Talk:Airbus A330neo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reduction of fuel burn

The article announces a very interesting feature: "these enhancements will reduce the fuel burn by 14% per seat". Great. With 310 seats that makes 4.340 percent less fuel burn. I really didn´t expect this plane to be that sensational... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:DC52:740:20A:95FF:FED9:670E (talk • contribs)

If you have any problems/objections to anything on the article, please be clear. What you stated above is sourced material. If you were trying to comment on how the aircraft is, this isn't the place. This is a talk page where users discuss various issues on the article. To learn more about talk pages, see WP:Talk page guidelines, Help:Introduction to talk pages and Help:Using talk pages.

Thanks, Rihaz (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is the math of the article. How shall some enhancements "reduce the fuel burn by 14% per seat"? Look at my calculation above. If there is anything unclear, please ask. My suggestion would be to simply say what is really going on, and that would probably be that the bird reduces fuel burn by 14%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:DC52:740:20A:95FF:FED9:670E (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The "14%" wasn't math done by us, it was by Airbus. It is also not seen as a fact, rather as a claim. This article simply mentions that claim and the phrase "Airbus claims" is also written prior to it so that people know this isn't a universally proven fact.

Just to let you know, calculating things like fuel burn is highly complicated business where dozens of parameters need to be considered, the number of seats is just one of them. Other factors include: the weight of the aircraft, the dimensions of the aircraft, amount of thrust used, wind speed any countless more. Rihaz (talk) 10:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

To my mind it does definitely not make sense to spread things like "14% per seat" on wikipedia. Even if someone at Airbus just published this as a personal opinion, this is not a platform for stuff like that. I am a pilot and I know for sure how complicated fuel burn calculations can be. But that has nothing to do with this issue. The article is misleading, so would someone please edit it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:DC52:740:20A:95FF:FED9:670E (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I am going to make this very clear to you. Whether you like it or not, whatever is said in the article by Airbus that you "think" doesn't make sense is just a possible prediction by the company. And even with your calculations at the beginning, you claiming you know how complicated fuel burn is, and also claiming that you are a pilot, it really doesn't support the argument you are trying to make here. Even if a four year old knew how to calculate fuel burn, it would not be enough to change what is written about the A330neo's reduction of fuel burn. The article is not misleading just because you claim it is, and you just going on and wasting your time calculating how much fuel the aircraft actually burns. It is a prediction Airbus made. Does that make sense? The article is not going to change just cause you calculated the actual fuel burn. It is going to stay the way it is now until Airbus releases new information about how much fuel it will actually burn after they have done some further development. End of story. This discussion is over. Please continue on with your more important matters. Thanks! --PilotJaguar1996 (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive IP Edits

I am looking to see if there is any possibility to have IP's not having the ability to edit the Airbus A330neo page. @Piper13: raised this concern on my talk page. And this has been on my mind for some time, but have not been able to address the problem until now.

Recently, and in the past, there have been numerous IP editors that would add a new row to the firm orders table, stating an airline has placed a firm order when it states that it is a commitment above. The most recent problem deals with the Arkia Israel Airlines commitment. When it was announced that the airline has announced a commitment for four A330-800neo aircraft, there was an IP editor that added it as a firm order to the table. Since I am one of the main users that keep an eye on this page, I saw that it was an incorrect edit, removed it from the firm orders table, and stated it was a commitment above. From then on, there have been IP edits where it was readded to the table and I removed it. Just recently, there was another IP that added it again, and Piper13 removed it, and raised this concern on my talkpage.

Let me reiterate that this is NOT the only problem I am wanting to addressing. I also want to address these kinds of edits that have occurred previously. In the past, there have been other IP editors that have added a new row for a firm order to the firm orders table when the airline only announced a commitment. What Piper13 and myself are trying to see if there is anyway that only registered Wikipedia users can make any edits to the A330neo page from now on. Is there a possibility that IP editors can no longer edit the page?

Appreciate the help! --PilotJaguar1996 (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I have the article on my watchlist and if the IPs cause issues I can deal with it but not all IPs are disruptive so it would not be fair if the article was locked down for just registered users. If the IPs cause disruption by not talking and continual editing then they can be blocked but the level of activity may be anoying but is not at disruptive levels. If you have an issue then please raise it here and I or another admin will help. MilborneOne (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If things get too bad and get to the level it can be classified as vandalism or disruption of facts, we can request semi protection from an admin. However, I personally don't think things are that bad YET. I will ask CambridgeBayWeather to keep an eye on things and take actions if he feels the need to do so. Rihaz (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

MilborneOne is an admin also. - BilCat (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm so sorry MilborneOne! I didn't notice you were in this thread! I guess the issue of semi protecting this page can be left to you then. Rihaz (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

List of Airbus A330neo orders and deliveries

When will it be a good time to create a List of Airbus A330neo orders and deliveries? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

When the first aircraft is delivered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.78.176 (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Airbus A330neo orders and deliveries are already listed in detail at List of Airbus A330 orders and deliveries. SempreVolando (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

So should the Airbus A330neo#Orders paragraph be trimmed to the most important info and a link to the list given? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

merge from Airbus A330#A330neo

The Airbus A330#A330neo section was way too long and redundant with the present article. As it has the Template:Main article, this section should be trimmed to the most important info, likely the intro of this A330neo article. So the information in the A330 article should be transferred to the present one. I've done that, and the merge was tedious. The process in available in detail at User:Marc_Lacoste/sandbox/A330neo history. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

5.1% lower fuel burn vs. 242t −300

From the A330 merge, in #Launch, there was a ref to aspire aviation claiming "The 14% fuel burn reduction per seat is for the new −900neo compared to the previous 235-tonne −300 version, it is 8.5% more efficient per seat against the newer 242-tonne −300 [...] block fuel burn is 5.1% lower". Such a small improvement is surprising, as is such a large difference between the 235t and the 242t ceo. Airbus claim a 2% improvement between them [1] (1% aero, 1% engine [2]). So the neo improvement should be 12% block fuel, 14% per seat vs. 235t ceo, 10% block fuel, 12% per seat vs. 242t ceo. Tsang is usually credible, but this time his weight analysis is insufficient, as debated in its comments by aeroturbopower. Should the claim be removed? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Smaller than the B787?

Is this plane then supposed to be smaller than current A330s? It doesn't seem like that to me. But it has a longer range than the dreamliner and the current A330s are considered rivals to the current B777-200Ers.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it's the 777X that is way larger than the original 777-200 (not ER, with capabilities comparable to the A330-300). The small 777-8X is a 350t, ~360pax, 8700nmi plane comparable to the A350, not the 242t, 287pax 6550nmi large A330-900. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

To editor Marc Lacoste:, if the Airbus 350 can be put in the comparable aircraft section, and the airbus 350 is characterized as being in the same market as the Boeing 777x, wouldn't it be sensible to add the B777x as a comparable aircraft to the A330neo?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@NadirAli: I wouldn't mind the A350 being removed from the comparables.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor Marc Lacoste:, are you sure you want to do that? Some airlines have swapped their A350 orders for A330neos.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor Marc Lacoste:, we have the same on Airbus 350, where the A330neo is listed as a comparable aircraft.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@NadirAli: The A350-800 was comparable to the A330neo capacity, but it won't be done. When Airbus will reach an agreement with Asiana over the last 8 orders and will cancel definitely the A358, this comparison will be moot.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor Marc Lacoste:, that's understandable. But to clarify with you, would you say that the A330neo is even remotely in the same market as the B777-8x? If so is it safe to add it in the comparable aircraft section?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@NadirAli: they're both widebody twinjets, but the closest Boeing is the 787, slightly more capable already.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor Marc Lacoste:, OK that's fine, but would the B777-8x fall by any chance in the comparable aircraft section of the A330neo?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@NadirAli: only if Boeing had not the 787.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Dates not sticking with a format throughout the article

Throughout the article, both the European and American styles of date citation are used. I don't know how it's decided which to use, but I suggest we decide on a date format and then change the article to reflect the chosen format. Thoughts, anyone? Blinkfan (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I only found one date that was different and I have changed it to DMY per the rest of the article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Data of 251t MTOW version seems confirmed

Isn't it time to update range and maybe cabin size? --Rabenkind (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

it was already confirmed by airbus in Nov. 2017. I updated a bit the article with your leeham ref. Perhaps it's a little early to update it further (lead and main specs): we could wait till a 251t version is rolled out and/or the advertised specs are updated in the coming weeks? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

main pic change

As it was displayed at Farnborough, new images have emerged, in clean config and in a banked turn, showing its upper side :

• 
  current
• 
  more level
• 
  more banked
• 
  better sky but a little from behind

Do you think it would be worth changing the main picture?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Kuwait Airways -800 order, firm or not?

An order for eight -800s by Kuwait Airways has recently been added here (and reverted) multiple times; in the first instances with either no reference or a reference to a "preliminary" order. The latest addition cited a Bloomberg article [3] which contained no suggestion that this is not yet a firm order; as a result I tidied the insertion but it has now been reverted. Is this order firm, or isn't it? Rosbif73 (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The Airbus PR states "Kuwait Airways [...] has signed a Purchase Agreement (PA)". It should be the wording used in the article. I've added it this way to avoid edit wars with IP who insists it must be the most important order ever. If you prefer, it could be put aside of the table in the text, but I'm afraid the IPs will continue. It should appear in the Airbus O&D in the future. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Incidentally, the Variants section mentions a July 2018 order from Uganda Airlines for two -800s. Surprised nobody has tried adding it to the table yet... Any idea how firm that order is? Rosbif73 (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, not in Airbus O&D yet. In a few days, the IPs will have forget and we could move the kuwait order in text as well.--Marc Lacoste (talk)

The wing area and aspect ration are wrong

• A330: 361.6 m2 (3,892 sq ft), 25% chord wingsweep: 30°,[208] 10.06 Aspect ratio
• A330NEO (current state of this article): 64 m (210 ft) span, 7.270 m (23.85 ft) mean chord, 465 m2 (5,010 sq ft) area, 8.8 AR[45]

Basic planform of the wing has not changed beyond adding wing tip devices to extend span from 60.3m to 64m. this should have pushed AR well beyond the 10.06 of the base model. ZwergAlw (talk) 08:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The reference is EASA's TCDS, stating a 7.27m mean chord, for a 64*7.27 area and a 64/7.27 aspect ratio. This includes the fuselage part within the wing area, not included in the A330ceo's AR. Note that the EASA did not changed the mean chord from the ceo to the neo.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

EASA's TCDS ( actually the archived version:EASA's TCDS, archived.Doesn't contain any dimensional information beyond wingspan, length, ...

but NOT aspect ratio, chord, ...

then it is surprising that Airbus or EASA should have changed their wing definitions.

Though those are different to Boeing. some other slightly different definitions around too.ZwergAlw (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The source is stating the same 7,27m mean chord both for 330neo and the old -200/300 variants.

Does that mean Airbus reworked the entire wing to keep its chord the same in spite of the changed wingspan?

Or is that number in the source just obviously unreliable and should not be cited? 84.114.128.74 (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit: in the source the Mean Aerodynamic Chord is given, which is different from the Standard Mean Chord and seemingly has no fixed relation to wingspan or wing area.

(I.e. does not follow the Area = Span * standard mean chord formula) 84.114.128.74 (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

lighter design

It's minor nitpick, but I'm not sure the comments from The Airline Monitor's Ed Greenslet should be kept: the A330neo would have the advantage of not being designed to fly 8,000 nmi, unlike the A350 and Boeing 787 which were thus less economical on shorter route is outdated as the A330neo has a similar ~250t MTOW now (and has the same wing as the 275t max A340), like the would enjoy a monopoly in its segment instantly", with the Boeing 767 "essentially out of production (the 787-8 is closer), the Boeing 757 not replaced while the A321neo and the 737-9 are smaller and had less range (The 757 can be relplaced by the A321LR/XLR).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

As I said in edit summaries, that's what Greenslet thought about the A330neo based on what was known at that time. The paragraph in question begins "In 2014" so I don't think we're misleading anyone. Sure, it could be argued that the whole paragraph is no longer relevant, but I would suggest that it is just as much an indication of industry opinion at the time of the launch as Leahy and Conner's comments in the subsequent paragraphs. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Brighter main image?

The current image is good but is a little dark, this image is near identical but a bit brighter what do you think?

• 
  current
• 
  proposed

The position is worse, as it is a little from behind (the wingtips exaggerate the effect). The proposed picture is also less contrasty, with no shadows, while the current one is under a sunny sky, not an overcast one. I think It's bright enough, the proposed one is a bit overexposed, but I lightened the current one a bit. Ctrl+shift+R to reload and bypass the cache, to see the change. The comparison is possible in the file history.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC) remember to sign your edits in the talk page with --~~~~

section order

There is a guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Body: 1. Development 2. Design 3. Operational history 4. Variants 5. Operators (other sections are not applicable).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Changing the main pic to an in-service aircraft?

At this point, the neo has been in service for over a year. Other pages replace the prototype aircraft with an actual in-service example, so why are we sticking with the Airbus prototype? Why not replace it with something like one of these photos:-- unsigned, 22 June 2020 user:Pabst blue ribbon led zeppelin

• 
  current
• 
  A -900 of Azul Brazilian Airlines
• 
  A -900 of TAP Air Portugal

The point of the main picture is to show the airliner configuration, the livery does not matter. In this respect, I think the current one better shows the airliner general configuration, with the low wing not obstructing the fuselage. That said, I agree the manufacturer livery conveys an idea of "not yet in service", avoided by the other pictures. The best picture would be a view similar to the current one, with an airline livery! The TAP picture should be avoided if possible as it points right, not towards the text.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

We should change it to picture 2 because its high-res and it shows the plane in a natural manner, unlike the current one RoanDM (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The current one better shows the airliner general configuration, and that's what's important.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

To check if there were better airline pics, I went through all A330neo pictures to curate a gallery in commons, but the commons:Airbus_A330neo#Airline section is quite poor for now. Maybe better later.--Marc Lacoste (talk)

neo suffix

Hi. I want to propose the omission of the variants' 'neo' suffix while keeping the programme name as is. Airbus initially added the 'neo' suffix on the A330-800 and -900 during its launch in 2014, but they quietly dropped it in their website. This is because they have already differentiated it with the ceo variants, the -200 and -300. A similar case of this is the Boeing 777X program where they dropped the variants' 'X' suffix. I suggest that the pages of the airlines that ordered the Airbus A330neo, and the page of the Airbus A330neo itself should be edited where the 'neo' suffix is omitted. Removing the 'neo' suffix will not only make the variants' cleaner, but also more proper.

AngstLil (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia's naming goals are not "cleaner and proper" but the most widespread name in usage (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) applies the WP:COMMONNAME policy) Right now there are 238k results for "A330-900", 194k for A330-800 and 791k for A330neo. It may change later. And in its latest press release about the A330, Airbus still calls it the A330neo.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Airbus A330neo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mark83 (talk · contribs) 11:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   A long way away on 1a.
   Tense needs to be reviewed throughout. A lot of things in current or future tense which are now long in the past.
   Some things need to be reviewed due to passage of time, e.g. low fuel prices. Things have changed.
   Repeated references to the effect of the A350-800 on this aircraft. Make the point once.
   Undue focus on individuals. I don't care what "Steve Mason, CIT vice president for aircraft analysis" thinks, just leave it at what CIT as an organisation thinks. Same with "Ed Greenslet" -- notable? Richard Aboulafia??
   Some descriptions not encyclopedic, e.g. "sales chief", "boss", "head of" - what are the actual titles?
   Lots of run-on sentences.
   WP:TECHNICAL: Lots of inaccesible language. I am closer to this topic than the average reader and some things made little or no sense to me. E.g. "station 40 centre fuselage and wings join", "supersonic shock wave interference drag, as is the first slat's dog-tooth. The wing twist and belly fairings are tweaked to approach the lowest drag elliptical span-wise pressure distribution changed by the larger sharklets, like the flap track fairings shape..."
   Too many links in some cases (of course needs to be balance with point above).
   2nd para in Production section is a bit of a mess.
   Lots of terms not adequately explained, e.g. I know what FAA, EASA, FL, MTOW, ETOPS all mean. Most readers won't. Other terms abbreviated at first occurence, and explained further down (e.g. Boeing NMA). Dreamliner mentioned with no reference to the 787, again some readers won't know.
   Overlinking - same terms linked multiple times, e.g. Trent 7000. Again, some are not linked on first occurence and linked further down. e.g. MTOW.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I'm sure some tidyup needed for FA status, but very well referenced for a GA.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Gets bogged down in some unnecessary detail. e.g. why is there so much focus on Hawaiian's deliberations?
   The whole Market section needs a review. Well referenced, but still speculative? And lots of repetition from points made earlier in the article.
   Article goes into so much detail on contributing factors to fuel burn, and in so many different contexts and sections that by the end of the article I was bored by this detail.
   Another example is repeated references to how many flight test hours have been planned/logged at different points - needs to be considerably trimmed and tightened up.
   Introduction section - gets bogged down in unnecessary route-planning detail of an airline and cabin layout.
   There are 5 different charts covering different elements of orders, deliveries, and customers but there is massive duplication amongst these; some consideration/discussion would be useful to understand if fewer charts could convey the same information. As it is, it feels a bit confusing.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   This one can be quite easily fixed - undoubtedly the article has been written from a NPOV perspective, I just feel that there is far too much presentation of Airbus' POV via quotations/sales forecasts/its market analysis. The manufacturer's hopes and aspirations aren't verifiable facts, they are hopes and aspirations and in fact to some extent part of the sales/marketing drive.
   What is Space-Flex and Smart-Lav? Need explanations or removal, the latter I suggest.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Some recent edit warring but seems to be isolated.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The article is about the A330neo, so not sure why we have images of A350 and A330ceo. There for context I assume, but if so let's explain in caption. Should: clearly identifiy the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious; be succinct; establish the picture's relevance to the article; provide context for the picture; draw the reader into the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Lots of quick fixes above. But lots of work needed on prose.

Repeated references to the effect of the A350-800

user:Ich-Du-De deleted launching the A330neo would probably kill the smallest A350-800 stating the GA review "Repeated references to the effect of the A350-800 on this aircraft. Make the point once." It's an editorial PoV from the GA reviewer. I don't think a diversity of opinions on the A350-800 irrelevance due to the 330neo is detrimental, on the opposite it shows a wide consensus on the matter from multiple commentators.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

First, thanks for initiating the discussions, which is based on the Talk:Airbus A330neo/GA1 by Mark83. I think we can all agree that differing opinions on a subject show a broad consensus among several commentators. But in our case, it was more "same opinion" than diversity because all the commentators were just repeating what John Leahy said earlier. He said that "An A330neo would accelerate the demise of the similarly sized A350-800", which was repeated by CIT Group and Air Lease Corp. saying that "they saw no sustainable coexistence of the two aircraft" and also The Airline Monitor with "launching the A330neo would probably kill the smallest A350-800". Therefore the GA reviewer suggested "Make the point once", that is, we should put all comments in a paragraph right after the para on Leahy's statement. In addition, there were basically only two different opinions, one from John Leahy - Airbus (pro A330neo) supported by other / lessors and the other from Ray Conner - Boeing (A330neo has little chance against the 787). Accordingly, only both people are worth mentioning. Ich-Du-De (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

It's your POV, and this would be wp:OR. This is not the opinion of Leahy repeated multiple times, this is the opinion of various commentators, unless you have a ref for this hypothesis.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Order by date

user:Ich-Du-De changed the order of the sentences to reflect the apparent order of facts, but it doesn't: the facts are coming in the order of the references, with some looking into the future. To avoid any wp:synthesis, the best thing is to avoid various references for 1 sentence. Refs integrity is paramount. The flow could be improved, though.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The GA reviewer points out that "2nd para in Production section is a bit of a mess". One aspect is, I think, the order of the occurrences in the para "The Trent 7000s were installed later during the summer, so that the first flight was delayed until September 2017"...and two lines later..."The engines were shipped to Airbus in June ." It would be easier for the average reader to read it the other way around. Regarding the order of the reference dates is not that important, because a newer occurrence can be cited by older refeence than an older one. Where, the "order of the date of references" is not that important, because a newer occurrence can be cited by an older dated source than an older occurrence. Ich-Du-De (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Keeping the ref orders is an easy way to avoid temporality mistakes. You can try to reformulate the sentences, perhaps even change their order (but I'm not sure it would be necessary) but avoid mixing two facts with two refs within a single sentence, it leads to wp:synthesis.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Initial A350 concept picture, based on the A330 ceo

In the §Studies section, I added an early A350 concept pic a few years ago. It was replaced by user:Ich-Du-De by an A330ceo pic:

• The initial A350 concept, based on the A330ceo
• The baseline of the A330neo as well as the initial A350 concept is the A330ceo, shown here its first prototype in Airbus Livery (1992)

It was because of the GA reviewer stating "The article is about the A330neo, so not sure why we have images of A350?", but the GA reviewer seems to not be aware the early A350 (not XWB) was just a slightly improved A330ceo, really comparable to the final A330neo. Anyway, both pictures could be kept as an additional A330ceo picture could be inserted too, a good thing to show would be the most prominent external changes : old winglets and smaller engines. There is a commons gallery to pick from. Maybe on the ground from above, to best show the old winglet, and with a long duct trent 700? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The fact that the GA reviewer does not seem to know the original A350 concept is actually intentional, because the average reader does not know that either. Such readers would expect to see a picture of the A330neo model, or a mockup, as the title of the article suggests. Therefore, in the absence of such an image, I took the design baseline, the A330ceo, and added a caption saying that the A330neo and the original A350 concept are both based on the A330ceo. I think this can live up to the GA reviewer's suggestion: "be succinct; establish the picture's relevance to the article; provide context for the picture; draw the reader into the article". Ich-Du-De (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The caption should be improved to underline the fact then. You can add an A330ceo pic along if you want..--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Air Belgium

Something's broken in the “Orders And Deliveries” table entry for Air Belgium but I'm not savvy enough to try to fix it myself. Over to the Experts… Mr Larrington (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Clarified: Delivery to Air Belgium via Airbus Financial Services => recorded in the O&D file but excluded in the operator list Ich-Du-De (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Short Haul Optimizations

A number of operators in Asia operate the A330neo in dense short haul configuration. It would be great if there would be a section on engineering upgrades that were made to accommodate short haul operations. For example, the landing gear have been enhanced.

Germsteel (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Accidents and incident summary

need to add accidents and incidents topic Harshana.nadeeshan (talk) 07:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)