Talk:Airbus A380

Picture at top of article

Why is the image of a Qantas A380? Not that I have anything against it, but why pick a seemingly random airline over the Airbus standard livery or the launch customer? I tried to change it to this image, but was told that the Qantas image is larger and shows the underside of the plane, and is therefore better. How does showing the underside matter? And why does the size of the image matter seeing as both are about the same size once included in the box? Does that mean that the biggest picture possible should always be used? 77.98.17.111 (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In the choice of the image, I'd say that relevance, balance and esthetics count. At present there is one image of each operator (certainly not a rule, but nicely balanced) and every A380 image would be relevant here. I therefore wouldn't mind a change if that meant that a Qantas would be placed down (and still making the point the pictures in the lower text are now making...). However, looking at the image you are providing, then I think it is not a big esthetical improvement: the image consists mainly of grey sky, whereas the Qantas image shows much more of the plane, and much less of the air... L.tak (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Changed it back. Three reasons:

1. Main customer
2. Better image
3. Undiscussed change by australian IP 122.110.92.230. 77.186.41.85 (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

He 77, I don't think it is a better image (see my rational above; feel free to react). The main customer argument is a good point, but I do think that in that case it would be required the have a balanced view and I kind of liked the situation in which there was one image of each. The last point you pointed out is not relevant. Assuming good faith means that it is important to look at the actions, and not at perceived non-neutral points of view just because of the home range of an IP. L.tak (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A good quality image that clearly shows the aircraft is the main thing. An image of the aircraft in the main customer's livery is is a minor thing. It is difficult enough to find an image that meets the quality/view part. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, to sum it up:

- Main customer: Minor point, but a point. Balancing should respect this point.

- Better (Good) image: This picture stayed for a long time on this page. Its good and clear. @L.tak: Your discussion was about a different image.

- Australian IP: Must not violate neutrality, but can. And wasn´t discussed! 77.186.41.85 (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the "Australian IP" (again: although that could be unneutral, asuming good faith means NOT suggesting that!) changed it in september; than it was stable for 5 months (see here). Therefore this was the stable version and until you get consensus for changing, you should NOT change it as you did now 4 times (I counted wrongly before)... L.tak (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thats obviously no reason. See above. 77.186.41.85 (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

When there is not yet WP:consensus on a change the last stable version should stay. Thus, by placing your reverts and not seeking consensus it was relevant for me to explain what was the last stable version... I have also given my reaction on the image in the points above (less quality, and certainly no change when not changing the balance of the images) as has Fnlayson. Feel free to react on that; or wait to let others weigh in. Then after a few days we can see if a change is desirable. Goodnight for now; it's already past my bedtime ;-) L.tak (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Again no reason. You are unable to understand my arguments. EOD. 77.186.41.85 (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that the current QANTAS image is much better than the Emirates one, in respect to the lighting, easily identifying the subject aircraft and clearly showing the second deck. If an image of equal quality for Emirates can be found I'd be willing to consider it, but for now the QANTAS picture is much better suited for the article. Ravendrop (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

ILFC Cancellation Inclusion

A debate over whether or not to include the recently announced ILFC cancellation is ongoing on the list of orders talk page. Numbers shouldn't be changed until consensus is reached there. Link: Talk:List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries#ILFC Cancellation. Ravendrop 21:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait for O&D update. Slasher-fun (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hasn't this been resolved? The articles are inconsistent, so I'll try changing this one. RenniePet (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

On second thought I can see there are references involved, so I'll leave it up to someone else to make the articles consistent. RenniePet (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Good grief, can't you guys try to sort this out? On the "orders and deliveries" article it says one thing, here it says something else, and does so inconsistently - the graph has one number and the table has another number. RenniePet (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This issue has already been solved on the other talk page. ILFC has officially cancelled their order, and this is reflective on the official Airbus order sheet, see reference #1 on the list page, and this is the reference that we go by. There is no doubt or ambiguity on this as far as I know. Ravendrop 21:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

ILFC has not officially cancelled the A380 order as the replacement order is not yet finalized (just in MoU status). Airbus website and the xls spreadsheet still have 244 A380 on order. Please do not change again until it's officially changed in their order spreadsheet. --Denniss (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

But their customer list for March 2011 does not include the ILFC and clearly says 234 orders (again see ref 1 on the other page). The spreadsheet is from Feb 28th, it is dated; the customer list is the most up to date, so it is the one to use. Ravendrop 02:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The spreadsheet is from March 31st. Slasher-fun (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't care much one way or the other, but I think it's really dumb that this article and the "orders and deliveries" article are saying two different things, and this article is not even consistent with itself; there is one number in the graph and a different number in the table and the text. RenniePet (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The proven best policy was to stay synced with the official orders&deliveries pages of the aircraft manufacturers. Once they updated the numbers in their orderbooks we could change the order count. We may include orders/cancellations from press releases but these should be clearly marked as not firm, these not be counted in order totals. --Denniss (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

So is the PDF I'm referring to, even though published by Airbus, not actually an official order tally? And more to the point: I really don't care whether its at 244 or 234 at this point because the ILFC cancellation if not already official is only a matter of time, but I'm more concerned that both this page, and the list of orders page should have the same information and numbers, which they currently do not. Ravendrop 21:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If information contradicts each other, better leave the current status. A380 aircraft page, order&deliveries page and the excel file available there shows the order still as effective. --Denniss (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I now agree that with the conflicting info that the excel order sheet is the best, and the airbus website clearly shows 244 as the A380 total. But mine, and the original poster's, concern that List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries has conflicting info to this page still stands. That page has had 234 as stable for a while now, so where do we go from here? Just change it, or does a discussion need to happen at that talk page first? Ravendrop 00:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that because of the discrepency between the 2 most recent (March 2011) Airbus credible documents (A380 Order Table and O & D), the best course of action is to include the cancellation, but add a note of some sort. Looking at ILFC's Annual Report (ref 109 on the other page), there's a footnote saying: As of March 2011, we are no longer required to take delivery of the A380s on order. That to me is saying that the cancellation itself is pretty much firm. Ivowilliams (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Since ILFC have now firmed up their order for the A320neo, it is pretty safe to say that their order for the A380 has now been cancelled and replaced with this new order. Thus, I think the order totals (234) can now be made the same for both this and the main A380 article. Ivowilliams (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Since April O&D sheet will be out in a few days, can't we just wait to have a reliable source? Slasher-fun (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Does this constitute an incident?

This morning, I was about to fly with a Singapore Airlines A380 from SIN to LHR, on flight SQ318 at 1245 local time. The take-off was aborted twice between 1245 and 1345. The aircraft was both times on the runway, and did not / could not take off. After this, the aircraft was ordered back to the gate. According to SIA, there was a "technical failure", but that failure was not disclosed. Disembarkation followed the return and another A380 took off to London at 1630 local time. Is this an incident? Fibratus (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No. It has to be reported in a reliable source, and it has to be a noteworthy incident. - BilCat (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This happens every day, not notable. Slasher-fun (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

11 April 2011 A380 incident

• On 11 April 2011, Air France 007, an A380, preparing to depart for Paris Charles de Gaulle at JFK airport, collided while taxiing with a Comair CRJ-700 (Comair 553 / Delta Connection 6293) which had just arrived from Boston.

This was recently removed... 65.93.12.101 (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• @65.93.12.101: Normally, for this kind of crap (my apologies for lack of a better word to surmise this) to added into article pages there must exist a few pre-requisites in order to meet notability for WP:AIR's requirement, and they are 1.) someone onboard the plane(s) or immediately around it was seriously injured; and 2.) the plane(s) have suffered some kind of severe damage (such as a hull breach or entirely broken off wing). None of the above which I've mentioned are visibly present in this case, now be gone. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Dave,

I went to the A380 page to try to learn more about the incident, found it was not included, so added a sentence. Given the enormous interest in the A380, and it's relative newness, perhaps even minor incidents are worthy of mention. Indeed, this minor crash could lead, eg, to changes in taxiing protocol at JFK and other airports to avoid similar incidents due to the aircraft's sheer size. My hope was that others would add to the description and something coherent would emerge - you know, the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Instead I am left with your insulting response - helpful, Dave, very helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.126.237 (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I see now that Wikipedia in sending me messages in which my actions are described as "vandalism." So the Wikipedia definition of "Vandalism" now extends to "good faith efforts to include relevant information in an article." And by "relevant" I mean the information I went to Wikipedia to find in the first place? Great. Suggest that alienating users who make good-faith changes not a sound long-term strategy, Dave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.126.237 (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You know, Dave, if you dispute my edits, why not try to constructively improve them, rather than removing my contribution all together? It's not very collaborative to simply block out my voice. The A380 incident is being widely reported in the press - front page of the NYTimes - so in my view counts as an incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.126.237 (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

THESE ARE NOT DISRUPTIVE EDITS. I WENT TO WIKIPEDIA LOOKING FOR INFORMATION, COULDN'T FIND IT, SO MADE A FIRST STAB AT ADDING IT. How is that destructive? By any rational definition, my edits were the opposite: I attempted to make a constructive contribution to Wikipedia, and I have been summarily shot down and accused of vandalism. Wikipedia = dictatorship. Where's the collaborative love???? [edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.126.237 (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly suggest you knock it off with your condescending tone and stick to the guidelines laid down on WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS (ask someone here if you are not sure! FPS, you're not a headless horse gnat buzzing around with no directions or heading whatsoever), in short... read the fine print before you add non-notable incident here, this is not the most appropriate article page (if you get the hint now) to add this newsy entry. This is your last warning before a BLOCK comes into effect for your violation of 3RR. Best and out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Dear Dave, Strongly suggest in future that you knock of the insulting tone which launched this exchange. Way to welcome contributors. I looked at the guidelines, and disagree with them in this case. Again - given the newness of the aircraft and the massive public interest in it, I believe the collision with the ComAir jet is worthy of brief mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.126.237 (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Surely, you can read the fine print above because you're not a kid anymore, right? Out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• This is just a passing news story. Check on Wikinews for news coverage. Wikipedia is not a news service. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you disagree with the guidelines, the place to discuss it is on the talk pages for the relevant guidelines. If this topic doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, you might want to look at whether it meets the criteria for inclusion at Wikinews. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI, discussion in mainly here about including this incident or not in the article. In the meantime, a wikinews entry has been created. Slasher-fun (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I too came here looking for information, and found it weird that it wasn't mention. In addition I find the aggressiveness of "Dave" not suitable for such a discussion. My thoughts are 1: I agree that this is widely enough reported for it to be included. 2: Guidelines is NOT the same as rules. If its not to be added to the "accident" section, it should be added to an "In the media" or something to that kin. To me it would signify a failure of the Wikipedia system if one is not allowed to add information that many people report wanting to find here, and that is as widely reported as this incident. One of the reasons I think this worth adding is that its an incident crudely but effectively demonstrates the size of the plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacealcard (talk • contribs) 19:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you remember when this very same A380 got hit by an Air France A332 at CDG, and had to stay 3 weeks out of service? Well, same here basically. Regarding the "in the media" part, there's an article on Wikinews about it. Slasher-fun (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Dave, can you please be so kind as to explain why the incident at JFK is "minor"? The last I checked, a CRJ700 has an MTOW of ~72k lbs. Surely the kind of impact that can move that weight in so sudden a manner is significant. Also, you do come off as kind of a jerk...but perhaps that's what you're shooting for. Anyhow, the NTSB seems to think it worth looking into... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.157.190.65 (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Read the posts at the top for explanation. See also WP:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents#Aircraft_articles for more info. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I did, and I still don't understand the logic. I thought for sure that having a vertical stabilizer take the kind of damage seen qualifies as "serious damage." But, whatever. I was just curious. I know people like Dave and Slash-whatever and yourself will never back down. I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over it. Thanks for being, if not helpful, at least civil. It's appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.157.190.65 (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not being aggressive in any way, so please don't be either :) Slasher-fun (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Dave, I just readded the incident, which is significant. You clearly don't have consensus to remove it. Also, you need to stop threatening other editors with blocks and calling their edits "crap." If you're taking this subject that personally, then you need to stop editing this article. Cla68 (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Just in case, here is a list of reasons why this incident is notable:

• An emergency was declared and the Comair plane did an emergency evacuation of its 66 passengers onto the airport tarmac
• The Air France flight was cancelled, with 450 passengers
• The A380 was impounded for investigation by government authorities
• Both aircraft were damaged to an extent to require several weeks of repairs
• The total amount of damages will likely be in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars
• The incident was reported in headlines by major media sources
• The A380's larger-than-average wingspan may have played a role in the incident
• The incident took place at one of the busiest airports in the world
• The incident was caught on video and was shown repeatedly in major broadcast media
• Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

1. I just read through everything and I have to agree with Cla68, this incident is major (both in publicity and expected cost to repair...if it turns out to be a $50 fix, we can always later remove it). I concur with the readdition of the material. This incident rapidly appears to be leading towards a revision as to how airports handle this giant airplane.
2. Dave, I'm usually pretty upfront on my comments about the behavior of fellow contributors, and this isn't an exception. These were good faith contributions and you are out of line for suggesting that this is vandalism ("Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". Furthermore, you are not helping at all by calling contributions "crap" and being condescending.
3. Noob IP, I also think that this talk page, or others, is definitely the forum in which to pursue discussion and address the issue. Please do not engage in edit warring. As you can see, a well-reasoned argument usually eventually wins out. Give it a bit of time. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks BQZip01, and if I can add, I'm really disappointed with the reception the IP editor received here on this page. The way the editor was treated is completely contrary to what is supposed to be the spirit and vision of this project. I'll be keeping this page on my watchlist, and expect that the behavior which occurred here never happens again. Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but the IP didn't have either to start an edit war instead of discussing. Anyway, after the similar incident I posted above regarding F-HPJD that didn't deserve a WP article, here is something even worse with another CRJ that doesn't have either a WP article. Still unconviced? Regarding the "media" part, without the video we wouldn't even have heard of it. Media are really often in a "sensational news" way when dealing with aviation, remember how many Qantas incidents were suddenly reported by the media after QF32 incident. Slasher-fun (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The incident has twice been added to the Air France accidents and incidents, and Slasher has twice removed it. I'm leaning towards it being a notable incident under WP:AIRCRASH. The A380 suffered only slight/moderate damage, but the CRJ suffered moderate/substantial damage. As that aircraft is 7½ years old, the damage may even be severe enough to be uneconomic to repair. That, coupled with the emergency evacuation, makes this a notable enough incident to be mentioned at the Airport, both Airlines and both Aircraft types articles IMHO. At the moment, I'm not convinced that it is notable enough to sustain a separate article, but I'm keeping an open mind on that scenario for now. 81.154.180.228 (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Comment added by Mjroots (talk · contribs), who got logged out when redirected to secure wiki

As I said in another discussion page, I wasn't trying to start an EW, I just thought the policy was "keep the original version until we have a consensus". Every year we have a couple of aircrafts that skid off runway for example with emergency evacuation, sometimes the aircraft is taken out of service for weeks, and this is not mentionned anywhere here (because it is not notable enough). The E135 pictured above (with is not a CRJ) was only 6 years old when its tail got completely destroyed by a Thai Airways 747. But it's been repaired and is still in service (sold to Air Namibia in February). And we don't have any mention of that comparable incident either. The only difference with this incident here and that we have a video footage of the incident, and because of that media are talking about it a lot. Slasher-fun (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Good point there, Slasher. Honestly, we have too many of such non-notable incidents happening over the years, and had we started to list them all (and I have a SIAEC log book here to state it unequivocally for all to see, should I chose to...), this article page would've been flooded with all manner of tid-bits for all the aircraft enthusiasts to devour. Question now, is this really the kind of Online Encyclopedia that Wikipedia wants to set out to become in the very first place? I don't think so. So, as per WP:RECENT, my opinion is to leave it out for the time being. And if anyone were to insist to add this, please go instead to the article page of Air France or Comair, as IMO aircraft articles should be free from such tid-bits which serves nothing to the improvement of the page. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Establishing notability

WP:AIRCRASH is the relevant guideline.

Airport, Airline and Aircraft articles

For airline and military aircraft, a listing of notable aircraft incidents and accidents, where appropriate. Accidents or incidents should only be included in airport/airline/aircraft articles if:

• The accident was fatal to humans; or
• The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; or
• The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.

In this case, the damage to the A380 was slight. However, the CRJ-700 suffered substantial damage, with its tail being bent out of vertical by some 20° (Photo on Pprune). Currently unknown whether or not the aircraft is a write-off. The A380 was on the correct taxiway, but appears to have been taxying at excessive speed. (JFK A380 Operations plan states 15mph max). So far, there is no indication that the CRJ was somewhere it was not authorised to be. Thus I believe that WP:AIRCRASH is met, but the incident may not yet be notable enough for a stand-alone article. Mjroots (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The apparent serious damage to the CRJ700 means the entry better qualities for the Bombardier CRJ700 series, but not necessarily in this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that the incident is notable, and I would think that point 2 and 3 from Mjroots list, combined with the level of publicity this incident received qualifies it to be left in. Jacealcard (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't know yet whether point 3 will be met. Point 2 is certainly met in respect of the CRJ-700. Mjroots (talk)

Just a thought: since the 380 was the STRIKING airplane, I would suggest that assignment of fault would probably fall under the "see and avoid" doctrine. The way I see it (and I'm not trying to be THAT GUY, but I am a pilot with Heavy tickets), the Comair plane was stationary and the 380 was in motion...this puts the "burden of avoidance" on the 380. That makes it more of an issue with the 380 than with the CRJ: the 380 was the one that was supposed to have a care. Regardless, I think it will be interesting to see what the eventual investigation outcome is..it may have far-reaching implications for operators of "super" airplanes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.126.239 (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it may have consequences for operators of A380s at JFK, but that is for the investigation to report on, and make recommendations as they see fit. For the moment, this is crystal ball gazing. Mjroots (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I had a point when I posted that re: reasoning for including the incident in the article, but for the life of me I can't remember what it was. Phone rang and I got tied up. Crud. I appreciate you keeping me honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.126.239 (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, so, now that it was "a while" ago: given this A380 already had a similar incident in November at CDG that's not mentionned anywhere, that something worse happened to an Embraer 135 that's not mentionned anywhere either, and since this was in the media only because somebody caught a video of it, does somebody object to removing this incident from this article now? Slasher-fun (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you as well, and certainly shouldn't be labelled as a "significant" incident as per the article. From the cited reference, there is no mention of this particular incident, and so is not to the same level of notability as the QF32 incident. So I think the article should be changed to only one significant incident, and this incident removed. Ivowilliams (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• This incident is not notable for inclusion here because nobody was injured and no major damage was done. Imagine if we were to include every incident of this magnitude on the Boeing 737 or Boeing 747, and how long it would make the articles, and how silly that would be. --John (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• For the three criteria, this incident is: no, yes, maybe. Both aircraft suffered serious damage. The incident may affect procedures related to the handing of this aircraft at airports. The incident is notable enough to be included in this article. Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Air France Flight 7 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Air France Flight 7 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air France Flight 7 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 16:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe both incidents should be mentioned. The JFK incident and the Paris airshow incident. My reasons are there were passengers on board incidents. This aircraft now has a history of maneuvering problems, striking other aircraft and hitting stationary objects such as the terminal during the Paris airshow. During the design and launch date there was a lot of talk about how this aircraft would fit in to current airport designs, it seem these two incident show there is a problem. I vote to include these to incidents, in a section related to the problem this aircraft has at current airport. Any thoughts..?? Jacob805 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Too many images

I reckon that the article showcases too many images - that role should be left to Commons. I would have thought that the fewer images, the better, since the reader only concentrates on the most meaningful and useful ones, instead of peripheral ones which are there only for visual satisfaction. For example, "Production and delivery delays" has 3 images, "Passenger provisions" has 2, as well as "Market" and "Commercial operators". Sp33dyphil ^Vote! 02:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I would agree I am sure a few very similar and not really high quality images can be pruned out without detriment to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

a suggestion for improving lead section

I find it a bit odd that the fact that the A380 is the largest passenger airliner in the world is introduced so indirectly in the lead section, rather than asserting it more directly. In comparison, other articles state such superlative facts outright "X is the {tallest, largest, smallest} {building, airliner, rodent}, rather than hiding it as is done here ("Designed to challenge Boeing's monopoly in the large-aircraft market, the A380, the largest passenger airliner in the world, made its maiden flight [...]."). Does anybody agree with my feeling that it would be more appropriate (and informative) to rephrase this, and put the fact that it's the largest airliner of its kind into a (shorter) sentence of its own, followed by a sentence about the challenge/maidenflight aspect? -- Minvogt (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Latest wing clipping incident

The latest major mishap involving clipping the wing on a stationary object establishes a pattern for this plane, apparently because of its larger than usual wingspan, and should be discussed in this article. The previous incident from April should never have been removed as this most recent incident illustrates. Cla68 (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Happens a lot, even happened two weeks ago (or was it last week?) in Paris-Orly with a CRJ700 (and its not-so-large wingspan). No need to mention it. Slasher-fun (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft clip wings all the time, it's a common occurrence no matter the aircraft. Everything from Cessnas to Boeings clip wings with stationary objects, other planes, ramps etc. This is not encyclopaedically relevant to an article on the A380. If it's the same pilot or airline then it goes there, but it's nothing to do with the plane. It's nothing to do with the plane. Canterbury Tail talk 12:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, I agree totally, this aircraft has now had two incidents involving clipping, both incidents had passengers on board. I am willing to work with you in adding a section, related to the problems this aircraft has. Jacbo805

Sources

• Reed, Ted. "Why U.S. Airlines Don't Fly the Airbus A380." The Street. June 29, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)