Jump to content

Talk:Airbus/Archive 1

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

comment

Removed: About 13 Airbuses have crashed killing about 1700 people. The information is valid (at least it squares roughly with my memory) but the positioning of it, sans context, at the very end of thte article makes it stand out like the dog's proverbials, and turns a simple statement of fact into a highly POV accusation. The clear implication is that Airbus aircraft are unsafe and kill people - which is entirely unjustified by the facts.

It is reasonable to discuss this matter, but only in the same way that is discussed for other aircraft which have an equally good safety record - the 747, say. Doubtless one of the aviation people here will come back and stick the information back in in a more appropriate way (maybe me, after I finish some other projects). In the meantime, that has to go. Tannin

Bias?

What a negative story about Airbus! Suspicions of corruptions and bribery galore. Wouldn't it be better to mention the manufacturer's successful development of the A330 and A340 and also the exciting prospect of the A380 more? Or the fact that in 2003 for the first time Airbus is producing more aircraft than Boeing? Bribery - I'm sure - is also a well-known mechanism in the US (the Dutch royal family came into serious trouble once when they seemed to have accepted bribes from Lockheed in the 1970's), so it's not really exciting to mention that in the Airbus article. hwebers


more bias

the bit about the success of the airbus 340 range being responsible for Lockheeds failure??? that is dumb, the 340 came out more than a decade after Lockheed suspended production of the dreaded Tri-Star!!

Fair comment

The stories about Airbus and its shameful record of corruptly dealing with politicians and others making buying decisions are all on the public record. It is certainly true they are not alone. Boeing and Lockheed have all faced the same claims.

I can find no reference to "Harvey Cashmore" or a Canadian lobbyist named "Karlheinz Schreiber" on the Internet. Could you please indicate to which "public record" you are referring? -- Viajero 18:26, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I find no references either. Why not move this text to the talk page until it can be verified...or not. Ark30inf 19:58, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

To be verified

I have moved the following text here pending verification:

Questions have been raised about the propriety of the conduct of Airbus. Syrian courts convicted three individuals including two Ministers for ten years for taking over $100 million in illegal commissions from Airbus over the purchase of six passenger jets for Syrian airlines. A former Syrian Prime Minister Mahmoud Zuabi committed suicide rather than face charges over the Airbus scandal.
Also, Airbus was alleged by Canadian investigative journalist Harvey Cashmore to have paid secret commissions to influence the decision of Air Canadia to purchase $1.9 billion worth of Airbus jets. Cashmore alleged that some $20 million in secret commissions was paid by Airbus to a prominent Canadian lobbyist Karlheinz Schreiber. Allegations were made - including by Canada's own Justice Department - that former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney had shared in these commissions. Mulroney later successfully sued the Justice Department saying that he was defamed by the allegations. The judge who mediated the suit said that Mulroney was the victim of a "grievous wrong."
Again last year, Airbus was the centre of another investigation involving allegations of bribery. Belgian investigators are inquiring into whether the doubling of the now collapsed Belgian airline Sabena's order from 17 jets to 34 was influenced by any improper motives.
Other scandals involving purchases of Airbus aircraft from Kuwait, India, Saudi Arabia, Mexico have all had the effect of besmirching the good name of Airbus.
Politics clearly plays a part in aircraft procurement. For example when Air Mauritius agreed to purchase aircraft from Airbus rather than rival Boeing it suddenly found that it was upgraded from the Orly airport to the main Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris.

-- Viajero 20:07, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This article is a mess

I will plan on adding categories and moving the information around.

I think it needs more information on technology improvements and design differences that set it apart from Boeing; eg. fly by wire, and it's philosophy on making all models similar enough to reduce pilot training.

Pud 16:26, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why does it need to be focused on Boeing?

I agree. Just as there is a Competition with Boeing segment in the Airbus article, there should at least be a similar segment in the Boeing article. After all, Boeing is no longer a leader in the civil aviation industry.--JohnWest 00:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


For the comment of the non-confirmed events of bribery, in 2003 ws realease an article by "the economist" regarding this passage of Airbus http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1842124

"No longer a leader"? I know this is from a couple of years ago, but that comment just seems...odd. Maybe for a while they were no longer the leader, but to say during that time, they were no longer a leader, well... Anyhow, the situation is clearly much different now. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Reason for removing the paragraph below

"In October 2004, Boeing filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization, claiming that Airbus had violated the 1992 bilateral accord when it received what Boeing deems as "unfair" subsidies from the European Union. Airbus retaliated by filing another complaint, contesting that Boeing had also violated the accord when it received tax breaks from the U.S. Government. If the WTO arbitrates in this case (once the 60-day period of consultations set by the WTO ends), both companies could face cut-downs in financial aid from their Governments." Pulled that because of this development. [1] User:Wk muriithi

The fact that the two parties have suspended their complaints does not negate the filing of the complaints - it still happened! Does the fact that the Germany surrendered in World War II make you go to that page and remove the entire history of everything that happened prior to 1945? I think not. I will ammend the article accordingly. Mark 12:36, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Seem it is likely to go anywhere. See quote "earlier this month talks on the subsidies given to European aircraft maker Airbus and US manufacturer Boeing faltered when both EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson and Robert Zoellick, former US Deputy Secretary of State, accused the other of hanging up the phone durign a call." [2]

Reason for removing the paragraph

"Boeing counters that Airbus benefits even more than itself on this charge, since the owners of Airbus, and its affiliated companies are Europe's largest military suppliers."

This does not follow. Boeing's WTO complaint against Airbus is that government launch aid (subisdy) is unfair. Airbus' WTO complaint was that Boeing receives tax breaks and pork barrel military contracts that are in effect subsidy. The line above suggests that Airbus benefits in the same way. THAT IS REDICULOUS.

  • Boeing is the 2nd largest contractor in a country where the government spends $417bn - Airbus partner countries spend $109.3 bn (UK $37.1bn, France $35.0bn, Germany $27.2bn, Spain (estimate) $10bn)
  • The largest European defence market (the UK) is an open, competitive system (unlike continental Europe or America). Significant portions of the UK procurement budget go to Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Thales (all non-Airbus companies). i.e. the UK partner in Airbus has to compete for its national defence budget far harder than Boeing does for its slice of $400bn!
  • EADS does have the lion's share of German defence expenditure but this is modest compared to other military budgets around the world.
  • EADS does have significant sales in France but competes with other companies (principally Thales).
  • European procurement does not suffer in the same way from the USA's "pork barrel" phenomenon. Congress consistently adds aircraft and projects to the procurement budget that neither the forces or the White House requests with the sole aim of boosting the defence contractors in their local areas.
    • The KC-767 is a prime example of this. The USAF put the replacement of their tanker fleet at the bottom of their list of priorities. Then, after the downturn in civil avation caused by the 9/11/01 attacks, CONGRESS launched the KC-767 to support Boeing. This was also against the backdrop of Boeing losing the largest contract in U.S. aviation history - the JSF.
  • Airbus' direct military contracts are modest and won in fair competitions.
    • The A330 MRTT has won the UK and Australian competitions in direct compeitions with the KC-767. The A330 was not considered for the USAF contract.
    • The A400M is a project launched to fufill a genuine requirement and likely to win significant sales around the world. It is not a pork barrel contract in the KC-767 mould.

Government launch aid, justified when Airbus was finding its feet, is unfair given Airbus' success. However I see no reason to deny Airbus such subsidy until Boeing likewise does not benefit from subsidy (tax breaks and pork barrel fodder). That is why the WTO complaints have been aborted - AIRBUS AND BOEING BOTH KNOW THEY WILL BE RULED AGAINST. Mark 01:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I believe that it true that one of Boeing's primary complaints about the launch aid is that repayment is contingent - if Airbus doesn't sell enough units, they don't have to repay the loans. If that's true, that is significantly different from the description in the text, which only discusses the low rate. --38.112.11.10 15:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Page move

(from WP:RM)

January 19

Airbus Industrie ceased to exist in 2001 with the establishment of the Airbus Integrated Company (Airbus S.A.S.). "Airbus" is the natural name to search for and link to - as suggested by "naming conventions". Plus of the several hundred links to Airbus Industrie all but 9 are redirected from Airbus. Mark 01:38, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Boeing

This section was hopelessly PoV and unsubstantiated. I removed:

Industry analysts widely attribute this to Airbus’s more efficient product line, compared to many of Boeing's older designs; the 737 for example still uses components designed in the 1950s.The 747 was designed in the late 1960s, and the 757 and 767 were conceived in the late 1970s.

- as it unsourced and beside the point. Both the 747 and 737 have been extensively redesigned over the years; Airbus's 300 and 310 series are as old as the 757 and 767 lines. Dan100 (Talk) 13:02, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

The 737 may be old, but it is wildly popular still and is literally carrying the whole company. The 747 is still attractive, at least till the A380. Its the new designs from Boeings that are less popular : 757, 767 and also 777. There are persistent stories of air flow problems in the cabin compartments, and it scares passengers and airlines whether they are substantiated or not.
The 787 also looks like it may be a miss. But the 747 replacement/A380 competitor should be interesting, as is any supersonic jet in the pipeline.

Airliner Deliveries

Hi, I buy Airliner World, and am therefore able to get Airliner Delivery amounts for each month.

Would someone with some more wiki experience than me be able to do me a table? And then i can add the data for the last few months/last year.

If not, i may have a go at replicating and using the airplane data, and change it into deliveries

Cheers


Reedy Boy 17:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I just installed the firefox extensions for wiki.

I should eb able to get the table done/

Just need some input. Would you want just amounts, or amounts for each model? Let me know, and i can encorporate it

Cheers

Reedy Boy 19:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I am just going to do total deliveries for each month for as far back as i can. If people want indivdual model deliery amounts, let me know.

Cheers

Reedy Boy 13:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


Also, on the airbus analyst pages, there are a list of deliveries and orders for each aircraft/aircraft family. I will also add this to the airliner deliveries section, and rename it to a more appropriate title. Suggestions for this would be good.


Reedy Boy 08:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


Ive noticed that the numbers dont seem to tally on cumulative deliveries, so i need to have a look at that

Reedy Boy 08:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


Hi, i just changed the total deliveries per month bit for 2005 to reflect that 2005 is not over yet, it was being divided by 12, not 7 (there are data for 7 months shown). Dunno if this is ok or not, it just makes more sense to me to give a more accurate figure.

Tomas


No Probs, got some new data to add now anyway.


Reedy Boy 16:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Cumulative still doesnt tally. Perhaps if the breakdown by aircraft family is added, it may be possible to reconcile the numbers.


Well, the current overall Total of 4272 matches Airbus figures

I do remember there being something that didnt seem to add up, i will have a look

Reedy Boy 10:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Table formatting

I was looking at the tables, and we currently have 2 types of table formatting.

Would anyone have an problems if i changed them all to the blue topped type?

Cheers

Reedy Boy 17:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

This is the old formattning code (minus the ((())) ) I have posted it here, so it can be put back in if needs be 

border="2" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin: 1em 1em 1em 0; border: 1px #aaa solid; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 95%;"

Will update the tables later

Reedy Boy 18:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


Just a note to say the table 'Product list and details (date information from Airbus)' has been updated with other formating

Cheers

Reedy Boy 12:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The sacred SI banner

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

I would be happy to see SI become the natural system for aircraft specs. However I can't see Airbus ever becoming dramatically bigger than Boeing; I can't remember who, but an Airbus exec said Airbus expects Airbus and Boeing to continue to share the large aircraft market for the forseeable future, with each regaining and losing the no. 1 slot from time to time. Mark83 12:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Latest figures on 2005 orders

https://registration.ft.com/registration/barrier?referer=http://news.ft.com/home/europe&location=http%3A//news.ft.com/cms/s/cbacbbd0-872e-11da-8762-0000779e2340.html

Show Airbus leading Boeing

2005 Orders and Deliveries

This article is incorrect in asserting that Airbus won more orders than Boeing last year. There's an inaccurate graph and it's mentioned several times in the article.

Sources of proper data

http://www.justplanes.com/orders.htm

http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm?content=displaystandardreport.cfm&RequestTimeout=500&optReportType=AnnOrd&pageid=m15521

Airbus claims 1,111 orders, but it uses vague language like "order commitments" and other terms when describing how it gets those numbers. Boeing only reports firm orders.

Further discussion of the distinction, related to 787 vs. A350:

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2783464/6/#ID2783464 Replys 17, 50, 53, 54, 59

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2756788/6/#ID2756788 Replys 2, 6, 9-17, 19-23, 25-29, 34-35, 37, 39 L-1011 02:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Of the links above only the Boeing one is a Reliable Source as defined in WP. If Boeing had received deposits for the 70 planes but chose to wait for them to be allocated I don't see why that's Airbus' fault. Boeing counted plenty of unallocated orders placed by leasing companies once deposits had been paid. What makes a governmental order so special? Was it because Boeing were so sure they would win the orders race that they wanted an excuse to push some over into 2006? Who knows, point is Boeing seem to be the ones counting inconsistenty not Airbus. Nordicremote 20:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The graph and the text are inconsistent. The graph says it is net orders and shows 1111 for 2005. The text says 1055 net. 68.126.176.248 05:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed following paragraph

"An other reason is that Airbus have no product which matches Japanese capanies' requirement. For example, a A330-200 can offer 256 to 293 seats while a 777-200 can offer at least 358 to 415 seats. Since the Japanese needs high capacity aircraft, A330-200 is too difficult to be a Japanese's choice. An other example is that A380 is a plane which fits Japanese truck routes. However, the Japanese companies are changing their focus from capacity per single flight to overall flight frequency. This means selling A380 to Japanese is now more difficult. Airbus' products are suitable fo all over the world but can't fit the needs of Japanese airlines since Airbus has no intension to make products which specially fits Japaneses' requirement."

This is very poorly written. If anyone wants to try to extract any useful information from this and add it back, go ahead. For now it is too poorly written and confusing to be a useful contribution to this article. Manufracture 18:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

More comment on Japan bit

And indeed, overall, the long bit about Japan, introduces significant bias in the article as:

1) it is one of the few captive markets where Boeing is not in danger of losing ground to Airbus (with Israel's market),

2) it represents 10% of the expected market 2004-2024 (Boeing outlook reports) - significant (ANA was "launch customer" for 787), but not essential

3) it exclusively presents in a positive way the "close manufacturing partnership between Boeing and several Japanese consortiums", without highlighting the downsides such as: Japanese governement subsidies (unsurprisingly, "The EU has protested Japan's public-sector financing of Boeing as violating international trade agreements and placing the Airbus at a disadvantage." - article on japanfocus.org), possible transfer of some Boeing manufacturing volume from US to Japan, and definite transfer of know-how -- which could lead to a Japan or Asian competitor to Airbus and Boeing in the long term.

(post-signing: Crepusculaire 06:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC))


Airbus anonymous editor

An editor made a series of anonymous edits at Airbus and Boeing just a few minutes ago. Their IP address was 195.6.25.118, which belongs to Airbus SAS. I don't know if this is the first occurrence, but it strikes me as an enormous conflict of interest. Perhaps Boeing employees have done the same thing, but they haven't yet been caught at it. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Airbus employees are probably the most qualified to contribute to a page on "Airbus", so it is not a problem per se, IMHO. The real problem was: the edits that you specifically and correctly reverted, these edits were entirely made for claiming first place with respect to Boeing. Maybe there should be a site http://www.who-is-the-best-in-the-world-airbus-or-boeing-today.com/ updated in real time so that wikipedia can link here —Crepusculaire 06:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources for a negative A350 comment?

An anonymous edit from IP address 63.138.11.3, states: "The A350, Airbus's A330 derivative competitor to the [Boeing 787], has been criticized by aviation experts for being non-competitive with the Boeing product." I don't know if citing an opinion of (some? most of?) experts in the field is acceptable on Wikipedia, but at least there should be some sources mentioned. Otherwise, the whole edit smells like a partial job.

There are tons of sources on this. It's a major controversy in the aviation industry. The anonymous user's only mistake was not including the tons of references already cited at Airbus A350. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I made a short review and confirm that the original statement can be backed up. A convincing way might be to look at the analysis in [3]. It reports the agreement of Steven F. Udvar-Hazy of International Lease Finance Corporation and Henry Hubschman of GE Capital Aviation Services that the A350 is inferior to the 787. These companies are competitor on the plane leasing market. They have a fleet of 800 and 1300 planes respectively, which is important compared to the world total fleet (about 15000 ?) - also ILFC is Airbus biggest customer (as in "largest Airbus fleet"). The reference quotes a forecast of 25% for the market of the A350. To this date, the number of orders are 388 for the Boeing 787 and 182 for the Airbus A350 (firm+pending) and much more options are reported for the 787 —Crepusculaire 06:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

While this discussion is a little out of date, it should be noted that Airbus has corrected its faults in the original A350 and has now many orders on this airplane, which will be a major competitor in the market. --DragonFly31 (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Airliner Deliveries Table formatting

Can someone alter the tables to co incide with the formattng of the above tables?


Reedy Boy 07:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Current event

I'm removed the "current event" tag from this article for two reasons.

  1. . No specific event has been cited since at least March 2006.
  2. . This article is about a company, not an event involving this company.

--Marysunshine 00:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Upon further reading, I stand corrected. The BAE non-completed sale could technically count as a business current event...although, to my thinking, it's still not really an "event" until something happens (i.e., the stock is bought). Please consider removing the tag until the sale is completed.--Marysunshine 00:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

When the stock is sold by BAE/bought by EADS that will be the end of the event. The event is the sale process. Recent relevent events were:
  • (As added to the BAE Systems article) BAE originally sought to agree a price with EADS through an informal process. However due to the slow pace of negotiations and disagreements over price, BAE stated on May 2 2006 that it was setting a 30 day deadline for agreement after which it would exercise its "put option". This would initiate a formal process which involves the appointment of advisers to determine a fair value. The Financial Times suggests this process should be completed by the end of June. [4]
  • At the BAE AGM on Thursday shareholders attacked the Chairman Dick Olver over the sale. [5] --Mark83 09:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Airliner Deliveries Table Splitting

Does Anyone else agree that it would be worth moving all the airliner deliveries tables onto a seperate Page?

Such as Airbus airliner deliveries?

Reedy Boy 10:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about the name, but yes, good idea in principle. --Mark83 16:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Airbus Deliveries?

I thought it sounded strange also

Reedy Boy 16:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Airbus Deliveries and Orders?

We need to get it done, as i've made the tables, and it is making the article a little messy.

If there's been no comments in the next couple of Days, i will use Airbus Deliveries and Orders

Reedy Boy 18:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


Moved, it was starting to annoy me! Reedy Boy 13:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Product list and details (date information from Airbus)

A310 Production Stopped in 1998 didn't it?

That was the last one off the production line according to information from Airbus

Why does it say production will cease July 2007?

I know that is the case for the A300, which is still being produced, just in limited numbers

Reedy Boy 16:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the A310 is/was still available to order along with the A300, just no one brought it. The A310 and A300 are so closely related perhaps Airbus considers them as one aircraft.

Nope. There are still 5 deliveries pending, scheduled for 2007. However, I'm not sure about the version, either freigther or military freighter/tanker. No pax version. Don't now, to whom they are sold.

How does one distinguish between an Airbus and a Boeing ?

This may be a stupid question, but here goes: Are there any clear differences in the construction of Boeing and Airbus planes that let one easily distinguish between the two? In other words, if there is an Airbus and a Boeing painted white all over, how can one distinguish between them ?

That's a good question. I personally don't think you can say there's an Airbus-esque or Boeing-esque design trait which allows you to differentiate. I think however that individual models do allow you to distinguish between them. For example anyone who's ever seen a movie should be able to pick the 747 between a picture of a 747 and an A380! The A320/737 families are quite distinctive. Like I say, good question, looking forward to other comments! Mark83 13:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Mark is correct, there is no single characteristic that identifies a plane as Boeing or Airbus. However, many of their models are distinctive, and once you know what type of aircraft it is, you know who built it. The 737/A320s can be told apart because their noses are shaped differently, the 737s have engine nacelles which are flattened at the bottom, and a kink in the tailfin. The A340 is the only single-deck aircraft with four engines, it's very easy to spot. The 747 and A380 are too easy :) The 757 has a very distinctive shape - it seems to sit very high on its wheels when on the ground, and has a thin fuselage. As for telling the 767/777/A330/A300 apart, I haven't found any clear distinctions yet... — QuantumEleven 17:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
---
First off, I am glad I am not the only one who had that question. Thanks Mark and QuantumEleven! I always look at the plane I am about to get into and wonder what it is. Hate waiting to check on that till I get to my seat. I have a few things to add, I will summarize what we have so far:
1) B777 - Six wheels on each landing gear, blade like tailcone
2) B747 - Obvious, 2 decks with a 'hump'
3) B737 - Some (pre-2004) have 'eyebrow' windows (small additional windows above the main cockpit windows), some also have winglets
4) B727 - T-shaped tail
5) A380 - Obvious
6) A340 - Single deck with 4 engines
Anything else - about the B757/B767/B720/B717/B707;A350/330/318/319/A320/A321/A310/A300 ? One may be able to tell planes apart (like Mark said - 737/A320s), but are there any individual (visual) features of the rest (B757/B767/B720/B717/B707;A350/330/318/319/A320/A321/A310/A300) ?
Again, thanks Mark and QuantumEleven. Also, is this the right page to ask this ?
737, 757, 767, 777, A300, A310, A320-family, A330, 2 engines mounted under the wings, 707, 747, A340, four engines
717, 727 T-tail
737 no winglets or big winglets - 320-family small wingtips (except the first ones built)
321 four exits each side, 320 2 big exits, 2 smaller ones over the wing, 319 2 big exits, 1 smaller one over the wing, 318 like 319 but bigger tail
--84.157.146.37 08:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
767, 777, A300, A310, A330, A340 are wide-body aircraft, they look bigger than narrow-bodies (737, 757, A320ies) --84.157.146.37 10:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


A common airbus attribute is the dihedral (sp?) arrowhead winglet used on aircraft such as the A320 family (i know they are moving towards the more common ones like the 737). Also, the 737 in particular has a much more pointed nosecone than the 320. Same for the 767. Its just one of those things you come to recognise! Reedy Boy 11:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Airbuses have a distinctive cockpit side window arangement, they look smaller and are more triangular than the boeing ones, especially those on the 70/727/737. There are two side windows on each side of the cockpit, on Boeings they meet at the bottom in a downwards pointing 'v', on an Airbus the 'v' points upwards, it clearer in pictures.--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombo1bo (talk • contribs) 16:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

the site is out of date

Boeing has recieved more orders than Airbus in 06. More importantly, the A380 has been delayed, will cost more, which is causing many pre-production orders to be either canceled or Beoing 777's being ordered.

No orders have been cancelled. Mark83 11:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Delays are causing an increase in Boeing sales/costing Airbus more money and over all is having a detrimental effect on Airbus.

Aircraft Matrix - Boeing vs. Airbus vs. Others

I have created a aircraft matrix that lists airlines, sorted by the size of thier fleet, which aircraft from Airbus, which aircraft from Boeing, and other aircraft in thier fleet. It can be found at user:Mnw2000/Airlines-Aircraft Matrix. I think it should be link at Airbus, Boeing, Embarer, etc. as well as all alines pages. Can some assist me in that effort?

Here is a sample:

Airlines Fleet Airbus Boeing Others
Lufthansa 429 A300, A319, A320, A321, A330, A340 737, 747 CRJ200

--marc 18:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)--[user:mnw2000]

This will rapidly deteriorate into unmaintainability, I'm afraid. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more, it's hard enough to get full details on current fleets sometimes, never mind keep up to date with future changes. Mark83 19:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually keeping a single chart is easier than trying to keep 100+ airline fleets up-to-date. I will keep my user version available for my own purposes for now. I also would like to hear more comments. --marc 20:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC) user:mnw2000

I would have no problem helping to try and keep it up to date! Reedy Boy 11:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at your matrix there are already glaring errors in there, i agree that it is likely to only deteriorate. skyskraper 06:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Competition with Boeing

I removed the last sentence about a380, there were no links and the sentence is inconsequential and misplaces. I realise that thi section is trying to be balanced but it comes across like people are trying to say "Yeah but Beoing does this and has these figures" instead of hard facts which would make this section truly NPOV

There is an extra article(Competition between Airbus and Boeing) about competition between both companies, why is it also handled inside this article? --87.78.20.19 (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I have transcluded the Orders and Deliveries table from Competition between Airbus and Boeing, where it is more likely to be maintained. As far as I could see the tables are identical. Ex nihil (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

New Ceo !!!!

I just went to airbus' homepage and airbus' has a new CEO.

Yes, Louis Gallois was named Airbus CEO. He's still an EADS CEO as well. — QuantumEleven 15:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Eurodates

Looking at this article and others related to Airbus, I am puzzled as to why they use U.S. date format (month-day-year), when all participating countries use International Dating format (day-month year). The Manual of Style indicates that articles should use the style appropriate for the country, and I consider U.S. Dating inappropriate for these articles. I have already discussed this with regard to the A380 article, made the changes after gaining approval and am happy to keep on going with the rest. --Pete 18:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Being a European myself, I prefer day-month-year, and that's what I see on this page. Might I suggest that you click on "my preferences" and check that you have selected the relevant date format? Mark83 00:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The question of date formats has been extensively discussed at the Manual of Style. While registered users may set their preferences accordingly, most Wikipedia readers are not registered. --Pete 10:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes completed. --Jumbo 03:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Airbus cross section picture

This picture is not listed on the Airbus page, but I hoped someone here might be able to identify it. I have a picture of an Airbus fuselage cross-section (at right), but I cannot quite remember which model it is. I think it's an A300, but can anyone confirm this? The picture is from the Deutsches Museum in Munich, Germany, if that helps. Thanks. Asiir 14:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The A300, A310, A330, A340, and A350 Mks. I-IV all have the same cross section. It could be representative of any of those models. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Asiir 16:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Historical citations

The History section could benefit from citations Heltzen 20:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If I promise to help will you remove that hideous template?! Mark83 21:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
We move it down for a while ? Heltzen 21:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Orders

We should not accept justplanes.com as a proper reference when listing current orders. During the years 1989 to 2006, only finalized orders are shown in the orders box. Justplanes.com uses letters of intent and other factors when deciding their final numbers and tend to over estimate orders by 30%-40% from the official tally from Airbus and Boeing. We should only use official tallies from Airbus and Boeing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.180.189 (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Airbus wins US Refuelling order

Just heard on BBC Radio 2 news that Airbus has just won a big US government order for refuelling aircraft - Boeing is said to be going to appeal the decision - see here: [6] Ian Dunster (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Revenue information is lacking

The article currently includes this information under "Revenue": USD 181,1 billion (2007)

No net revenue versus gross revenue information is shown, which I find odd for such a well publicized company. 67.158.175.22 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

According to EADS "Annual Review 2006" [7], the Airbus revenue for 2006 was 25 190 million euros (~39Bn$). This is not even close to the 180Bn$ revenue currently claimed by this article. I am therefore updating the article to reflect the new figures. --Fredrik Orderud (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Safety

Anybody knowledgeable could provide safety and failure data regarding the Airbus, specifically in relation to Boeing? 128.147.248.126 (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Broken Table

Something went horribly wrong with the table in the middle. Is there someone who knows how to fix this? --Asdirk (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone tried to add the A390 to the list of Airbus aircraft :) — QuantumEleven 12:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Environmental Record

Is it just me, or does it also appear to others that an effort has been made within the Boeing and Airbus articles to present Airbus in a more favorable light? There would appear to be several examples of this, but the most glaring are the Environmental Record sections. This section of the Boeing article is almost exclusively devoted to what a huge polluter Boeing is, while the equivalent section of the Airbus article is exclusively devoted to efforts Airbus is making to save the environment. Since we now know how Boeing ranks as a polluter in the U.S. and how many superfund sites it is responsible for, would it not be appropriate to see equivalent information for Airbus instead of just reading about how aggressive Airbus is in developing alternative fuels? Full disclosure: I am a Boeing employee (non-management), which is why I am bringing this to the discussion page rather than attempting to revise the articles, which should be done by someone without my conflict of interest.Doobie61 (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just had a look at both. In my view the only major balance problem with the sections is that the Airbus article is lacking information regarding its pollution as a result of its activities as exists in the Boeing article. The biofuels section of the Airbus article seems NPOV to me - with the expception of the final sentence: "This flight and the company's long term efforts are considered big strides towards environmentally friendly airplanes." -- I believe it to be written in good faith but sounds a bit like marketing speak. In comparing the biofuels section with that on the Boeing article it does appear that Airbus are more pro-active in this regard, perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject could let us know and/or edit the articles if that is incorrect. Mark83 (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

In the section on alternative fuel how can a plane engine running on a fuel mix that still contains 60% kerosene not have any sulphur emissions? I don't buy that at all. Refineries cannot reduce sulphur to zero so there must be some sulphurous compounds left in the kerosene which will produce SO2 on combustion in the engine.217.34.82.91 (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Net income?

Could you pleae edit the net income of the airbus from milion to bilion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.205.40 (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul completed

Wanted to leave a record that I've just completed an overhaul of this article, including adding a bibliography and doubling the references used, as well as bringing in proper formatting templates for all references and fleshing out Airbus' history section. I don't have any more improvements in mind at this time, but I may get a bright idea and return to this article for further work. If that doesn't happen, I hope you appreciate the progress made so far and enjoy the improved article for Airbus. Oh, and if anybody wants to try something big here and wants a hand with it, drop me a line, I might be interested or looking to help out somewhere. Kyteto (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If information needs to be confirmed/disproved

I am currently employed by Airbus in Toulouse. Should anyone need information concerning this page, I am willing to help (within reason)--DragonFly31 (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Can you provide for the A380 article a citation for the current list price of the A380 in €s, which is currently listed in US$s and is I suspect very out of date? Ex nihil (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've found a catalogue price, which is dated January 2010. The price for an A380 is $346.3 million as of January 2010. Note that this price can be negociated - particularly for bulk orders. The price will always be in dollars, as it is the most common market currency; even in Europe, commodities will be exchanged in dollars. Source is [8], an official airbus document released for the press --DragonFly31 (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Airbus Military

Is there a reason why this article ignores Airbus Military, which has now flown the A400M and has an offering for a refueling tanker? Should we have a section titled Airbus Military below Airbus Civilian and put the Orders and Deliveries tables seperate in section and combine civilian and military? Ex nihil (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I assume you missed the section entitled Military products, which includes 2 paragraphs and 10(!) citations. It also included a "main article" link to the Airbus Military article, which is also linked in the main infobox. Perhaps that "overhaul" mentioned in the previous section isn't as complete as the editor thought! The sections could use some rearanging to follow a more logical outline. - BilCat (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
My apologies then. I did look up most of those 10 references to begin with, I was interested in verification and sourcing facts back to their origins; basically cleaning up after sloppy editors throwing stuff in without thinking to add where it came from. My work was mainly focused on putting in about three times more references, reformatting them to have all the proper information installed, and writing out the History section extensively. I did not mean to leave this as a state of "incompleteness", only that just as all the editors that came before me, I can hardly be expected to achieve perfection and I had thought that I had done quite a bit to help out. I'll begin some reworking then. Kyteto (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't denigrating the work you did put in, which was extensive. The rearangement you've done today looks good. - BilCat (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, I overreacted. Stress must be getting to me these days. I hope the improvements in the article have made the readerbility and flow better. Kyteto (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Airbus safety record

It seems odd that there is nothing in the article about their saftey record, especially since over 550 people have been killed in five Airbus crashes in the last three years. See the end of Guardian article. It's a bit of a glaring omission. Also their pollution stats, history and current targets are missing - actual data, that is, rather than spiel. I don't have access to technical safety and emissions data. If someone does, could they please add. And, yes, I'm sure Airbus employees are keeping a close eye on the article. All the more reason to upload some well-sourced safety and env data asap and keep it live. Thanks Spanglej (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Final assemby locations

According to this article:

The final assembly lines used by Airbus are in Toulouse, France, Hamburg, Germany, Seville, Spain, for the Airbus A400M, and Tianjin, China for the A320 series.

This raises several questions:

  • Does the A400M really undergo final assembly in three different locations?
  • Is the A320 series really only built in China?
  • Where are the other Airbus aircraft assembled?
  • Did the author of this sentence understand the correct use of commas?

Can anybody help tie down the final assembly points. -- Starbois (talk) 10:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got this information together from the various model articles, and amended the above. It is still not cited yet though. -- Starbois (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Launch Aid

An extensive analysis of U.K. Launch Aid 1945--2005 has been published: Kaivanto (2006) "Premise and practice of UK Launch Aid," Journal of World Trade 40(3), pp. 495-525. http://ssrn.com/abstract=739719

This is the first substantial *independent* analysis of U.K. Launch Aid since Gardner's (1976) "Economics of Launching Aid".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.8 (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2006‎ (UTC)

Employees

I am not comfortable editing the actual page, but the opening paragraph it employees 57,000 people. The information box to the side says it employs 52,000 people. Someone may like to confirm the number and make a change for consistency purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrab51 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

SITA

The following was added re. SITA. I removed the strong advertising flavour and it reduced to the following statement, I couldn't really see where it might fit in. If anybody wants to try, here it is for the record:

  • In 2005, Airbus incorporated OnAir on-board telecommunications connectivity developed by SITA that enables passengers to stay connected while they travel. If it is noteworthy then it might be included in individual aircraft pages. Ex nihil (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
None of it is relevant to the company so should not be included, doubtful if it is really relevant or notable to the aircraft either. MilborneOne (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Sukhoi_Superjet_100#Vote_on_flag_removal

This (inofficial) voting about flags and country info in orders might concern even this article. Tagremover (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Update to information on Airbus’ environmental record

I work at Airbus and would like to suggest the following additions to the Airbus article. The current environment section is outdated and incomplete. I think it could benefit from reflecting some of the more recent news from Airbus. As an Airbus employee I won’t make the amends myself, but I'd be really grateful if somebody else could have a look at them. Thanks.

Airbus fully commits to industry targets o Airbus is committed to the Flightpath 2050 which outlines a significant commitment to cutting emissions. http://www.airbus.com/company/environment/ o Airbus is also committed to the meeting the climate targets outlined by ATAG. http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html

Environmental certification • In January 2007, Airbus became the first in the aerospace industry to receive ISO 14001 environmental certification, covering all of the company’s production sites, as well as its jetliner products. This recognises Airbus' environmental management systems initiative, which monitors the environmental impact of its manufacturing processes as well as products throughout the duration of service life. The ISO 14001 was successfully renewed in 2010. http://www.airbus.com/innovation/eco-efficiency/ • In October 2011, Airbus and Air France completed the world’s first ‘Perfect Flight’. The ‘Perfect Flight’ is an initiative by Airbus and airline operators to showcase environmental benefits of the ‘Perfect Flight’, which combines several company-backed initiatives and procedures for the most eco-efficient air travel possible. http://www.airbus.com/innovation/eco-efficiency/

Alternative Fuels • In conjunction with the European Commission, the leading European airlines and European biofuel producers, Airbus has launched the “European Advanced Biofuel Flightpath” - a new industry-wide initiative to speed up aviation biofuel commercialisation in Europe. The initiative aims to reach two million tonnes of production and consumption by 2020, which represents approximately four per cent of the aviation fuel used across the European Union.http://www.airbus.com/innovation/eco-efficiency/operations/alternative-fuels/

(Jackh2012 (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC))

I am adding some - but not all - of this to the article, with a few tweaks to the wording &c. It would also be good to build on coverage from secondary sources (surely there's no shortage of articles on flightglobal &c). What do you think?
I think there was already sufficient coverage of biofuels (albeit a bit chatty, and too focussed on the tech side). It's nice to get a broader organisational view of environmental issues. bobrayner (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Airbus in Japan

Here is a source:

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

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

Is very well referenced, and enough info to satisfy most. Any suggestions before it goes for GA/peer review? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 14:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/fla/
    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.airbusmilitary.com/Aircraft/A400M/A400MAbout.aspx
    Triggered by \bairbusmilitary\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 22:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

New aircraft numbering system for Airbus

I have noticed that A320neo uses a different aircraft numbering system, as indicated on the table of the article. The ones with PW1000G engines will become 'Airbus A320-27*N' instead of 'Airbus A320-22*N'; while the ones with CFM LEAP engines will become 'Airbus A320-25*N' than 'Airbus A320-21*N'. So is it ok to put the new codes on the table? (Pinas Central (talk) 05:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC))

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Airbus. 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.

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 12:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Airbus. 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.

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 07:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Airbus. 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) 09:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

number of employees

so... uhm... i'll just let you experts reconcile these details

"Airbus generates €64.5 billion ($68.5 billion) in revenue and employs around 136,600 staff."

last sentence of this article: http://atwonline.com/manufacturers/airbus-cut-1164-jobs-under-restructuring-plan

As i understand this is the page for "airbus group"

k thnx bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.209.144 (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is for Airbus Group. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Airbus. 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) 19:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

main picture

Currently the main picture shows an almost anonymous factory entrance :

Wouldn't it be better to leave only its logo or replace the picture by its most prominent products, jet airliners, like the most widespread A320 or largest A380?

what do you think?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I dont think it needs an image of an aircraft in the infobox it is sometimes better to show something else, although a factory image would be better than the gates! MilborneOne (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
My tuppence h'apenny worth is to remove the picture altogether and just leave the logo. The image adds nothing useful and gives the impression that Airbus is somehow in one place, which is untrue. The treatment at Boeing is entirely appropriate. Ex nihil (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
well a nice image could be good, maybe an image in the infobox?.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Airbus. 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) 08:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Logo history

Hello @JJMC89:, the will to clean wikipedia from non-free content is understandable, but could you point to examples of critical commentary allowing fair use instead of deleting with a boilerplate explanation? Thanks! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with clean[ing] Wikipedia from non-free content; I'm concerned with WP:NFCC compliance. When usage is justified by meeting all NFCC, then go for it. The onus is on users that want to use non-free content to justify it. In most cases critical commentary (e.g. independent, third-parties commenting on something like design or controversy surrounding the logo) does not exist, meaning non-free the use is not permitted.WP:NFC#cite note-4 Additionally, all of the WP:NFURs for the images are invalid because the images are not used as described (primary identification) and fields have 'n.a.' in them. (None of the criteria are ever not applicable.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, I'm not sure I understand all NFCC NFCCE or NFUR but a part of that maybe. Could you point to examples of critical commentary allowing fair use for logos?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Update required

The article seems to need updating with the outcome of WPO ordering Airbus or Europe to compound the US government's welfare programme for Boeing.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Airbus Australia Pacific

Where are informations about Airbus Australia Pacific? [9][10] Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The Massive Corruption and Non-Compliance Scheme

One big chapter of the Airbus story should be dedicated to their massive corruption and non-compliance system which ended up in world record fines in 4 countries (although it is not clear whether the system has really come to its end and which crimes did not surface at all ... ). https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/31/airbus-to-pay-record-3bn-in-fines-for-endemic-corruption

Hopefully someone will do some research some day on what effect this massive system which ruined honest merchants, respectable employees, good faith competitors, national economies all over the world etc. had on the "progress" in aerospace.

I dare to say that without Airbus' crimes and dishonesty of the majority in top and middle management all aviation and space products would be better, more modern, more ecological and more efficient for the benefit of mankind. Instead we still have to fly in noisy, crampy, smelly, and petrol-eating planes like in the 80s. Where is the progress compared to what happened in telecommunication, IT, computer and software industries etc. ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CF:1F44:4560:CCFF:DDBE:CE0D:6554 (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks a bit as if the mess with the various legal entities mentioned above was done on purpose to support the corruption scheme.--89.244.27.172 (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum and Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The Nationality of Airbus

The national origins of Airbus is variously described as European or 'multinational' on different Wiki pages. The Airbus article has it correct as European but other pages do not. Apparently, there is a consensus somewhere that it is ' multinational' but I, and others, cannot find it. I am just parking the comment, below, on the nationality of Airbus as a source to inform future discussion:

Wikipedia may be slipping behind the times where it maintains that Airbus SE is 'international', and it may be that the consensus debate considered the EU to be merely an association of European countries. The EU is not yet a sovereign state but it is a legal and political entity that often supersedes national law and politics on many issues, one being business law and the operating environment of Airbus. First up, there is legally no such thing as a multinational company, it may operate internationally, as does Boeing, but will always be incorporated in a specific country. In the case of Airbus the country of incorporation is, technically, the Netherlands although the main administration is based in France. However, Airbus is never regarded as being Dutch, or French, because it actually comes under the legal European Union framework of Societas Europaea. Societas Europaea provides the supra-national framework that allows companies registered in a member state to operate as a European Union identity for legal and trading purposes. National laws are subordinate to those of Societas Europaea but persist where SE is silent on an issue. The Statute for European Company Regulation 2001allows for a European company to incorporate in a specific EU country and be regarded as a European company but the actual country of registration is becoming increasingly irrelevant as most of the national legal systems become subordinated to EU ones, this is why the UK is faced with the stupefying task of adopting several thousand EU laws into the UK legal system before Brexit. There are in excess of 3,000 companies SE registered and referred to as 'European' rather than Spanish, German or French. British companies that currently operate as European will have to revert to UK business laws after Brexit and leave the SE. Even my burgundy European passport will be reissued as a blue UK one at Brexit and I will be reverted to UK law at that time. It is correct that the EU is not a sovereign nation but it is far more than an association of sovereign countries, it is a legal and political entity with a governing body and parliament to which member states send delegates and it may even become a sovereign entity. Airbus SE is registered to trade shares in France, Germany and Spain maybe UK?). Given that the nationality of a company cannot be 'multinational' it has to be assigned to somewhere. Calling it Dutch is correct but silly, pedantic and few people even know that it is incorporated there. The perfectly correct and legal answer, and this is even in Airbus's own governance documentation on its website is that it is SE European, meaning the political-legal entity of the European Union. Regarding its multinational operations, these arrangements are almost identical to that of Boeing, which is definitely American, not 'multinational'. The actual country of origin of Airbus is not open to consensus, it is legally defined, there is actually a specific answer to the matter. I am merely an MBA operating within the EU business environment but not a lawyer, do we have any European lawyers out there want to clear this up, definitively? Ex nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we need a lawyer to settle this issue. Setting aside your vaguely political comments on Brexit (which do no favour to your argument, regardless of one's own opinions on Brexit (or indeed the position that Airbus itself has recently publicised with regard to Brexit)), I fully concur that we should be calling Airbus a "European company". As you point out, the fact some of its activities are conducted outside Europe is irrelevant, just as Boeing's non-American activities are irrelevant to its status as a US company. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The headquarters of Airbus were consolidated to France by 2017 so I don't know why you keep changing it to the Netherlands. The CEO lives in France along with all of its board members. The press keeps referring to it as French Airbus for a good reason. It is the HQ and home to half of its employees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F180:FBE0:1CE4:EBA0:48D3:E74B (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The headquarters may be in France but the registered office of "Airbus SE" is Mendelweg 30, 2333 CS Leiden, The Netherlands and registered with the Dutch Commercial Register. One of the reportable segments of "Airbus SE" is "Airbus" the former Airbus Commerical Aircraft which probably is run from France so you may be confusuing "Airbus SE" (the holding company) and "Airbus" the segment that makes commercial aircraft. This article is about "Airbus SE" so the Netherlands is correct. MilborneOne (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Just to add the other two of the three segments are "Airbus Helicopters" and "Airbus Defence and Space". MilborneOne (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The address you provided is for Airbus Defence and Space Netherlands. It employees 200 people that have nothing to do with corporate. The offices you are talking about moved to Toulouse in 2017 where all corporate functions are now handled. Your information is out of date, please update it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F180:FBE0:7184:C6B5:829F:84BF (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Not according to Airbus who for some reason keep saying "Amsterdam" in 2018 press releases and the like. Just to quote a recent 2018 document "Airbus SE (the "Company") is a European public company (Societas Europaea), with its seat in Amsterdam,The Netherlands... So if you are sure the registered office has moved from The Netherlands Airbus don't seem to have spotted it. Just because the office staff are in Tolouse doesn't change the legal position. Please read the Airbus website and please sign your posts, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
There three separate considerations here: the place that Airbus is legally incorporated, the place(s) where it's main (and secondary) administration centres are, and the places where it manufactures, including overseas. These locations are all pretty transparent. Basically, it is European operating internationally. I rather imagine that Boeing has a very similar setup, correct me if I'm wrong but I think it is incorporated in Delaware, its main offices are in Chicago and it manufactures in various places, including overseas. Basically, it is American operating internationally. Ex nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Most people speaking casually would say that Boeing is "based" in Chicago, not Delaware, which might be the analogue of the argument for wanting to emphasize France as the base of Airbus? CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Interesting comparison: Boeing HQ is based in Chicago but Boeing is historically associated with Seattle/Washington state, where it still has its main operations. But at least Boeing's management is really in Chicago, while Airbus' heads and main operations are in Toulouse, which could be renamed AirbusVille, the NL HQs are in paper only.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Clarifications needed in article: Was Airbus/EADS originally entirely or partly state-owned? Is it partly state-owned now (that is, at date of writing)? If so, what states, and what are their percentages? Acwilson9 (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The company is unambiguously Dutch. From their website: The Company is governed by the laws of the Netherlands (in particular Book 2 of the Dutch Civil Code) and by its Articles of Association.[11] Also, all the shareholder meetings take place in the Netherlands. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Airbus is a wholly public company operating under the legal European Union legal framework of Societas Europaea and incorporated in the Netherlands. A company may be European under Societas Europaea but needs to be incorporated in a specific state, just as Boeing is American but must be incorporated in a specific state. Where either Airbus or Boeing are incorporated has little bearing on where they actually operate, just the laws under which they operate. Ex nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ex nihil: the big difference though is that the US is a sovereign country, whereas the EU is not. That means "American" is a nationality, whereas "EUian", or even "European" if we assume for a moment that the EU controls the whole continent, despite only including 27/8 of its 50 sovereign states, is not. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@DeFacto: you are right, the EU is not technically a sovereign state but the significance of the Societas Europea (SE) is not well understood overseas and from a business point of view it allows a business to actually be, legally, 'European'. The SE provides the legal framework for businesses to register as European under that framework and the state laws are subordinated to the framework laws so are sovereign over the consituent countries. Over 3,000 large businesses are now under the Societas Europea and they describe themselves as European entities (if they want to) rather than Dutch, German or French. So, it's a concept that may be a little hard to grasp overseas but there really is a European political entity, with a set of business rules, a shared law that eclipses state law, an elected parliament etc etc. All the mechanics of an actual state without (yet anyway) actually calling itself a state. Airbus is entitled to call itself a European business and it certainly would not want to maarket itself as Dutch, French or whatever. To all intents and purposes, Europe is a country but not as we known it. Ex nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
To put that another way, SE status would be the equivalent of incorporating a US company at federal level (which I don't believe is possible under US law), rather than in a particular state. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is completely wrong. Is merging data and history of two completely different companies: the Dutch holding company currently called Airbus Group SE (previously EADS) and the French aircraft manufacturer Airbus SAS (originally known Airbus Industrie consortium) - that is the legal entity that makes the civil airliners, and other subsidiaries of Airbus Group through the world. There is no European nationality for companies, so nor Airbus or any of its subsidiaries can be defined specifically as 'European'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.69.224.14 (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The 'SE' after Airbus Group means that it is indeed registered as a European corporation. What used to be Airbus SAS is one of three divisions within Airbus SE: commercial aircraft, helicopters and aerospace. Check out the Airbus governance framework here [12] Ex nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is completely wrong, as it mixes three different companies. One the one hand, the Dutch company Airbus SE, that acts as a shell holding company but produces nothing. On the other hand, the French Airbus SAS, based in Toulouse, that produces most of the civil range airliners. Additionally, the Canadian Airbus Canada Ltd., that produces de A220. They are separate legal companies even if they chairman and the board are the same.


Maybe someone can explain why so many users remove many times informations about Blagnac headquarters? Manys contributors try to put this information (with official links) on this page since many years. But a lot a people prefer to speack about a "Dutch" company. --2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:B44F:6FC8:7627:7C6E (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Corporate merger tree diagram

Is there reason for this reading from R to L? S C Cheese (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Airbus

What are all of Airbus's planes? 24.118.221.221 (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Dear, new IP editor. This Talk page is about how to improve the article, it is not a chat group. If you think that the article needs to list all Airbus aircraft, then suggest it here. However, the main article has already done this. Ex nihil (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Airbus/Archive_1&oldid=1220542126"