Talk:List of Airbus A350 orders and deliveries

Aeroflot order

The mention of Turkish having ordered "+ 6 A350-900 meant for Aeroflot purchased in May 2022" links to a citation that does not actually report or confirm that the planes are "meant for Aeroflot" but rather speculates it might be the reason for Turkish's sudden turnabout. (Exact phrasing in the cited article is "Currently, two Airbus A350-900s on order by Aeroflot have been sanctioned and will not be delivered to the airline. Could Turkish potentially receive aircraft meant for Aeroflot?") Should this line therefore be removed?

-800

Will be build or not, the date 2016 is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragdy (talk • contribs) 07:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Date of Orders

I just updated the table to reflect the firming of the Qatar order, which leads me to this question - should the date be the date the order was first announced, or the date it was firmed? I have used the date which it was firmed (i.e. today), but I am unsure whether this is the best way to do it, and whether it reflects practice in similar tables for the 787 and A380. Nick Moss 10:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think if possible the firm date should be used. But if not, its fine as well. Not a biggie.--Bangabalunga 22:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

US order

According to the US Airways press release [1] the A350 order is firm and includes both -800 and -900 variants. Any idea how they are distributed? -- 195.197.175.20 12:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That's strange, because according to the Airbus press release they have only come to terms of agreement, which "is contingent upon execution of definitive purchase agreements, expected in the coming weeks." Actually, looking at the US Airways press release, it says the same thing - it does not seem to be a firm agreement just yet, although evidently it is just a matter of concluding the fine print. The Airbus press release does differ however in that it says the agreement covers 22 A350-800s, as opposed to a mix of -800s and -900s in the US Airways release. Nick Moss 13:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The first line in the US press release says: "Airline positioned to take delivery of 60 replacement narrowbody A320 family of airplanes beginning in 2010 Deal includes firm orders for 32 widebody aircraft including 22 A350 XWBs Affirms US Airways' fleet of modern aircraft for the future while reducing fleet types and complexity". Strange indeed. -- 195.197.175.20 13:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the entire Airbus press release, it certainly mentions firm orders for 92 aircraft. AnAnonymousLogin 14:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It reads to me as if the agreement covers 92 firm orders, but the agreement has yet to be concluded. In other words, when it is concluded, there will be 92 firm orders. It is a bit of a technicality. Best thing to do I guess is wait until the June spreadsheet comes out, and see what it has on it. Nick Moss 22:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This Seattle PI article says the US Airways orders are not firm, and the firm total currently stands at 134. "But as of Thursday, the firm order count for the A350 XWB was at 134, with another 98 commitments. The best-of-show orders came from Qatar Airways, for 80 planes, and US Airways, for 22. But the US Airways order is not yet firm." I'm pretty sure I've seen the 134 number in other articles too. I'm going to return the US Airways order to the pending in light of this. Nick Moss 09:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And a better link from Airbus which settles the matter: http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pressreleases/pressreleases_items/07_06_22_lbg07_wrap_up.html Nick Moss 11:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

TAP Portugal Order - Firm or Not?

I just realised that up until today, the number of firm orders for the A350XWB was regularly stated as being 13. If that was the case, it would imply TAP's order isn't firm yet. Can anyone clear that up? Nick Moss 13:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the Airbus order spreadsheet, it seems as though TAP has 10 orders A350, but they were not placed in 2007. Given the order noted here for the A350XWB isn't noted on Airbus's current year totals, I am going to mark it as non-firm. Nick Moss 13:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, another user has removed it entirely, and on looking at the source, it seems as though it shouldn't have been there in the first place. Nick Moss 10:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked at that spreadsheet and I see 10 orders from TAP? Howcome these have been removed from the article? -- Daniel (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

They haven't been removed, they are orders for the original A350 and not the XWB, and remain to be converted or canceled by the end of the year. 87.194.205.206 (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The A350 order was now replaced by one for A330-900. 2A02:810D:23BF:F0B0:1137:6E3C:4B9:A31C (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Missing order?

On Airbus's site, I see an order not listed here from today. Is there a reason it has not been included? I don't feel confident enough in myself to change it. :P

http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pressreleases/pressreleases_items/07_06_18_alafco_a350_firm.html Daniel 20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct Alafco has signed on their previous A350 order to the new A350.--Bangabalunga 22:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone has removed Cathay Pacific's 30 orders for the A350-900, this is a firm order, here is the source: http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pressreleases/press-release/?tx_ttnews[pS]=1280921585&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=4541&tx_ttnews[backPid]=1683&cHash=07bd530664. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jortseren (talk • contribs) 17:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikitable Format

I am not entirely familiar with what the difference is between the wikitable format that has just been put on the page, and the previous format which was being used. Perhaps someone could explain it briefly for those of us who arent completely 'wikiliterate'. As long as it gives the same functionality, whichever is easier to edit should be used - looking at the coding format, i'm having difficulty seeing much in the way of obvious differences. Whichever format is used, would it be possible to keep the previous colour layout of primarily white and grey? In my opinion, it is much easier on the eyes than the new green and yellow one, and I think the pink shading was a better way of noting non-firm orders than an asterisk, particularly when there will need to be other notations (cancelled orders, converted options, etc such as on the List of Boeing 787 orders). Also, is it possible to keep the names of the customers left-justified? In my opinion (again), it looks tidier than centre justification for that purpose.--Nick Moss 09:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is any moral ground in using wikitable over toccoloros, like NM says, both do the job. However, I was getting bored with the old style and think it was time for a change. Please can we not use this as a catalyst to standardise all the aircraft pages as standardisation stifles creativity. Gerbilface 12:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Ps. how about adding that sort feature now we only have one header row, then we could delete the second table and maybe even incorporate back into the main article.

• If you want to delete chronology table and make the first table have the option of sorting all columns then "wikitable format" allows you to do that. The old toccoloros makes it harder to do because of "Cell Merging" but still possible and ok. I however think we should leave it as two tables.--Bangabalunga 18:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does this article have a completely different table format than other aviation articles? I suggest keeping it consistent with 787/A380/etc. 192.88.212.44 15:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• This looks better than the 787 order page IMO. Can someone convert that page to this and make all pages like this? I tried doing it but messed up the codes are difficult —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.214.122 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 29 June 2007

This table format doesn't seem to work well with displaying things like total orders (firm and not firm) at the bottom of the table. Displaying those two is important for an aircraft with so few firm orders. 69.22.218.109 18:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

ILFC

Now on Airbus's website, ILFC has placed an initial order for 20 Airbus A350XWB. Here's the link: http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pressreleases/pressreleases_items/07_10_26_a350xwb_ilfc.html So the orders table should be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melrosepark (talk • contribs) 03:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Conversion of order

Also i think airlines like US Airways, Kingfisher who have converted to the Airbus A350XWB should be removed from the table of Airlines who haven't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melrosepark (talk • contribs) 03:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible future orders

Why did 203.177.247.116 removed a "Possible future orders" section from the 787 page and added it t the A350 page? The section talks about both airplanes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedz (talk • contribs) 14:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Mikedz 14:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Firm Orders

I have amended the first two sections of this page to show firm orders clearer - the first section should not include commitments as its a total of firm orders only as per its title, and as such I have removed those from the figures, and I have added two totals rows to the XWB order table to break down the order figures into firm and commitments for easier reference. I hope everyone agrees with these actions. 87.194.205.206 (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have just reverted an edit on this section because I personally feel that that version conveyed the orders status in a muddled manner - this section was meant to clearly and concisely show the current status of the A350XWB order book - this means firm orders only, with conversions taken into mind as they will be counted as cancellations at the end of the 2007 order year. If people want to play the pure numbers game and count commitments into the bargain as well (which is pretty meaningless), then all they have to do is look a short way down the page for one of the totals rows in the main order list, but there is absolutely no where on the page that tells the true orders story as it currently stands - and that must include cancellations of the previous variant through conversions to the XWB. 87.194.205.206 (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried. Someone has just reverted it back to the original crap with no reason which is absolutely and utterly pointless - the information shown is incomplete and gives a false representation of the order situation for the A350 as it firstly shows commitments, which is pointless as they aren't worth anything, and secondly it does not take into account conversions. I give up. 87.84.139.34 15:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Kingfisher Order

There seems to be a bit of confusion over the Kingfisher order. The reference for the order from June 2007 states it is for 20 A350s (15 plus the 5 converted from the original order), however Airbus' latest O&D spreadsheet from July 2008 still shows only 5 A350-800s on order for Kingfisher. Given this seems to be the later material, I have reverted the change from 5 to 20 orders. If there is any further information about this order which clarifies what is going on, it would probably be useful as an additional source. --Nick Moss (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Airbus Press release only talks about a Memorandum of Unterstanding (MoU), that's not an order in the books. Therefore it was wrong to inlude these "orders" until they are finalized and shown in the books. It's OK to remove them. --Denniss (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved the Kingfisher "order" to commitments, Airbus doesn't count this as a firm order yet, it is a MOU, also a commitment. Only then does the table show the same total of 447 A350 orders. Please see under http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/ "key documents" "A350 XWB orders". Cirrocumulus (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused, well, maybe Airbus is somewhat confused. The Excel table on the same page shows an firm order for 5 A350-800 from Kingfisher. I revert my changes.Cirrocumulus (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:A350xwb.jpg

The image File:A350xwb.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Rolls Royce engines

Since the A350 is offered with Trent XWB only why not remove the engine column from the table? The total given will be incorrect anyway as airlines order extras as spares. This is like listing an engine selection for the 747-8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.170.84 (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed 100%

--Boeing747-412 (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I've removed the column as I'm assuming no airline intends on accepting planes without any engines! Avinerd (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

EIS, Options

I restored the EIS and options, while the new schedule for the -800 and -1000 should change some EIS, these customers with no -900 has a blank EIS for now. Please fill then with a reference if posible. Please keep the options and the commitments section too, same as in the 787 list, thanks. It helps too keep new "orders" there until official as firm order.Cirrocumulus (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Sukhoi_Superjet_100#Vote_on_flag_removal

This voting about flags and country info in orders might concern even this article. Tagremover (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Cathay Pacific new orders

According to the link http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/07/this-week-at-farnborough-2/ Cathay Pacific just added 10 more orders dor the A350-1000. Should we not chnge the data on the table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.82.165.94 (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we should update the table. It is already a deal with additional orders and conversion of -900 to the -1000 variant. Various sources have confirmed this, including an Airbus press release. However the official figure has not been updated as it is still showing as-of-July orders. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/cathay-pacific-firms-orders-for-26-a350-1000s-375258/ jchl97 (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The list is only for confirmed firm orders, not anything like "plan to buy", "pending board of directors approval" or similar vague statements. We don't add them just because some secondary sources claim them as firm, even Airbus press releases are sometimes vague in their statement. It's always best to wait for the monthly update to avoid introducing factual errors. --Denniss (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines Orders

A few months back, it is known that Singapore Airlines have increased their orders for A350XWB from 20 to 40, whilst adding another 20 options, while transferring the orders for 20 Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner aircrafts to its low-cost subsidiary Scoot.

However, it seems the orders for SIA's 40 A350-900 + 20 options haven't been updated. This is contrary to what is stated on Singapore Airlines' own wiki page, and on Airbus' website. See here: http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pressreleases/press-release-detail/detail/singapore-airlines-to-order-more-a380s-and-a350-xwbs/

So, to add or not to add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.91 (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read the press notice carefully - it says will order, not placed firm orders. Thus they are still negotiating (about price I assume). --Denniss (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Talking about Singapore Airlines orders, according to a Reuters news article, (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/uk-singaporeair-airbus-idUKBRE89N0NE20121024) 'Deliveries of the new (Singapore Airlines) Airbus (EAD.PA) planes, which have a list price of $7.5 billion, are due to begin in 2017.' However, the Wikipedia article states the delivery date as '2013.' Any ideas? L. Zheng Wei (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The Math on this page is completely broken. [SOLVED]

Take Afriqiyah Airways order for example, according to the dates listed the made an order for 6x A350-800 on 20 June 2007.

Then on 1 October 2012 they changed their order to 10xA350-900 (dropping the order for 6x A350-800) - This would amount to a total of 10 aircraft being purchased, whereas this crazytable states 4, because it (well, correctly) assumes (-6)+(10)=4, without taking into account the previous +6 ie. (6-6)+(10)=10

115.187.246.202 (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I noticed that also. --MoRsE (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to fix this. Instead of having one row for each order/cancellation, there is now simply one row per customer. That way, the sorting works again (previously, if you sorted by -800 orders for example, you'd have got Qatar and US Airways at the top, despite the fact that those orders were later cancelled). To preserve the historical information, such as the general "migration" of orders to larger models, I added a Notes column with these details. My assumption is that the readers' main interest will be the current order situation, not the history of individual orders. I've checked the row and column totals, and they are ok. The one thing I have not checked is completeness: in particular, I think a row should be added for "Undisclosed / Government / VIP" customers, but I have no idea how many orders there are. Someone more familiar with the Airbus corporate website might have a look at this. HAdG (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Deliveries

Should this page have the deliveries listed in the table, similar to the 787 page? --Bindul Bhowmik (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 8 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Uncontested and seems uncontroversial. DMacks (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC) DMacks (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

---

List of Airbus A350 XWB orders → List of Airbus A350 XWB orders and deliveries – There are now 2 deliveries. D3RP4L3RT (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Finnair

I have tried to update the deliveries of Finnair. But the green colour does not appear good. Today they got their first A350.Cruks (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The is no official OD by Airbus dated October 30, 2015 This is obvious because the "last" Monthly Update is dated Sept. 30 2015 Howver this reference says the plane HAS been delivered. If the reference is ot under the ref [1] it is simply because I am not able to edit is but anyone should be able to update relevant information Rudy235 (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The page is only updated monthly on the basis of official Airbus O&D data. There is no point in having 'newer' information about one airline at a different date but not all the others too. Be patient and when Airbus update their info to 31 October 2015 the Finnair delivery will be reflected. Other airlines like Qatar Airways and Vietnam Airlines did not get special treatment on this page the moment their aircraft were delivered and Finnair should not either. Wikipedia is not a news service - WP:NOTNEWS. Thanks. @SempreVolandoSempreVolando (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This is what I get. (The page is only updated monthly on the basis of Airbus O&D data. It's no use having 'newer' info for only one airline and not all the others.) (undo | thank) WHO makes this rule. Is there a place in WIKIPEDIA that says what this user says? I have never heard that before in any other Wikipedia entry. Anyway the point he makes is nute. There NO OTHER DELIVERIES of A350 for the monthof October. Come October 31st the information won't change. There will only be 7 A350 delivered. I suggest that at a minimum you QUOTE to all of us where does it say that this page should ONLY be updated one a month.Rudy235 (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It isn't an issue that it mustn't be updated more than once a month, it's an issue that there is only one reliable source for O&D data for all Airbus A350 orders and deliveries, and that is the Airbus data itself which is only updated and published once a month. The page clearly states at the bottom of each table the source and date (As of 30 September 2015). Having one entry which does not correspond invalidates the entire table. If the date is changed to state, for example, As of 10 October 2015, there are then 45 missing references for the other customers whose data is not sourced at that date. We have a reliable source for all Airbus A350 orders and deliveries updated on a monthly basis and that resolves this issue. In the first few days of November, Airbus will update their O&D data at 31 October 2015 and the page will be updated again, for all carriers - not just Finnair. If you can find a reliable source for all A350 orders and deliveries at 10 October 2015, please share it. SempreVolando (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I can understand that quarrels around the updates here. Just to say when an airline in Europe acquires finally a new A350 it should be updated soonest. This what I did. Cruks (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't care less. I know for sure that Finnair has taken delivery of the A350-900 from Airbus. It has even flown with passengengers into Schipol Airport (AMS). If @SempreVolando is happy with dispensing erroneous information in Wikipedia then let him do so. It is a pity that this fact won't be shared with the thosuands of users of Wikipedia until November who will believe that that information is correct when it is NOT. After all it is only one lousy airplabe that costs only $305,000,000 and it only means that there are 16.7% more airplanes of that variant delivered. Not a big deal. Rudy235 (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't care for this approach either - you potentially are providing erroneous information for up to a month. I cited an Airbus press release in my edits for the United conversion back to -900's - how is that not as authoritative as their O&D data? I can understand edits based on rumors being reverted, but I think some better judgement needs to be applied here.Dennypayne (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Once AGAIN the actual number or airplanes delivered do not reflet was has actually been delivered. It will will remain as is and only be modified in December and therefore for most of November the delivery number will be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CEB1:31F0:1CF0:C18D:FCA7:9FAB (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't mix up Wikipedia with a local newspaper reporting every delivery within a day. The data is correct per the referenced manufacturer data, what happens inbetween their monthly updates is irrelevant. --Denniss (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

References

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) 08:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The evidence is always the official Airbus monthly O&D spreadsheet. There are many, many other sources to confuse the issue but the only authoritative one is Airbus itself and that is the only one we use. At any given time there may be more orders than the last monthly O&D shows, but once a month the numbers are dead accurate. Ex nihil ^(talk) 07:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2015

TAP orders for 12 A350-900 converted to 14 A330neo orders on 13 November 2015 (see http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/news-events-single/detail/tap-portugal-orders-14-a330-900neo-and-39-a320neo-family-aircraft/) Christia555 (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done (yet) - please wait for the monthly O&D update from Airbus to ensure this swap has become firm in the orderbooks. --Denniss (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

US Airways Order conversion to American Airlines

US Airways ceased to exist as of October 17. All of its aircraft, operations, and legal obligations are now a part of American Airlines. A recent Airbus press release refers to the former US Airways order for 22 A350-900 thusly: "U.S-based American Airlines will acquire 22 A350-900 aircraft". It therefore seems that the Airbus OD is perhaps a less-than-best source. While I agree with the decision to use the OD as the base document, the official statements of Airbus and the lack of existence of US Airways seem like sufficient justification to rename that order.--Donpedronogal (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's see what happens when Airbus release their November 2015 O&D update, probably on Monday. The situation may be resolved. If not, we could consider amending and adding a note to the entry explaining the inconsistency. SempreVolando (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2015

DSTVYdfk (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

For the vietnam air they currently have 3 a350's

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This could be done if reliable sources indicate this. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 15:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Airbus A350 XWB orders and deliveries. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150112022221/http://www.a350xwb.com/x-tra/od to http://www.a350xwb.com/x-tra/od/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

EIS acronym (initialism)

Let's expand the acronym EIS. It's only used twice and it's not explained anywhere. I can't find its meaning on line. It's not evident from context. I'm an aviation fan and I have no idea what it means. Holy (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Done Holy (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Green background color in cells

What does the green background color in the table with deliveries and orders mean? It is present in the table named "Orders and deliveries by customer".

Please add a description of the green color to the article. There is one cell with grey background color too. 77.16.209.101 (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)