Talk:Airbus A340/Archive 2

Seating Capacity
I am extremely sure that A340-200 has two types of 3-class seating configuration. The configuration of 261 passengers can fly a shorter range while the configuration of 239 passengers can fly a longer range. Before editing, I have cited relevant and reliable references, but I do not understand why you people still think that my edit is doubtful. You know what, even the official website of Airbus says my edit is correct.

On the other hand, some pages of other language on wikipedia can support my edit. If other pages say that I am correct, then why do you still insist on reverting my changes? If the information is different in the same page of different langauges, then what is the point of having Wikipeida with so many languages?


 * Click on this link → and see for yourself ←. The truth, as according to the official Airbus website figure states clearly that the maximum seating capacity for a two-class config is 300, and for a three-class config is 261. If only you had came here to discuss this with us in the first place, you would have realised your own mistake and won't have been block for such disruptive editing behaviour here as well as on the talk pages of Bill, Deniss, Treasury and mine too. Do take the 48 hours break to reflect on yourself, it will do you some good if you learn from your mistake. BTW, calling people names won't do you any good as it reflects badly on your contribution/edit history here on Wikipedia. Be civil and observe the golden rule of no personal attack or I guarantee you that it will be a PERMANENT BAN instead of this current 48hours block the next time round you start to wreak havoc here. Also, acting like a angry mastodon and resorting to the usage of sockpuppet to remove my officially sourced figures above isn't going to help you either, please don't be ashamed that you have been warned~! --Dave ♪♫1185♪♫ 16:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is the consensus?
Dear Scania N113, please take note that there is no consensus amongst the regular editors here to include your cited figure. Basically, it means that you haven't convinced us that a reviewer/reseller website is to be accepted over the official specifications as released by the aircraft manufacturing company - Airbus, which has been provided earlier above. And until such time you can do so, I'd suggest that you stop this constant bickering. You have been warned before on this, so I'd prefer you stick to it or you risked getting BLOCK again just hours after your recent release from such sanctioning measure. There's no shame or hard feeling towards you because if you cannot discuss this with us properly and gained the required consensus, you will have yourself to blame for your own shame later. Take heed. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 05:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, in this case it seems that you guys are just blocking me because you do not want me to make any changes which you do not want. If you say that my links are not recognised, then how about yours? It is not convincing as well. I do not need to feel ashamed because what I did, I am doing, and what I will do is reasonable. Please look more carefully with your eyes at the graph which is located in the link posted below. Also, from your attitude, I do not think that you are willing to talk to me. -- Scania N113 (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * One more thing, in case what you do is for provoking me, then you should bear the shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scania N113 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Link
About the link, why do you not take a look at this: http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a330a340. This is why I told you that there are two types of seating capacity. In the main page, it is stated states that there are 240 seats (rounded up from 239), and only in the cabin layout page it is stated there are 261 seats.

Moreover, some pages of other language on wikipedia can support my edit. If other pages say that I am correct, then why do you still insist on reverting my changes? If the information is different in the same page of different langauges, then what is the point of having Wikipeida with so many languages?


 * Read this → WP:CIRCULAR ←, and this → WP:Reliable sources ←. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 11:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Etihad A340-500 pic: landing vs. taking off
There have been a few back and forth edits in the caption of the Etihad A340-500 at Heathrow. While Arpingstone's caption does say it is landing, this seems untrue for a number of reasons. The forward gear doors are open, which only occurs on A340s when they are retracting or extending. The only time they do so that close to the ground is right after takeoff. Second, the angle of attack is close to 15 or 20 degrees, symptomatic of a takeoff. If it were approaching at that attitude, it would either stall or have a tailstrike. The A340 has a fairly flat approach, as can be seen from all the other approach pictures, especially the Cathay Pacific -600 at the top of the article. On these grounds, I say we change it to taking off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgw89 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Based on your analysis, it could be true but can I just ask you a humble little question here? Did it ever occur to you to inquire about the photo (File:Etihad a340-500 a6-ehb arp.jpg) from the photographer (User:Arpingstone) who was actually there taking the shot? Would it help if I ask him to come to this thread to clear up your personal doubt? Regards. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 07:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Dave, for directing me to this talk page. Yes, Mgw89, you are correct, the Etihad was taking off from the southern runway (23L) at London Heathrow. I was stood at the Esso petrol station, looking across to T5 terminal. Sorry for my error! I'll now go and correct the picture details.


 * Incidentally, that picture is full of horrid artefacts, I didn't think they were there when I uploaded it in 2007. So I'll reprocess the original and reupload it in a few hours. I may even have a better one of that aircraft from another visit. Best - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And there you have it... straight from the horse's mouth~! (Adrian, puns are not intended!! ;P ) Hope this settles the issue once and for all, so let us all go back to our merry ways again. Cheers and regards~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 15:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Photo now reuploaded at much better quality. I have not changed the picture's filename so all the Wikipedias that have used it will get the better version. - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Dave, I actually did ask that humble question, and his talk page redirected me here for things regarding articles, which is why I posted it. Thanks for checking though. Mgw89 (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

TAM spam?
I think the TAM A345 pic is a good one, why not keep it? Mgw89 (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Because the article has more than enough images it would have to replace the Etihad -500 image which is a far better quality than the TAM one. MilborneOne (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Mgw89 (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Airbus A340-200
In the paragraph "A340-200", under "Variants", it says that 3-class typical seating capacity for A340-200 can either be 261 (a shorter range) or 239 (a longer range). According to the record, these words had already been there before I joined Wikipedia. When I saw this phrase, I tried to change the seating capacity of A340-200 in the table from "261" to "239 or 261", but some users such as User:Dave1185 reverted my edits, and he said my information was not supported. In fact, I found a lot of websites other than Wikipedia agreeing with me, but they (especially User:Dave1185) denied the evidence. I tried to explain, but they never listened to me. Personally, I really do not think those moderators are willing to discuss, instead I think they are just trying to oppose everything that I say. Later I was even blocked because of "disruptive edits" when I continued to try to change the figures. Now, with the above reasons given, I would like someone to support me to change the figures. Without prejudice, I typed the above paragraph, in which everything is true. Thank you. Scania N113 (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, I'm not a moderator. --Dave ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 07:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for telling me that. Now, you should understand I have a lot of reasons to change the number from "261" to "239 or 261". 既然大家都懂中文, 那對彼此也應客氣一點吧! Scania N113 (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you didn't understand it the first time round, if you had read the policy of WP:SYN and WP:HEAR, you wouldn't be back here asserting this bit again despite being warned by 2 other Admins not to do so. Also, you should have been blocked for using sockpuppets to conduct such tendentious edits but you were given a chance considering that you are still teenager/secondary student, so please behave. Another thing, please stick to English when conversing, this is an English-language article's discussion page, its not your talk page or Chinese Wikipedia. --Dave ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 07:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case, I should really thank you for not blocking me! In fact, the situation was totally different. First of all, I did not join two reliable sources (i.e. A and B) and form a conclusion (i.e. C). In my case, I just found ONE reliable source, that is saying that the Airbus A340-200 has a typical 3-class seating of 239. Also, I do not think that saying that I repeat this thing almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error is correct. If you say so, then you should also ask yourself why do you not try to listen to me that there is a typical seating of 239 for Airbus A340-200. Moreover, I have told you that even the paragraph "A340-200" under "Variants" says that there is such typical seating, and I am just summarising this piece of information in the table. Scania N113 (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * From Airbus's official website, this presentation image represents the baseline version of A340 (ie the A342) and nothing therein says anything about 239 pax as you have claimed time and again. Per Wikipedia policy (WP:No original research, for which WP:SYN is based on): "you cannot advance a position not advanced by the sources", and the official source has already spoken. In view of this, could you please explain to us in detail about the discrepancy? Or are you going to carry on with your soapboxing? Note that this article has a separate group of editors working on it in the Chinese-language version, we do not conduct cross-wiki corrections unless both are being vandalised (for example by you, perhaps) at the same time but that's even rarer. --Dave ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 08:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, what you have just typed is a kind of defamation because you implied that I will go to vandalise the Chinese version of this page. Secondly, if there is no evidence saying that there is a 239-seat version, then why do you allow the paragraph "A340-200" saying that there is such a version? I have mentioned this point for three times, and you have not replied directly. Scania N113 (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, your comprehension of English is really not that good but let me just clarify it again for your benefit... "initial/prototype version (proposed by the manufacturer) is different from production/typical version (after much consultations/discussions with airline companies such as Cathay Pacific)". I suppose you have no way of knowing this if you are not already a member of the aviation task force, but I repeat myself. --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 10:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * From WP:Disruptive editing: In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act as though it is accepted when it is not. Scania, please keep up with your own drama because from hereon I don't wish to be stuck with your Argumentum ad nauseam. Plus, I can't possibly think of any reasons whatsoever why I should not be wanting to improve the other 3 million over articles here on Wikipedia, bye! --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 09:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dave1185, I guess that maybe you are either as ignorant as an infant. Do not comment on things on this topic when you do not know this topic well. Typical version in fact equals to inital/ prototype version. In this case, there are two typical versions (261 and 239). If you observe more, you should find out that different airline companies usually have their own versions (neither 261 seats nor 239 seats). I believe that you cannot find more than 5 airlines with the same type of seating arrangement. If there are a lot of production versions, then how can they all be called the typical versions? If you have a brain, you should notice that saying typical version is different from initial version is extremely wrong. Also, if you say this, then the number "261" should not be in the table as well. Anyway, good to see you go away. I have been looking forward to this for a very long time already. Now, let me give you a warm good-bye. Thanks for discussing. Scania N113 (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Reopening thread
I have reopened this conversation, as one of its participants objected to its closure, here, and as its closure was done simultaneously with the last comment. Even if this was not intended, this seems to be an effort to "get the last word in" and to enforce that by shutting down further input. This isn't the way Wikipedia's conversations work. Conversations should not be closed by involved parties unless participants agree. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case, I really should not trust Dave1185. He said that he would leave this page, but then he opposed the closure of this discussion. What is it now? Apparently, he just wants to oppose me. What a shame. Scania N113 (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to knock off the personal attacks and focus on the subject. Let me ask you something: It seems that this debate is over the number of seats normally in this particular aircraft. Can you tell me the number of seats in the commercial version of this plane? I would think that's what would matter. Also, where does one get references for this type of information? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing us back to the topic. There are two versions, one with 261 seats (with a shorter range), another with 239 seats (with a longer range). The paragraph "A340-200" can support my stance. Also, websites like [] and [] can support me. -- Scania N113 (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @SN113, your first source says they got their source from www.airbus.com but never state from which section. As for your second source, flightlevel350.com's disclaimer at bottom says this: "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Airbus A340". Any more reliable sources to show us? --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 12:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * [|here], [|here], [|here], [|here], [] -- Scania N113 (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, did you say that you would leave here, Dave1185? -- Scania N113 (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Bugs, the details are stated above, please don't be lazy. --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 12:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Last airline delivery to Iberia?
The second section says the last copy was delivered to Iberia in 2010. The Airbus page <:ref>http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a330a340/a340-500 states that there are still 6 outstanding orders for the -500 version, while all of the -600 orders have been filled. Somewhere else in the article it states that the production line will close in 2016 when all are delivered. Won't they keep the line open because of the A330 anyway? Mgw89 (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A340 Unit Cost, international currencies?
In the 'Unit Cost' section of the A340 all the non-USD values are wrong. For example the A340-600 is listed as being US$275.4 million, this is correct but the values for £ and € are wrong. At today's prices US$275.4 is worth £170 million and €192.4 million. The converted values are wrong by about £100 million! Should this be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.224.18 (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Picture Caption
With the introduction of the A380, the A340 is the third (not the second) largest airliner (after the A380 and 747). Recommend revision of the caption of the picture just below the information bar. 70.249.187.250 (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The caption says second longest, which is still true, as the A340-600 is longer than the A380, not largest. No change required.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional four-wheel undercarriage, first implementation on A340-500 or A340-600?
On Section A340-600, there's a line: "It also has an additional four-wheel undercarriage on the fuselage centre-line to cope with the increased MTOW."

But as I see the photo on that article and Google, A340-500 is the first that have "additional four-wheel undercarriage" instead of "additional two wheel undercarriage" that A340-300 have.

So, Additional four-wheel undercarriage, First implementation on A340-500 or A340-600? If A340-500 is the first that have it, please cut and paste that line to respective model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.195.49.200 (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

English
"What is called commonality, and which is a strength of the Airbus families of aircraft." Pardon? Could we have that in comprehensible English, please? Maelli (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ruslik_ Zero 11:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Tweaked to remove it as it is mainly nonsense, Boeing do the same thing. MilborneOne (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No mention of the IAE SuperFan?
The article currently states that "From the start, it was intended that the A340 would be powered by four CFM56-5 turbofan engines,..." There is no mention of the IAE SuperFan (a proposed geared, ducted fan version of the IAE V2500 rated at 30000 lbf) which was proposed to Airbus in 1986 selected by Lufthansa to power 15 A340s in January 1987. The SuperFan was cancelled in April 1987 forcing the A340 to rely on the CFM-56. Details, and .Nigel Ish (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur, and the only thing on WP mentioning the superfan is in International Aero Engines. Mayhaps it is time to do a bit more research before adding it into the mainspace/section? -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Deliveries do not match Orders
The deliveries table has had two deliveries added for 2012, ie after production has stopped. The reference given does not support this addition. There does appear to be a long-standing disparity between the number of aircraft ordered and that delivered by 2. I have always put this down to the situation that there still are at least nominally two aircraft on order but for some reason they are not being built.

I am going to remove the 2012 deliveries entry. If there is evidence that 2 aircraft were delivered in 2012 then this should be changed back.Andrewgprout (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See for the 2012 delivery of the last two A340. Searching a bit in the net came up with these a/c ordered by Kingfisher but they were unable to pay for them. --Denniss (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Great that solves that little conundrum - thanks Andrewgprout (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting illustrations for this article
Hello fellow contributors, I’ve been browsing the Commons category for this aircraft and I think there are many interesting images there that could add value to this article. Among my favorites are :

(disclaimer: I am the author of one of those photos). All of those (unless I skipped one) are at least 1200px wide. Perhaps some of the current images are worth replacing?

This is not a request for comments or for a vote... I just felt like sharing some Commons goodness that I fear may not have made through the category system to your eyes. Ariadacapo (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestions but unless you have an image in the article that you think should be replaced I am not sure this bank of images has a point. MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

A340 Hull Loss accident frequently misrepresented as an A380 on the Internet.
Some information to clarify an absurd situation that seems to have taken on a life of its own. All available images of the hull-loss accident on 15 November 2007 clearly show that the aircraft in question is indeed an A340. A number of web pages have sprung up, with a purpose that one can only guess at, claiming that it is an A380. The most casual glance at any image of a "real" A380 will show that this is obviously not the case. 124.179.66.44 (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How does this affect the information contained on Wikipedia? As far as I can see the accident / incident is correctly represented here. SempreVolando (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Opinions re B777
Looking at this edit, I'm not seeing the opinion expressed stated in the sources claimed as support. The A340's decline is due more to the ETOPS factor rather than any inherent virtue of the B777, I suggest. Do we have any actual cases of A340s being replaced by B777s rather than A330s? --Pete (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * According to Bloomberg, A340 sales plummeted as airlines instead chose the 777. The A330 may have become competitive with the A340 on some routes, however airlines are not ordering A330s over the A340; rather the A330's primary competition is the smaller 787. That was why I separated out the intro sentences as follows: The A340 is used on long-haul, trans-oceanic routes due to its immunity from ETOPS; however, with reliability in engines improving, airlines are progressively phasing out the type in favour of more economical twinjets, particularly the Boeing 777.[5][6] Later iterations of the A330 have become capable of flying routes originally intended for the A340. JacksonRiley (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In comparing the 747 versus the A340, I also mentioned that the A340s had relatively short service lives by comparison such as the A340-500s operated by Emirates and Singapore Airlines. The 747 had booked around 1,500 orders since its first flight in 1970 compared to the A340 which saw sales slow a decade after its launch; furthermore most 747s have accumulated significant flying hours before retirement, in contrast to late model A340s which were grounded after only several years of service and had seen their resale values drop dramatically in that period.[81][82] 01:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacksonRiley (talk • contribs)
 * My problem is that your statements aren't backed up by what the sources say. Claiming anything more is synthesis or worse, objective research. You didn't use the Bloomberg source originally, and I'm still dubious about using such a throwaway mention which doesn't talk about the A330 at all. But deeper than that, this is an article about the A340, not a sales pitch for Boeing. --Pete (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've restored the status quo during discussion. You need consensus to make these changes, and I'd like to see more opinions from other editors. --Pete (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Nothing said anything about a sales pitch for Boeing, however your version makes it seem like the A330 was a preferred alternative to the A340, however this is the only source that suggests it. The A330 is actually more of a competitor to the smaller 767 and 787.
 * My intro was initially based upon existing article content (With the introduction of higher gross weight Boeing 777s, such as the -200ER and specifically -300ER, sales of the A340 began to decline. The 777 frequently outsold the A340 by a wide margin.[44]) as well as the Boeing 777 article (The -300ER is the best-selling 777 variant, having surpassed the -200ER in orders in 2010 and deliveries in 2013.[1] Since its launch, the model has been a primary driver of the twinjet's sales past the rival A330/340 series.[99]); though I've added Bloomberg and other links to silence any doubts. JacksonRiley (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You aren't convincing me of the merits of your change. Let's see if we can get some more opinions. You need a consensus for a controversial change. --Pete (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that you haven't come up with any meaningful claims of your own, much less respond to my arguments point-by-point. In this case, you don't have any reasons or consensus to block my change.
 * Back to your original question Do we have any actual cases of A340s being replaced by B777s rather than A330s?, it is answered in the article as follows (with their links):  Emirates became the launch customer for the -600HGW when it ordered 18 at the 2003 Paris Air Show;[103] but postponed its order indefinitely and later cancelled. Rival Qatar Airways, which placed its order at the same airshow, took delivery of only four aircraft with the first aircraft on 11 September 2006.[104] It has since let its purchase options expire in favor of orders for the Boeing 777-300ER.[105] JacksonRiley (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I can't see how that answers my question. Nor am I seeing any response to the points raised above. I don't have to supply a counter-argument; I'm happy with the status quo. I have asked you several times not to edit war while discussion is ongoing. I suggest you read both wikipolicies. Please gain a consensus for your controversial changes. If your edits are good, that should not be a problem. That is the second time I have asked you. I shall treat any further attempts to insert the same contested material as vandalism. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You are the only one over these few days who disagrees with it but can't come up with reasons, so you throw around "vandalism" and "controversy" as excuses. If you don't chose to supply a counter-argument or support your own version, then you have effectively conceded the point. JacksonRiley (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You are the only one supporting these controversial edits. I don't have to argue and convince you. Simply put, the statements you wish to add are not supported by the sources, and if you wish to edit Wikipedia, you must go along with the way we do things. We don't write our own opinions into articles. If you don't like something, take it to one of the noticeboards, initiate a request for comment, or gain a consensus of opinion in discussion here. I'm going to treat your repeated additions as vandalism, and if you keep reinserting them, make a report. Again, I urge you to read up on Wikipedia policies. You were given some links on your talk page. Follow them. Please. --Pete (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've illustrated point-by-point how the sources fit into the arguements, and all you do is use generic statements of disagreement which could apply to any article. Your threats won't stand up. JacksonRiley (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You have done no such thing. Doesn't matter anyway. I disagree, and I'm going to continue reverting what I see as your unsupported edits. Find some other editors who agree with you here, take it to a noticeboard where others will agree with you, or quit vandalising our article. Please. --Pete (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In your own exact wordds, "Doesn't matter anyway. I disagree, and I'm going to continue reverting" means that you'll be reverting for the sake for reverting, rather than considering the content on its sources and merit. JacksonRiley (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've looked at your edits and the sources you claim support them. See above. They are not supported. No matter how many times you add the same unsupported material, it remains unsupported and must be removed. If you'd like to discuss any specific edit, then that's exactly what this talk page discussion is for. Please do so. --Pete (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is the direct quoted source content to support the claim that the A340 was replaced by 777.  Airbus SAS has ended production of its four-engine A340 aircraft after the jet with the company’s longest fuselage lost out to Boeing Co. (BA)’s twin-engine 777 model. ''Airbus sold no A340s in the last two years, EADS said today. Boeing, by contrast, has won 132 orders for the 777 in this year’s first 10 months and is boosting output. '' Therefore the article content ("airlines are progressively phasing out the type in favour of more economical twinjets, particularly the Boeing 777") is NOT synthesis. JacksonRiley (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That same article mentions that the A330 is still going well, against the 787 as its main competitor. JacksonRiley (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is more direct quoted source content: Boeing and General Electric managed to make the GE90-powered 777 into a combination that Airbus found impossible to beat with the later and larger A340-500 and -600 version. Thus the article content that talk is trying to remove: ("The decision to terminate the program came as the A340-500/600 had not received any orders recently, as airlines instead chose the GE90-powered long range Boeing 777-200LR/-300ER which undermined the A340's prospective market.") is also not synthesis, considering the Bloomberg link as a second source. JacksonRiley (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Do we have any actual cases of A340s being replaced by B777s rather than A330s? That's what I asked, and your sources don't mention this at all, except by inference. My point is that the A340 is a derivative of the A330, and given the ETOPS factor, the switch to A330s is a reasonable move. Trying to position the B777 as the only competitor to the A340 is not how it actually is. Sometimes the competition isn't Airbus vs Boeing, but Airbus vs Airbus or Boeing vs Boeing - or some other manufacturer, particularly in the smaller aircraft. Secondly, this is an article about the A340. Filling it up with material about Boeing aircraft and their engine options goes against WP:WEIGHT. --Pete (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The A330 and A340 were developed together concurrently and share many design features. That doesn't fit the way derivative is commonly used with aircraft. I agree on the rest of your post.  This article needs to focus on the A340, not its competitors or similar airliners. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "derivative" isn't quite the word. Not sure what is. I was thinking of the Trislander, I guess. --Pete (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that 95% of the delivered A340s were still in service in April of this year the sentence "airlines are progressively phasing out the type" is premature. JacksonRiley's sources do not justify the claim that "airlines are progressively phasing out the type in favour of more economical twinjets, particularly the Boeing 777 ". That seems POV-pushing and Fnlayson's last edit makes this sentence more accurate by reverting it to "such as the A330 and the Boeing 777". If anything the A350XWB should be added to the sentence.--Wolbo (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Although the A340 is a derivative of the A330, the A340 (particularly the higher gross weight A340-500/600) has a considerably greater range and heavier payload than the A330. The A340-500/600 and the 777-200LR/300ER werehead-to-head in this market, soon to be joined by the A350-900/1000. Removed the GE90 engine reference. Of course this is an article on the A340, but there is a significant mention of the MD-11 too. I don't have any problem with mentioning this competitor's flaws in detail as this showed how the A340 won the order Singapore Airlines. JacksonRiley (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If I did miss the point of the dispute, I guess "phase out" (the wording in the introduction) isn't the same as "sales figures" (which was not mentioned in the introduction at all). If you add a source for "Given that 95% of the delivered A340s were still in service in April of this year", then your statement will stand in the intro. JacksonRiley (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The source of the statement "Given that 95% of the delivered A340s were still in service in April of this year" is the List of Airbus A340 operators which shows that of the 377 delivered A340s 361 (95.8%) were still in service as of 30 April 2014. And you are correct, "phase out" is indeed not the same as "sales figures". --Wolbo (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather than insist on the rightness of your path despite opposition, may I suggest that you gain consensus before re-adding material already rejected? It would minimise disruption, at the very least. --Pete (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If there is any other major dispute, the following is more accurate as it actually matches the competition head-to-head, as well as properly attributing the sources:
 * The decision to terminate the program came as A340-500/600 orders had came to a halt, due to competition from the Boeing 777-200LR/-300ER which undermined the A340's prospective market. In addition, the A340 also faced some internal competition from later versions of the A330 which were capable of flying some of the routes that originally required the A340.
 * This on the other hand is an oversimplification, and potentially misleading. If the A330 was really capable enough to replace the A340-500/600, then Airbus would not have to develop the A350-1000 to go after the 777-300ER:
 * The termination decision was made in the face of both external competition from the Boeing 777 and internal competition from the A330, both being twin-engine aircraft that had become increasingly capable over time of effectively performing the A340's intended routes, and thus they had undermined the type's prospective market.JacksonRiley (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * At the moment, I'm seeing two major problems. First, you are edit-warring to push your preferred version against opposition by multiple editors.You have been given advice here and pointers to resources aimed at helping new editors. If you persist in this course you will find your preferred version will not stand and you are blocked from editing for increasingly longer times. This is not our preferred path to resolution, but it is what will happen if you do not follow the help and advice offered.
 * Secondly, why are you doing this at all? This is an article about the A340. Inserting material about other aircraft isn't going to assist a reader's understanding of this aircraft. Yes, the A340 stopped production, and efficiency in the face of rising fuel costs was a big factor. That's really all we need say about it, along with a few well-sourced details. We had that. Adding all this other stuff isn't making for a better article - it's making the material on the actual subject of the article harder to find, it's making the article choppier than it need be and it's causing disruption. If you want to talk about the B777, why not do it on that aircraft's article? --Pete (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a significant mention of the MD-11, but that is appropriate since it explains why Singapore Airlines dropped it in favor of the A340.
 * I would say that if the sources are readily available to us, why not make the article clearer? I felt the truncated version was an oversimplification, so making them separate sentences draws a distinction between how the 777 and A330 affected the A340's market. JacksonRiley (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggest you go and read WP:SYNTHESIS. If the sources don't connect the dots, then we don't either. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The dots are clearly connected as several sources clearly state the 777's role (specifying the 777-300ER) in the A340's cancellation due to sales (at least we've resolved "phase out").. For your part, it is WP:SYNTHESIS to attribute the A330 as being a significant factor in the cancellation of the A340 based upon a single source, and the problem is that it doesn't even mention specify which variant of the A330, so its a bit generous that we would even include it in the article. Your job is to find more sources for the A330's effect on the A340. JacksonRiley (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think the A330 was a significant factor in the termination of A340 production. You are wrong if you think that. I think ETOPS, efficiency and increasing competitiveness amongst airlines had combined effects. The role of the A330 was that it meant Airbus could keep selling wide-body airliners and thus remain a major player in the market pending the arrival of the A380. But my opinion isn't important here. What is important is the way we go about building the most successful encyclopaedia in history, and you should really look into how we work together. If you want to help build the Wikipedia, you need to become part of the community. We have our differences, of course, but we have ways of resolving them. And they work. I know that if you reinsert the same material, I'm going to report you, and you've built up enough history to warrant a block, given that you seem bent on edit-warring to get your way. Don't go down that path, please. You're a clever person, think of something else. --Pete (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * One well of resolving the differences is if you actually look at the links that I provided, and stop making accusations of WP:SYNTHESIS and "don't reflect the sources". I actually have the facts to back up my contributions, so calling them opinions isn't showing good faith on your part. JacksonRiley (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * When you say something about me and I know it's wrong, it's wrong. That's how it is, you know? Now, if you want to push your edits, push them in a context of Wikipolicy, not force of personality. You'll get further that way. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If you can find supporting material for your viewpoint, by all means add it in. But if you can't find any or just don't want to spend the effort doing so, don't take the easy way out by deleting sources and materials. JacksonRiley (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My viewpoint is that I'm happy with the consensus version of the article. And at this point, I've got better things to do. Cheers again. --Pete (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Article protected
I have protected the article from editing for a few days to allow editors to come to a consensus rather than edit war, remember others cant edit the article in this state which is not ideal so please come to some agreement sooner rather than later. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Airbus A350 XWB might also be worth keeping an eye on. --Pete (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)