Talk:Airbus A380/Archive 5

A-380 backwash
There's a part in the article claiming that the A-380 jetwash needs to be investigated for possible negative consequences, as the aircraft is heavier than the B-747. The engines on the A380 are of similar (or perhaps less?) thrust than those used on some models of B-777 aircraft (a plane that is some 12 years old), so this issue surely has been addressed in the past already and can be removed from the article?

87.210.35.24 (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about Wake turbulence? THat has two sources, and discusses legitimate studies that were carried out and completed. It's history - it happened - there's no reason to remove that. If you're talking about something else, I couldn't find it. Btw, Boeing (not "B") 777 - 2 engines; A380 - 4 engines. I somehow doubt the "jetwash" is exactly the same form both planes. - BillCJ (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, to be more specific, I'm talking about this passage of text (with no citations) regarding ground vehicles:
 * "As of late 2005, there were concerns that the jet blast from the A380's engines could be dangerous to ground vehicles and airport terminal buildings, as more thrust is required to move its greater mass (560 t compared with 413 t for a 747). The FAA has established a commission to determine if new safety regulations seem necessary, and was to make appropriate recommendations to the ICAO. According to Wall Street Journal, "The debate is supposed to be entirely about safety, but industry officials and even some participants acknowledge that, at the very least, an overlay of diplomatic and trade tensions complicates matters." The FAA commission has stated it would not enact unilateral safeguards for the A380, only those imposed by the ICAO."
 * Many of these ground vehicles/terminal buildings have been exposed to the blast of the slightly more powerful 777 engines already.87.210.35.24 (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The A380 has been in service for some time and there have been no reports of jet blast incidents. Our article doesn't need to cite thinly based concerns from years ago as a current or future problem. If some galoot gets blown across the runway by the 380's mighty pods and gets run over by a passing jumbo, then maybe we can bring it back. --Pete (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The concerns were cited. cite info proving they they were unfounded. YOu can't just remove everything that disagrees with your "prefect" image of the A380. - BillCJ (talk) 23:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, of course not. But concerns are one thing. People are concerned, on waking up in the morning, that it might rain and spoil the picnic they have planned. And rightly so. Picnics are often rained out. But when the rain does not occur, just how much does our encyclopaedia need to include past worry and speculation of disasters that never happened? People come here seeking information, after all, and if we can find reports of baggagehandlers bowled over like ninepins, and service vehicles sent skittering sideways across the tarmac, then we should include them. But let us stick to facts, please! --Pete (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I notice some people want to keep this rubbish. This is 2005 speculation we're talking about here. Since then the A380 has flown in and out of airports all over the world and has been operating commercially for some months. Any reports of problems with the jetblast? Any reports of problems anywhere? If there are, then include them by all means. If there aren't, then maybe we can accept that the sky ain't falling in. Certainly our readers deserve facts, not speculation. As for cites, gimme fact cites, not Chicken Little. --Pete (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm asking you to revert yourself, or I will report you for revert warring, and request that you be blocked. The purpose of discussion is to come to a consensus, THEN to make changes. Removing cited material is disruptive, and not the way to handle disputes. Wikipedia is not about "facts", but about reporting what is printed in verifiable, reliable sources. In what dream world in the Wall Street Journal not a reliable source? It may be speculativen, but it is reported speculation, and there is a vast differences. Someone who genuinely wants "facts" would allow this to stand, and then CITE reliable sources showing the concerns were unfounded, not just use their own speculations to justify removing cited material. The A380 is a unique aircraft, and many had genuine concerns related to that. Stop trying to suppress every question and concern about the aircraft. - BillCJ (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be speculative, but it is reported speculation, and there is a vast differences. Do tell? I don't care how much the Wall Street Journal wants (or rather wanted) to worry about Airbus and talk up potential disaster. Stick to the facts, not speculation from years ago. The A380 has demonstrated that jet blast is no more a problem than it is with any other aircraft. --Pete (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The A380 has demonstrated that jet blast is no more a problem than it is with any other aircraft. - Another so-called "fact", but again, you don't back up anything you believe with reliable sources, but expect people to take your word for it because you love the A380 so much. Find a credible source, cite it, and prove what idiots the people who questioned the backwash were. Instead, you want to bury any critcism as if it never existed. That's not the way to fully cover anything. - BillCJ (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't find any reports of actual problems with A380 jetblast in the years it has been flying, and I can't make them up just to satisfy you. Be reasonable. --Pete (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You haven't got a clue if you actually think that's what I've been asking for! - BillCJ (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I never thought you were. The fact is that there are no reports of problems with A380 jetblast. But you want our article to include speculation from 2005. Speculation which has not proven accurate. Why? --Pete (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "The A380 has demonstrated that jet blast is no more a problem than it is with any other aircraft. - Another so-called "fact", but again, you don't back up anything you believe with reliable sources, but expect people to take your word for it because you love the A380 so much."
 * The fact is that some models of Boeing 777 aircraft that have been in use for years use engines that are more powerful (you can look it up) than the engines used on the A380. So it's really a moot point when one looks at the facts.  Any airports that can deal with 777 jet blast can put up with A380 jet blast.  And the 777 has been in service for years without jetblast problems.  The A380 so far has had no jetblast problems either.  So... I really don't understand what the passage about jet blast is needed for. I don't think speculation in a Wall Street Journal (not known aviation buffs, but we'll ignore that) article from before the plane had yet been certified or launched is merited in this article.  I don't love Airbus or Boeing, just trying to get this sorted out.  87.210.35.24 (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again: 777 - TWO engines; A380 - FOUR! - BillCJ (talk) 03:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Jet blast on buildings etcetera has to do with the thrust per engine, not the number of engines, nor the weight of the plane (which is also incorrectly referred to in the article). The 777 is a large plane with two very large engines (the biggest of all airliners), the A380 is a very large plane with four large engines.  The 777, with the biggest (highest thrust) engines of all, has operated without jet blast problems for over a decade.  That's a fact.  This is similar to how people were concerned that the increased weight of the A380 would impact airport runways and taxiways simply by looking at it's greater weight, but forgetting that the wheel layout of the A380 has similar/less imprint per wheel than the 747. 87.210.35.24 (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, I'm sure there are a lot of sourced items in the article about aspects of the A380 that later did not pan out or proved to be false. Let's pretend no criticism of the A380 ever existed if those criticisms proved to be unfounded. And this for a plane that has ONE aircraft in regular service for less than 3 months. But of course we know if it hasn't happened in that time, then it conclusively proves those problems never will happen! If we get rid of all those for the same reasons you're claiming here, the article will be a lot shorter. Since it's too long anyway, have at it! I await the results eagerly! - BillCJ (talk) 03:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Calm down, please. The A380 has been flying for two and a half years, multiple aircraft have visited airports all over the world, it's been in operational service for several months. If jetblast is a problem then someone, somewhere, would have made a fuss. It would have been front page news. And, if it somehow does become a problem, then we'll include it in our article. But speculation dating from before the aircraft flew that proves to have been, so far at least, baseless, well it doesn't really tell the reader seeking information about the actual aircraft anything much. Why don't you kick off a new article on criticism of the A380? There has been scads of that, some valid, some scaremongering, and the paper conflict is worthy of note. --Pete (talk) 05:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't patronize me by pretending my comments are somehow inappropriate because you think I'm not calm. I done arguing with you. Next time you remove sourced material, I'll report you to AIN, and let them sort it out. - BillCJ (talk) 06:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You used too many exclamation marks for a calm person. Just because something has a source, it doesn't mean that it is useful or encyclopaedic. The speculation of 2005 was probably valid for the article of 2005, before the aircraft had flown or been tested or entered service. But time has moved on, we know the answers to many of the questions posed by the A380, and the article has likewise moved on. --Pete (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wake turbulence has less to do with the engines and more with the size of the wings. It is a fact the A380 produces greater wake turbulence than the 747. The ICAO has already issued interim spacing guidelines to deal with the issue. See http://www.ig-oekoflughafen.de/down06/ICAO_A380-Abstand.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Downtrip (talk • contribs) 04:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No Deliveries in 2008
On the chart it says that there has been one plane Deliveries on 2008. That is not right there was one in 2007 but, not 2008. I changed it and a 147.252.91.58 changed it back.AdmRiley (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Second one was delivered to Singapore Airlines on Jan 11th (see: http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pressreleases/pressreleases_items/08_01_11_delivery_2nd_a380_sia.html) Whale plane (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidents
Just deleted the 11 January Singapore incident again as it appears to be minor non-notable incident (no injuries, no damage). Just wanted to get concensus on inclusion because it will be added again! MilborneOne (talk) 08:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems much more newsworthy :) --MoRsE (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If that incident is being re-added repeatedly, what does it say about notability? Clearly users who glance at this article will be wondering why it makes no mention on something which is being widely reported.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you know how often incidents such as the 10th Jan one (it was on the 10th, not the 11th) happen? To aircraft all the time all over the world. All the other airliner pages don't have all these ridiculously minor incidents reported on them, why should the A380 be any different? Check some of the pilots forums to see just how common that is. Planes have a minor mishap all the time, bits falling off engines, having to return for maintenance, aborted flight plans, but they're not mentioned. Ben W Bell talk  14:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Precisely. For all its regularity, could you then explain why this particular incident generates news reports by all major news agencies (Reuters AFP CNN BBC Xinhua CNA WSJ PA Flight International etc etc), and even gets telecast on the news bulletin on national TV in Singapore? I read forums like airliners.net pretty often, and apparantly they have a thread dedicated to this incident, generating 72 posts and 20044 views at time of writing this post (and 20000 views happens to be the highest amongst all the threads in that page).--Huaiwei (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the media interest make it newsworthy on the day it happens but that still does not make it notable for an encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly support the removal of this incident. The media have to fill the newspapers and your TV screen every day so such incidents are made much of by them. But WP is not "the media" and has different rules. Try to imagine the length of the Notable Incidents section for the A380 in a few years if such incidents were reported in the article! -Adrian Pingstone (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * IMHO, this feels just like paparazzism, every single small, whatever insignificant thing that happens to this Britney Spears/Lady Di of the air must be reported. Not so! --MoRsE (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Next we'll be reporting on the time a baggage handler got a duffle bag jammed in the door. If it didn't cause substantial damage and doesn't reflect on the A380's safety record, it's a non-incident.--Father Goose (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting my edit with the reason "sorry but media coverage does not made this a noteable incident", however I must object. I totally agree that we should not, of course, report every baggage jam, neither should we report all the accidents like this during the year. But this was a) the first incident ever, b) A380 is by no means a common, "yet another" airplane, c) the incident proves the concerns that airports and the equipment there may not be ready to accomodate that heavy an airplane, and d) yes, it makes it notable if it was very widely reported even by major news agencies and discussed. Your objections and arguments are welcome. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

When is the next model going to come in?
When is the next model going to come in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.196.3.108 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent design range
The "Design" section stats folloving: The design range for the -800 model is 15,200 km (8,200 nmi).[5] But under the "Specifications" section it stats 17,400 kilometer for the A380-800 version.

Can anyone with more knowlegde than me make an assesment of this semingly inconsistent design data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.252.56.15 (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Biofuel A380?
Can someone explain if there´s a big difference with the flight on the 1st of february 2008 and the Tu-155 project? The Tu-155 project only run one engine with alternative fuel what about the A380? I can´t access the airbus link #16 nor any other of their links. RGDS Alexmcfire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmcfire (talk • contribs) 01:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Orders and deliveries
Hello, I wrote in the discussion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A380_orders_and_deliveries, but there is no feedback yet. This would also have implications here.

"Don't you think, it would be better only to show the firm orders? I think the MOU/LOI/Announcements could have a place in the "Orders and commitments sorted by chronology" list (not adding to the totals), but not included elsewhere (totals, diagrams, lists) until firmed. It's not firm until in the books. Some MOU/LOI/announcements need a lot of time to be firmed, sometimes they get not firmed at all. If there is no reason to do otherwise I would change those items. I was not logged:Cirrocumulus (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)"

Airbus claims only 189 orders, the others are not firm yet. Let's keep it simple and safe, only firm orders here.Cirrocumulus (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me.--Father Goose (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How firm is firm? Is the official press release from EADS enough? Then we could get ride off this " of which 189 were firm as of 31 December 2007.[72]" or should we wait for the monthly release?Cirrocumulus (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I turn the matter over to you, since I have not scrutinized the numbers myself. I recommend you just make the changes as you propose and if someone contests them, you will know who your interested parties are (see WP:BRD).--Father Goose (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a mistake in the delivery and first commercial flight dates. Why, as per article portion below, is "Emirates" said to have started flights on 1st August and "Singapore Airlines" was on 25 October?

"The first aircraft delivered (MSN003, registered 9V-SKA) was handed over to Singapore Airlines on 15 October 2007 and entered into service on 25 October 2007 with a inaugural flight between Singapore and Sydney (flight number SQ380).[45] Passengers bought seats in a charity online auction paying between $560 and $100,380.[46] Two months later Singapore Airlines CEO Chew Choong Seng said that the A380 was performing better than both the airline and Airbus had anticipated, burning 20% less fuel per passenger than the airline's existing 747-400 fleet.[47] Emirates Airline was the second airline to take delivery of the A380 on 28 July 2008 and started flights between Dubai and New York[48] on 1 August 2008.[49] Qantas followed on 20 October 2008 flying between Melbourne and Los Angeles.[50]"

If this is an utter defacement, better to get it checked. Cheers ;-) Dexter (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks OK as written, please note that August 2008 is after October 2007. MilborneOne (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Reduction of text
The article is very long and not all information is really relevant. I propose to: eliminate following text in "orders and deliveries":

a)The first private buyer of an A380 for personal use is Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who reportedly spent only fifteen minutes on the plane before deciding to put one under contract.[73][74]

b)Industry sources have stated that the United States Air Force Air Mobility Command is looking into possibly purchasing the A380 as a replacement for the aging Boeing 747s in the role of presidential transport. The USAF may also be interested in a military version of the A380F as a strategic transport aircraft, replacing the C-5 Galaxy.[75]

Reasons: a is not very relevant, b is a possibility, not more than that.Cirrocumulus (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the text as there was no objectionCirrocumulus (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding "Market", reducing "Orders and Deliveries"
I edited a new text for Market, at the same time reduced orders and deliveries. Please take a view at my sandbox, feel free to correct my english, and discuss it, thanks!Cirrocumulus (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are no comments there, I will place the new text and wait for reactions here. Maybe a native speaker or similar qualified person take a detailed look, thanks!Cirrocumulus (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong picture!
The airplane in the photograph is not an A-380, someone please quickly correct this subtle vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.120.61 (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are 8 photos of the A380 in the article. Did you have a particular one in mind? They all look correct to me. - BillCJ (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Deliveries delay - reduced text
Hello, I propose a reduced and actualized version for this section. Please take a view at my sandbox[], thanks!Cirrocumulus (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Text is included here yet.Cirrocumulus (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, you removed the weight issue without mentioning that. Why does this


 * While Airbus attributes the delays entirely to wiring, industry analyst Richard Aboulafia, speculated that weight reduction efforts were also involved.

have to be confirmed to be included? It clearly states what it is. And how can you say this was not a factor at all? Also, the heavier first A380 should be mentioned in the article at least. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If this was a speculation (and this is as it is described), then it has to be confirmed (I don't see the reason to cites speculation in an article, also not needed if he was wrong). I looked really to find it out, and I didn't find it in any other publication. In the document of Heinen is not a mention about this. While the A380 is (slightly) overweight, this was not a cause of delays. The rewiring efforts are still be doing today, any other thing was not the cause of these delays. That is my point. And yes, I think it (the overweight) should be mentioned somewhere too. I'm looking for the data. Cirrocumulus (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What I found: A380 at rollout 5,500kg overweight (empty weight 361,000kg= 2,0%) As comparison, the 787-9 has 6,350 kg overweight (months after rollout) (empty weight 115,200 kg= 5,5%)(http://www.atwonline.com/news/other.html?issueDate=11/12/2007)

What Aboulafia said: ""This is big news," he said of the revelation by Clark that the A380 is 5.5 tons too heavy"...""This goes a long way in explaining the delay," Aboulafia said. "Wiring alone did not explain what we were all hearing. It sounds like weight-reduction design changes are a big part of the delay, too.""(http://seattlepi.com/business/290276_airbus28.html) If it was the cause for the delays, then yet should be a lot less of overweight (is it?). Aboulafia has aparently no more information to support this than what Clark said. "it sounds like" hardly qualifies as verifiable information.Cirrocumulus (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, just speculation by 1 person on the causes. No doubt they worked on the reducing weight during the delay because they could, not had to.  The 787 article covers its weight issues.  Doesn't seem that relevant to the A380. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So how long was the delivery delay?
Despite 3 paragraphs of text, all I could distill is:

Airbus announced the first delay in June 2005 and notified airlines that delivery would slip by six months

On 13 June 2006, Airbus announced a second delay, with the delivery schedule undergoing an additional shift of six to seven months

On 3 October 2006 [...] announced a third delay, pushing the first delivery to October 2007 There's not enough information to work out what the delay was - no dates are mentioned for the first two delays, and only the final delivery date is mentioned for the third. So does anybody know what the total delivery delay was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.199.76.163 (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, I'll try to find it out. It is not trivial, the one is the first delivery delay, apparently from end 2006 to end 2007. The other is the average delay, due to a slower ramp up, similar to the 787.Cirrocumulus (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Test image
I think this image Image:IABG_Versuchsaufbau_Airbus_A380_5-1024.jpg should be removed to unclog the images in the Testing section. For a thumbnail, the test A380 is barely visible through the surrounding test hardware. What do you think about this? Also, this image is on Commons and can be found by following the Commons link. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * yes, I thought the sameCirrocumulus (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I did change that, I think it looks better so. If not we could revert itCirrocumulus (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, less crowded, much better. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Cirrocumulus (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The sections are grouped better now too. I thought Market section was projecting about future orders. That's why I put that under Orders and deliveries. Where it is at is fine too. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Speed translation from Mach to miles/km incorrect?
Towards the end of the first paragraph of this article, the cruisng speed is stated as 0.85 Mach which is translated to miles/km as 560/900. Doesn't look right to me. My calculations show this should be at least 630 miles. Can someone verify this. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe this varies at different altitudes. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 19:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that the speed of sound varies, I would say yes. Actually Mach number goes into this in more detail Nil Einne (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And speeds in the specification table are obviously wrongly calculated (at least in km/h). This needs to be fixed. MichalPalka (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I just corrected speeds for the second time. Somebody changed it back to wrong values 14th February 2008. Looking to the history, it was not first attempt to correct this mistake. Values corresponding to the temperature -56 deg. Celsius are:

0.85M (903 km/h, 561 mph, 487 knots)

0.89M (945 km/h, 587 mph, 510 knots)

0.96M (1020 km/h, 634 mph, 551 knots) 77.93.195.195 (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Should be changed to reflect the reliable source used anything else is original research. MilborneOne (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh sorry, I supposed it is obvious from earlier contributions. Let me show some basic physics. Speed of sound in the air vary with the temperature (not with pressure), for this reason value 340 m/s at 15 °C (average sea-level temperature) drops to only 295 m/s at -57 °C (average temperature in stratosphere). A380 as well as other airliners cannot reach high Mach number at low altitudes (in contrast to fighter aircrafts), because it is designed typically for 200-300 knots Indicated Airspeed. Typical flight profile of A388 you can find in It means that all Mach speeds for airliners (not only A380) can be converted using value for speed of sound 295 m/s. It will not be accurate neither over deserts in summer nor over Siberia during winter, but International Standard Atmosphere is widely accepted model. 77.93.195.195 (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Great pity nobody explained all this to the 9/11 kamikaze, else the WTC twin towers would still be standing! Airliners are powerful and very tough made machinery and can do high mach at almost ground level if you disregard rules. Also, the soviet-bloc Tupolev airliners were originally designed as bombers and made strong enough for low-level fast sorties. 91.83.34.159 (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Further explanation was not not really needed. The calculation seems fine, but still falls under original research policy (link above). -Fnlayson (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

New pictures
I deleted a new picture (A380 taking off ), because there are 3 pictures of A380 flying already. I think the article could be improved with new pictures of systems or details, some pictures could be surely improved, but from planes flying only if they are better than the already displayed. It's my opinion, of course. Cirrocumulus (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it was OK since there was room for it. But it is a Commons image, so it's available through that link. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I exaggerated, but was not a problem this article being bigger than 70k? Cirrocumulus (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to delete a new image again, but new pictures should be better than the existant ones, show new aspects or details. Cirrocumulus (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with your revert - image was cluttered and not a clear view of subject, does not add any value to article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

1984 Airbus 380s to be made!
Big plane is watching you! Should be in the article due to its outrageously orwellian nature. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/spy-cams-in-pla.html

Macho bias detected in the article!
The specifications section mention the number of pilots (two), but no word on flight attendants. This is male chauvinism at its worst, as the plane would crash without the ladies. Pilots not getting their coffer on time usually fall asleep and then the plane makes a nice hole in the ground.

Surely, there is a legal minimum number of stewardesses an A380 must have to take off with 550 or 850 passangers onboard. It should be there in the article. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that the article states that the aircraft has two pilots - no mention of them being male, as you know pilots and flight attendants could be of either sex. If you can find a verifiable source for the number of flight attendants it could be added. MilborneOne (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the specs table says cockpit crew, i.e. flight crew not airline crew. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The legal minimum number of flight attendants varies from country to country, so it is not included in the specs of the aircraft. Also, I think this whole section should be removed as it seems to be intended incendiary. Making claims that the article is biased and chauvinist, then they themselves showing bias and chauvinism. Trellis (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed it doesn't make sense to have a minimum number of flight attendants specified by the aircraft. Clearly a cargo plane probably needs perhaps 1 at most. On the other hand, a plane with 800 people needs quite a few more. On the other hand, both need the same cockpit crew Nil Einne (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Not in regular commercial service?
Is the A380 not in scheduled service? The article mentions its first revenue flight was in late 2007, but I popped over to airliners.net this evening and saw no photos at all showing everyday passengers / cabin service, unlike articles with A340, B777, etc. -Rolypolyman (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is definitely in regular scheduled service - Singapore Airlines are flying them daily to Sydney and to Heathrow, and also to Tokyo (I don't know the frequency off the top of my head though I assume it is also daily).--Nick Moss (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * SIA every day into Heathrow - airliners.net has at least 13 images taken at Heathrow on different dates this year. MilborneOne (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok then, I guess that means that their photographers subscribe to the "showroom" photo mindset. It would be enlightening to see a picture of what the cabin looks like with a full passenger load, but I guess I'll have to bide my time.  The galleries there made me think that the A380 was on a neverending demo tour. -Rolypolyman (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

can you please tell me when the airbus 380 is due to arrive at adelaide airport in 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.150.152 (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any significant difference between normal fuel and gas to liquid fuel
Or is it just a case of the A380 being the first airliner anyone bothered to get certified for use with it? Plugwash (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if there weren't any technical issues there wouldn't be a certification for it, would there? As for practical differences, of course there are: being able to use gas is of huge importance to gas producers, e.g. the Emirates. Causantin (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Entry into service
Entry into service would normally describe the types entry into service it appears to be expanding into documenting the entry into service of each airline or individual aircraft, time to slim down the content to the types first entry with Singapore the other stuff is better suited in the airline article. Thoughts? MilborneOne (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that each airline is configuring their A380s in a substantially different manner, and the novelties that this produces (e.g airbone showers), I'd say the information is interesting and encyclopedic. I think we should let the convention aside this time, for the time being at least. Causantin (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Still suggest that sort of info (like showers is more relevant to the airline article), do you want to list the entry into service for every new operator for the next thirty or forty years! MilborneOne (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * They are configured differently, but there are not that different relative to the aircraft design. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Number built
The convention for the "number built" field in the infobox is to state the number of aircraft that have had their first flight, not those that have been delivered. See e.g. the Antonov An-148, the Sukhoi Superjet, and others. Just clarifying this. Causantin (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct the number-built is normally the number built and flown, delivered or not (prototypes can never be delivered in some case). MilborneOne (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * True. But the number of delivered aircraft may be all the info that's available or that is current.  A reference for 19 built would keep the number from getting changed back and forth. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I just added http://plane.spottingworld.com/A380_production_list, former wikipedia list. Not official but should be enough, if the planes fly... Cirrocumulus (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source! MilborneOne (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not?, you could see a picture of every plane. For me, this is enough. Cirrocumulus (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This list is actually more reliable than some internet-news used als reference all over here. Cirrocumulus (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Counted as a self published source which are not a reliable source for wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, it is formally not a reliable source, but verifiable by the pictures. If this is not enough, is there something better? Cirrocumulus (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Caption of the photo is wrong
The caption of one of the photos states that the ILA 2006 was in Frankfurt. I wasn't in Germany back then, but as far as I know the ILA has always been in Berlin, right? (77.10.215.245 (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC))


 * Caption corrected related article says Berlin. MilborneOne (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Image Changed
I changed the box image b/c the old image of the singaporean airlines looked drab and dull and did not show the full potential of the aircraft such as showing the belly and an image that shows how one would rarely see the plane. hence the old image made the place look small, but the new one clearly shows how large this craft is and added the old image at the testing section of the article. Canadian (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A380 production list
I believe the A380 production list should form part of this article, or it should be a seperate article. Information on the production list can be found on this website: http://plane.spottingworld.com/A380_production_list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.231.208 (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed previously and it was decided to move the production list to spotting world, dont see any reason to move it back this is an encyclopedia not a fan site. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Will you consider a link to the production lists on the article? I have been searching for the A380 production list in the article, and I didn't find it. I believe others have done the same and are also looking for this info on this web page of the A380.

Many countries and airlines have ordered the A380, but these aircraft have not been delivered. Their passengers are interested to see when these airlines will receive the ordered aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.219.247 (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As I have said below the spotting world production list is linked from the sub-article List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Airbus A380 & 787 Dreamliner production lists on seperate pages
The A380 Production list is a very interesting aspect of the A380. I am not a plane spotter, but I want to know how many aircraft is in production, have been delivered, etc. You can also link the registration number of the aircraft with it's delivery date.

You may want to limit this list to say the first 100 aircraft produced, but others may want more information on recent aircraft.

Those whom are interested in this subject will maintain this page.

The same production list page can be created for the Boeing 787 dreamliner. Don't you find it interesting and facinating?

The fact that there were 3 people opposing to this immediately after each other, made me wonder if they weren't sockpupputs. (my appology if this accusation is wrong). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.219.247 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We had a separate production list page for the A380 it was deleted (and moved to plane spotting world by interested users) after it was decided it was not-encyclopedic, plenty of aircraft spotter sites have this information not really suitable for an encyclopedia. List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries has all the information you would need about orders and production and has a link to the spotting world list. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a note as I am the only one to reply so far I am not sure what the 3 people opposing and sockpuppet stuff is about but could users please sign their comments with four tildes ~ thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Airports
According to Wallop Bhukkanasut, chairman of Thai Airways International's executive board, the A380 can only "...currently operate through eight airports around the world..." (June 2009) - is that accurate? Which airports are they? Maybe it would be appropriate to list them in this article? - 58.8.2.123 (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because to make this thing clear i created this A380_ready_Airports category: It lists not only airports with terminals ready to fully serve a double-decker, but even substitute airports.


 * It is heavily in danger of beeing deleted. Discussion is here: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_1. If you want to keep it, please express as fast as possible your opinion. Wispanow (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently either Mr. Wallop or Wispanow is wrong - There are far more than 8 airports on the cat page! Btw, that's canvassing to ask for a Keep vote! Such notices need to be neutral. - BillCJ (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think its nonsense and bad work, vote for delete, OK? Wispanow (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not any of that at all, but it has no sources showing why the airports are listed, and it contradicts a recent source. Be careful not to take deletions too personally - as suggested on the CFD page, it would probably work better as a list page than a cat page, if allt he other problems are solved. If there are only 8 airports, however, it would probably be better as a section on an A380-related page. - BillCJ (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read these wikipedia articles? No. Because in nearly all cases the proof is listed on the specific airport articles. If there is no source listed, it is not the problem of the category, but a problem of the airport-article. REFERENCES IN A CATEGORY? WHY? AND HOW?


 * I think too, it would probably better to make a list. But i have done this work, all the search to get reliable sources (I'm scientist, i always try the best to write knowledge). And its currently usable. Wispanow (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What does "A380 ready" mean, exactly? I looked at the Noi Bai article, and all it says is "September 2, 2007: A Singapore Airlines Airbus A380 landed at Noi Bai International Airport". Why are Thai Airways saying there are currently only 8 airports in the world where the A380 can be operated? 58.8.2.123 (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that is largely covered in this article. See Airbus A380 for that. There may be some other details not covered there. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we're at crossed purposes. I was wondering what exactly are the criteria for inclusion in Category:A380_ready_Airports. The flight to Noi Bai, mentioned above, was in September 2007, before the first commercial flight. Is Category:A380_ready_Airports actually Category:Airports_where_an_A380_has_landed - ? And still the reason for the huge discrepancy between what Thai Airways say (8 airports) and the category (44 airports) is not clear. 58.8.2.123 (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The section in the article states what changes are needed for airports to regularly handle A380s. An A380 could land at a non-A380 airport in an emergency if the runways can handle it as a minimum.  The category seems to cover the fully capable airports. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The Noi Bai article I looked at is clearly one where "the proof is listed on the specific airport article" doesn't apply.
 * So if the category covers "the fully capable airports", that begs yet again the question - why the huge discrepancy in the numbers - WP says 44 airports are "A380 ready", and the Thai Airways chairman says there are currently only 8 airports in the world where the A380 can be operated? 58.8.2.123 (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Quartz-fiber
Why is this page the redirect from "Quartz-fiber"?!?!?! I wanted to read about quartz fiber and ended up here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.171.59 (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Quartz fibers are in "Quartz-fiber reinforced plastic" composite, which is used on the A380. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not really understand why the redirect, there is even a wiki link on this page to Quartz Fiber that is a circular loop back to this page... Why not start a new page detailing what quartz fiber is?  RP459 (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not appear to be a great deal of info on it on the web. Adding a sentence or two at Composite material would have been a better start. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So if I am understanding correctly it is more a case that quartz fiber was developed for this project... In which case this seems a reasonable solution in the short term.  RP459 (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't create the Quartz redirect and don't know that detail. But it is unlikely Airbus would use a new and unproven material. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

YouTube Video Link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hRCvyj6O8g

I think this video would be a nice addition to the wikipedia article on the Airbus A380. It demonstrates just one of the well documented teething troubles the new impressive A380 has suffered since EIS. It would also seek to clarify that such an event does not always end in disaster and that the skills of the pilots and Air Traffic Control are there to ensure the safety of the aircraft and all of her passengers and crew. This is the second time this aircraft VH-OQA (MSN 14) QANTAS A380 has suffered a problem with the steering system - once being stuck at Heathrow overnight while engineers fixed the problem.

It would be interesting to have a section detailing such incidents to show that it is not uncommon for such teething problems to occur and to show just how complicated a machine the A380 really is. McpcshowcaseHD (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not encyclopaedic. Plus Wikipedia isn't the place to promote your own videos or your YouTube channel. In addition we have no way of knowing if you took the footage or if it is copyrighted by someone else which is why we generally don't link to YouTube. Canterbury Tail talk  15:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyvio issues
In the Airbus A380 section, a ref to http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/airbus_a380.pl is cited. I checked this site, and discovered that large portions of its text are identical to huge sections of the Design section in the WP A3800 article. Since the Global Aircraft site is copyrighted, either the WP article is in copyvio, or the cite is using WP content without attribution. It's about 3:30 am where I am now, so I'm not going to troll through the history tonight to discover when this was all added, and by whom. I'll try tp get to it tomorrow if no one elses has found any answers by then. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably a copy from Wikipedia?? Check the dates of creation. Wispanow (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just had a look via Internet archive There was no such text on this site per 01/2008. Wasn't there a problem with this site a while back noted on WP:Air whith this site copying text from all over the net, especially from vectorsite? --Denniss (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

First operational problem
An A380 suffered an engine failure recently and returned to Paris instead of continuing to Singapore. Is this worth a mention in the article? Mjroots (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Airbus says it "was a "non-event" in technical terms". Wispanow (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Environmental Performance
Does anyone have data for the environmental performance of the A380; notably CO2-Eq. per passenger km? There should probably be a section on it. I've heard a lot of conflicting data on whether the A380 emits more or less CO2 per passenger km and it seems like the sort of item that should be in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.175 (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Update from OP; I've noticed that there is a section on CO2 very briefly within the fuel subsection, but just to clarify my point above (incase anyone decides what is there is enough) - whilst CO2 emissions from a given value of fuel are vital, efficiency of the engines, loading and other factors are are important in determining a useful figure that can be used to compare with other aircraft, that is CO2 per passenger km (CO2 per km is less relevant for aircraft because a small plane would emit substantially less CO2 than an a380 but since it would typically carry 100 times less passengers, the foorprint per passenger would be much greater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.175 (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A380 FAA thrust reverser requirement - please verify
I question the validity of this. I can not find any reference to the FAA mandating that the A380 have thrust reversers.

The A380 was initially planned without thrust reversers, as Airbus believed it to have ample braking capacity. The FAA disagreed, and Airbus elected to fit only the two inboard engines with them. The two outboard engines do not have reversers, reducing the amount of debris stirred up during landing. The A380 features electrically actuated thrust reversers, giving them better reliability than their pneumatic or hydraulic equivalents, in addition to saving weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.253.101.176 (talk • contribs)

I agree with you that this is a questionable statement. It is up to the manufacturer to decide whether a thrust reversers system is used or not. Airworthiness authorities will not demand it as it is stated here. --Iediteverything (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Emirates Picture Free Advertisement
The main picture for this article should be replaced by a non-commercial A380 to meet Wikipedia guidelines better. There is no justification whatever to use an Emirates A380 picture over Qantas A380, Singapore Airlines A380 etc., therefore, for equal representation, the original Airbus A380 picture should be used. There are plenty of high quality A380 pictures available by Airbus on the Airbus website which bears no commercial artwork except for the model number and Airbus logos and are cleared by Airbus to be used under a fair use policy, or if one requires personal professional photos, I have many A380 pictures of an original Airbus A380 taken during Airshows which I will happily provide without any restrictions. Whoever has placed and chosen the Emirates picture has clearly shown a POV (point of view). There is no room for discussion here, so can someone please upload an original A380 picture provided by Airbus as the main picture for this aritcle. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm somewhat surprised. I take a look at the other airplanes and it's the same. Is it wrong?, I think the picture looks good, better than the other maybe (I had put another Emirates there, not that). I personally find the Airbus livery not so good-looking, but if you have better pictures feel free to upload for use in WP. Of course it will be difficult to balance the pictures as more airlines will be flying the A380, but it does not seems to be a problem with other aircraft pages in WP.
 * By the way, am I the only one who feels there are too many pictures in the article?Cirrocumulus (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's a bit weird to accuse POV pushing for the choice of a certain picture. The picture is fine, but so are lots of other ones. I don't really think there's too many pictures; most of them are relevant to their sections and are interesting enough. KellenT 18:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The argument point made above, that because some other articles use branded airplanes as their main pictures justifies the emirates picture for the A380 article, is a very flawed point to make for many reasons including: 1. two wrongs does not make a third wrong right 2. the concerned articles respective airplane may have been launched with a sponsorship deal or the picture features the primary launch customer of that airplane e.g http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-8 3. the uploader made use of private photos featuring branded airplanes over the actual manufacturers photo's in fear of copyright problems even though both Boeing and Airbus allow fair usage of their "for media" materials which include high res photos. Now because the A380 had 6 launch customers, there is little justification to use one over the other, Singapore Airlines was the first launch customer and should have priority, but the best upkeeping of the POV rule in such a case, would be to use a non-branded A380 unless only 1 launch customer existed. The problem is also the concerned picture is the main article picture which carries a heavy connetation with the article content, therefor the picture should be an equal representation of the "A380" and as informative as possible. If you want you can use as many branded airplanes in the article itself with suitable written justification, but for the main article picture, an non-commercial A380 picture should be used. If someone has more time, changes need to be made where possible for the airplane related articles where the featured picture is not the launch customer, or when a branded airplane is used when a non-branded picture is available under fair use rights. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use
 * "On Wikipedia, our goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, and otherwise use the works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. But, because free as in cost and free as in freedom are two entirely different things, images freely available on the internet may still be inappropriate for Wikipedia. Any content which does not satisfy any of the criteria, such as "non-commercial use" only images, images with permission for use on Wikipedia only, or images that are fully copyrighted are classified as non-free."
 * As there is no free picture of a 747-8 yet, there is an exception.Cirrocumulus (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You have raised several arguements against this image being used, but they appear to be flawed. In the case of 1., it is not up to an individual plane article talk page to level against the normal and current majority methods regarding image use, that is more befitting of a discussion for WP: Aviation or a similar project group to brand as wrong, else that principle could be slap-dashed onto any operating procedure on WP to date; if you want to proceed down that route fair do's, and this discussion can be continued after that is discussed and the judgement is finalised. Clearly neither the editors over the last six months nor the recent GA reviewer had any problem with the status quo, and it would take a strong and clear judgement to detirmine it as anywhere near to 'wrong'.
 * Continuing onto arguement 2, there are plenty, plenty of planes which predate such concepts as launch sponsorships and 'first rights' on publicity and publication that have a certain company's livery upon the plane image used in the main screenshot. Not to mention, if there is any primary customer of the A380 it is actually Emeriates, having given the strongest and biggest commitment to the company, having placed more than twice as the nummber of orders as any other airline and far in advance of the launch of the A380. Effectively Emeriates is the Numero Uno for this plane, justifying them as the main image is not too difficult.
 * It should also be noted that using test, pre-production aircraft as lead images is next to unheard of in article uses, usually the main operator of the aircraft is the commonly accepted lead image. Even though there are tons of pictures of Concorde test planes, it is actually a branded one that takes the lead. I do not think it is justified to called NPOV on standard article elements that have already been branded as acceptable in the highest of quality graded aircraft articles, such as Boeing 747 or the more recently accepted Boeing 777. Hence why I suggest taking it to the general group rather than an isolated article and trying to turn against the current norm from a single point, establishing a consensus for change against this common concept before trying to take on cases of it, right now your proposed implimentation of the policy seems quite a twist, and should be run by the community for acceptance. Kyteto (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The image in the infobox is selected to provide the best view of the aircraft, we always prefer a flying image over a ground image when available, some editors say it should face towards the middle of the page if available but it is not a big factor in selection, the project does not have any other criteria for selecting the image although it is frowned upon if it is changed without discussion and consensus. I am pretty sure nobody at the Aircaft project has any view at all on which livery or colour scheme is used as long as it shows the main features of the type. So as we have no consensus for change and the image meets all the various guidelines I dont think we have an issue. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Operational problems
Singapore Airlines and Qantas have both had in service issues with the 380 (wiring problems, fuel lines and pumps). Yet there's no section cover problems except talking about problems during initial production. Surely problems found during the actual service should be mentioned ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.58.59 (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We would need a bank of reliable high-quality sources to bring substance and origin to the statement to be made, and these problems would have to be noteable and with a degree of significance. As far as I was aware the Wiring Problem was one during the first attempts at manufacturing the aircraft and was resolved before the production aircraft were made, thus leaving it under the Development section seems entirely appropriate. So if you can dig up some material regarding the pumps and fuel lines having difficulties, and we would need a rounded collection; isolated examples of a single part failing can and does happen to all aircraft on a regular basis and doesn't meet the level of notability for inclusion in the other aircraft articles, so it'll have to be something spread across months. Kyteto (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Specifications section
I think the Market, Orders and deliveries, and Commercial operators sections should be next to other, in that order. The only change needed would be to reposition the Specifications section - would this be possible? 92.4.121.23 (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. See . 92.4.121.23 (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Moved the Operators section up above the Specs per layout in WP:Air/PC. That puts them all together as you suggest.  I think the Market and Orders sections should be combined. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Similar aircraft
Well, I corrected two times the subject, as there should be real aircraft, not concepts. For concepts the place is on the Giant aircraft list, there are more concepts than the Sukhoi KR-860 also. Puting all in comaprable aircraft would be also not right. Comparable aircraft appear to be only the Antonov An-225 and the Boeing 747-8. Cirrocumulus (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no such requirement re: real or "imagined" aircraft, and the MD-12 should also be listed here. The An-225 is also "large", but the two designs aren't that close, wing position, # of engines. The 787-8 is not a full double-decker. Thus you're own preferred choices aren't that similar. - BilCat (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of concepts for aircraft like this, but the right place should be in the "concepts" in list of giant aircraft. It's like comparing apples to pears.

similar aircraft=<-- aircraft that are of similar role, era, and capability this design: --> Cirrocumulus (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There's nothing in the quoted guidelines that prohibit proposed aircraft from being listed. This seems like hair splitting or something... -Fnlayson (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe I'm the only who reads it that way, it would be somehow redundant with the Giant aircraft list, but ok. Cirrocumulus (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * True, the giant aircraft navbox covers all these. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Now the list has the Il-96 - it has been (is) in producion (so it's been "realized"), and is not in the Giant aircaft navbox - I guess it qualifies! - BilCat (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Pluralization of Airbus
The plural of Airbus would most likely be "Airbuses", though it is a proper noun so it could be irregular. "Airbus's", as was referenced in edit comments, would be the singular possessive, not the plural. "Airbus'" would be possesive plural of Airbus. In the case mentioned, the last paragraph of the section "Passenger provisions", it should indeed be Airbus's, singular plural, because Airbus is just one company not many, so plural possessive is not needed. Olyus (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Price
Can we get the current price in €s rather than US$? I assume the price reference from an American journal was a conversion. The US hasn't even bought one yet. I know QANTAS contracted in Euros because there were exchange rate issues. I haven't been able to find the current price anywhere. Any ideas? E x nihil (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The aviation industry works it's pricing in US $. It's the industry standard for pricing. Canterbury Tail talk  02:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Number built
It aays number built is 43, but if you go to the source that is planned aircrafts. I don't think it is built 43 yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosferatu511 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Bit of original research but


 * Singapore 10 delivered, one flown to be delivered
 * Emirates 8 delivered, four flown to be delivered
 * Qantas 6 delivered, two flown to be delivered
 * Air France 2 delivered, two flown to be delivered
 * Lufthansa none delivered, three flown to be delivered

So that is 26 delivered with a further twelve flown but still in test and not delivered plus three prototypes equals 41. So 43 not right but not that far out. MilborneOne (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"A380" redirect
Somebody has changed the redirect to a disambiguation page.

So either that should be changed back again (my preference) or the first line in this article should be removed. --RenniePet (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This has been corrected by changing to another template with appropriate wording. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Everything back to the way it was before. I liked the comment by User:Causantin on the A380 talk page: "Changing to the obvious meaning. Fanboy playtime is over. No-one is interested in one-paragraph articles about a road to nowhere or a long scrapped ship." --RenniePet (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You can fix this stuff yourself next time then... -Fnlayson (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I suppose, but I'm trying to keep my Wikipedia involvement down, and I thought it would be good to ensure consensus.


 * But now I've noticed that the guy who started all this has apparently done similar things with A300, A310, A320, A330 and A340. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chris_j_wood And I must admit that I don't feel like trying to do anything about it myself, although I have posted a note on that person's talk page. --RenniePet (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As you might expect, I strongly disagree with the above (and I find the tone of Causantin's comments personally offensive, but that is not relevant here).


 * I simply don't see why an airliner is the obvious meaning, over and against the other meanings. I don't think the average man in the street would automatically associate (say) A330 or A380 with an aeroplane, and that is essentially the test we should be applying in deciding whether to use this kind of disambiguation on partial names. Note that I'm not saying that they would associate them with roads or ships, that isn't the point. If the typical reaction would just be puzzlement, that is enough to say we should have a dab page rather than a redir to an assumed target.


 * Incidentally you were wrong in saying that I did similar things to A300. As best I can see, this has been a dab page since August 2008 and the only change I've made to it was to copy edit its syntax. Probably as a consequence of this misdiagnosis, Causantin completely botched his/her changes there, and ended up orphaning all the other A300 articles. I've therefore immediately reverted this change to remedy this.


 * As far as the others (which I did change in the first place), I'm still convinced I'm correct in this. I'm going to consider what my best options are here to get the change made. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Chris, cut-and-paste moves, such as you did in "moving" A380 (disambiguation) to A380, are not to be done because they break the page's history. Such moves are rightly reverted. Your best option is to propose a move of A380 (disambiguation) to A380, per WP:RM. If you need any help with proposing the move, please let us know here, aand someone will be happy to help you. Note that the main issue regarding the use of the A380 page will be related to whther or not the Airbus A390 is considered the primary topic for A380. See the Is there a primary topic? section on the Disambiguation page for further info on whhat this means. - BilCat (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hub&Spoke versus Point-to-point
The airline business model of either of these were not mentioned in either A380 or 787 articles until now, despite the correlation it has with aircraft purchase, airport layout, flight connections, and economy and so on. I suggest googling for: A380 "hub and spoke" to add material to the article. Discussion archives do not contain the word hub. TGCP (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

An-225 vs An-124 as comparable aircraft
This is to discuss BilCat rv with a note "unexplained changes". First, if BilCat would read the article, he would notice that the article itself do compare A380 freighter with An-225. The reason for that is that they are very similar aircraft both in size and in capabilities. An-124 also being a freighter are much smaller then ether An-225 or A-380. Second. A-380 is a second biggest aircraft(by MTOW) and volume. Second biggest after An-225. Both aircraft are notable for being biggest in their class. An-124 on the other hand, do not belong here. Just like B-747 article, the article about second biggest airliner do provide reader with a link to biggest airliner, the article about second biggest aircraft should have a link to the biggest one. TMForever (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that articles of similar aircraft (and companies) should link to eachother - where else would you find them. I also think that An-124 is quite similar to A380, as they have similar cargo loads and ranges. Perhaps a table with all 4 aircraft (747, A380, An124, An225) would be enlightening? TGCP (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I don't mind An-124 being there. My point that An-225 have MTOW, empty weight and range 640,000kg, 285,000kg, 15,400 km A-380F MTOW, empty weight and range 590,000kg,  252,200kg, 10,410km while An-124 MTOW, empty weight and range 405,000kg, 175,000kg, 5,400 km. Which make An-225 much better candidate for "Comparable aircraft" section for A380. But I also see no objection to include An-124 based on just capacity parameter. TMForever (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What an odd complaint, especially since I'm not the only one who reverted this edit last week. Please try to be a bit more civil and a bit less condescending. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The guidelines for comparable aircraft in that template only say they have ti be of similar capability, not equal. I think both the An-124 and -225 qualify.  Does not matter much with the A380-800F being on hold now.. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I add An-124 too, hope this will settle it. TMForever (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

IMHO: The current presentation is not very helpful, because there has to be statet out, in wich role it is comparable. Also, I think the payload of the Mrya is very much different so this is misleading.--89.245.206.29 (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Payload/Range-curves are: A380 http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/tech_data/AC/AC_A380oct09.pdf section 3-2-1 page 5-6, 747-8F http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7478sec3.pdf page 25 TGCP (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for presenting the above sources, but in wich way is this an answer to my remarks?--89.245.206.29 (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not an answer - it is a proposition to make a more helpful presentation using a diagram rather than numbers. Find those Payload/Range-curves for Antonovs, make a diagram with all of them included, and we will have a more complete picture. The An225 has higher max. payload, but shorter max. range. An and C-5 are more for odd cargo, where 747 and A380 are more for standard cargo. TGCP (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * On 10 000km range An-225 will carry way heavier payload then An-124, but not as heavy as A-380F. So even in terms of payload An-225 would be more comparable to A-380F, then the An-124. I actually don't see in which way An-124 are comparable to A-380F, other then "max payload" figure, which is very misleading if you wont take range into account. QUOTE: "The An225 has higher max. payload, but shorter max." - this is not true. An-225 have both higher max payload and max range. With 122tons AN-124 have range of 4,325 km. It is not clear from published data how heavy payload An-225 lets say on 10 000km range, but from rough approximation it would be 1.5 to 2 times higher then 55-60ton that An-124 capable of delivering there. TMForever (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Both A380F and An-124-150 do not exist, and will remain non-existant for years, so comparison is essentially theoretic (as per Fnlayson above). 747F (and future A380F) occupy the standard freight cargo market, where Antonovs (225 and 124-100) occupy the odd cargo market, and I think there is little market overlap, which may make comparison also just theoretic. As can be seen from diagram posted yesterday (below), An-124-100 and 747 are somewhat similar. Also visible is that An-225 has higher max. payload, but shorter max range than A380F will. But really, more data is needed. TGCP (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Diagram is here: http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?ijjzty0mmoo, source is http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?ig2mdvxqjgn (OpenOffice Calc) - please copy and develop. TGCP (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * -and now on Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RangePayload.PNG TGCP (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Put the A380-800F under "Future variants"?
The "future variants" section currently contains the A380-900 and the "improved" -800.

I think it would be appropriate to have a subheading there for the freighter variant too, to expand on tech specs, production schedules &c. It may also be sensible to centralise some (but not all) of the freighter-specific content that is scattered around the rest of the article. Airbus recently announced they were putting the freighter on the back burner, alongside the A380-900.

Any comments / complaints / criticisms?

bobrayner (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There already is a good bit of some coverage on the Freighter variant in the Design section and elsewhere. No reason to repeat the details in another section.  But right now it is a future variant. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks; good points. bobrayner (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Main image
I have reverted the main image to a stock original painted A380. The image of the Emirates plane was of lesser quality and made the article seem kind of "advertisement-ish". Why choose one specific carrier as the lead image if better images exist without advertisements. The current image is better quality and has a great camera angle, unlike the emirates photo which showed landing gear, and much of the body was hidden by the wing. The emirates image has been moved down with the other airlines. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please discuss such changes first, and gain a consensus to add an older pic. This is a major article, and changes to the Lead image need to be discussed first. Therefore the image has been reverted again. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:Aircraft has no policy/guidelines like that avoiding images with airlines (see WP:Air/PC images). It is already difficult to find a good quality image without adding secondary criteria.  If you check the talk page archives here you'll see multiple discussions on changing the Infobox image.  Get a consensus here to change the image. -fnlayson (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that the A380 is an airliner - its entire reason for existing is to serve in airlines in there livery. So it only makes sense to show it doing what is was designed to do - fly in airline colors. In time, a better image, perhaps in Air France or Lufthansa livery - will become availabe, and it will be in the Lead for a while. But this whole idea of excluding pics of airliners in airline livery as advertising is insidous, and it need to be curtailed - otherwise we could not use the bulk of images of aircraft posted to Commons, and that would be a great shame. - BilCat (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * False, choosing one airline over others is inappropriate if better quality unbiased ones exist. Why emirates ? Why not Lufthansa ? or Singapore Airlines ? or Qantas ? Does someone have vested interest in promoting emirates ? A unbiased image from the commons from the Paris air show, Dubai air show, or countless others would be far more appropriate. Just because there isn't a policy or guideline that says "no choosing your favorite airline for the lead photo" doesn't mean an unbiased image shouldn't be used if available. It's far more professional, and just good editing. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * False: Almost every printed book on airliners show aircraft in airliner livery, so I don't see how that is not "professional". I have no dog in the hunt concerning a particlular airline, and I'm fairly certin Fnlayson doesn't either. I really don't appreciate the insinuation that we are "biased" towards Emirates. (In fact, I'd be more likely to be biased againt them if I let unrelated factors color my opinons, which I don't.) The thing is, this article showed aircraft in Airbus livery for several years until airliner aircraft were available. If there are pics of aircraf of other airlines you feel would be better, then we can select one of them, assuming there's a consensus for a different image. Finally, since Airbus a corporation, isn't showing an aircraft in their colors also advertising? What's good for the goose...! - BilCat (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the images you listed, I think all but the Lufthansa pic have been featured int he Lead here at one time, and perhaps the Lufthansa one has too. If not, it night be a good one to use in a few months. - BilCat (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear. Bill, an SIAEC staff here is not bothered by that image file in the lead so why should he be? Oh wait, is it because SIA got to be the first to fly it? =P BTW, Bill... your speeling is going haywire again. *grin* --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 04:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No one was insinuating you had "a dog in the hunt". I was merely suggesting having a private company livery as the lead image could open the doors to someone with vested interest in a certain corp. to promote their airline. I still strongly believe the Airbus livery would be best on an Airbus article, but providing the image does get rotated regularly I can live with it. UrbanNerd (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Rereverting change - reverted text is out of date.
I fairly lightly amended the text of Production section to reflect two changes since it was written. Firstly there are now three RoRo ferries and the singular reference to Ville De Bordeaux is therefore out of date and misleading. Secondly there is now an article on the Itinéraire à Grand Gabarit that gives a fuller description of the logistics of moving A380 parts around Europe.

User:Fnlayson reverted this with the comment ''Revert, wording was more accurate before and clearly reference. The route has its own article Itinéraire à Grand Gabarit with details.''

I don't understand this comment. My change did not remove any references, so if it was clearly referenced before, it still was after my change. And the fact that the route has it own article was precisely one of the reasons for making the change. So I'm going to rerevert the change. I'm not trying to start an edit war, so perhaps you could explain what it was you didn't like about my change, we can try and come up with something that keeps you happy but isn't (like to the implication of one ferry) plain wrong. -- Starbois (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've also now added a reference to substantiate the fact that transport is now by a fleet of RoRo ferries, rather than just the one. The ref was already in Itinéraire à Grand Gabarit, but not putting it here was an oversight. -- Starbois (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

A380-1000
I hear rumours about a certain version of this aircraft, namely, the A380-1000. Might be something to add under the future variants section? Xertoz (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not do rumors and blogs are generally not reliable sources. Wait until there's something more substantial on this. Also, the blog seems to describe the future A380-900 variant, which is already mentioned in this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is perhaps notable, as a by-the-by mention, that the German version of this article lists far more variants of this aircraft that is listed in the English one. Not speaking German myself, I can't do much to fix the situation, but if someone with the necessary fluency comes by and reads this, it'd be nice to get resolved.


 * Until yet, Airbus has only spoken of a bigger variant, depending on the configuration up to 1000 passengers, but this would be the A380-900. A smaller version, the -700 was former apparently planned (I saw this in a book), but never (?) public spoken by Airbus. Cirrocumulus (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at the German version. Mgw89 (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

what about criticisms of the A380 program, failures, the scandals, etc?
There are a number of negative things associated with the A380 project that are absent from the article, so it reads like a gee-whiz booster article. Most experts project the A380 as a money-loser over its lifetime. The article touts that it has a lower cost of operation than predecessors, but doesn't mention that that the sum total lower cost of operation will never pay back the cost of developing and producing these planes, nor earn enough extra to pay the shareholders for putting up the money, as it bleeds taxpayers in the countries that subsidize it. This isn't a shocker either, as Boeing elected in advance not to compete with a new airplane in this class because they didn't think there was room for even one such model in the market, let alone two. Not to mention the insider trading scandal. Not to mention the government interference and horse trading for jobs that led to the engineering and assembly messes. Search the article for WTO or "launch aid", and then google. Another way to see the "whitewashing" is to compare the tone of the article to just the headlines of the referenced articles down at the bottom. Look at the Airbus_A380 section, which says that Airbus is waiting till the assembly line settles down. That statement is not backed by the source materials, what they say is that all the freighter customers cancelled their orders, including UPS btw which is not referenced there. Yes these things are mentioned in a very passing way elsewhere article, but these are not passing things for a huge program where losses run into the billions. 71.190.72.55 (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear American ("taxpayers") Boeing fanboy. First thing, the lower cost of operation is for the airlines, it doesn't change anything to the development costs for the manufacturer. The cancellation of the 388F aircrafts is detailled in the "Orders and deliveries" section. Launch aids are also given by the US govt to Boeing, you should read the actual WTO report, not only the biaised Boeing PR about it. Finally, you can't say if such a program is losing money since sales of the A380 also allowed to sell other models (like "can you give me a discount for 3 A380 if we buy 5 A330 and 5 A350 as well?"). Unless you have any reliable source, such mention can't be done today. Slasher-fun (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the insult and the snarly tone, you are making my point better than I can. I didn't say take lower cost of operation out, it's important. I said include the widespread projections that the program will never pay back the investment; a "Criticism" section in wikipedia need only be expert opinions, look at movie criticism, for example, and many other criticism sections all over wikipedia. Plus, publicly traded companies must release official and accurate projections, and analysts and ratings agencies also so the same, it's the basis of the whole finance industry (not just my or your opinion). I'm simply saying add more to the article, tell the fuller story, the truth. It's an interesting history.
 * you are correct, companies do make their orders in combinations of models. For example, UPS had 37 A300 freighters on order, which Airbus traded (canceled) because it preferred that UPS order 10 A380F instead. Then after delays and problems, when Airbus pulled everybody off the A380F project (immediately after promising UPS that the planes would be on time), UPS cancelled the A380F order. So not just losing the last A380F customer, the freighter fiasco cost Airbus over 20 billion euro of A300 backorders. Airbus has zero orders for the freighter, after customer cancellations. To say that Airbus is waiting for assembly to settle down is false, there are zero customers for a product that they offered. Yes, it is true that they couldn't produce enough (see next section) so Airbus focused on passenger planes, but the freighter section of the article should tell the truth about what happened with the freighter and perhaps also discuss why the plane is not as well suited as a freighter. 71.190.72.55 (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * the article very cleverly says that Airbus scaled the assembly line to produce 4 A380s per month; Airbus averages less than 1 per month. Why paint such a rosy picture of a troubled program? I'm not taking sides on the launch aid or WTO ruling, I just think it's weird that it's not mentioned at all. As I said, look at the pretty picture the wiki article paints documented by ref'ed news articles, then look at the bottom in the reference section to see the scathing headlines the news articles use: the wiki article should be more accurate 71.190.72.55 (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad you liked it. You said exactly "it has a lower cost of operation than predecessors, but doesn't mention that that the sum total lower cost of operation will never pay back the cost of developing and producing these planes": the airlines benefit from the lower cost of operation, and didn't pay the cost of developing the planes, so you're mixing up things here. Delivery delays are in the "delivery delays" section, and it's true that Airbus is still experiencing heavy delays in the production (but so does Boeing with the 787 for example). True that nobody wants the A380F for now (and the economic situation ain't going to make this better), but this exists for other aircrafts as well (A340-500, B787-3, B747-8i, etc), I don't think this fact is mistreated here. Slasher-fun (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I confused you by appearing to "mix things", but I wanted to make my point in a few words, and I was applying microeconomic thinking that you are not familiar with. Consider it this way: if you were developing a plane yourself to use yourself, you would think to yourself "it costs more to build, but it costs less to operate, hmmm are the overall savings worth the extra costs?" and you would do the math. The market does the same math in a competitive marketplace (you know, "Anglo-Saxon" markets that French blame for all their problems) even though it is a producer and a customer doing the parts of the math separately; the difference is mediated in the market price of the plane. A plane that is very cheap to operate can justify a high price. A plane that is expensive to produce must have a high price. Unfortunately, the A380 has a low price, they lose money on every plane they sell. Rather than make the statement that the selling price of the plane is too low (which reflects many factors), I pointed out that the article talks about the parts of the equation that make the A380 look good (cost of operation), but plays down the parts that make the A380 look bad (low price and thin orderbook, project will never be paid for). A380 has something over 200 orders but it needs 200 more to break even. Very few have been ordered recently, and there are no obvious sources for new orders. As it is, strangely one airline, Emirates, is 40% of the orders. What is Emirates going to do with all those planes? Fly to Europe and depress the market for other European carriers and planes? 71.190.72.55 (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * not only is A380 late, production has not ramped up as was planned, and airlines continue to be informed even recently that planes which were due this year will not be ready till next year. 71.190.72.55 (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Name a company that is pushing their production to the max during one of the worst recessions to ever happen. Likewise, where did they state that they'd be making these things at maximum capacity by date X? Often aircraft take many years before production is ramped up, take a look at the B-52 or several other American projects. It's as much about getting your supply chain together as anything else, if Airbus has their act together that doesn't mean all of the thousands of suppliers do yet. And rumour had it that in 2009, airlines were urging thecompany to slow their production down, the last thing they wanted with fewer seats being sold is the operating costs of a brand new aircraft being dumped on them. In short, it's silly to expect it to leap up to full rate instantly, as that doesn't usually happen with any aircraft let alone one with the unfortunant timing this one had. The fact it isn't at this rate yet...means absolutely nothing. Or will you reason the 747 to be a failure on the same grounds as well? Finally, in the last seven months, ten aircraft have been made. By my maths, that's more than one a month, the production line is speeding up. Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Kyteto, this is not a debate about your opinion versus my opinion, it's about representing all sides of what is in the news about the A380. And recession doesn't mean you can't fill orders, it means many companies don't have enough orders. So, name a company that is pushing their production to the max in a recession? AIRBUS! They have an order backlog of over 200 planes which will take them a decade to clear. They say themselves that they are pushing as fast as they can, though they don't really say why they have failed to meet their own targets. In terms of what usually happens with production rates, I'm simply asking that the page tell the actual story of the production history for the A380. (The B-52 is off the subject, but anyway it was a very short program, the last one was made in 1962. It's amazing that they will still be flying and useful 70 to 80 years after they were built, but in a sense that's not good for the manufacturer, they haven't had a customer for the B-52 since the only customer 50 years ago, so it could turn out a bit like the A380.) 71.190.72.55 (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, it isn't about people's opinions. But it isn't yet a fact that they've broken their ramp up plans/promise, as normally it takes many years to ramp up an aircraft's production. The 737 took the best part of a decade as I recall. Right now, we can't tell the difference between if they are or aren't going to hit full production, as they never stated "We will hit full production by X date", simply that they will likely hit a unit rate per month at some indiscriminate time. Now if production had came to an end, we could say that for certain that they did not make the target, but right now it simply isn't remarkable at all as we can't tell WHEN that target was supposed to be met, and under what criteria. We can't use the article to attack Airbus on this statement if they A. Didn't plan to have it up to that rate by this point (which'd be a POV assumption on our part and very challengable). B. If there is no chance, within reasonable doubt, that the rate will be met (once again, it'd be POV to call it). C. The rumours that they were told to slow down by their own customers, if true, would put it beyond their control, as would a number of possibilities that are not beyond reasonable doubt. What we could do however is to simply state that this production rate has yet to be reached yet. This removes the room for A, B, and C, turning it from an accusatory tone to an unarguable statement of fact that leaves the truthful possibility open that these rates may be achieved as planned under a timetable we are not privy to. And do remember, it is more than the current total number of orders that justifies the production rate, many many criteria are used by businesses of all functions and sizes to decide to expand in certain areas, such as the rate orders are coming in, or simply the availability of supporting secondary industries. Not point building a second factory if you burn through your orders in three years to simply shut it down again, likewise with the A380, basic business sense says to keep it at a good rate ahead of orders but not to burn through them only a few years. This is the same priniciple behind most aircraft construction, if you study the order rates/production rates per year of several aircraft, it isn't as out of whack as some people may portray it as. You manner of calculating the production rate is odd as well, simply taking the number of months since first delivery and the total delivered is odd, and ignorant to the obvious ramping effect that can be witnessed if you take each year on its own. Quite why you expect it to jump up to the maximum rate instantly is beyond me, no aircraft launch has ever been like that, so why hold this one to an unrealistic and never-before performed standard? Planes take years to ramp production, that's the norm.Kyteto (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please write about things that can go in the article or are in and should be taken out. Airbus has made specific promises about delivery quantities and dates, a greater rate than they have been able to achieve even today. You say they have not, this makes you simply completely incorrect. And if you think as you suggest that Airbus will burn through the A380 order book and then have no more orders waiting in a few years, then you agree with the cited/sourced/referenced analysts who say that the project is a $20 billion writeoff that should never have been started in the first place. I don't plan to respond back to you again, OK? Just don't think that I agree with you or think what you write makes sense. 71.190.72.157 (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well what is the specific date then? That's the reason for my statement, I did not know that there was one, and you did not mention one or provide the reference, so how was I supposed to know with what you gave me? The above statements were one of a position of logic, stating that we needed a date to proceed. As we had a date, for whatever reason you're not telling us even now, then the objection is mooted. I'm stating that we have to be very careful with what we stated, if the rate was made with no date given, or we hadn't hit that date already, then we couldn't start yell at the top of our lungs that they didn't make it, simple as. I believe we could have been in violation of UK Libel laws, though I'd like to see them try enforcing them here, hence criticisms of companies have to be made CAREFULLY. Incidently, it would be nice to see what reference. I added about half of this article's current references, but I don't claim to know everything, and  its new information to me, I'm interested. Kyteto (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Remember: you can add anything you want in the article as long as it's correctly sourced. So instead of discussing, add it ;-) Slasher-fun (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am adding more to wikipedia by adding my comments here. I have been around wikipedia a long time, and I know how it works. When there is a page that it maintained by adoring fans (and probably employees with an agenda; not criticizing wikpedia or employees with agenda, it's human nature), negative truth will never remain, the groupthink will eliminate it. I am sure if we check the history for this page we can see previous attempts to correct the record get edited away. So instead, I think it better to add shame on you to this page, and point out all the whitewash and bias in the ordinary editing of the A380 article so far. 71.190.72.55 (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 71.xxx, simply claiming bias without giving real specifics is not helpful. You have addressed some points above, but they are still somewhat general, and mostly OR analysis, which is not useable without specific sources. It's fine that you criticized the way you did, but adding "shame on you" to this page is not in any way constructive. In addition, claims of whitewashing and bias aren't helpful either, and will just alienate the very more-neutral editors such as myself who would otherwise be inclined to assist you in improving the article. - BilCat (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You say "adding "shame on you" to this page is not in any way constructive" and I could not agree more. However, addressing someone as "Dear American ("taxpayers") Boeing fanboy" is also similarly unconstructive, yet it's only the IP editor, with their concerns about PoV-or-lack-of-it in the article, who gets pulled up for their choice of words. I am sure (I hope) that it is inadvertent but I must say as an uninvolved passerby that it does give me an impression about which I have reservations, Surely we should WP:AGF both ways? Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I just want to clarify, my "shame on you" was non-specific in two ways: I wasn't actually stating it at that moment, I was using that phrase as a shorthand label to characterize what I had already said. But I should have been more clear, it was not directed at an individual, it was directed at whatever community of wikians had in the past collectively but in my belief actively ignored everything negative they read about the A380. As I showed below, in two easy places in the article (not the only two, simply the first two) I went to the same sources that were already cited in the article and I found a great deal of solid industry criticism of the entire A380 program, criticism that should not have been ignored the first time around. Suggesting that one person (me, who is not an industry expert, buff, nor even that interested) should go through everything written by a group of other people who are page maintainers I think is a silly model for running wikipedia. Countless non-expert readers of this page from many walks of life come through here, and I think it is a crying shame that they are reading a hagiography of the A380 that does not reflect the facts of history. Here is a nice 2010 industry overview, only a teeny bit outdated by developments this year That overview has a lot of detail that can be verified by simple googling; it says plenty of positive things about Boeing and Airbus (no doubt fans will cherry pick it for those) but also points out their negatives, and suggests that at this point in time it still makes sense for Airbus to consider cancelling the entire A380 program because (this is implied not stated exactly) paying the billions in penalties would be cheaper than actually building and selling the planes for the next decades. Cancelling the program would not mean the end of Airbus and the end of jobs, and the end of prestige for European aerospace, it would free European aerospace to focus on building modern middle market planes to replace the 320, 330 and 340 and the 737, 767 and 777 which are the models that have supported both companies for years and serve the biggest and most profitable future markets. 71.190.72.55 (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * True, my "Dear American ("taxpayers") Boeing fanboy" was maybe a bit overreacting, apologies for that. Slasher-fun (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I was only addressing the IP because his concerns are valid, yet he was doing his own cause harm. I simply chose not to address the other user at that point, though my comment on "more-neutral editors" was aimed in his direction. :) - BilCat (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough and thank you very much for the nice response. DBaK (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I just made changes to two paragraphs in the introduction section. I think the basis of my changes is quite interesting. But first let me say, I'm not rooting for Airbus or the A380 to fail; I like the plane, and I like competition, it's good for consumers, and european companies doing well and creating wealth will make the world economy better for everybody; however, large scale boondoggles bailed out by taxpayers make everybody poorer. (1) So, in the first paragraph I changed, I simply used the article that was already cited! I just included the omitted facts from the article. In 1995 the entire scenario that has played out was predicted/reported in the LA Times (though not predicted were the overruns on the A380 that have cost billions in additional losses). (2) In the second paragraph, I realized that the cited article was a "letter to the editor" written by a former Airbus exec, so I looked up the article it was in response to and included the points from that article for balance. I also included an additional article which quoted a noted analysts who reiterated the same points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.72.55 (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think several key additional areas need to be fixed. (1) as I previously mentioned, the article states that the assembly is scaled for 4 planes a month, but the article itself elsewhere shows that for two and a half years the production has averaged 1 plane a month. It should (according to Airbus) as of now be 2 planes a month; productivity for the rest of the year will show if that is true, however Airbus informed Korea Air that they will not get their plane on time so it looks at least somewhat iffy. (2) The discussion of the freighter should be expanded to explain why the design has not been well received in the market. The plane is heavy (increasing fuel and landing costs), it does not open in front like the 747 (complicating loading for anybody except Fedex and UPS and they are a minority of the market), and long range is not important in freight (they don't want to pay to carry all that extra fuel since packages don't mind layovers. I read that A380F flights from Asia to the US would stop in Anchorage anyway). (3) the article should mention the words WTO and "launch aid", should mention the insider trading scandals, should mention more detail on cancellation history and costs. Then of course all the above needs to be rewoven into the article in multiple places as the bad news is currently sprinkled around in a way that does not reveal the comprehensiveness of the problems with the program. This was mostly predicted back in 1995. 71.190.72.55 (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

So did anyone ever get going on criticisms? I've been hovering around this page for a few months and nothing new has been added. I would like to see a section go up, but I don't have the resources or depth of understanding to do it myself.CivEngAlyssa (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No probably because on analysis they dont pass WP:WEIGHT. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)