagremover (Bombardier CSeries Factsheet) is an old brochure from January 2009. Also the French and Japanese articles on the Bombardier CSeries are outdated and still list the ER versions of the aircraft. During 2012, Bombardier removed all references to the ER and XT versions from their factsheets, this was discussed on the article's discussion page and a revision was promptly made to the section in the article (with this edit, dated December 18, 2012). Furthermore, in March 2013, Bombardier revised several key data (like aircraft's dimensions and performance data) and I performed a full review of the specifications section in the article's page (with this edit, dated March 8, 2013). Related edits were reverted and the correct specifications (as of now) are back. --CeruttiPaolo (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I saw a little edit war and remembered previous versions. But it seems you are right, and Bombardier canceled these versions, probably because of the disappointing order volume. And: The current webpage of Bombardier is disappointing: I hate flash animated stuff without info.
 * The article should mention the cancellation of *er and *xt versions. The factsheet could be used as ref for this. Tagremover (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added this part in the "renamed models" section, in order to provide this information. --CeruttiPaolo (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Tagremover (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Imprecisions

 * CS100 is already in service by Swiss Air. I flew it yesterday, July 12, 2015 on PMI-ZRH flight. User CeruttiPaolo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:105f:2:4cdb:316f:41a7:9ed1 (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank You for Your contribution, however, since the only CS100 in swiss livery is a test aircraft and is in Canada since the 20th of June, it cannot be so. Browsing flight history for Swiss PMI-ZRH flights, yesterday 12th June 2015, they were operated by Airbus A320 and A321 aircraft. --CeruttiPaolo (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Another source for just how doomed they are
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bombardier-cseries-1.3261466

Reasons for the fall, if needed. Hcobb (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Update on United Airlines
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/embraer-reaffirms-e2-plan-despite-cseries-report-417764/

Seems a little soft to me? Hcobb (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, this is just speculative fishing. - Ahunt (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Bombardier in line for Quebec CSeries bailout
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bombardier-quebec-cseries-1.3292411

Have to put it here, as the actual article has no room for the troubles of this project. Hcobb (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The article has lots of scope for the trouble the project may or may not be in. The problem with the CBC article is it is little more than a rumour. If the company actually does get a bail-out or an "investment" from the provincial governmnt then it should be added. - Ahunt (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Delta Airlines - Rumor not fact yet
I agree with the deletion of the edit that covered a possible sale to Delta. Late last week, Delta was still considering two brands of new jets. The Washington Post is jumping the gun, guessing that they will buy the CSeries. (Quoting the names of the journalists who wrote the supposition does not make the information any more definite.) Delta might buy the CSeries as other media are also speculating (including Bloomberg), but that is still speculation as of the morning of April 18.

And this morning, Washington Post/Bloomberg are speculating that Airbus will get orders from Delta. Is this not rumor mongering?

http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-O5O03VSYF01S01-6H1H0RCU930FEP9DCBCKA92PBH ... Airbus Said Poised to Win Delta Deal for at Least 30 A321 Jets ... Quote: "Delta has been in talks with Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier and Brazil’s Embraer SA as it explores options for replacing 116 MD-88s with an average age of 25 years, as well as 50-seat jets flown by its regional affiliates. “Delta’s a big enough airline that they could take a little bit from everybody, play the manufacturers off each other,” Bloomberg Intelligence analyst George Ferguson said." Peter K Burian (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, well said. That's exactly why we avoid speculation, and wait until official announcements are made. - BilCat (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Move page to "Bombardier C Series" ?
For the past few months, Bombardier has referred to the CSeries as "C Series" (adding a space between the C and the S) on their digital media, in press releases, and on their website. As the official name of the aircraft appears has changed, I suggest that the page be moved. Briguychau (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It does look like the company PR dept has decided to add a space there. - Ahunt (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems to be related to putting the text all caps. Bombardier lists C SERIES, CRJ SERIES and Q SERIES as labels on its web site now. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The major Canadian media (CBC, Montreal Gazette) are still referring to it as CSeries. https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=cseries+bombardier.com&tbs=qdr:w&tbas=0 Peter K Burian (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Correct spelling now is C Series (not CSeries) apparently
Some Canadian media still spell it as CSeries, but The Canadian Press (Canada's equivalent of AP) and the Globe&Mail (Major national daily) are now spelling it as C Series, in line with Bombardier's PR releases. I have NOT changed it everywhere in the article but referred to it as C Series in my latest edit, in the Market section. Not sure what we should do in this respect. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Generally, we give it some time until it's in common usage in multiple sources, especially if the previous style has been in use for awhile. WP gives preference to common names over official names, so it's usually a bit slow in adopting a manufacturer's name and style changes. (Some companies do this quite often!) It's not a big deal either way, as it's just a style/format issue. However we should be consistent in the article, and use one style throughout, other than giving alternatives in the Lead sentence. - BilCat (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the addition in the intro done by Peter covers the matter in my opinion. --CeruttiPaolo (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Shorten "Recent developments" section
Wikipedia is not a newspaper : Look yourself. 79.196.225.202 (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not think its easy. But some content would be a lot better in other sections. Other not relevant for an encyclopedia. 79.196.225.202 (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Some text there seems partially obsolete since they has been overcome by events. Text should be be summarized in places.  And combine related text so there are fewer short paragraphs. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bombardier CSeries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=al_j9tvXi3ck

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ - Ahunt (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

orders section
I reorganized the article, for better i hope. the orders section is hideous (the market section is better, but is linked). i think it could be moved to the list of orders, and only main orders, important for the program, should be kept as in the bombardier Backgrounder. -Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bombardier CSeries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-19/airbus-weighs-costs-rivals-advances-in-engine-upgrade-choice.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ - Ahunt (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

main photo change
On October 5 I changed the main picture from the inflight prototype to a Swiss CS100 on ground. I didn't seek consensus for that and I apology, I wasn't understanding the needs for the lead image. Since the Cseries is young, there is not so much pictures by now, and a return to inflight prototypes pictures would be better. The new proposal is more dynamic than the previous. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Guidance is at WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES and favours an in-flight image that shows the overall arrangement of the aircraft for the lead image. - Ahunt (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bombardier CSeries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=c2f4b560-a3bb-4a85-9c51-30a397c31b63
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161116231423/http://airinsight.com/2016/11/16/boeing-loses-united-deferral/ to http://airinsight.com/2016/11/16/boeing-loses-united-deferral/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bombardier CSeries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150118060927/http://www.aviationtoday.com/ran/categories/commercial/Bombardier-Launches-CSeries_24253.html to http://www.aviationtoday.com/ran/categories/commercial/Bombardier-Launches-CSeries_24253.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160131140424/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/united-to-buy-40-boeing-jets-in-blow-to-bombardier-c-series/article28306016/ to https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/united-to-buy-40-boeing-jets-in-blow-to-bombardier-c-series/article28306016/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160424141520/http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2015/02/19/report-where-are-the-sales-for-bombardiers-cseries-jet/ to http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2015/02/19/report-where-are-the-sales-for-bombardiers-cseries-jet/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160429120630/http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2016/04/28/analysis-delta-becomes-the-largest-cseries-customer/ to http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2016/04/28/analysis-delta-becomes-the-largest-cseries-customer/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

main pic change
Now that they are airbus branded, the BBD main pic seems a little outdated, and an airline livery would better represent that thay are in operation and no longer in development.

If nobody cares, I will use the right -100.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I would go for the largest operator of most common variant, which I believe is currently Swiss -300. Sr 88,  talk . 14:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Airbus issued a new official livery on yesterday, for display at Farnborough on next week. Maybe just wait for the show: there will be a lot of photographs available by then. Ept31 (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is to avoid manufacturer liveries now that the plane is in airline service.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If it can help to solve your problem, I added a picture I took of the A220-300 with Airbus livery on Wikimedia Commons :

RomainC82 (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Great photo! Illustrates nicely the #Airbus takeover section, but for the main picture I think one with an airline livery would be more representative of the current state.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Operators section: aircraft already in service are not Airbus models
Someone keeps changing the model designations in the "Operators" section to A220. I've reverted it yet again, adding notes in comments. Can we agree that the aircraft already in service are not Airbus models, and that the old designation should remain (at least until Airbus starts making deliveries of its own)? Rosbif73 (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I changed it for a neutral "aircraft", "100" and "300" designation to avoid edit wars. I think such neutral writing could apply to the whole article : CSeries seems outdated now but A220 is not yet widespread, and the historical name should be kept.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - Aviation isn't my strong suit but I'm not aware of any other cases of this happening with planes before (the Boeing 717 being renamed as such before any deliveries had been made, hence they're all 717s) but over at WP:BUSES we deal with this by saying the vehicle is whatever the type was called at the time of its production. e.g. for Dennis Darts a 2003 model is a TransBus Dart, a 2006 model is an ADL Dart etc. So any that have already been delivered remain Bombardier CS100/CS300 models, and any future deliveries are Airbus A320s A220s (woops). Buttons0603 (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with using the name when the order was made. So for example, Air Canada and Delta's orders and planes will be using CSeries designation while JetBlue's orders will be referred as Airbus A220s. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I suspect that all aircraft delivered from now on will be considered (by Airbus, and almost certainly also by the airlines) as A220s, even if they were ordered as CSeries. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I suspect that they will still be legally CS100/CS300s marketed as the "Airbus A220" until they change the Type Certificate. MilborneOne (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Legally they are BD-500s, not CSeries neither A220s. Maybe we should not care so much about marketing names.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Main Photo, Part II
I changed the main photo again to the A220... (not realizing someone did it before and got reverted). Let's generate a clear consensus once and for all on this, because I believe the photo of the A220 is better in two ways: 1. It is just a clearer image. 2. The Swiss aircraft pictured literally says "CS-300" on it, which is out of date. It's not even the right aircraft for the page now. Ultimograph5 (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There is a clear consensus already. Having an airline Livery is preferred now it is in service. 1. I honestly don't see any "clearer" image. Both are good pictures with good light and a clear sky. (showing them could be nice) 2. The current swiss -300 pic don't have manufacturer marks. It is exactly the same aircraft, marketing branding does not matter. Accenture is still Andersen Consulting.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed - no sensible arguments have been presented to change the photo.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Both images show the aircraft acceptably, but the Swiss one shows a better angle that shows the fuselage shape better, plus it shows it in operational service vs a company marketing paint scheme. Despite the "busy" paint scheme, I don't see that it says CS300 on it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A220-300 Korean.jpg

Missing Type Certificate Holder's TCDS reference on aircraft Model designation
Hello, I'm am new to the Wiki community and would like to know how to amend/add a missing reference? The Specification table Variant columns are referring to EASA TCDS (154) for both BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 aircraft model when in fact, they should really refer to the Type Certificate Holder's TCDS. Thank you -- IKIW101 (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)JS


 * I'm not sure of what you mean.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with using the EASA TCDS it is a reliable source for facts, the type certificate holder doesnt have a TCDS as such they are issued by the airworthiness authorities of which EASA is one. MilborneOne (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The EASA TCDS is a reliable source but doesn't point to the country of manufacture. Inconsistent reference. The Canadian TCDS should be referenced in lieu of the EASA. The 787 page also refers to the EASA TCDS but the 777 refers to the FAA TCDS. The country of manufacture should be referred rather than one of the possible country of import.BD-500 (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)BD-500


 * A TCDS as a ref for the specs could come from any type-certification-delivering Authority. The EASA is as good for that as transport Canada or the FAA. The country of manufacture is another matter. If the transport Canada TCDS is more detailed, feel free to share the link so the specs could be enriched. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Not sure what BD-500 means by "pointing to the country of manufacture" the EASA TCDS clearly says the Type Certificate Holder is the "C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership", Mirabel, Quebec, Canada and clearly says the Transport Canada is the State of Design Authority. The Transport Canada TCDS is at Transport Canada TCDS but I cant see it adds anything more to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Short-range routes
Does anyone know whether the Airbus A220s have also flown for short-range routes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey (talk • contribs) 00:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * All medium range aircraft can fly shorter routes, but that doesn't make them a "short range aircraft". To make a claim like that you will need to cite a reliable ref that says that. Labelling the A220 a "short range aircraft" based on it having flown a shorter leg would be WP:OR. The shortest range version (the 100) has a 5700 km range. - Ahunt (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * With this reasoning the A380 would be a short haul commuter--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Have these planes flown on short-range routes also? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey (talk • contribs) 01:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Did you read the replies above? MilborneOne (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Lead image
--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Dont have a problem with the change to the Air Baltic. MilborneOne (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good change to me, too. - Ahunt (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Advert+Cleanup+Disputed
I know Bombardier needs any support Wikipedia can provide to survive: Its continuing making losses, and in my and others opinion this will min. last to 2020.

But the support of Wikipedia should be limited - especially being neutral. And not only primary sources, but also airlines often love to praise their beloved planes as the best ever.

Some things:
 * 1) Section "Operational history" includes overall too much praise. Also unreliable reliability info: current history allows only one serious sentence. See Boeing/Airbus planes.
 * 2) "highest overhead bin volume per passenger": unreliable source+disputed
 * 3) Market section: too much speculation And please no shareholders info. Example: "With those 127 firm orders in early 2016, introduction should be with a firm backlog of more than 300 orders and up to 800 aircraft including options, conditional orders, letters of intent and purchase rights; they imply an onerous contract provision of around $500 million, $3.9 million per order."
 * 4) CS500 speculation and similar should be shortened to one sentence. No CS500 or other rumor-discussion.
 * 5) "Flight testing" needs strong cleanup. Examples:
 * "On 24 July 2013, due to a longer than expected system integration process, the first flight was delayed into "the coming weeks""
 * "Over 14,000 data points were gathered on this first flight, and after some reconfigurations and software upgrades, the aircraft flew for the second time on 1 October 2013."
 * Great. This plane can fly TWICE! Totally unexpected.
 * And 14,000 data points! WOW!!! But my oscilloscope can do this in some micro-seconds. Senseless!

Other sections are not really neutral and encyclopedic, but not bad. Some cleanup would be nice. 93.219.174.166 (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * By stating your opinion in your first sentence, you already acknowledge you are biased. WP don't take a side, only cite references. If you can find opposite sources, you're welcome to add them. I checked your banners, changed what was necessary and removed them. It wasn't hard to do, perhaps easier than discussing it here, be WP:BOLD. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You are a fast writer, but just a normal thinker. Don't accuse others. 93.219.167.128 (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm a pretty slow english writer, not being a native speaker. Being a normal thinker is maybe a compliment for a WP contributor. But where is an accusation? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably the part about 93.219.1.. being biased above. -Finlayson (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * yes.93.219.151.238 (talk) 06:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a bad thing, you can be biased and still add useful contributions, just have good refs.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Bias but refs is your way. Mine is scientific with knowledge.
 * Do not add something especially to the intro if you don't know how to think before writing referenced text. The intro is also a summary. Your 2 planes are special and min 2 generations old plane comparisons. See also comment: No details about the measurement. Additionally comparison with two old different planes. 93.219.151.238 (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Refs are WP's way. You being a self proclaimed expert doesn't make your claims better, you have to find support. If you are really an expert, it will be easy for you. Otherwise, you can write a blog or in airliners.net forums if you prefer. If you want more details, read the source and ask them for more if you want. The B733 and RJ100 are perfectly relevant since they are replaced by CSeries at Swiss and airBaltic, which know what they're talking about.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, and listen before writing: Not in the introduction.93.219.153.106 (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. You don't make the rules 2. you have to follow the guidelines 3. if you want, you can find opposing refs. Don't revert unless the article will have to be blocked. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. You don't make the rules 2. you have to follow the guidelines 3. Again, again and again: Why in intro? See also above. 93.219.154.161 (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1.+2. I don't make the rules, I follow WP guidelines. 2. It's relevant in the intro because the WP:LEAD should summarize the article sections : here, the development (first flight and EIS date), the design (1XX seaters), the operators, the initial operations. It's not a bad lead. You can participate to the article by adding referenced information to compensate and show another side if you want.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the removal of the info from the lede as I think it is a worthwhile summary of the initial experience with the aircraft design. You need a better consensus to remove it again. - Ahunt (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

While the line in the INTRO about precise "numbers" that the A220 is vs the aircraft is replacing is an obvious marketing/advertising, it at least needs a citation. Furthermore please read WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:LEAD 23haveblue (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * As per MOS:LEADCITE those numbers are already cited in the article body. Having read them through again just now they provide a basic data summary of the operational experience with the type. I don't see any reason to remove them from the lede. - Ahunt (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It doesn't need a citation, in that this is the lead and the cites are in the body. While I disagree that the existing wording is tantamount to advertising, I do feel that the precise numbers for lower fuel burn, dispatch dependability and so on are a bit much for the lead. I'd propose something like "Early operators of the type noted lower than expected fuel burn, along with high dependability and good feedback from passengers and crew." Rosbif73 (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I would be in favour of that, a more general statement in the lede, with the exact numbers lower in the article text body. - Ahunt (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

A220-100/300
Not sure how best to incorporate more info into the sections regarding the -100/-300 variants. There is plenty spread throughout the article about the CS100 / CS300 but no real summary of the stats of those variants. I can add length / weight / capacity info to the existing -100/-300 section if that's the best place for it. 159.49.165.134 (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Infobox: Other users
Hi all. As of Dec 31, 2019, Swiss Int'l operates a total of 29 A220, Delta 28, airBaltic 22 and Korean Air 10. 1) Seems there is a disparity among the major users listed in infobox. 2) Is there a necessity to fill up the list with *four* major users? (Guideline is the max. is four, right?) Suggest to drop Korean Air. --Now wiki (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't see one operator having ten aircraft as a reason to not list them in the infobox. As deliveries ramp up and more airlines fly the A220 the listing may shift, but we normally list four when there are four to list. - Ahunt (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I see no solid reason to omit a top user here. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose As previously stated--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I could see the argument for not listing a fourth user if the airline in question had an order of magnitude fewer planes than the top three, but that's not the case here. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Expressed in percentage, Swiss Int'l's A220 fleet is 290% of Korean Air, Delta 280% and air Baltic 220%. On the other hand, Korean Air's is only 142% of EgyptAir's fleet (10 vs. 7). Furthermore, both Delta and air Baltic have significant unfilled orders (67 & 28 resp.), but not Korean Air. --Now wiki (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, as I noted, the lead four operators may change over time, but the box should reflect the "now" situation. Feel free to change the order of the airlines, as the orders are filled over time. - Ahunt (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Reorganisation of "Airbus partnership" section
IMO, the "Airbus partnership" section is getting in the way of proper organisation of the article. Let's say I want to add information about new production plans. Do I put it under the existing "Production" heading, which currently stops in 2017, or under the "Airbus partnership" heading? I'd rather do the former, but discussion of post-takeover production aspects is currently under "Airbus partnership". Likewise, do we need an "Orders" subheading in the "Airbus partnership" section, or should we be putting all order information in the main "Orders and deliveries" section?

I don't currently have the time to do the necessary reorganisation work; would anyone care to step in?

NB: there's a lot of new information to be mined from today's article in Flight – which is what got me thinking about this in the first place. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I concur but don't have time either!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Orders and deliveries by year
The table "Orders and deliveries by year" now shows 24 for 2017, whereas it used to be 7 for 16 and 17 for 17. Sections like Production and Operational history still talk about deliveries in 2016. Why was that change done?91.125.192.64 (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Using original name A220 vs CS in article when is not a due amount to telling lies
I have noticed that article is using on multiple places new name for planes tested, delivered or sold under old name. That is not factual and creates confusion about real past of airplane in this article. Editors should care when use name because renaming is not per se allowed. What one company does with name of its current product has nothing to do with past name of product of other company. For example contracts for sale of airplane where not always concluded under new name. It can be noted that old name is not now in use but when it was in use and event took place with old name it would mount to lie claiming otherwise using new name. If for example Air Baltic bought CS300 airplane in 2014 under contract it would be a lie crediting that contract was for A220, but it would no be a lie telling readers that now such a plane exist and its known under other new name A220, but original name must be always told. Loesorion (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The article is clear that the aircraft was renamed there is no need to splash the old name randomly in the page. MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It would be polite not to edit war and revert your addition until you gain a consensus, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The additions were not helpful and I have reverted them. They were badly written and only served to sow confusion for readers. The existing text already explains the change in names quite well; more text beyond that is not required. User:Loesorion you may also want to refrain from edit warring against an admin as you have been doing. That is not the way to get your own way here and will likely end badly. - Ahunt (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It would be polite not to revert edits because Wikipedia is about facts in article and not editors opinion about other peoples edits, or for sake of edits or to stop other edits. Loesorion (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Using A220 as name prior even name started to exist and was given by new owner is not supported with sources in this article, and given names are not subject of arbitrary change during period of time at someone whim or for example in translation. As my edits are done with good faith and in accordance with sources used in article consensus should not existed before I have done changes to article but here it seems to me now otherwise. It seems as I should ask if I can change some article on Wikipedia because someone will rush to protect something in article regardless of reason for edits or more importantly facts.


 * If you wished for consensus in first place for using old and new name in this article you could asked yourself for it before your reverts - it seems to me now you have some agenda by reverting edits without any proper reason or facts that are supporting such reverts. Using such logic any edit could be disputed on Wikipedia before consensus and done in first place with goal to prevent others to do edits, Edits should not be done for sake of editing but for sake of facts or as contribution to article in question in order to improve it. I have not even deleted unsourced content as someone may do it as easiest way of "improvement".

And you disputed my changes because and I quote "elegance". And now you talk about "splash the old name randomly in the page" - there is no splashing, there is original name and there is source in article that supports that original name and there's is something called common sense and not marketing for A220 as this article is starting to seems to me. Using name as in sources is must or learning to use it accordingly to source as names cannot change in a way you are supporting now. I do not oppose the right of some product to have a new name, but do oppose using new name to overwrite past name where is not due as such method clearly changes past and it amount to telling lies. When to use Bombardier CS or Airbus A220 it is clear to me, you cannot use new name before it was given and you cannot make claims with new name for past doings. So we should stop altering past and making fake claims in this article by using wrong name at whim is my point of view. Remainders or remarks that new name now exist could be written along after original name is stated in same sentence and as such are clearly good way for doing it, but it is not ok to give achievement to new name for something in past when clearly old original name was in use and achievements where connected with old original name. And you cannot certainly change law abiding documents(contracts, certificates, etc.) when old original name was in use and that must be always stated as fact. Original name must come first for period of time when it was used and new name could be mentioned later with remark about name change and when change of name took place - again that is ok, stating otherwise is not. For example - Airbus A220 had no flights in 2013 but Bombardier CS had - claiming otherwise is a lie and not contributing to have good factual article on Wikipedia. Sentence is good if for example states: "Bombardier CS now known as Airbus A220 made flight in 2013..." but writing and claiming:"Airbus A220 made flight in 2013" is a blatant lie and serves nobody. Loesorion (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * First off you need to stop accusing other editors of adding lies to the article, please see WP:AGF and especially WP:CIVIL and abide by that, or you risk being blocked. Otherwise, what you have written above is not comprehensible in English. I am assuming that English is not your first language, as you seem to be having a hard time making a point here. Have you considered working on whatever language Wikipedia is your first language, rather than trying to edit here in English? - Ahunt (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Ahunt :I do not accuse any editor of anything but I have stated about how article is in part written and what is written at some part and the way it is written, yes, it is amounting to a lie to a reader as me and as it seems to me - do not confuse or intentionally imply that I have stated otherwise for editors as you do now - that is false and insults me and insults my honor and it gave me a lot of stress to read such false accusation of me here an now and I do not feel good now as my body can not tolerate such amount of stress with such false accusation.

I even do not know who written such things in parts of this article and I do not comment any author personality here. But as stated I do care about content, and as editor I started to change content and because of that change we are here now so do not change subject or topic here in Talk and do not insult me by placing false accusation.

So this in Talk about this article and I have opened section in it and obviously to anyone who is reading is not personal against anyone, and if you find yourself even if you are not mentioned anywhere it is your problem not mine or others. It would be also polite from you not to revert edits because Wikipedia is about facts in article and not editors opinion about other peoples edits, or for sake of edits or to stop other edits. Or are you accusing me as editor now that I have added a lie on article because i edited some parts of article. Who is then telling true or lie I just ask myself now and I am confused now am I a liar from your prospective of view about editors? Loesorion (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Anhunt - Again in seems to me that I have point, this is not about facts in article but something else. As everybody now can see and I quote "edit warring against an admin as you have been doing. That is not the way to get your own way here and will likely end badly" "or you risk being blocked" - so going against admin wishes is not ok in Wikipedia, and will end badly for me you are implying and even threat with blocking because of that and of top of that personal accusations follows but not improvement of article.


 * So what matters on Wikipedia we can see from point of view of one editor here and now, that admins it seems to be more important then factual side of article. I will get nothing anyway and I am not trying to get my way here as I am not paid to do edits, but in end some readers of this Talk could get a good lesson while reading this as it becomes obvious how Wikipedia is nowadays functioning. This is sadly not my first such experience here and it is now very stressful for me.

How person from whom you wold expect to be fellow impartial editors jump to protect not a content of article but just to criticizes and prevent other attempts to improve article using something usually not defined in Talk, but to me now that amounts to group bulling as I feel engender here and to my experience as editor in Wikipedia in recent past they start to cite some WP not about edit or talk topic but about something else and in same time not giving anything new regarding facts about why topic is opened as they do not have facts on their side so they use other tactics.


 * "They were badly written and only served to sow confusion for readers." and is not confusing to state in article that A220 existed before renaming was even done. You know what again by grouping against fellow editor as it seems to me you are doing now you don't become right in any way. So written it better if my was badly as you claim, but better we don't see but attacks we see now.

BTW Grouping of editors I seems to experience now it is as a some form and technique to protect articles from editing, and is by judging here and by my recent similar encounter on Wikipedia is started by one editor who then call other editors to help him achieving so called "consensus" in talk.

So do what you want, have your so called "consensus" but that is not a way to deal with facts and is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy of free editing.

So called "consensus" becomes and obvious from my example now and here - how to prevent someone editing of page in Wikipedia with edits we do not like. You know that same technique could be used and applied to you and that would be bad to you as this is bad for me now.


 * You claim I have poor wording and I contribute to confusion: "poorly worded and just adds confusion" on page history as reason to revert my edits but in same time you have not offer any better wording on article and yet you come straight here to talk about my edits and you give me some false accusations that have nothing to do with topic and then you start to cite WP, again by doing so you confirm you are here now with just one purpose and that is not to improve article but to stop my edits and to make me feel endangered here as editor, should I worry what next is going to be?

Otherwise if you are honest editor who cares about article facts as most editors on Wiki are you can do "better" wording before coming here if my wording is such poor and present it in article as a way to resolve this situation and not by attacking someone personalty as you have done here and now and this is just my response on such bulling while accusations you stated against me gave me so high amount of stress that I have headache now.

Article now again after your reverts claims again for me as reader that A220 had first flight in "16 September 2013" and that is produced from 2012 and such claims I will say again is blatant lie. So try to improve article instead of lecturing me about my wording and what I should tell or warn admin or not as we are all (I hope) equal as editors and is not of your concern what I do in order to improve article except for obvious purpose of bullying me here and now with your wording against me. -Loesorion (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia talk pages are not the place for wall-of-text rants about whatever injustices or conspiracies you perceive, it is for proposing improvements to the article. Your writing here is very hard to understand, but you don't seem to have yet proposed any new text for consideration to create a consensus. If you are just going to keep posting these long screeds and calling other editors work "lies", then I think we are into WP:DEADHORSE here. - Ahunt (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Bombardier "CS100" and "CS300" designations should be listed in Infobox like most other similar WP:Air articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support that idea, as it adds clarity. - Ahunt (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Me too, as the old designation was used for some time. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You can note this was done a few days ago. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Largest Aircraft to London-City
Which Aircraft is the largest to land and LCY depends a bit on what criteria "large" is defined. For my point of view, the biggest Aircraft certified for LCY is the Airbus A318: bigger MTOM, bigger exit Limit, more wingspan,.. but yes, the A220 is a bit longer than the A318. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:c4:721:671e:5d37:bee2:a5eb:e313 (talk)


 * I've removed the claim, as it wasn't found in the cited source. BilCat (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Change article image to a Delta Air Lines A220


The following is a suitable substitute for the existing Air Baltic image, given the image provides a good view of the airframe. Now that Delta airlines is the foreseeable largest operator of the A220 I believe this makes sense. The image has a suitable creative commons licence with full credit provided to the author as requested. - VladimirPutinMyYeezy'sOn (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the current photo is better, especially as it's facing the article. Just update the caption. There's never been a requirement that the largest operator has to have a photo in the infobox, nor should it on that basis alone. BilCat (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

JetBlue/Baltic Image
It is stated in WP:Aircontent that images should enhance the article in which they are placed and should also "feature the subject of the article section near which they are placed", which simply means "contextual", i.e. the image caption should reflect the passage of text near its placement, with the exception of images in the article lead or lead images.Ich-Du-De (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to be talking about the jetblue picture you're trying to push. The previous baltic picture illustrates appropriately the change from bbd to airbus and is better looking as it's way less busy.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but i actually don't want to push jetblue pic nor other pics and the said airbaltic image was put in the 'Operational History' section by myself first, but then moved to the section 'Marketing' which becomes non contextual. The change from bbd to airbus can also be seen/read in jetblue's image and caption, even on the first day of the rebranding on 10 July 2018, and moreover, the 'Take Off' position in the image perfectly reflects the 'transition period'. Ich-Du-De (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The point is illustrating a July 2018 event: the airbus takeover. A physical event like a delivery seems more connected than an order of which an airliner picture is not the best illustration: a photo of the contract signature would be more connected. Anyway, we're going in circles with only 2 people and we have to wait for another editor input.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Either of these pictures is contextually appropriate, but my !vote clearly goes to the airBaltic one, which has much less background clutter. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with the image quality. Also with the light green livery combined with a summery nuance, it's just perfect. My objection is only to the caption, it should be "order" to be in context with the section 'Marketing' and not "delivery". Anyway, the vote now stands 2:1 for the airBaltic image. Ich-Du-De (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not been watching this, but the first image above if far more preferable. The second should only be retained if it illustrates a significant aspect which the first one doesn't. Its caption should be reduced, for example to; "The first A220 branded aircraft, an A220-300, delivered in July 2018." If it is in the wrong place, then move it near the text that the caption is intended to highlight. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)