Talk:List of Airbus A350 orders and deliveries

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

List

This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the airline project.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

US order

According to the US 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed 100%

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

So, to add or not to add?