Jump to content

Talk:Airbus A380/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Orders and deliveries

Is this table useful? Or not? To replace list at Airbus A380#Operators. and maybe also List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries#Orders by customers
Currently we have a table of deliveries in O&D and a text list of first services in A380. They seem to want to go together.
Sharing table would reduce work and discrepancies.
Comments invited. Ex nihil (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

First deliveries and service, by airline

Airline First delivery Ref. First service Ref.
Air France 30 October 2009 [1] 20 November 2009 [2]
Asiana Airlines 26 May 2014 [3] TBA
British Airways 4 July 2013 [4] 24 September 2013 [citation needed]
China Southern Airlines 14 October 2011 [1][5] 17 October 2011 [6][7]
Emirates 28 July 2008 [1] 1 August 2008 [8]
Korean Air 24 May 2011 [1] 17 June 2011 [9]
Lufthansa 19 May 2010 [1] 6 June 2010 [1]
Malaysia Airlines 29 May 2012 [1] 1 July 2012 [10]
Qantas 19 September 2008 [1] 20 October 2008 [1]
Singapore Airlines 15 October 2007 [1] 25 October 2007 [11]
Thai Airways International 27 September 2012 [1] 6 October 2012 [12]
  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k "A380 WOW!!!". Airbus. Retrieved 26 May 2014.
  2. ^ "Air France gets Europe's first A380 superjumbo". Agence France-Presse. 30 October 2009.
  3. ^ "Asiana Airlines' first A380 delivery". 26 May 2014. Retrieved 26 May 2014.
  4. ^ "British Airways takes delivery of its first of 12 Airbus A380s". 4 July 2013. Retrieved 26 May 2014.
  5. ^ "Airbus delivers China Southern Airlines' first A380". Airbus.com. 14 October 2011. Retrieved 22 October 2011.
  6. ^ "Airbus delivers China Southern Airlines' first A380". Airbus.com. 14 October 2011. Retrieved 22 October 2011.
  7. ^ "China Southern Airlines receives its first 'Pearl of the sky' A380 jetliner". Airbus.com. 14 October 2011. Retrieved 22 October 2011.
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference 1st UAE flight was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Eun-joo, Lee (17 June 2011). "East Asia's first A380 goes into operation today". Korea JoongAng Daily.
  10. ^ Platt, Craig (2 July 2012). "Newest superjumbo takes off for Malaysia Airlines". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 6 July 2012.
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference 1st SIA flight was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Singapore, Thai. "A380 Fantasy Fares". thaiairways.com. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
I think things are fine as they are, the dates for the first commercial use in this article and the deliveries in the relevantly named List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries. I cant see the need for a table here. MilborneOne (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not know what the criterion for date of first service is, but I was on a British Airways A380-800 (G-XLEA) on 25 Aug 13 on a London to Frankfurt flight, which is substantially prior to the date shown in the table. I have a signed log. It was loaded like a more usual A320 or A319 for this route and meant as a training flight prior to introduction on the LHR - LAX route the following month. But it was a regular commercial flight and may not have been the first one. Does this count?

http://economyclassandbeyond.boardingarea.com/2013/08/03/want-to-fly-the-ba-a380-to-frankfurt-be-careful/#sthash.KQRwpLwl.dpbs

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ba-enters-superjumbo-age-with-with-a-90minute-flight-to-frankfurt-8744376.html

BTW flying times are 1 h 15 min tops, more usually approx 1 h, depending on conditions. My A380 flight was recorded at 1 h 11 min. (DAS 27 Dec 14) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.69.164 (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense that shorter flights started sooner. This British Airways press release says long-haul flights were planned to begin on 24 Sept. 2013. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I imagine the reason for not shouting about the earlier flights is that it would have made the inaugural flight to LAX a lot less glamorous and interesting for the celebrities... Maybe somebody can determine when the actual first flight took place. Would have been not long before my flight on 25 Aug 13. (DAS 27 Dec 14, now logged in)

According to http://www.thebasource.com/g-xlea.html G-XLEA operated its first service from London to Frankfurt on the 2 August 2013. MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. It looks like the flights before that did not carry passengers. So will somebody amend the table to show 2 Aug 13 as first flight for BA and insert the reference/s in the main article? (DAS 27 Dec 14)Dori1951 (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC) For the record I was on BA 902 as mentioned in the Independent article. On the return eight days later I was on BA 907 (i.e. not 903), so flew in the more usual A319 with the more usual registration starting with EU, namely G-EUPO. In peasant class the A380 is not much different (why would it be?). Yes, shiny and new, but I remember small toilets and no more legroom than hitherto.Dori1951 (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The BA entry in the Operators section on the main A380 page was already updated to 2 Aug 2013 using the Independent article linked above. The table in this section is an example of what another poster wants to add. Also, it is part of somebody else's post and probably should not be modified. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Equipping long-haul planes A350 and A380 with floatable black boxes

I found this news from Channel NewsAsia stating that Airbus has been given the green light from EASA to equip flotable black boxes incase of an accident happening in the oceans. The source is found here: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/airbus-to-equip-long-haul/1585992.html?cid=FBINT Xizuki (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S, I won't usually check replies that often, unless theres a notification sent to me (because I joined Wikipedia a few months ago) so I might not "refresh" this page usually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xizuki (talk • contribs) 11:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC) P.P.S if I don't reply within 3 days you may let me know through my Talk page.

A380 very expensive to fly long haul, more sensitive to yield

This information deserves to be in the article (from Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/06/qatar-airbus-group-idUSL6N0M33HO20140306:

Explaining why Qatar had decided against flying to Los Angeles while introducing three new U.S. routes, Al Baker said, "I will only go if I cover my costs... I would not necessarily want to make a big profit but at least I don't want to lose.
"If you go those long distances, especially with an A380, you will lose your shirt, because the A380 is a very expensive airplane to operate on ultra-long haul. Unless you get the right yield, you won't make a profit on the airplane," he said.
"This is why we have a very small number of A380s. The A380s were very good when the fuel price was 30, 40, 50 dollars a barrel, but when you have to spend 100-120 dollars for fuel it becomes very difficult," he told reporters.

The article currently seems to suggest that the A380 is a good performer in this market segment in terms of fuel economy, when it actually fares poorly. 69.201.168.196 (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The comment relates to getting passengers on seats on long thin routes which is not really related to fuel economy and is not unusual thing to consider in the airline business. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
the title of that article I linked is "Qatar Air may buy more A380s, but not for longest routes". That is not a comment about getting passengers into seats, it's about the expense of flying an A380 long haul, expenses that are only covered by the plane being full of people every time. 69.201.168.196 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
No they're saying that due to the costs of running over longer distances (crew and fuel etc) that they need to get enough passengers and the routes don't justify that. For example only 60% capacity wouldn't be economical when they could run a smaller plane that is nearly full. The A380 isn't economical on any route if you don't get enough passengers on it, that's what it means by yield. Canterbury Tail talk 21:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

A380 is still the leader on longhauls. See this excellent analysis here A777_A380_B747_analysis and if Airbus proceeds with the A380neo competition will be beyond reach. Ex nihil (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I read the article you reference, it's says the current 777 has better fuel economy than the 380, and it says the 777 is already planned to dramatically improve so the 380 will require a revamp too. All I'm saying is that the article should contain information like this, and like the article I referenced: that the 380 is a very heavy plane and is more sensitive to low yields than the competition is for the reason that long haul you have to haul a heavy plane and heavy fuel to carry the heavy plane. My only guess is that people who work for Airbus might worry about their job prospects, but the article should contain info about the plane to discuss the limitations that people in the real world are discussing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.168.196 (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Planes are like ships, the bigger they are the less it costs to ship each unit of freight. Long haul is more profitable than short since there are fewer landing cycles on the maintenance sheet, and less fuel used for climb out. The Dallas-Sydney route is used as an example of distance. In reality, flying the same route westwards can use 25% more fuel than flying the same route eastwards. To fly the round trip a plane needs way more range than the GC distance.220.240.252.95 (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A380 future and current operators graphic is very out of date

This graphic is current as of May 2013. In the interim, Japan is no longer a future operator with Skymark cancellation and other changes have been made as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans100 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

A380neo

I just added refs for A380neo, and then removed them again, as it appears unlikely : [1] [2] . The open discussion could be relevant for economics, though. [3] TGCP (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The proposed A380neo should be mentioned somewhere in the article. It has gotten enough media coverage to state what it is, at least. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Why doesn't this belong in the lede?

BilCat removed this from the lede:

"While no longer losing money on each plane sold, Airbus admits that the company will never recoup the $25B investment it made in the project." citation: airbus a380 haunted by lack of orders marks decade in the skies

Why wouldn't that belong in the lede? Boeing and Airbus started working on this project together, Boeing concluded that there was not room in the market for a big plane, that it's not where the market is headed. Airbus pursued the project, many analysts agreed with Boeing that the project would never pay for itself. Now, finally, Airbus admits that the project won't pay for itself. It's a nice set of bookends that define this disastrous project, it was predicted, it got worse during development, and then in the 3rd act of the 3 act tragedy the protagonist realizes it himself. I'm going to put it back in, but before that BilCat has a chance here to discuss why he thinks this page should remain simply a "we love the big plane" circlejerk. Stop whitewashing the white elepant, this should not be an Airbus marketing page, this fact I'm trying to add has a proper citation, and it's among the most important facts about the A380 project so the lede is the perfect place to repeat it. 68.175.11.48 (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This article refers to "break-even" and links to definition page... but that definition page says break-even occurs when all prior costs have been recouped; the usage that Airbus executives and this article intend means "no longer incurring additional unrecouped costs", a different more lenient definition that hides losses. 96.246.62.105 (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Info should not be covered in the Lead without coverage in the body of the article as well. Such details should be added in the body of the article. Significant content in the article body can be summarized in the Lead/Intro/Lede. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Contract

Where are the evidences/sources for the contracts with the airliners regarding purchase and delivery day for each airplane? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wertzt (talk • contribs) 08:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you will need to explain what you are asking about as we don't mention contracts in this article MilborneOne (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
If it is something metioned regarding deliveries so it should be written from where this information is. No evidences/sources-> everybody can write his own story — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wertzt (talk • contribs) 09:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Orders and deliveries are based on data from Airbus (monthly updates). --Denniss (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Airbus A380. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. ☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

A380 Map. Wrong with IRAN

The map with the operators of the Airbus380 is WRONG. I'm not iranian, I live far away from there, and somebody "painted" with violet colour Saudi Arabia!!!. Iran is not there. Check a map please, who did it? the "american" Homer Simpson? Thanks!

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Airbus A380. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airbus A380. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Airbus A380. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2017

Only an arithmetic issue with the range of A380 8000 miles is 13600 km and 15000 km is 9375 miles . Please clarify which distance is correct . Kevin James Scott (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Where exactly is 8,000 miles listed in the article? I see nautical miles (nmi) and kilometers (km) listed for range. The article in Lead and in Design section lists a range of 8,500 nautical miles (15,700 km), which is the correct conversion. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
you seem confused between nautical miles (1.852 km) and miles (1.609 km), aircraft ranges are in nautical miles --Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 Resolved: User posted response on his user page. Marking as answered. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Claim from the Motley Fool

I've just removed a claim that Emirates is expected to cancel most of its remaining A380 orders sourced to the Motley Fool. Everything I've seen, including this Wall Street Journal story from two days ago has reported that Emirates would actually like to actually order more of the type. This recent Flight Global story also discusses Emirates' outstanding orders without suggesting that any will be cut, and this recent story from The Telegraph also covers Emirates' A380 orders, noting that the airline would like to buy a "neo" version, but would reduce its orders of the current variant if such a plane became available. Reuters has also recently reported that Emirates "strongly backs the A380", and recently purchased an extra pair of the aircraft when they became available. As I understand it, The Motley Fool is a stock analysis website, and not a solid source of news. Unless better sources to support this claim are available, it should be excluded IMO. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

another strange claim:
"Airbus says that some A380s may not be delivered to customers or even built. This decision came when Airbus had not met the 'Accord and Satisfaction' for three :already built aircraft for an undisclosed Japanese airline." ( O&D para 4, top )
Skymark was unable to commence with payments late in the process.
There has been zero rumor around that the product was unsatisfactory.
So does this have a good source? ( Not the Motley Fool or similar sites.) — Preceding :unsigned comment added by 84.158.116.39 (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The text about not building some A380s and rest of that paragraph was copied from the Bloomberg source or a very close paraphrase. The text was too detailed too. This has been trimmed and reworded. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Request infobox image change

File:Emirates Airbus A380 on finals to runway 23 at Toronto Pearson.jpg

I'd like to replace the image with a more dramatic one of a A380 passing low over a road while landing. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transportfan70 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's really not the best type of image for an infobox. The aircraft is off-center and at a bad angle, and the other elements in the photo are distracting. But yes, it is dramatic. - BilCat (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree with BilCat not the best image for the infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Could I place it elsewhere in the article, and even replace another pic with it as there's plenty already? Transportfan70 (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes. This approach image should be placed is an appropriate section, ideally. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I have changed a simple Emirates image to this one in the article to see if it is OK. MilborneOne (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I though of the occasion to go through A380 pics and this one is interesting:--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

  • current, OK but a bit usual
    current, OK but a bit usual
  • proposed : more unusual pic but still nicely shows its general configuration : double deck quad jet
    proposed : more unusual pic but still nicely shows its general configuration : double deck quad jet
  • I like the second one as a replacment. Howevet, generally, I believe we already have far too many pictures. I propse we cull about six views of A380s just taking off, landing or flying around as they add nothing to the article. Ex nihil (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I believe the article would read a lot better without all of the following clutter for duplication or close similarity, quality or no added information. Other aviation sites are available if folk just want A380 photos:
1 British Airways Airbus A380 arrives Heathrow Airport, 2015. Duplicated
2 Airbus A380, Paris-Le Bourget, 2015 So what?
3 A Qantas A380 taking off Duplicated
4 A Singapore Airlines A380 at Zürich Airport Adds nothing
5 Qatar Airways Airbus A380-800 at Heathrow Airport outside Terminal 4 with a wide range of ground handling equipment around such as aircraft container, pallet loader, ULD, jet air starter, belt loader, pushback tug, catering vehicles and dollies.
6 Emirates is the largest A380 operator with 92 aircraft in service as of January 2017 Duplicated
7 Prototype at the 2005 Paris Air Show Better around, would belong in development if it belonged anywhere but not needed
8 A video of an A380 taxiing Not interesting, adds nothing, better around
What do people think? Ex nihil (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with most of your observations. Duplicates mostly doesn't add anything. It could be a good time to place relevant pictures though, if not the article would be a bit dry.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I moved to a relevant section, removed or replaced by a relevant pic most of them, except the SIA at zurich, wich is the sole pic to illustrate the launch operator, and is a good unusual picture.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid for your picture it doesn't add much meaning to the article. Sorry it stirred up this discussion about renovating the article illustrations.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Airbus A380. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Airbus A380. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Requirements for Accident/Incident Inclusion - Aviation Safety may be too limited as an exclusive source

I discovered this incident, where a door seal failed at altitude forcing an Emergency Landing to avoid possible slow decompression. https://reports.aviation-safety.net/2014/20140106_A380_9V-SKE.pdf The worrisome point is that the plane was flown again (return leg) after a cabin door was excessively noisy, because no cause could be immediately found. The noise re-occurred and became extremely loud, and finally cabin air began escaping through the door, prompting an Emergency Diversion. Cabin doors had already been modified to attempt to resolve a crack problem, but still were insufficiently robust. Dfoofnik (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC) (Dfoofnik)

Thanks. I'd take a look at WP:AIRCRASH - it lays out some guidelines on what makes an incident significant enough to be included in an article. Based on the info provided, I don't think this incident meets those guidelines. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Airbus A380. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Air Force One under "operators"

Hello! Under the "Operators" heading is a paragraph explaining that the A380 was briefly considered as an "Air Force One" for the United States. Since Airbus/EADS never bid for the contract, having this info under the "operators" section makes no sense- the USAF was never close to being an operator. Is there a more appropriate section for this info? Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I moved the subsection under Variants instead. --Finlayson (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I moved it from =Market= because 2 planes won't make or break a market, and didn't know where to put it, so it went to =operators= given the usaf was a potential operator. =variants= isn't great either, even if there was modifications, the main point is the potential sale, so i moved it again in =Orders and deliveries=. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I didn't see good reason(s) for it to be under Operators either; there is/was no connection to current or future operators that I can see. So I moved the single paragraph to be under Development. I don't think there is enough info to need a separate subsection also. Any better ideas on this? --Finlayson (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't in Operators, but in =Orders= as the main point was the potential order, not the tech devlpmt. =Dev= isn't well suited. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
See this previous version of article that I edited here. It was a proposed variant/version too, but that wasn't right or good enough either. --Finlayson (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A380neo to A380plus

If the A380neo is not in issue anymore, then maybe it would make sense if the A380plus gets its own heading. Furthermore, it could be more emphasized, that the neo variant is discarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da Vinci Nanjing (talk • contribs) 17:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Airbus A380 plus

Airbus Just Upgraded the World’s Largest Passenger Jet (Airbus A380 plus) - [4]. Please update the article. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Readers deserve an explanation as to why the A380 failed

This edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airbus_A380&diff=883301584&oldid=883300764 by User:CALDlykLIJ has buried any explanation regarding why A380 production is being ended, and why the program never came close to recovering development costs. The lede, as it stands right now, gives no hint whatsoever. I see this to be a gross disservice to the reader. I understand that there are people who are very emotional about the A380, and will want to present this article in a way that requires the reader to dig to get a clue as to what happened. But if we are to do our jobs properly as Wikipedia editors here, then we will present the story straight and clear:

The reason why the A380 failed is because the paradigm it was designed for, the hub-and-spoke system, was largely replaced by the point-to-point system. And so the industry has seen successes with smaller two-engine aircraft. Evidence the fact that more than 1400 787s have been ordered, averaging almost 90 per year, whereas the A380 has gotten 313 orders, averaging less than 17 per year.

Our readers deserve better. If the justification for deleting the explanation presented is because it included no references, then the proper fix is to add references. My understanding is that this is info that has been widely known for well over a decade. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

If it has been "widely known" then you will not have a problem finding reliable sources. MilborneOne (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
You may have noticed that well-referenced info also got removed from the lede. The problem being highlighted here is the whitewashing of this article. There are people who want to hide the fact that the A380 has been a financial disaster for Airbus. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
And if anyone is wanting references for that statement I just posted here, you can just google [A380 "financial+disaster"] --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Its not our job to google anything, if you want to gain consensus to add something that has been challenged then you need to provide evidence that it is realiable sources, noteworthy and not undue weight. MilborneOne (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't bother to look at the info that was deleted from the lede. It contained a direct quote from the Airbus CEO, along with quotes from Forbes, etc.
And I never said it was your job to google anything. I indicated that if you wanted references for the statement added here on this Talk Page, you can find them yourself quite easily.
The larger point is that if key info has been suppressed on this article, it is our job to bring that to light. I had added key info to the lede. It got removed from there. That might be an appropriate action for a propaganda website. But for an encyclopedic website, not so much. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
This New York Times article https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/15/business/airbus-a380-emirates.html
explains the point-to-point shift that clobbered the success potential for the A380, designed for the hub-and-spoke system. There have to be dozens more such references. I found this one without looking. (Stumbled upon while I was looking up something else.) I recommend that the deleted paragraph (from the edit linked at the top of this section) gets re-added with this NYT article as the supporting reference. I consider this explanation vital toward understanding what happened to the A380 and why. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure there are plenty of speculative older references to be found that "predicted" the demise of the A380, and there are bound to be numerous analysis pieces in the coming days and months. The BBC already has a "Why did the A380 fail?" article, for example.[5] However, the lead is supposed to summarise the body, and the above arguments aren't very well covered in the body yet. I'd suggest working on a better analysis in the body, with WP:RS of course, and then summarising it in the lead only after discussion has settled down. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The financial failure of the A380 is something that has been reported on for years. The fact that this Wikipedia article did not provide an explanation of that shows how badly editors have done our job here for all these years. Yes, now that production is being ended, it will get a lot more attention. But this is something that this article could have explained back in the 20-oughts. Not wait until after the plug was pulled in 2019. I see this to be an edit-fail that has persisted for well over a decade on this article.
I would guess that looking back into the history and archives will show how others have attempted to communicate this story clearly, yet those efforts got deleted similar to how my edit today got suppressed. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Instead of making sweeping accusations, and "guessing" about the history, how about simply making some constructive edits to the body of the article to incorporate the information you believe to be missing. (You may well be right that the information is worthy of inclusion, but adopting a more WP:CIVIL tone in your comments here would do no harm whatsoever). Rosbif73 (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
A basic fact is that the lede of this article does not communicate that the A380 was a failure. More appropriate wording is that the program has been a financial disaster.
Ok, maybe it is not productive for me to make any guesses as to why this info is not being presented. I look forward to this problem being fixed.
As for my contributions here not conforming to WP:Civil, a specific quote of where I might have done that would be much more helpful feedback. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I've taken the advice that the best approach here is to simply make well-referenced edits that improve the article. The bolded info above has now been included. The other info I had previously added which got moved to the body gives more details. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Friday Update:
I have sat back for more than half a day. Through this period, I have watched the article continue to be sanitized. Efforts to present the basic facts of the A380 financial situation are consistently being removed. It is clear that there are editors here who do not want that story to be told. The lede, as it currently stands, gives the reader absolutely no clue as to why the program got cancelled. Rosbif73, you criticized me for making "sweeping accusation". I don't see any other explanation for what has been happening here on this article for well over a decade. Your own recent efforts toward improving the article are trivial. I see no effort at all toward communicating the basic financial info which might do anything to explain to readers why the A380 was cancelled. It is clear that you have determined that your time is better spent in criticizing me and my efforts to do so. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Update to the update:
I just now saw that the statement got re-added down in the section explaining the End of production. THANK YOU to the editors who did that. I see that to be a huge improvement to the article. The lede can likewise be improved by giving the casual reader a hint about these facts, or as a minimum a pointer to look down to this section to get the explanation. Thank you again, you all! This looks to be excellent work. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The A380 program has been "a financial disaster for Airbus"

In the section above, the observation was made that this article has consistently been sanitized. Here is the simple, well-referenced statement that concisely explains why the A380 program was cancelled:

The A380 program has been "a financial disaster for Airbus".
(Reference: Airbus A380 ... May Cease Production, by Jack Ewing, The New York Times, Jan 15, 2018)

This statement got deleted from the lede in less than half an hour, clobbered in this edit. And so we are back to the sanitized version. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to communicate reliable NPOV info, not propaganda. Until this gets fixed, this article will remain as a propaganda piece more than it is an encyclopedic article. The A380 has been a multi-billion Euro hole for Airbus. There is absolutely no hint of that fact presented in the lede. And digging into the body of the article, basic financial facts have been masked. So the average reader will leave here scratching their head as to why the program got cancelled.

It is our duty to fix this situation. It is our duty to present basic info clearly. We have collectively failed here. And so long as there are editors who prefer to present the whitewashed version of the story, then this article will continue to be a failure. It was known that the A380 was a financial disaster before the first one ever left the ground in 2005. Here we are 14 YEARS LATER with the cancellation of the program officially announced, and this key info is still being buried and removed from the article. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Attempting to get one's way by shaming and using inflammatory language rarely works on Wikipedia. Words like "sanitized", "clobbered", "masked", and especially "propoganda".and "whitewashed" can be read as uncivil, and you've been warned about that already. Also, selectively taking one phrase from one opinion piece isn't necessarily NPOV either. Please drop all the high-handed language, and talk to us as if we're just normal people trying to write a good encyclopedia, which is in fact what most of us here are. Plenty will be written on exactly what happened with the A380 in the next year especially, and there will be plenty of neutral reliable sources to glean from. - BilCat (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Bilcat is right, no need for excitation. There is a pretty comprehensive #Market section already.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the body of the article has been substantially improved. The section you highlight, along with the #End of production section do an excellent job of communicating what had happened.
The point remains that the lede does not give the casual reader any hint as to why A380 production is being ended. That remains to be an area of improvement. And the one statement being proposed here would go a long way toward communicating the big picture in a very few set of words. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Upon closer inspection...
Here is an example of a statement presented in this article that requires scrutiny:

"...while remaining profitable per unit..."
(from #Further_continuation_of_programme)

Words like that run the risk that there are readers who do not understand the meaning of "development cost" versus "production cost", and those readers will leave this article with the grossly distorted impression that Airbus made money on the A380.
An analogy here would be like having a hospital patient who is a hemophiliac. Their body has no blood in it at all. But the report reads: "the patient is gaining 2 ounces of blood with each pint that is infused" ...while ignoring the fact that the patient had died several days ago. Now if instead you accurately report the patient's actual status, then no one is left scratching their heads when the doctor announces that the plug was pulled on their life support system.
"But you told me that Airbus is making money on each A380. Why would they cancel the program?!"
This is where that original CEO quote that got removed from the lede was key. The patient was dead, AND each pint added was bleeding out more than was being put in. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
BilCat, if you looked at the original edit that was highlighted as being removed from the lede (reposting here) then you saw that a direct quote I had presented from the Airbus CEO explaining clearly why he ended A380 production was removed from the lede. And the editor who did that gave no explanation for the decision to do so. As the lede stands right now, it still gives no explanation.
Since me posting this new subsection, I have seen that the body of the article has been dramatically improved. Had I seen that earlier, I would not have posted this new subsection. My feedback would simply have been to thank the editors involved in having done this significant improvement, and then added another plug to have the lede give readers a clue as to why the program was cancelled, so that they would not be forced to dig through the article in an effort to find the reasons.
I do not see any of this as me forcing "my own way" onto anyone else. I see this as the most basic fact about the A380 program. Info that could have been presented in this article well over a decade ago, and for whatever reason, this info has not been. If you or anyone else would like to present to me the benign reasons why this info has been consistently been deleted, I would be very glad to consider those alternative explanations.
I agree that the quote I've highlighted here, standing alone by itself, does not necessarily constitute NPOV. But I am confident that it accurately reflects the general understanding of just about everyone in the industry. And this is a simple fact that has not changed for well over a decade. Yes, there will be plenty more reliable references to come. But yesterday's announcement was a surprise to no one who has followed the A380. There has been a multitude of references that this article could have used to communicate the impending production shutdown. Yet this was not done. You see me as the fault here for offering reasons why. I am wide open to any other reasons for this that anyone would like to present. I happen to see my words to be perfectly civil. A statement that appears to be slander is not slander if it is factually accurate. Well-referenced edits I have added to the lede have been removed from the lede with no explanation given. Yet I am the one who is seen to be acting with a lack of civility. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Civility is as much about tone as it is about words. You have posited a long-lasting conspiracy by wikipedia editors, but have cited no evidence apart from one very recent edit. Yet if you look at a version of the article from just before the cancellation announcement, you'll see plenty of information about difficulties (e.g. [6]). You would probably be right to say that it wasn't as well summarised as it is now, but nobody has been colluding to hide anything. We're all volunteers here, almost all of us with no agenda other than attempting to make a good encyclopedia, in line with the Five pillars. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I never stated nor suggested that it was a coordinated effort. I have no idea why the word "collusion" is now being used in this discussion. The point was that these efforts were being done by various editors. Over the course of many years. That, by itself, does not necessarily constitute any conspiracy. I never indicated nor ever implied that it did.
As for Wikipedia Policy regarding Civility, here is the more concrete feedback to you... The very first point on how to avoid incivility:
  • Explain yourself.
(WP:Civility#Avoiding_incivility)
Yet BilCat and you choose to call me out for falling short on WP:Civil, while giving no feedback here to these editors who deleted my improvements with no explanation given.
For future situations, you might want to actually read what these policies say before you go criticizing anyone for not following them. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Other users not giving explanations isn't an excuse for your own incivility. If another user commenting here is uncivil to the degree you have been, I'll.call them out if I feel it's needed. - BilCat (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I was not excusing incivility on anyone's part. As for your view that anything I've posted here has been done with incivility, I have yet to be convinced of that. You've objected to five specific words I have used. I had already stated that I see these words as accurate. If and when anyone does convince me that I have crossed any line of propriety here, I will be quick to apologize. A specific quote would be very helpful to assess whether it is your or me who is mischaracterizing what has happened here. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
You've already made up your mind that all of us here are pushing Airbus propoganda and purposely whitewashing the article. If you don't already know the problem with that, nothing I say will convince you otherwise. If it's just a tactic on your part, then nothing I say will stop you from continuing it. - BilCat (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I witnessed multiple deletes of key info that had been added to the lede. I never said everyone was doing it. What I asserted was that it was being done. You and at least one other person here raised the issue of civility, and then I showed how these deletes, done with no justification presented for doing so, was a clear aspect that goes against WP.
You are now characterizing my description of the problem here as some kind of tactic. I had clearly stated that I was, and I still am, totally open to any alternative explanation on how this article had gotten so broken as to not give the reader any clue regarding the actual financial situation of the A380.
And by far the most important point being asserted here is that a SEVERE DISSERVICE is being done to the reader, because as the article stands even right now, the lede gives absolutely no clue that Airbus has lost money because of the A380 program. That's no clue that it lost a single Euro, let alone the many billions of Euros that is the commonly known fact among those in the industry. WHY does the lede of this article not communicate that? You don't seem to care. You care far more about me supposedly having some tactic. I've made my agenda here perfectly clear: It is our duty to present an article that communicates the bare minimum of info about the A380. As it stands today, we have failed in that effort.
The body of the article has been greatly improved since the time I first posted on this article's Talk page. But this is info that should have been in the article many years prior to this week. And now the part of the article that is remaining as sub-standard is the lede. You and I can work together toward fixing that. I have already given a suggested statement that would do that. It is a well referenced statement. And if the New York Times article is not sufficient for anyone, I expect that dozens more can be found. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
The WP:LEAD should summarise the article body, so if the body is OK the lead should follow. I rewrote the lead as section summaries, with references commented.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Production dates

The "produced" parameter in the infobox currently says 2005–present. Given that the first complete airframe was unveiled on 18 January 2005, it seems unlikely that they started production in 2005, unless they built the entire aircraft in less than 18 days. This seems unrealistic, especially for the *first* airframe. It seems more likely that production started in 2003 or 2004.

edit: found evidence of production starting in 2003: [7] [8] ElshadK (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Prototypes aren't production aircraft, i.e. aircraft that will be used in regular operations or passed onto a client or end user. As a result they don't count for production dates. Production dates only cover the actual line production of end user targeted aircraft. Canterbury Tail talk 12:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It did or it will. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Stopping the production of Airbus A380

Airbus annonced lately that their production will stop sooon this year. This arcicle may need to be changed a bit with the production date.Wojciech 2020 (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

As per normal for aircraft it will stay as In Production until it ceases from the perspective of the Infobox etc. Once production has completely ceased we can do some updates. Canterbury Tail talk 20:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
ref?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Canterbury Tail: and Marc Lacoste: Not a RS for Wikipedia's purposes, but it seems that production has now ended. Would expect RSs to be reporting this soon. Mjroots (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
There will be an official last delivery press release.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
That tweet merely indicates that the final fuselage has been assembled. There's still a lot of work to do on that last plane, and for that matter there are eight others still to be delivered and that are presumably at various stages of completion.[1] Rosbif73 (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Breaking: The Final Airbus A380 Has Been Assembled". Simple Flying. 23 September 2020.

50 tonne Mini-freighter

Emirates modified an A380 to be a ‘mini-freighter’ with 50 tonnes of cargo rather than the usual 8-17 tonnes. It seems notable, but I can't find a suitable place in the article, perhaps "End of production". It doesn't seem to fit in "Secondary", "Teardown and second-hand market" or "Operators". Some B777 were also modified. Unclear if they are Combi aircraft. TGCP (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Nothing extraordinary. This is just a regular passenger A380 with the 175 m^3 bellyhold full (this would mean a Volumetric weight of 286kg/m^3, 43% more than the FedEx limit). Where did you read A380s were limited to 17t of freight?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
This article shows 8-17 tonnes cargo in 88m^3 (at the bottom of the article), from Emirates' images (click "Vis større bilder"). Depends on passenger number. Source is Norway engineering society. Here is the Emirates PR for the cargo charter flight, without numbers. The 88m3 option seems to be not covered in the wiki article, nor is a weight limit.
Hi Fly also used A380 as freighter, seats removed. Other examples. So while removal of seats are common during COVID, I had not seen it for A380. TGCP (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Probably - the Emirates 777 numbers (16-21 tonnes in 125m3) also differ from its wiki-article (200m3). A "full passenger load" should include checked luggage, taking away available space and payload from freight. TGCP (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Airbus' ACAP states a 175.2 m3 cargo volume, and a 84t maximum payload (but then the density would be excessive at nearly 0.5). The 50t limit should come from the cargo hold floor limit. Anyway, nothing special.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2021

Put Qatar as a primary user because they brought them back to service. 50.233.15.242 (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Chart

The airbus is on the list of aircraft compared. Therefore the chart should be on the page in the specifications section. Kenixkil (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Doesnt matter that somebody has created an image we do not normally do comparisions and the image does not add anything to the article. i believe this was discussed and removed before. MilborneOne (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Lede

@Ich-Du-De: - Would the phrase "with no hull losses" be acceptable in the lede. We can't say there have been no accidents, as there are two accidents with articles. Mjroots (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Better to say no hull loss accidents, i.e. no crashes (an accident does necessarily not mean a crash). I don't think this is really misleading, but I understand your concern. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, better to say "no hull loss accidents". Because, "hull loss" can be also an incident, e.g. an aircraft caught on fire during parking and was written off. I prefer "No accidents" in this regard as it is more general and strictly follow the definition of ICAO Annex 13, imho.Ich-Du-De (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
OK, the "significant damage" in the ICAO Annex 13, point b, is actually a "grey zone". A contained engine failure is easily to be defined as an incident (white) but we have here an uncontained engine failure case and if the cited source defined it as an accident (black) then there is no other choice, except to follow it. I will revoke my "undid" to the edit of @Mjroots:, it there will be no more comments from other editors within one week. Ich-Du-De (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
@Ich-Du-De: - I've tweaked the lede. Mjroots (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that User:Ich-Du-De. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Last airbus is built

Article needs updating to reflect the final airbus is build and the type is out of production. 2601:285:8180:1A10:4526:85F0:C0B1:FB65 (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Any reference to support this claim? Ruslik_Zero 20:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
This is covered in the Lead and in one or two places in body of article, but maybe not in the best places or clearly enough. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I note a hidden comment recently added to the lead: Since the last A380 has been delivered, this para will be updated as soon as the O&D will be issued in January 2022. I'm well aware that we usually wait for the official O&D before updating delivery figures, but here we already have a clear reference for delivery of the final aircraft – in the previous paragraph of the lead, making it inconsistent. Why not update now? Rosbif73 (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Although waiting for the next O&D report to update the Orders and Deliveries section seems reasonable, I cant see why the last delivery couldnt be mentioned elsewhere if it has a reliable reference. It is unlikely that the O&D will actually say it is the last. MilborneOne (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

How many A380s are still in service? Article seems wrong

Of the 251 A380s delivered before manufacturing shut down, how many are still in service? The Operators section-lede says "There were 244 aircraft in service (of 249 delivered) with 16 operators as of 31 October 2021" (and 2 more new aircraft were delivered after October)

just below that, the Airbus_A380#Former operators subsection says "Air France operated 10... retired... Fly Malta operated 1 Airbus A380-800, retired... Lufthansa operated 14... retired"

So, with those 25 retired of the 251 total, the number 244 seems wildly more than 226. Also, have any other A380s been retired but not by "former" operators? 2603:8001:9500:9E98:0:0:0:9A7 (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2022 (GSOC microtask)

165.124.85.32 (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Largest airplane?

The “largest passenger airliner” needs to be changed to “largest airplane”, for the Antonov an 224 has been destroyed by russian bombing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planeguy90 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Planeguy90: By what parameters? Per List of large aircraft, the Scaled Composites Stratolaunch is longer, heavier, has a much greater wingspan than the A380, and carries a much greater payload, albeit external. BilCat (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

An-225 destruction makes A380 heaviest aircraft in the world

Should this be added to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.243.218 (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

No, because it didn't, so it isn't. BilCat (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding New Testing Information

In the second to last paragraph within the Testing section, there is a small tangent from 2014 about further testing of specifically the test models from 2005. I came across new information about Airbus' Flight Lab program, which is testing new rotor engines and sustainable fuels on the planes. I want to add this information, but I don't know exactly where would be best. This information seems extremely relevant to show that although the production of A380s has expired, Airbus has not stopped improving their commercial flop. Would it be ideal to add it right after the 2014 tangent, at the end of the Testing section, or maybe even add a new section?

On a semi-related note but not as relevant, I think the Airbus Flight Lab program could use its own article, since it spans across different Airbus models and is an amazing step to fight carbon emissions among commercial flight. Jadeisbetter (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Airbus_A380/Archive_7&oldid=1226081820"