Talk:Airbus A380/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

boing boinged

[1]

Cost of capital and economics

The artical is presenting an inaccurate economical landscape. By inaccuratly placeing Boeings ability to develop the plane this size on market alone when the reality is they are in competition with countries who can afford to incur huge debt and losses to big a plane this size to market. The 911 tragedy weakened boeings economical position because it's a private company. it had little impact on the countries that fund Airbus.

And Boeing gets a lot of sweet cost-plus defence and aerospace contracts from the US government. As to your claim that 9/11 specifically weakened Boeing - it presumably cost both Airbus and Boeing sales; if you're going to claim that it disproportionately increased the cost of capital for Boeing you'll have to provide some evidence. That still doesn't prove that Boeing would have built a A380-size aircraft if they could get capital more cheaply.

One thing to keep in mind: how much is Boeing spending on the 787, which may be the same size as current aircraft but features a lot of new, advanced, and presumably very expensive technology? --Robert Merkel 03:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the Boeing NLA and the acquisition of McDonnell Douglas and their MD-12 / BWB technology can be seen as a fairly strong indication that they did at some point intend to build a large airliner, then or in the future. googling for the NLA actually brings up mention of it in airport expansion plans.

other than the bleedless engines the 787 is using proven technology that's not been seen in the airliner world. ethernet, i suppose, in aviation at all. but composites? boeing has decades of military expertise with all-composite airframes. several business jets use them almost exclusively. a lot of GA aircraft do too, to a lesser levely of complexity. in this age, it doesn't really make sense to equate advanced technology with very expensive. -eric ✈ 03:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is getting offtopic for the A380 article, but the Boeing 787 article doesn't have any estimate of development cost. Does anybody know whether one been published somewhere? --Robert Merkel 05:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't we also start a column of what the different airlines are paying for the A380? Nowhere in this article do I see how much one of these is supposed to cost... Only how much the project cost. Prescott 02:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Comparing to the Largest Airplanes

I just thought some of this information comparing it the world's heaviest aircraft, Antonov An-225, should be intergrated into the article.
"At 600 metric tons, the An-225 is the world's heaviest aircraft ever... The An-225 is also larger than the Airbus A380, the largest European aircraft..." From Antonov An-225 article.
Or this http://travel.howstuffworks.com/a3802.htm

On a related note, I made an edit to the second paragraph, which was being coy about "when it is released" or "once it is in service". Unlike the Antonov, the A380 is clearly a commercial passenger aircraft, it is flying now, and at least one of the prototypes is carrying passengers on promotional flights. It's not going to suddenly become the world's largest airliner once somebody slaps down a credit card and actually buys a ticket. In fact, I dare say that you can book flights on A380 services already, given Singapore Airlines is getting their first one in less than a year.

The lead paragraph(s) are not the place to split hairs about this kind of stuff. There's a section further down for discussions about service dates and history. --Jumbo 21:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Maximum speed

In all the articles I've read, the maximum speed is quoted as 0.89 Mach, and the cruising speed at about 0.85 Mach, which if I do my calculations correctly is about 940 km/h. Does anybody have a source for the 1000km/h+ claim? --Robert Merkel 05:08, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mach varies with altitude and it depends on indicated airspeed. As there is no single Mach equivalent, this information is normally found in each airplane's flight manual carried onboard. Machmeter posesses altitude corrections hence very transparent to the flight crew. Direct translation of Mach to km/h must take account of altitude. Generally as the altitude increases, for the same Mach No, the km/h decreases.

[By Fikri, 05:00, 25 May 2004 (UTC)]

They usually cite the Mach number at cruising altitude, correct? Ryan Salisbury 03:18, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Well, more specifically, "normal operational altitude", but in this instance, that means cruise altitude. But aircraft are often limited by Mach number, as well as by absolute speed. So if it was to go higher, it would be able to travel faster, until it reached its actual maximum absolute speed (massive over-simplification). --Nathan 02:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Name of manufacturer

To describe "Airbus Inc. Toulouse" as the manufacturer is certainly incorrect.

1. Airbus Inc. doesn't exist to my knowledge, Airbus' US operations are under the title Airbus North America Holdings, Inc.
2. Regardless of the name of this subsidiary why would it be designated the prime contractor of the A380 programme?
3. The US susbidiary (regardless of name) is not be based in France.
4. To describe Toulouse as the centre of manufacture is also to mischaracterise the A380 programme. Manufacture is carried out all over Europe, assembly is in Toulouse and Hamburg.

As such I have changed the manufacturer simply to Airbus. I think the correct term would be "Airbus S.A.S." but this may be too specific. I believe "Airbus Industrie" is an obsolete term. Mark 23:29, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

According to the Airbus article, Airbus SAS is (was) a spin-off company to build military jets, therefor this article should refer to Airbus, not Airbus SAS. CS Miller 10:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

SAS is a French designator of company type, like "Inc." in English. The official company name is Airbus S.A.S., or Airbus for short. --kjd 10:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Picture is now available

I'm not sure if someone wants to add it to the article, but a picture of the (almost complete) A380 is now available at Airliners.net - direct link is http://www.airliners.net/open.file/684291/L/

Hmmm. It seems that the license is not Wikipedia compatible. Excerpt from http://www.airliners.net/usephotos/

Restrictions on the usage of photos

All photos on this site are protected by international copyright laws.

You have limited rights to personally view the images with your web 
browser and to use them as  your personal computer wallpaper (or 
background image) on your own computer. These photos may not otherwise 
be reproduced, distributed, cropped, resized, or otherwise altered 
without the written permission of the photographer. No commercial use 
of these photos may be made in any way. All rights are reserved.  

You may not use these photos on any web page, commercial or 
non-commercial, for profit or non-profit, without written permission 
from the photographer. You may however link to the photos in the 
manner described below.

--Xeper 12:52, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

first flight update?

Is there an update on when exactly in 2005 the first flight will take place? Jawed

There is an "unveiling" tomorrow , 18th Jan 2005 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4174729.stm. Pcb21| Pete 12:20, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First flight is currently planned for 2005-03-31. --Xeper 22:10, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

f/f is planed for April, 26th, 2005. but we will see... -- 17:34, 21.4.2005 DEF

I've received an email from Airbus, "We would like to inform you that there is a strong possibility that the A380 will fly next week. We cannot give you an exact date and time as maiden flights are subject to many conditions that we cannot control such as weather conditions." -- 07:57, 23.4.2005 BST

2005-04-27 is the latest date AFAIK --Xeper 13:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

27/04/2005 is the current first flight as reported by several news sources, weather permitting. Ben W Bell 08:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am parked in front of my computer now in Singapore. Anyone any idea what is the exact time for takeoff? Last I saw was between 9.30-10am London time?--Huaiwei 05:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Imminent. You can see live video at [2]. --kjd 08:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yup, it's taxied to the end of the runway. Ben W Bell 08:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And we have a bird in the sky. She actually flies. Ben W Bell 08:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the InfoBox be updated to reflect the First flight today? Guest 11:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which infobox? They all seem up to date to me? --kjd 11:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delivery - Singapore Airlines

Can someone tell me where the quoted section under Delivery, will receive the first A380 during the "first semester of 2006", comes from. The statement "first semester of 2006" sounds really strange in a discussion about aircraft and since it is quoted it must be from somewhere.

Ben W Bell 12:03, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delivery slipped from March 2006 to May 2006 to November 2006 and is now slipping again. Emirates just announced another three month slip. Airbus is still maintaining publicly that the first one will ship to Sinapore Airlines by the end of 2006, though doubt is widespread through the industry.

M Carling 23:55, 6 Apr 2006 (UTC)

Freight vs. passenger orders

A recent change separated the freight and passenger planes order into two columns. I doubt the accuracy of the numbers. For FedEx and UPS's order it is very clear the orders are not for passenger planes, but such assumption is not quite true the other way round. My brother works for Luthansa, he told me the German airline has many freight planes for their cargo business. I doubt the 15 planes ordered by Luthansa is all passenger planes. Kowloonese 22:08, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Extra space not necessarily well received

I think the statement about extra space being a well received feature is hard to prove at best: delta and american both tried to offer more roomy economy seats but gave up. No matter how big a plane, it's a trade off between economy and space and as long as travelers shop for price only space is going to lose.

Maybe on domestic flights, but things are a little different on the long-haul flights the A380 will mainly be used for. After you've done Melbourne-Singapore-London economy class, believe me, the thought of paying an extra 100USD for a bit more space doesn't seem so bad...--Robert Merkel 14:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Too bloody right! And the Trans Pacific hop. These are legs where passengers can expect to get several hours of "sleep" and a little more room would make a big difference. The A380 could be expected to make the flight with a greater margin - the direct Los Angeles-Melbourne flight is heavily load restricted, as is Qantas's daylight service, which only operates during the northern winter. These 747s are already modified to provide more room (albeit by increasing business class and reducing economy seats). I don't know that I'd pay thousands more for a business seat, but if I can get a bit more room on a 380, such as on an equivalent to British Airways World Traveller Plus class, I'd cheerfully pay a premium. Pete 05:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, according to one of my lecturers at the University of Sheffield who has done a lot of work for the project, there is talk of at least one airline preparing to cram in 900 seats. I'm sure most, as you say, will provide a bit more room though. --Nathan 02:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It depends a lot on the route and the airline. If the airline is an economy airline, targetting students etc, it will probably have more seats. If it's something like Emirates, it will have more room. I wonder if any airline is planning an economy+ and an economy? Anyway it's one of the much hyped features by Airbus, you can do what you want. Want to provide cocktail lounges? Want to provide 800 seats? What do you want? We have the room. You get the idea. As for the 900, I'm skeptical. According to a source below, they're only testing it with 876 (or was it 867). It needs to be able to safely evacuate this many. If it can't it fails and if they aren't trying 900, it clearly won't be certified for 900 (well I guess some of those African airlines with their dodgy safety records won't mind but I don't think they're particularly interested in A380s). Nil Einne 22:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

List price in € or $?

Listen, someone keeps changing project cost back to US Dollars, which to me makes absolutely no sense. Due to the fluctuating €-$ exchange rate, listing the price in USD is bound to make the price quote incorrect as the exchange rate changes. Since the project is run in Euro, price is expected to be stable if it is listed in Euros.

[By 82.3.32.75, 07:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)]

Please note: the industry unit of currency is dollars, and aircraft prices are always quoted in dollars. The price is never officially listed in euro. (In fact, the euro-dollar fluctuation at present causes headaches for the manufacturer. In an attempt to rectify this, Airbus has tried to convince customers and suppliers to trade in Euro, but has not been successful).

[By 195.6.25.120, 12:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)]

The above answer comes from an Airbus owned IP address, and should be

considered gospel, I suppose. Dollars it is.

The A380 is the ugliest Jet-Airliner i've ever seen.

When i see the 787, this is a real Dream of an Airplane. 15:13, April 18th,2005 Def

Well, some would say that the A380 is still prettier than some other Airbus aircraft [3]... and I would expect that a 787 that can carry 550+ pax wouldn't look to good either :) --Xeper 20:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay; but the counterpart of the 787 was the A350. (=like the A330-200Lite). When Boeing built an enlarged 747 with 500-550 seats it will see like the 747-400X Stretched or they built the Boeing 777-400ER. 12:45, 20.April 2005, Def

My point was, that it is generally hard to build an elegant aircraft for that many passengers (diameter vs. length...). IMHO the 747 is not really a beauty either... --Xeper 14:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Boeing house colours probably help with the 787 looking so slick (I am European, so that's quite hard to admit! ;-) ). Take them away, and besides a slightly pointier nose, more raked-back tailfin and smoother wing-winglet junction, the 787 looks very much like any other single-deck twinjet, IMO... — QuantumEleven | (talk) 13:18, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Have you not seen recent pictures? The long slender shape and sharp nose is gone. The revised design leaves the 787 looking much like a 767. Mark 19:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've long been a fan of Boeing aircraft and their looks, and it seems to me that in recent years they have lost their sense of style where Airbus has gained it. The A340 is one of the best-proportioned aircraft I've seen in a long time and the Jumbo now looks very dated. I can't say that the 380 is any oil painting, but the prototype looks pretty good in the new Airbus livery. To my eye the tail is too tall and the nose looks uncomfortable. Pete 05:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anyway... the roots of the 380's wings are of the most awesome and beautiful sights I've ever seen. Those smooth, neverending airfoils just feel like riding on a cloud. It's hard to be a sexy whale, but at least the 380 has got sexy wings...

The A380 is incredibly ugly. I think aesthetics might be a major factor in poor sales of the aircraft if it also does not do well in economics or reliability. The Boeing 777 is a beautiful plane I dont see how someone can complain about Boeing styling. Even the old 747 looked beautiful and adventurous, I mean you wanted to fly in that plane. You dont get the same feeling from the A380 which looks like a tramp.

All I'm saying to this is that the 747 was also regarded as being both ugly and unfeasibly big when it was launched. Now it is seen as a design classic! Give it time... Guinnog 11:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the A380 in flight and on the ground, and it's not that bad. It has a cleaner look than the 747, which now looks quite dated to my eyes. It's no oil painting, I'll grant you. If it comes down to aesthetics, of the airliners currently in production I have to say the 757 looks crook, and the 777's "neck" is a bit unsettling. 767 is a lovely shape, but now that the Concorde has stopped flying, I have to say that I love the A340 most of all for looks. Personal tastes, I guess, and the truth is that all airliners look a lot more the same than different. The vast majority of the travelling public wouldn't be able to tell a 767 from a 330 and so long as the chairs are comfy and the video system works, they wouldn't care what they flew in. --Jumbo 15:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Not as ugly as the 747 which looks like the upper deck has been tacked on after the plane was already finished. 82.32.60.14 01:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a reason why the 747 has a "hump", and that's so the pilot can sit on his wallet. Seriously, when it was designed, it was intended that the airframes would be converted to freighters once all the passengers had migrated to aircraft like the 2707. That didn't happen. If they were designing the 747 afresh it wouldn't look that way. --Jumbo 17:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hell no... that is one sexy aircraft. Its transitions are perfect and its engins are hot. My only issue is that its forhead is too long.

Still might. That hump helps with area ruling, hence 747 can cruise a tad faster than anything else. Or so they say. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC) i loe airbus

two doors

it says "It should also be noted that the A380's double decker configuration has mandated that airports reconfigure their gates for efficient loading and unloading from the A380 and bi-level gates are expected." But are there really two doors? I only see the one. 131.111.8.98 17:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well, there's at least an additional one on the other side. also, several of the dual gates i've seen are not double level, but add a gate that somehow spans over the wing to a second exit. using a gate on either side is probably the most likely adaptation. -eric ✈ 18:31, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

The A380 has a total of eighteen doors, eight on the upper level and ten on the lower level (from [4]). Of course, in a standard boarding configuration, you only board from one side, which leaves nine doors available. Each airport will probably use their own configuration (depending on how much space they have), but what the original author probably meant with "bi-level" is really, that - at least one gangway going to each of the decks. If that configuration is not possible at an airport, they may choose to use multiple gangways on a single level (like they do for the 747), with one going in the front door and one in the rear door, for instance. — QuantumEleven | (talk) 06:22, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Looking at many pictures of the A380, e.g. [5] and [6], it looks like there are ten doors on the lower level and only six on the upper. Looking at the diagram cited by QuantumEleven [7] it would seem that the front set of doors on the upper level aren't visible on external photos - to the extent that I'm not even sure if they're there? Don't know how old the other info is, or maybe if they're just emergency doors they are harder to spot? Iancaddy 16:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Further to what I've written above, the diagram at [8] is wrong: there are only 16 exits, three on each side on the upper level, five on each side on the lower level. This is clearly shown here [9] and also the evacuation test also involved using half of the 16 exits. Iancaddy 17:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarify please

What does it mean if it is in "high density" format?

Also, the maiden flight was from Toulouse to ... ?

- moogle

high density means the whole plane is configured for economy seating. the maiden flight was from toulouse to toulouse - just a short test hop. -eric ✈ 22:39, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the maiden flight was from Toulouse, out in a big loop across the Bay of Biscay, and back to Toulouse again. On the whole, it lasted about four hours. — QuantumEleven | (talk) 06:14, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thoust Jeste, Surely

I presume the entry in 'Other Configurations' is meant to be a joke?

Other Configurations

1. Flying Circus - half of 2nd level is eliminated to allow for headroom for oversized animals such as elephants, stiff-necked giraffes, and expanded-ego Hollywood types. All circus dwarfs are stored in overhead compartments. 2. Refugee Transport - can seat 1400 to 2200 starving refugees of a war-induced famine. Can transport an entire Sub-Saharan cultural group intact to Toronto, Minneapolis, or other similar cold weather cities with bleeding hearts and surplus garden apartments

Laugh? - I almost started.

82.111.65.142 09:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone figure out how to get rid of the joker's contribution? I can't!

'History' Defaced

Some Tw@t has deleted some text from the 'History' section of this article and added some other words. I reckon reverting to an earlier version of text would be the best way to repair the damage but I'm a newbie without the time to work out how to do that. Anybody want to have a go?

[Edit] And someone's done it as soon as I put up the post...

Benjy

inconsistancy

the infobox gives a max capacity of 840 the body text one of 800 which is right? Plugwash 22:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

"Engineers realized the A340's wing was too inefficient for a massive 600 seat aircraft, and so settled on a larger 750 tonne specification."

- This contradicts the specifications table which has the MTOW as 560 Tonnes. - What does this sentence mean anyway? The A340's wing may well have been too small to provide the nesessary lift but this doesn't make it "too inefficient". I'm guessing this is an extract from an article on the UHCA "Double Bubble" concept that has lost it's context (the one with a split A340 fuselage that was wider than it was high). I suggest this sentence is removed unless anyone can add context. 09:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i think it's referring to the eventual total capacity of the wing, being overbuilt. airbus has mentioned plans for a stretch model - if the current wing was only barely able to support 560t, then it would not be easily stretchable to any larger aircraft's weight. leave it in, for now. -eric ✈ 17:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're probably right, I'll have a look for a source that clears this up. 09:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've revised the article extensively, but the organization and the writing still do not satisfy me. Does anyone think this article could use a good rewrite? I'd especially like some section consolidation. ✈ James C. 00:50, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

i definitely agree. i might give it a quick restructure tonight. -eric ✈ 02:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Opinion section - worthless

Does anyone else feel the Opinion section is worthless? It's another bit of "acceptable POV" that has no encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't the editorial section of a newspaper, and it need not provide any "here's what the folks think" blurb. Obviously, a statement about the public being "roundly amazed" would never appear in Britannica. Encyclopedias are references, to which people refer only for facts. The Opinion section presents none, and speculates about the A380 no better than any reader. ✈ James C. 05:34, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

I agree, let's lose it. What does being "roundly" amazed mean anyway? Sounds like someone's own projection of amazement being passed off as received wisdom, but the mixed metaphor gives it away totally. Graham 06:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

conversion from old table to new inline specifications

I finally made the switch after the latest images were screwing with the flow and mashing under the table. If you've got a problem with the removal of the old blue table in favor of the current WikiProject standard, then please discuss it here before reverting the page. Thanks. -eric ✈ 04:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

looks good to me. ✈ James C. 05:06, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

Boeing Talk

Isn't there a bit too much Boeing detail in the whole History section? (I also find the whole market analysis aspect silly, but I guess others like it so oh well.) This article is titled Airbus A380, not "600 Seat Airliners" and should focus entirely on the Airbus A380. Other aircraft should at most have one sentence, and if there's more info then it should be linked (wiki-linked or otherwise). ✈ James C. 23:48, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

i think that the strangeness of the A380's market segment and its somewhat sketchy history deserve mention. as the Very Large Commercial Transport, Boeing NLA, and MD-12 articles are a) separate and b) nonexistent or bare-bones, i think that for the time being the boeing detail should remain. the A380 is significant in that it's much larger than the 747 and expected to fill a large (well, supposedly) market segment.

i feel that it's important to do more than just describe the aircraft. how can we explain the challenging market airbus chose to enter without describing the competition and their decisions? -eric ✈ 00:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

"future customers"

am i the only one who finds the 'future customers' items (here and in the 787 article) really pointless? we're not a news service. if they order them, we put it in the article. if they don't, it's not worthy of mention. i'm going to kill it. -eric ✈ 19:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

no you are not the only one :-) I fully agree with youMatteo 21:40, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

agreed. ✈ James C. 23:21, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

I demand that the A380 security issue be addressed!

We are living in a post-911 world, the A3xx does not fly in vacuum. Imagine Osama in the cockpit. I did add terror-realted junk and someone deleted it, see:

"Some sources have voiced concern about the security and anti-terrorism implications of a full lenght double-decker plane (Double-deck aircraft) configuration, where air marshalls would need to rely on potentially vulnerable intercom systems to coordinate activities for lack of visual contact. Jamming of radios and unauthorized listening in are some of the potential problems. In case of a hijacking, terrorists and SWAT teams could end up playing hide and seek in the storied fuselage. In case of an accident, there will be no prior experience about the issues of panic management and feasibility of evacuation in the more complicated interior layout of the A380. The very large number of passangers characterisic of the A380 also poses problems. In case of a kamikaze attack, the force of impact by the immense A380 would bring unprecedented destruction, especially considering the large diameter of its fuselage and jet engines."

You can demand whatever you want, until you provide some actual evidence of these sources voicing concern, and demonstrate that they are either a) expert, b) otherwise high profile, or c) numerous, it's not going in. My inexpert take on your comments are:

• the A380 and the 787 are the only "post-911" airliners yet designed, so I'd guess that more thought has gone into making them terrorist resistant than any existing airliners.
• Computer simulation of crowd behaviour has improved a lot over the past few years, and presumably the A380 cabin layouts have been designed making use of that information - again, unlike some of the older airliners in the skies.
• Yes, the potential damage from an A380 kamikaze would be worse than any other airliner, but I doubt the difference is that big. It's, what, 30% heavier than a 747? That means 30% more kinetic energy to dissipate. Similarly for the fuel on board.
• There are innumerable things that terrorists could do to kill lots of people. Frankly, trying to eliminate weak points for terrorist attacks is a waste of time; there are so many that we can't get rid of without totally destroying our way of life.

If I may get slightly-off topic, one more thought. You are far more likely to die of preventable pollution caused by coal power plants than in a terrorist attack (some estimates are in the order of 20,000 Americans every year dying prematurely from it; the average shortening of lifespan is more than 10 years, so it's not trivial). The Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 killed somewhere between 2.5 - 5% of the world population; another potential flu pandemic, avian influenza has been brewing and may jump into humans at any time, with consequences possibly comparable to the Spanish Flu. Some perspective, please. --Robert Merkel 15:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

A quote I found gives perspective "In 2001 the 9/11 attack took some 3000 lives in the U.S., but road crashes there took over 40,000 that same year." [10] Thryduulf 15:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of the arguments, the para should no go into the article because a) it's speculation (of a most Tom Clancy-esque type, I might add) and b) it's non-encyclopedic. Simple as that. Graham 01:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

If, for instance, the head of the US Department of Homeland Security publicly stated concerns about the terrorist risk of the A380 along those lines, that would be relevant for the article (though not in the hyperbolic manner of the previously-excised paragraph). As far as I know, nothing like that has occurred. --Robert Merkel 01:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Another issue is that all this terrorist talk is rather silly. The terrorists DID NOT use 747s. They used 757s and 767s. Terrorists are not stupid. What matters most of all is what they can get their hands on. Who gives a screwy if the A380 may make a better 'missile' if you can get your hands on it? Also, I suspect flying the bloody thing, especially if your trying to aim it at a specific target without crashing is a harder then with a smaller plane. Furthermore, all this talks of planes is IMHO rather shortsighted. The most specular terrorist attacks tend to be from an idea you don't expect not from the idea you do expect! Nil Einne 21:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Although the terrorist issue is something to talk about, what about just a "normal" crash, like at Mt. Osutaka in Japan in 1985? (The worst single-plane disaster) Or the Tenerife collision in 1977 (the worst air disaster period, possibly excepting Sep. 11, but there are too many semantics there to go into now)? A major crash aboard an A380 would be a real disaster, if we're talking about a capacity of at least 500 and possibly up to 800. I guess my point is, can you have too many seats on an airliner? After all, a crash doesn't exactly help your image.

Can we have too many people in a country? After all, a nuclear blast doesn't exactly help your image. What about a packed cruise ship? Or an overfilled high school? One bomb could kill thousands in either case.

It's a bit silly to speak of these rare "what ifs" as if they're common concerns. Killing 600 in an A380 crash people would be a tragedy, as would killing 2,000 people with a nuclear powerplant accident. But all of these are extremely exceptional to normal operations, and the health risk aboard an A380 is no worse than that on any other modern aircraft. Certainly it is far better than that on the De Havilland Comet. The "too many people dying in a crash" fear is as legitimate as nuke worries in a city today, only we have no post Cold War mindset advising us about the rarity of air accidents. ✈ James C. 19:19, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Besides, clearly this person doesn't understand risk analysis or statistics. Assuming the safety records of the planes are equal, that means the risk would be the same. Think about it this way. Let's use a hypothetical example of the 787 vs the A380. The chance of a 787 crashing and killing everyone on board is the same as a A380 correct (as said, this is hypothethical, we don't know the safety records)? Let's say that's this is 1x10^10 for each. The A380 has more people BUT we can only assume there will be more 787 flights otherwise how do we carry the 800 or so people that fit into a A380? For simplicity let's assume the 787 takes 267 and the A380 801. So the A380 has a 1x10^10 risk of killing 801 people at one time whereas the the 787 has a 1x10^10 of crashing and killing 267 people but because there are 3 times as many 787 flights, this will happen 3 times for every 1 A380 incident. Same risk! Obviously the headlines tend to be worse. A380 crashes and kills 801 people vs 3 787s crash and kills 267 people (well if it happens all at the same time that's a diff matter but this is unlikely) but in terms of actual risk, it's no different. As others have pointed out earlier, a lot of people get confused about risks. So many people are afraid of flying but the thruth is, taking your car out to the shop today or jaywalking is a much riskier activity Nil Einne 21:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Delivery Delays

I've updated the page to put in details of Airbus's announced delays in delivery. Here is a link in case people are interested. [11] Ben W Bell 10:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Boeing Bias

I just reverted some anon comments couched in a faux-objective style which echo those I've seen in other airliner forums. There seems to be a group of American "patriots" who are spinning the same line over and over - the Airbus is heavily subsidised, it won't live up to the claims, airports won't want to make the huge modifications, it's going to be a flop etc. etc.

These same people actively talk up the products of Boeing, even aircraft not yet flown such as the 787, as being huge successes.

I think there is room for doubt and dissension, but can we source these sort of comments? So far as I can see Airbus has assessed their market well and they aren't aiming at US carriers. The A380 can already be handled at most airports that can take a 747 - after all, the big Antonovs have been flying cargo around the world for years. Modifications are aimed at operating it efficiently, such as widening taxiways to ensure that safety distances for those long wings are observed, or expanding gate lounges to handle more passengers. It's not that much bigger than a 747.

Realistically, the A380 is less of a risk than was the 747. The reason why there is an upper deck at all on the B747 is so that passenger planes could be converted into freighters with a hinged nose when something better came along. They were thinking of the 2707 and we all know how that worked out. Pete 06:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pete - the Antonov argument is only half-valid, as they're not flying regularly to these airports. Also, the needed passenger modifications to airports - larger terminals, more skyways, etc. - have not been made. Just because an airport can handle an An-124 once every week or so does not mean it can deal with dozens of A380 flights a day.

That's the point I'm making. There's nothing stopping airports from handling these aircraft NOW. The modifications required are along the lines of handling them efficiently, and efficiency will drive the airports to make them. We're not going to see "dozens of A380 flights a day" for years at any airport, because it's going to be years before there are dozens of these craft in existence, let alone at any one airport in a day, so airport mods will be made gradually. Pete 20:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, the 747 has an upper deck to keep pilots safely out of the way of sliding cargo in an accident. This is due to its roots as a competitor to the C-5 Galaxy, only later being switched to a passenger role.

Hmmm. Very early roots. Like before the 747 configuration was even settled, according to Clive Irving in "Wide Body". He makes it clear just how big a risk the thing was at the time. It's one thing to look back in hindsight and pooh-pooh the risks because it all worked out, but those risks were very real for Boeing, especially in the days when they had a lot more competition in the airliner construction business. If Boeing dropped the ball, Lockheed or Douglas would have been happy to pick it up and run away with it. Boeing was in nowhere near the position it is now. Pete 20:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The A380 is more of a risk than the 747. Frst off, the 747 is deeply entrenched in the market and many airlines do not see the need to replace their 747 fleet, merely augment it slightly with A380s. Also, the aviation industry as it stands now is in yet another slump, one of the largest ever - when the 747 was introduced, major American and overseas airlines were subsidized and expanding rapidly. That is not nearly the case today. Anyway, I do agree that the article has some bias - but no more than the corresponding Airbus fans add to similar boeing articles. It all balances out in the end. -eric ✈ 19:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that the global airline industry is not the same as the US airline industry, and Airbus isn't aiming the A380 at US markets. Look at that big Emirates order, for example. China is going to love this aircraft, and China is moving ahead at a speed that many Americans haven't yet begun to appreciate.

As to bias, let's aim for NPOV rather than balancing bias in different articles, hey? Pete 20:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also this talk of a massive airline slump, the largest ever, may be true in the US but not necessarily in the rest of the world. Europe has more flights per day now than it's ever had, air travel to the far east from Europe has increased and things are looking relatively healthy now after the small slump four years ago. Yes the US airline market may be in trouble, but the rest of the world's is looking okay. This is partially due to the fact that passenger numbers to and from the US have dropped (for many reasons), but numbers elsewhere are as healthy as they ever were, or even greater. Ben W Bell 07:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think Ericg is missing the point. The poster was NOT talking about the risk the 747 is now. In fact, the 747 is not really at risk now. When it dies, they close it down. Boeing is perhaps at risk, but this is not really true either. Anyway the poster was pointing out that the 747 when it was designed was a VERY huge risk for Boeing, that paid of spetaclarly. However, the reason Boeing choose to go down that route was because they had little choice. It was likely all or nothing for them in any case so they choose to take the risk rather then go quietly into the night as it were. This is well established in the 747 article. The A380 is a completely different case. Both Boeing and Airbus realised there was potential. However Boeing abandoned the project because they decided only one could take it on. As it turns out, Boeing decided eventually to take on Airbus to some extent with the 747-8 just as Airbus decided to take on Boeing with the A350. Also, as some people say, so many people seem to be forgetting China. Do you really think it's just a coincidence that both Boeing and Airbus are using as many 8s as they can in their recent airplanes? Nil Einne 22:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wake turbulence, anyone? DolphinCompSci 16:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's one of the news comparing it with Spruce Goose

Australian News site One of the many news that compared A380 with Spruce Goose when it was shown initally. If anyone googles it they can see. This is for users requesting a media source where they compared it with A380. Therefore I'm reverting to the previous version where spruce goose is compared.--Idleguy 07:44, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

"Chicken or fish? Here comes the world's biggest airliner. The Airbus A380 weighs many times more than Howard Hughes's legendary Spruce Goose." That's not enough to justify the image of media comparison you are trying to portray. In fact the airliner the A380 is most often compared to is the B747. Pete 10:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Order numbers not the same as Airbus website

As at today the Airbus site is quoting orders of 149 for the A380 and 17 orders for the A380F. This is at odds with wikipedia's figures of 132 and 27 respectively. As the wiki figures are broken down by carrier with no indication of source, this is currently impossible to resolve without more information. DamienG July 8, 2005 17:41 (UTC)

The main problem with the figures on the Airbus site is they are often up to two months out of date. If the Airbus site has more numbers for certain ones for certain carriers (available on their supposedly monthly sales spreadsheet) then add them in, if Airbus has less in an area and someone can provide sources for the Wiki data then keep it in, Ben W Bell 8 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)

Just checked the figures and the discrepancy is the 10 Freight numbers listed on Wiki for UPS. The Airbus spreadsheet was updated on 30 June of this year and doesn't mention them, the UPS figures have been up there for quite some time. Unless someone can provide a source for those 10 A380Fs I shall remove them. Ben W Bell 8 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)

Checking yet again, the order for the 10 UPS A380s is well documented in the news all over the place. They have indeed placed an order for 10 and I see no evidence of that having been cancelled. Very odd that Airbus would miss it off their list though, they should be trying very hard to show how many have been ordered. Even the Airbus site acknowledges this order has been placed. Guess we place this one down to an administrative error on Airbus's behalf. Ben W Bell 8 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)

Gasp! (unsigned comment by Ericg)

New Technologies

The amount of new stuff introduced for the first time is so extensive that EASA requested that Airbus highlight this in dedicated courses and briefings to pilots, maintenance and management as the stuff is not covered in basic FAR Part-65, EASA Part-66 curriculum or in the ATA 104.

Fikri 16:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

please, can we cut some of the technobabble?

This is turning into a Tom Clancy reader's wet dream, and the design section - on avionics in particular - is pretty much unreadable. At the least, I'd like to see less acronyms, particularly if the term is never used again. It's meaningless guff that fills up the page and ruins the article's flow, such as it is. About a month ago this was a great aircraft article about the ongoing development of a major milestone.

In conclusion, please try to make interesting contributions that are reader-oriented, rather than creating an article filled with technological buzzwords. Thanks! -eric ✈ 08:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe move all the avionics and computer stuff to an A380 technology page instead of leaving it on the main one. It's all useful information, but doesn't need to be on the main page (especially since this is a page that is likely to be linked from the front page again in the future). Ben W Bell 11:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

BE/AE/etc.

Just a note that I've have de-reverted the anon's changes from some instances of AE to BE. Contrary to the claim made in the reversion, the first version of this - [12] - was, AFAICS, neither specifically in AE or BE (or CE or whatever else); OTOH, the first version which is in one or the other - [13] - is evidently in BE ("in Emirates colours").

Of course, Tannin is Austrlian so it should properly be in AuE, not that anyone cares. :-)

Either way, Airbus being a European company, policy suggests that we may want this to be in BE ("topic predominantly associated with one tounge" [paraphrased] and all that).

Thoughts?

James F. (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine to have it in BE, since I consider it to be the only valid version of English :), however I reverted it because someone had specifically changed it. However if it is consensus that the article first became en-GB rather than en-US then I'm fine to have it in British English. Ben W Bell 11:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I agreeNil Einne 22:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

A380 evacuation test

A major milestone in A380's development is the 90-second evacuation test. A plane can only be certified for the number of passengers that can get out of the plane in 90 seconds from just 8 exits (half of the 16 exits onboard). For A380, they'll try for 873 people (passengers plus crew), its planned maximum capacity. If some of the volunteers on the upper deck get cold feet and block the exits, that could be a major problem. There's also concern that some upper deck passengers may go downstairs to avoid jumping from the 8-meter high upper deck. If the A380 fails the test twice, they'll have to reduce the maximum capacity or redesign their emergency exiting plans. (Boeing 777 nearly failed the test because of a single person, but the demonstration crew "helped" her out of the plane and thus the 777 passed the test. MD-11 failed its 421-person test and was later certified for just 410.)

We'll see when they do the test :) I'm no expert at evacuation design, but judging that the A380 has an awful lot of doors (compared to its expected capacity) that I don't think the evacuation tests should be a problem. Plus, Airbus has designed slides for the upper level which brake you (by means of a rougher surface) so you don't hit the ground any (or much) faster than from the lower deck. But in any case, this is something we can discuss in more detail when the test is done. — QuantumEleven | (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

out of interest is the choice of which half of the exits can be used random? and if not who decides which ones get used the testers or the plane manufacturer? Plugwash 16:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyone know when this is gonna happen? Nil Einne 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Searched up on it myself. It's currently slated for February. http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1759761,00.html It appears Airbus have possibly been delaying it for whatever reason. This undated article suggests they may have been in fear that someone would be injured which would obviously give them bad publicity even if it passes http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/airbus_in_fear_of_full_emergency.html but who knows what's the truth? Nil Einne 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the evacuation test was done this weekend [14], they evacuated just over 850 people (starting configurations will carry about 500, but they wanted to certify it for maximum-density seating), and was a success - everyone was out of the plane by the regulation 90 seconds. However, I want to wait before writing about it in the article, because the aviation authorities still need to give their stamp of approval (that there weren't any irregularities in the test or anything like that), that should take a few days. A few people were injured during the test - unlucky, I guess, but then it was done in darkness, with debris strewn across the aisles, and eight of the sixteen exits randomly closed. If I recall correctly, every airplane evacuation test done in recent times has had injuries - getting all those people out of the plane is more like a stampede than anything! :) — QuantumEleven | (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Does the A380 carry the sacred banner of SI?

Should Airbus defeat Boeing and become the largest aircraft maker with a wide margin, would it mean the aviation industry is finally metricated (SI)? Is the A380 designed to help further the cause of metrication? Airplanes have no feet or knots so it is time to finally get rid of customary.

Highly unlikely. ericg ✈ 13:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous User,

What does the Airbus vs. Boeing marketing war have to do with SI in aviation? I'm sure Boeing uses metric in many aspects of design, just as the U.S. Department of Defense has for ages. Stop trying to inject politics into an inapplicable situation. Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

All the dials and radio talk are still in knots, feet, lbs and inches. The aviation is still stuck in the era of tall sailing ships and the nine-tail cat, which is a shame of the 21st century! Every aspect of aviation from the tiny nut to the captain's logbook must be SI-fied to make flying safer and the imperial customary naval mess must be eradicated. I am pretty sure the frenchies, who are the heart of Airbus and also the ones who invented the metric, do have this on agenda. When Boeing becomes the underdog, Airbus will impose the metric worldwide, for good. You know there are 10 kinds of people, for every 9 who use the metric there is a yankee who doesn't.195.70.32.136 07:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Your treatise smacks of jingoism. I highly doubt that Boeing's presence in the marketplace has anything to do with it. In fact, I fail to see how Boeing has any interest in maintaining the status quo with respect to measurement standards. They are just going with what the market wants. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

As a pilot, I can guarantee that switching from knots to km/h will not "make flying safer". If anything, a change will cause confusion and create hazards as a result of an unfamiliarity that did not exist before. Does the metric system make driving safer? Why would it have that magical effect on aviation? ericg ✈ 14:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Also - there's nothing involving units at all in a pilot's logbook. What on earth are you talking about? ericg ✈ 17:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think our dear anonymous friend has forgotten (or never knew) how client/vendor relationships work. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 01:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The current use of imperial customary in aviation infringes on the right of people to travel, because the vast majority of mankind natively uses the metric system but they are forced to learn awkward inching if they are to practice their right to GA. How many ladies are piloting GA right now outside the USA? Why are they forced to learn things such alien, difficult and legacy in nature? I think americans should get a life and join the 95% mankind in metricating. It will not make your wife jump in the bed of a cheese-eating, champagne-sipping french canvas painter of the a pointy mustache...

As for safety, in the metric system all kinds of units are interconnected, so it is easy to spot if some value is nonsense. The customary units are arbitrary. In fact the early computers and calculators deveoped so fast in the anglo-saxon sphere, because it was so hard to do numeric physics in customary (e.g. ballistic tables for navy guns).

Because aviation is still not metricated it cannot take advantage of the vast body of metric designs, testing data and products available. It would be much cheaper to make metric airplanes because a lot of commodity items could be used and the remaining budget could be spent on better safety. The vast majority of the world's industrial product is metric, but specialty still needs to be made for aviation. That hurts in the pocket. But America is manufacturing less and less and does more and more service sector every day, which is a very fake kind of GDP. You cannot substitute a celebrity hairdresser and an armani executive for 5-ton solid bars of titanium. The tipping point is close, because USA gradually loses its engineering and manufacturing clout and then the world will dictate what is logical. It is not that difficult to metricate in practice, but America is very fragmented and lacks determination to do it.

As for client/vendor relationship, that is silly assertion, airplane sales are all about politics, never mind the price. It is a complicated form of diplomacy + corruption + espionage + manipulation. It will be very easy for the EU chamber to mandate that by 201x all intra-European air traffic must be done by metric-engineed, metric-dialled planes under metric ATC. Boeing and the brazils either comply or lose the market to Airbus. The customers will see metric is more logical and people are easier to find wordwide with good metric skills, than people who properly understand customary units. That saves human costs. Once the domino chain is started it will be easy too de-customarize intercontinental air traffic. It took 400 years to win the good fight, but by 2040 there won't be any imperial planes built. 195.70.48.242 15:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Metric engineering of the planes themselves is probablly already happening and largely unrelated to how the dials the pilot sees happen to be marked. All current pilots (including general aviation) would have to re-train to work in metric and in the short term at least that would be a disaster.

Also it wouldn't surprise me if thier were international treaties which would prevent such a changeover even if the governments wanted it to happen and can you imagine the confusion that would be involved in flying in both types of area while the switchover was in process even if your plan had dials marked in both. Plugwash 18:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Your "concept" of "imperial planes" is an entirely imaginary one with no relevance on the aviation industry. The units used to design and construct a plane have nothing to do with safety. The Boeing 777 has a flawless safety record and is what you would call an "imperial plane". The Airbus A330 crashed during flight testing, despite presumably being designed in metric. Two A340s have been lost. Please turn down your fanaticism dial from 11 to something a little more sane. -ericg ✈ 16:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course all A340 were lost on the ground, so that has nothing to do with flight safety! Or maybe it does, because the damn frenchies spectacularly managed to save all the damn passangers off the burning fuselage and that's what safety is about. One could also mention that B777 only has a flawless record because on 9/11/2001 there were suprisingly few passangers, so the smaller B767s were used by the airlines to run the routes. Else the B777s would end up in the towers and cause them to fall more quickly due to the larger blow. Also, the A330 holds the record for longest glide and no damn passangers got eaten by sharks off the Azores.

No matter how hard the anglo-saxon cling to the inch, ICAO itself wants to metricate and almost all university science education is in SI nowadays. Soon it will be economically and personnel-wise unfeasible to keep aviation as an island of customary. Sorrowfully America is only talking about global free trade, but in fact it uses the customary system of measurements as a barrier against foreign industrial competition on US soil. When metric designed, metric parts built planes with metric dials are flown by metric thinking pilots under metric speaking ATC under a metric weathered sky, then aviation will be SI. Until any one part of that chain is missing, aviation is still imperial/customary.

>All current pilots (including general aviation) would have to re-train to work in metric and in the short term at least that would be a disaster.

I could care less about those few, a dwarf minority. There are millions waiting to fly worldwide. There will be no Jetsons cartoon age realized ever if aviation remains customary, because 95% of the world will not learn inches just to pilot a flying car. Even if the Moller Skycar scam was real it wouldn't have any market beyond the USA, because world people do not speak customary and they would get totally confused when switching between the land-going metric car and the sky-going imperial car day by day. - unsigned comment by 195.70.48.242

I fail to see how terrorists have anything to do with metric or imperial measurement. It also sounds like you're fine with aviation chaos and safety as the cost for conversion to metric. Imperial units have nothing at all to do with safety. Get a goddamn clue and stop with the naïve rants: the only units the pilot deals with are weight, airspeed and altitude. That's two gauges and a figure, and if you think no one knows how to convert units after centuries of doing so, then you're completely off your rocker. Of course Airbus can compete in the US market. US Air flies an almost totally Airbus fleet, Northwest is probably around 50 percent, JetBlue and Frontier are 100% Airbus... so what's your point, again? There is no units-based conspiracy to keep foreign companies from selling products. As far as I can tell, you're a troll or a fanatic, and I'm a sucker who keeps replying. ericg ✈ 14:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. — Sir Winston Churchill

He was a fanatic himself, a paranoid anti-communist always, whose Iron Curtain proclamation brought half a century of animosity to Europe and took all hope from those stuck in the eastern bloc. He has a statue here in Budapest and it gets spilled with red paint every week and noone helps the authorities catch the perpetrator.

Back to aviation, Airbus can compete in the US airplane market and does a little better than even versus Boeing, but if aviation was entirely metricated then Boeing would be totally erased, because Airbus could take advantage of the global SI talent and product pool, while Boeing has to rely on domestic customary product and brains. As we know very well, next to no people attend science courses at US universities any more. So Boeing's future depends solely on those feet dials.

The difficulty of changing from customary to metric aviation is exaggerated, especially with regards to ATC. There are a lot of obsolete ATC equipment in the USA that needs to be replaced anyhow. New planes have glass cockpit and the TFT-LCD can show any character you want, same for ATC computers. More and more airline pilots use laptops instead of printed manuals, so you just have to give them a new CD. All airline pilots already have a clue about the metric system, as you don't get to fly a jet packed with 100+ people with just secondary education and SI is taught in college/univ.

The anglo-saxon are simply whining, when it comes to compliance. The britons still have the steering wheel on the wrong side, when it is easily possible to convert an entire country in a single day. They could have 2x tourism revenue if people were not afraid of driving on their inverted roads. But they have traditions...

This person (from Hungary) has just proven that they know nothing about the aviation industry, and in particular, about Boeing's engineering process.. I think we should start ignoring this. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 12:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Some of you seem confused. As so many have pointed out, engineers nearly exclusively use metric. This probably includes Boeing (although doesn't NASA still use imperial which is what cause some disaster?). This has nothing to do with what is used by the pilots. Pilots don't know the exact specifications of the wing or the tail or whatever. The distance, altitude etc measurements may be imperial but that's a different issue and nothing to do with Boeing or the US really (the Soviets used to use metric I believe but this was abandoned). Also, driving on the left is the correct way. Only idiots like the French and Americans drive on the right :-P Nil Einne 22:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure who you are replying to, as your statement is not in conflict with anything that anyone said. And no, NASA does not still use imperial. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Although a number of people have pointed out the units used by pilots have nothing to do with the units used by engineers, quite a number of people don't appear to be getting it. For example ericg said "The units used to design and construct a plane have nothing to do with safety" .... "777 is an "imperial" plane, Airbus planes are metric" still didn't or doesn't get it. 195.70.48.242 the original poster I believe clearly didn't get it since they keep talking about the SI talent pool and the metric engineed (sic) and stuff like that being wasted (WTF?). Someone, probably him later went on to talk about the SI talen pool again and how it's being waste and stuff and about how Boeing would die if the world was metricated (actually I bet their engineers would go WOOHOO!!! Goodbye imperial crap) because they would lose their customary pool or something. Other people too I believe didn't or don't get it. Regardless, clearly despite a lot of people pointing out that engineers do not use imperial, some people still haven't got it, so I thought I'd point it out again. As for NASA, that was really a joke more then anything but I'm sure there was some incident due to someone in NASA using imperial and someone else using metric, and somehow they screwed up because of this.Nil Einne 22:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I overread it in this disussion, but all Airbus parts I've been in contact so far were based on the imperial system (Sadly - calculating things like lbs/ft² into units I know gives me a headache :) ). Theres the rumour that an Airbus hasn't got a single metric screw in it :) Is there proof for the assumption, that Airbusses are designed in SI units? --Xeper 10:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, great, a holy war.

Would someone please grab the SI fanatics and beat them over the head until they realize that 99% of the people flying on these things dont' give a toss if the units used in building or navigating the thing are in metric, imperial, or martian, so long as they're in the right place when it stops moving and they disembark?

Or that most modern EFIS systems have a button or a function to switch from customary to metric units anyway? I'm sure that the A380 has one. As for keeping the customary units, well, it's because the world's charts are all in nautical miles. DolphinCompSci 16:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Still, I've hear that something on the order of $8 billion is spent each year worldwide in relation to unit conversions, conversion errors, and manufacturing issues steming from such. Metric is also clearly the more logical and practical system. we count using base 10 dont we? Furthermore, all the units are interconnected making mistakes easier to spot and smothing many paths. Metric Shall provail. People who feel that imperial is better are irrational. Too bad Airbus can't see that (According to the person above). Someday in the future there won't be units based on kings feet, fathomes, and penis size.

Why was the criticism section cut?

This looks very much like vandalism to me. The section cut raises valid points, all of which will be addressed during testing and early service, so it seems premature to remove it. Could whoever cut this section please defend their action, or I shall restore it. --Jumbo 09:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It was an anonymous user who cut it, and it looks like vandalism to me but I can't bring myself to restore it. It's not really criticism in the section and it is badly written. If people want to restore it then go ahead but I'm happy to not have it (however that is a personal POV). Ben W Bell 11:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I cannot say that I thought it was top-notch writing, but still there is a good deal of criticism about and the article should reflect this. One point is that the introduction of this aircraft will require some rejigging of airport facilities and procedures. --Jumbo 12:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I took the removal to be plain vandalism and used the admin rollback facility to revert it. If it was badly written (and I didn't look to closely at this) then it should have been rewritten and not removed. If it is removed again without explanation, feel free to revert the edit. Thryduulf 16:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey dudes... don't know who cut the unusual Criticism section, but I've added a NOTE regarding objectivity issues of American partners about Airbus products. Feel free to improve the NOTE, but please-please don't remove it. That NOTE should soothe any ruffled feathers, IMHO. I, personally, would remove the section -but each one may express what he feels. Even when it's about Yet Another Airbus Threat To the World.

Other aircraft have accident summaries, which is as close to criticism as I think you can get for a production airliner; once the A380 has been in service, the the criticisms will be proven or disproven. Maybe you don't like the name of the section - fine. The problem is that the issues in the criticism section have been publicly raised. They're fact, insofar as they have been brought to the attention of the public. Saying that this is an "American attitude" towards Airbus is bogus - there haven't been concerns about ridiculously high new levels of wake turbulence with past Airbus products, nor do I recall whistleblowers saying that earlier aircraft would suffer rapid decompression.

Mangan has claimed the pressurization is unsafe. The FAA is reviewing the wake turbulence separation. If you want to omit facts, then stop working on an encyclopedia. ericg ✈ 15:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, they also said that the 380 would damage the taxiways with its weight. Why this DEBUNKED criticism isn't included? And why is the 380 gifted with a Criticism section? This is a encyclopedia, not a newsletter where can be raised points about ongoing investigations on alleged yet not demonstrated problems.

If you can write it in an encyclopedic fashion, then include it yourself. Stating that 'every airbus airliner has been criticized' is not an encyclopedic fashion. ericg ✈ 21:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a great deal of criticism (much of it one-eyed) from the sort of folks I'll call "Boeing-boosters". As far as I can work out their beef is that Boeing doesn't have a direct competitor for the A380 and not likely to for some time, so if the super-jumbo is successful, Boeing (and all the economic benefits and national prestige that accrue to the US) will inevitably decline, at least in relative terms. And so their mission is to paint the A380 as black as possible.

In fact some of this criticism has been published. But the mere act of publishing a POV doesn't make it NPOV. Our job as editors is not to eliminate all criticism, nor to include it, but to find a reasonable, balanced middle ground. To my mind, we are presenting an article that should provide the facts to a person seeking information. If they have questions, then we should answer them. People will come here wondering about runway weights, wake turbulence, evacuation times and so on, and if their questions are not answered, then we have failed in our job. --Jumbo 22:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Brought back the wake turbulence section which was cut by an anonymous editor yesterday. Just to throw my two cents in regarding POV, I'm not a Boeing Booster. I really don't like any extra large aircraft. Going through baggage claim or worse yet immigration with the passengers of a fully loaded 747 can be a long, frustrating experience. The A380 will only make it worse if ground facilities are not significantly improved. I'd hate to think of the immigration area at Dulles if a couple of A380s come in close together. It's bad enough already when a few trans-Atlantic 747s come in. --StuffOfInterest 14:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL @ StuffOfInterest; it doesn't matter who you are a fan of providing your edits are impartial. However, bringing back a paragraph, twice, that you know to be inacurate and misleading with no attempt to fix it doesn't do much for your credentials. 81.179.236.138 14:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I actually offer my compliments on the recent edits. Is just because someone feels a section does not fully describe the situation reason enough to delete it? Might it have been better for someone to fix it before rather than deleting it, or at least put a note in saying the section is disputed? Wake turbulence is a major issue for large aircraft. Having no mention of it doesn't do a service to the article either. --StuffOfInterest 14:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes it would have been better for someone to fix it, as there is nothing wrong with the topic, but surely the onus is on the author or reposter {points accusing finger}, not the reader, when it comes to fixing sloppy edits. Otherwise readers have to put up with biased or factually incorrect articles simply because no one who knew was willing or able to fix them. 81.179.236.138 16:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

If you have a problem with something on the Wikipedia, it doesn't mean others do too. Finding a solution to your perceived problem that doesn't harm objectivity or completeness of the article is your responsibility. ericg ✈ 17:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I dispair at misleading claims like "Heavier aircraft produce more powerful vortices". Especially when the person posting knows full well (or didn't bother to do even the most basic research) that weight is one of several factors. Now I wonder who put such a one sided sentence in the Turbulence section... Oh it was you.
Several people put in NPOV bits, they were rightly deleted for not being 'encyclopedic'. However, whoever did that chose not to add a NPOV tag and didn't bother balancing the offending material either. Seems they believe you don't need 'objectivity or completeness' to be 'encyclopedic'... BTW that was you as well. 81.179.236.138 18:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I was not the original creator of the criticism section, a user named User:Lumidek was. The edit history shows that I've attempted to clean up what was added on numerous occasions - perhaps it has not been perfect, but that's what the Wikipedia is for. However - if you think your repeated insertion of "this is a normal response to Airbus products" is 'putting in NPOV bits', then you need to take a step back. I didn't 'bother balancing the offending material' because I would rather spend time working on other articles.

What is your reasoning that heavier weight does not produce stronger vortices? Do you have any sources on this? I'm a commercial flight student and pilot, and my aerodynamics and physics courses have taught me that weight is the primary factor in wake creation. The most powerful wake is created by a slow, clean, heavy aircraft. If an A380 was unloaded, certainly the wake would be reduced. But the fact remains that the A380 is the heaviest airliner ever built, and will inherently produce more powerful vortices as a result of aerodynamics and physics. If you think otherwise, I would like to see your facts, rather than more claims that I don't know what I'm talking about. You apparently do not, or at least cannot bother to prove it to us. ericg ✈ 19:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

First bit - nothing to do with me. Second bit - don't misquote me. If the page you link to is the best the FAA can come up with then no wonder they are so worried about the A380. If you can be bothered read http://www.ll.mit.edu/AviationWeather/WW-11077_WindPrediction.pdf or you could just look at the Wiki page on wingtip vortices. Anyhow, as Barbara Bush would say 'I'm through with you'... 81.178.106.232 03:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Done with me or not, you've not proven to me that in a clean configuration weight is not the most significant influence on wake strength. I linked to an advisory for pilots; you linked to a theoretical way to predict vortex paths. Neither discusses the technical aspects of wake turbulence in detail. Quoting your MIT source, "strength is proportional to aircraft weight and inversely to aircraft speed and wing span".

I'll spell this out, as you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding how a vortices work: airspeed is a constant 250 knots during most operations below 10,000 feet. This makes weight and wingspan the primary factors. The A380, at 560,000 kg, is 50% heavier than the 747-400's 374,000 kg. At 79.8 m, span is 23% wider than the 747's 64.4 m. The primary acting factor here is weight. Winglets do not reduce the intensity of wake turbulence, they increase the efficiency of the wing by adding a forward (thrust) lift vector and shifting the vortices outboard. The A380 weighs more, and will based on aerodynamics

Hey, StuffofInterest... the A380 hasn't been targeted, really, at the American market, as someone stated it above in another discussion. Yet Chinese and other Asian are going to love to put 800 people in a single ATC slot, a single parking slot, and a single handling operation. Of course, the very fact of moving 500 to 800 pax in a row is a challenge in itself... but this challenges will come no matter what they do, and with a 380 replacing two smaller airplanes this is an advantage worth using. About the Criticism section... it still looks silly but it adds some contextualization.

Airbus airplanes have been blamed during thier development of losing their carbon-made tail fins (A300), to have problems with the processors in their flight computers (A320), to not be serious by putting a same cockpit to every airplane in each body width, to be inefficent with their 4 engines (A340)... All was false. The point with the A380 is, Boeing hasn't been able to replace the 747 with anything else than YAJ (Yet Another Jumbo). Now they claim it's not necessary and that the era of big jets is gone. How nice they are to worry about Airbus' industrial decissions about the A380... But the point still is the same: there's 1,000 Jumbos in the world, and only Airbus can replace and go beyond them.

The effects on terminal operations such as immigration aren't really that pertinent to the actual aircraft. The efforts of the airport operator and the national rules have just as much effect. You should try going through immigration at Sydney just after the jet curfew lifts at 0600, as heavy after heavy comes sliding down the glide slope a minute or two apart!

Dulles is a bit of a weird airport, with the island terminal and the "mobile lounges". It was a prototype for the jet age and the jet age didn't exactly follow along the path envisioned. Maybe a couple of 747s overload the facilities, but is that the fault of the jumbos or of Dulles?

Of more immediate interest is the wake turbulence question. Do we have any hard information on this? Presumably it will be greater than for a 747, but in the thirty years between the two designs maybe there have been improvements? --Jumbo 07:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Giant aircraft box

Although I don't mind the idea of a grouping of giant aircraft, does it really belong at the top of the article even above the primary photo? Perhaps it would be better placed down tin the related content area. --StuffOfInterest 17:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur. ericg ✈ 17:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it is too prominent. Maybe in the related content section at the bottom, that's the kind of area these things usually go in.Ben W Bell 17:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the concurences. Done. Hopefully the original author doesn't mind too much. --StuffOfInterest 17:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

And of course the original author came in to do the edit at the exact same time I did! :) --StuffOfInterest 18:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Media vs Wikimedia

Another nit to pick. There is a section for Media and then a box for Wikimedia Commons media in the Related content section. Should this box move up to the Media section? --StuffOfInterest 18:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

wake turbulence section

To those of you who helped me clean up and clarify the wake turbulence section, thank you. This is why we should be writing, rather than bitching. :) ericg ✈ 18:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Maiden flight - chart?

Noticed that someone added a note on the 3rd airframe taking to the skies. Being that the rollouts will be slow and observable for at least a few months, might a chart work well for showing which aircraft rolls out when? I can see the chart having aircraft serial number, model number, first flight date, and delivery to airline date (with the airline, of course). --StuffOfInterest 14:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it really our job to track flights and deliveries? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

An aircraft model only has one maiden flight, not three or five or one for each new airframe. This trend is as bad or worse than the rampant technobabble and acronyms in the Design section. ericg ✈ 18:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Only one maiden flight, but I can see some benefit during the test and initial service phase of listing the airframes. Going back a bit now, but I can remember the interest in the Concorde when it first took to the skies. Airframes 001, 002 and so on.

In a year's time, we might not need it, but readers coming here for current information on this significant aircraft might be interested in the progress of the first few aircraft. --Jumbo 14:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

We're not an aviation enthusiasts' website, we're an encyclopedia. Send them to Airliners.net if they want that info. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Qantas receives an A380

A380 in Qantas livery flying over Sydney 13 November 2005

I see that someone removed my edit about Qantas receiving its first A380. It is backed by the article here: http://www.940news.com/nouvelles.php?cat=22&id=111202 Zer0fighta 23:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

-All right. I take it back. There was some confusion, the airbus that landed in australia was just a prototype with the Qantas logo on it. My bad. Zer0fighta 23:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I've attached a photo of the A380. I was in the wrong position for taking the best shots and this one is the best of a bad lot at extreme magnification on the shady side. But at least it's free. I don't think it's good enough for the main article. --Jumbo 09:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes it was an Airbus publicity flight around Australia that has the fuselage painted in Quantas colours but the tail still in Airbus colours. It was just publicity to drum up additional support for the plane and not an actual delivery. Ben W Bell 11:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Superjumbo is that pic a cropping or a scaling down and if its a scaling down can you upload the full resoloution version over the top? Plugwash 22:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You can tell its cropped by the graininess. Photos normally grainy, especially at hi-res. Resizing averages the colour of a particular area, but cropping keeps the graininess. --Nathan 03:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

5MP, zoomed. The actual plane is tiny on the shot, so that's about as good as it gets. I drove all the way to Sydney and waited hours for that. Oh well. It was exciting to see the thing in the air. It's bloody quiet for something that size. --Jumbo 08:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Did you loselessly crop it? If not, might be helpful to loselessly crop it since it's so small and grainy. P.S. I'm assuming it's from a JPEG source. Obviously if it's from a RAW source, not an issue... Nil Einne 21:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. I was in a very poor position for photographing the aircraft and that's the best I got from four passes. It was a long way away and on the image the plane is tinytinytiny. I don't think it's possible to make it any better. Sorry. --Jumbo 04:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking at that photo, someone should tell Airbus that little airplane(s) flying next to very big airplane is a sure recipe for disaster. Have fun! ~XB-70 Valkyre

The photograph is misleading. There's a fair bit of zoom in that shot and the photo Learjet was actually quite safely separated. And no, Joe Walker was not the pilot! --Jumbo 12:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

All I know is that is one sexy shot of that plane.

747-8

I felt that the opening section was fine and tightly written as it stood, and that the mention of the Boeing 747-8 as a direct competitor was given too much prominence for a plane that is still on the drawing board - like all the other Boeing "superjumboes". I have attempted to amalgamate the facts with the existing mention in the history section. --Jumbo 13:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

non-standard <h3> headings

If you look through section 1 of the text the subheadings all look like this:

<h3>Cockpit</h3><!-- This is intentionally done with a strange mangled html syntax 
to keep the headings out of the TOC the html the browser sees WILL be valid-->

Unless anyone comes up with a good reason for this, I will change it back to normal wikipedia markup -- Cabalamat 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is not idiotic, as said the reason was to not overflow the TOC distorting the article layout in the starting sections. --Denniss 22:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It does seem a little odd, but I guess the reason was to keep the TOC from clutter. I'm in favour of using standard WP practice. Perhaps its time to move this section to a sub-article Airbus 380 Design or similar. I've changed the title above, BTW, as being needlessly offensive. Non-standard doesn't mean nonsensical. --Jumbo 22:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The TOC is supposed to follow the document structure and a full TOC is a good thing. Not using wikimarkup also makes things extremely difficult to edit. Dysprosia 12:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not just use the "__NOEDITSECTION__" directive mentioned in the editing guide? --StuffOfInterest 11:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. It looks like the directive affects the entire document rather than a single section. --StuffOfInterest 12:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Engine Sales

Would it be awkward of me to point out that the sales table is wrong? Air France are buying GE's engines, not R-R - Air France always buy GE engines due to their SNECMA content. The totals at the bottom should be changed too. (I would do it myself, but have no idea how!)

http://www.enginealliance.com/aboutmrkt.html

Printing Problems

The images of the reveal overlap the article when you print it. WestJet

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Airbus A380/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

A=has gone through a peer review, and was up for, but failed to become an FA. Include much of the ideas of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content, including a comprehensive history. To do: The specs need to be formated to follow Template:Aircraft specs

Last edited at 20:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)