Talk:Airbus A350

Lead section
In December, I reorganized the lead section to follow the WP:LEAD guideline by summarizing the main article sections (development, design, Orders and deliveries as prescribed in WP:Aircontent). Yesterday, changed it again with the edit summary: Re-organized the lead. Format based off of the Airbus A330. I reverted the WP:BOLD change, explaining section summaries per WP:LEAD. The A330 lead should be changed to comply. It was reverted again (in contradiction with WP:BRD policy) stating Disagree. The A330 is a good article and therefore is more authoritative and should be used as a reference. The A350 XWB lead also borrows from some extent from the A380 lead as well, which is a good article as well, which is a more authoritative reference. As a result, as good articles, their leads fit WP:LEAD. Also, the A350 lead changes was requested to fulfill GA guidelines. I'll agree the A380 lead section is a good example, as I did a similar process, but the A330 lead section is not really a good example, as it has no real structure and is not really in line with the WP:LEAD guideline. I have updated the A330 lead section in a similar fashion since. Being a GA is not synonymous with prefect quality in every section, and a wikipedia-wide guideline should prime over some individual example. Note the debate is more on the organization than the content itself. Any thoughts from other editors?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The lead should follow the general flow of the article rather than jump around, the current lead is also a really bad example in the first paragraph jumping straight into fact and figures, they should be latter. You would expect the first paragraph to be fairly simple but introduce the main points. MilborneOne (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I changed the lead to fit MilborneOne's preferences. Basically, since most of the first paragraph of the A380's lead started with the history part, I moved the fact and figures into the third paragraph and merged the first paragraph and second paragraph together. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 21:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I have also made changes to the lead, one that is more in common with the lead of the A380, such as:
 * It succeeds the A340 and competes with the Boeing 787 and 777 is deleted. In relation to other sentences of the lead, it just plainly sounds weird. I already mentioned a competitor in the history (development) section, which is the Boeing 787. This is like the A380 article lead, which mentions the Boeing 747 as a competitor in the development section.
 * Moved The A350 XWB is based on the technologies developed for the Airbus A380 and includes a similar cockpit and fly-by-wire systems layout. It is also the first Airbus mostly made of carbon fibre reinforced polymer. and The A350 XWB has two variants: the A350-900 and the longer A350-1000, with the former typically flying 300 to 350 passengers over a 15000 km range while the latter accommodating 350 to 410 seats over 16100 km. to the last paragraph. This paragraph would be used to summarize both the design and variant sections in conjunction with the operators section.
 * I'm trying to achieve the goal of having three beefy paragraphs as requested in the Good Article Review, while at the same time be reminiscent of the authoritative references, in which is the A380 article, as the A330 article's lead is controversial. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 22:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "sounding weird" is not a good reason for deletion, you should rephrase not delete. As the A350 evolved, the main competitor shifted from the 787 to the 777, and it still is the A340 successor.
 * The "A380 technologies" is vague and honestly, the A350 is barely related to the A380. Airbus have glass cockpit and fly-by-wire controls since the A320. I think there is no common type rating with the A380, but with the A330.
 * the /variants/ section are more related to the /design/ paragraph than to the /operators/.
 * The goal of "three beefy paragraphs" is vague and should be less important than being faithful to the article layout.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think with the recent new changes by Marc, I think the lead right now is fine, and better than the lead layouts in previous versions. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 12:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I wonder about the relevance of fly-by-wire in the current lead. As Marc mentions, all Airbuses since the A320 have had fly-by-wire, as do all modern airliners for that matter, so why mention it at all? Furthermore, the only mention of fly-by-wire in the body is an unsourced claim that the systems are similar to those in the A380. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree the FBW bit could be ditched. The common type rating with the A330 seems more noteworthy, as it is an incitative to all-Airbus widebody fleets - similarly to the common 777/787 rating.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * FBW May still warrant a fleeting reference, but in the body. I don’t know if all modern airliners have it? The 737MAX still has wires and pulleys driving hydro-electric actuators at the control surfaces. E x nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Clean-sheet western mainline airliners are FBW since the A320 (intro 1988; the last conventional controls was the B757 - 1983); the regional jets since the E-Jet (2004, open loop); large business jets since the Falcon 7X (2007).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Now the aircraft has already been in service for several years, how relevant is it to mention the history of earlier design in lead section? Shouldn't the A330 redesign mentioned in history section? Harshana.nadeeshan (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The opening paragraph about the A330 seems appropriate considering that it explains why the A350 became a clean sheet redesign. It should be included under History as well, in more detail, but the lede says it all really.

Revisiting the title (A350 XWB vs. A350)
This was discussed a few times in archive 1. The main arguments (simplifying; feel free to review archive 1 for details) for including XWB were (1) Airbus uses it and (2) it distinguishes from the A350 (developed from the A330) before the "wider composite design." BUT, (1) Airbus doesn't even mention "XWB" on its web site (at least not in any prominent way; it simply uses "A350" and "A350 family") and (2) there is no separate article "A350" that exclusively discusses the earlier design idea derived from the A330. It has been eight years since the last discussion about the title. I read various aviation blogs and such, and they rarely mention "XWB," and certainly not automatically as part of defining or introducing the A350. It seems that the usage "A350" without any mention of "XWB" is commonplace now. There may have been a time when "XWB" was more common, but now even Airbus seems not to emphasize it. Wikipedia no longer has a separate A350 article that discusses the earlier usage of "A350." Maybe it's time for another move discussion. Holy (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The goal is to use the WP:COMMONNAME. Searching "Airbus A350" -"XWB" gives 3.76M results; "Airbus A350 XWB" gives 0.318M results. The "XWB" suffix should be dropped.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The XWB part should be removed from the article title, imo. This article covers both the early A330-based A350 concept and the current A50 AWB. Removing XWB from the article title would better match common name usage and also content of the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree entirely, XWB should be removed. I'd even venture to say that this would be an uncontroversial move and shouldn't need a formal move request. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree it can be removed, it cant be considered a common name now, it was just used for marketing related to Airbus changing the design a few times so as not to confuse the original customers. MilborneOne (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

✅ BilCat (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

New Production Standard (NPS)
There is no info I can find on this page about the NPS, which is already in service. Thanks. 88.98.85.216 (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * So fix it yourself, or at least give someone a start by posting a link to where you found this information, if there is one. BilCat (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

ACJ350 section outdated
"ACJ350" variant info says that it is based on the -900ULR though I have not been able to find any source to back this. On the Airbus site, the ACJ350 can be based off of the -900 or -1000, not the ULR.

Range is also incorrect, also from the previous link, the -900 base has a 20,550 km/11,100 nm range, and the -1000 is stated to have 19,100 km/10,300 nm range.

Apologies as I'm new here and have little / no clue on formatting and the guidelines on page editing which others here are much more experienced in, else I'd edit it myself. Mainly created an account because I noticed this error. -notbingbadaboom- (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)