Talk:Airbus A380/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Further delays

There have been some news stories hinting at further delays. Singapore Airlines has commented on these rumours, but states that they have not been informed of any further slippage, saying they are on track for a December 2006 entry into service. We should keep a close eye on this, but wait until we have a firm announcement before announcing any delays. --Jumbo 22:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted an edit quoting a UAE news report as a source for a delayed introduction into service. I couldn't get the link to work correctly, but a review of their recent stories on the subject shows nothing new. Singapore Airlines already have two A380s and they should fly commercially in late 2006 after completion of the certification process. There are other delays affecting future deliveries, but so far as I can see nothing affecting the initial entry into service. There have been several similar edits over the past few months, all claiming that operational flights will be delayed into 2007. We need to keep on top of this, as service entry draws closer and we can expect more readers of our article. --Jumbo 09:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Singapore has not yet taken delivery of any A380s. You may be referring to two A380s, destined for SIA, currently undergoing interior fitting in Hamburg. From what I have read it is unlikely EIS will be in 2006... but I'll stay out of this issue since it will go away in a few short months. --Ctillier 21:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have again reverted an edit by Ravedave. The source he relies on does not mention any delays in the introduction of the A380. The relevant paragraph (towards the end of the article) states:

However, an industry consultant reporting on the event also quoted sources as saying as few as four A380s would be delivered next year. He said all four planes would go to Singapore Airlines, which would get a "ceremonial delivery" at the end of this year.

Certainly there are serious delays in the A380 program, but these do not affect the entry into service of the first aircraft, which have been built, flown, fitted out, delivered and are awaiting full certification. --Jumbo 19:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above, they are undergoing fitting out, but not yet delivered. --Ctillier 21:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I read, possibly on SIA's site, that they have been delivered, but there will be a "ceremonial delivery" in December. Haven't been able to find the source again - keep getting sidetracked. But given that the only thing holding up EIS is certification, one wonders what the first two SIA A380s are doing in the meantime. --Jumbo 21:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Singapore Airlines doesn't seem to have reacted to the 3 October announcement, but I quote from a Reuters story:
It marks the first time that Airbus has acknowledged it will not be able to deliver the first $300 million double-decker to launch customer Singapore Airlines this year, with the inaugural delivery now set for October 2007, 10 months overdue.
That looks pretty unambiguous to me. I'll tidy up, based on this. If anyone has any more information, please give a reference. --Jumbo 02:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The article should probably mention how badly this delay will effect airbus and how "EADS said it would also examine the actions of managers at Airbus itself" - I'll let you handle that. [1] -Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
What we really need here is a list of: The original intended Entry Into Service date and the approximate resulting EIS for each slide. Otherwise it is very hard for a reader to figure out what has actually happened to the airplane and what it means for EADS and their airline customers. Komodon 20:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Virgin Atlantic's A380s are now delayed to 2013. Let's not forget that the original EIS was 2006. (N328KF)
Here is a good reference. FedEx's order, is of course, moot. (Talk) 17:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wake turbulence

Would anybody object to ditching the lesson on wake turbulence physics? I'm referring to the middle two paragraphs of the wake turbulence section. It's interesting material, but not very relevant, and would fit better in the wake turbulence article. I'm trying to find ways to 1) shrink the article and 2) make room for the impending ICAO rules that will be coming out in the next few weeks. That will no doubt warrant a small paragraph in the wake turbulence section. So, does anybody feel strongly about keeping it? --Ctillier 06:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be mostly speculation. I see no good reason for keeping it in its current form. --Jumbo 06:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The technical aspects of wake turbulance can be discussed in the wake turbulance article, here is not the place for it. Ben W Bell talk 07:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with removing it. The article's long enough as it is, and if there's more content expected soon, yeah, I'd say go ahead and clean it up, removing the physics lesson. galar71 18:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A summary follows of the editing I have recently done in this section. First, the opening sentence needs to say why this is relevant as a criticism, which is why I added back the wording that removed because of perceived POV. The only reason it became POV is because took out the conditional wording. Second, the EADS press release states clearly that while trailing separations are increased over the Heavy category, leading separations are also reduced. Where a 747 would have to trail another 747 by 4 nm, an A380 could trail it by 2 or 3 nm. Neglecting to mention this, as seen in reporting by various media outlets, borders on POV in my opinion. (Remember the media is smelling blood on the A380 program these days) Third, I have removed the physics paragraphs per above comments, and plan to integrated them into the wake turbulence article, which lacks a section on the physics of the phenomenon. Fourth, I have included the key numbers from the A380 vortex working group study, plain, unvarnished and without interpretation, because expressing them in terms of "X percent more than 747" again borders on POV. It goes without saying, please feel free to improve it. --Ctillier 04:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentence on business case in first paragraph as net result of the ICAO recommendations on the business case is not clear. Referenced article states as much: "It was not clear what actual impact the constraints would have, however." So it doesn't seem appropriate to then write about a possible undermined business case.

Start of commercial flights in 2007? No WAY

There is no way that SIA can start commercial flights in 2007 with one airframe. I think we should leave a big question mark on this point in the article until we can find out definitively, but unless SIA does short hops or charters, there is simply no way they can operate scheduled flights with a single airframe. Perhaps they will use it for training or something; Given that they won't have a second airframe for at least a few months after that, there will be no spare aircraft nor the ability to do longer flights (which require a 2-3 airframe rotation.) These flights comprise the bulk of SIA's flying. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joseph. Do short hops to Sydney with one airframe not count as EIS for you? We'll see... in the meantime, I'm glad that the controversy over the lead paragraph date is finally settled. cheers --Ctillier 06:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah! I've been aware that some people have had inside info on this, but we can't really put down anything unless we have a solid source. We'll wait and see what happens, but when an A380 flies a scheduled route with paying customers onboard, that's EIS, even if they only fly one service a year or whatever. We source our facts, we put them into an article, and we polish it up. We don't speculate or act on tips. Personally I'm disappointed at the delays, but I'm not running an airliner business, and nobody comes to Wikipedia looking for my opinion - they want solid information. --Jumbo 07:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I know very little about how airlines allocate their aeroplanes. However I personally don't see why they could use the single A380 on one of their routes on the busiest day. E.g. Saturday. After all, many airlines already e.g. use 747's on weekend and 777s on weekdays for certain routes Nil Einne 12:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe the Airbus A380 will fly in 2008.

Wiring Issues

The article currently states in the opening sentence about delivery delays that Labinal supplied over 80% of the electrical harnessing. Why does it need to say that, especially in that context? If this is an implied assignment of blame, I'm not sure that meets our encyclopedic values... especially since I have found no source stating that Labinal was to blame for the delays. Is there a better way to rephrase it, or is the fact even relevant? --Ctillier 16:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. As far as I know, it's not publicly known who exactly (if any one entity) is to blame for the wiring problems, and I didn't mean to suggest that Labinal was (although one German newspaper has indeed pointed the finger at them, see Labinal). I'm not opposed to any useful clarification in this regard. However, since the wiring problem is the central issue in an event very relevant to this article - the A380 production delays - it seems to be worthwile to mention the wiring subcontractor at some place. Maybe some other place in the article would be better suited for that? Sandstein 17:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
See the recent presentation by the A380 program manager, Mario Heinen. He states on chart 13 that the problems arose in fuselage sections 13 and 18, but not the others. 13 and 18 are the two sections built in Hamburg. While he doesn't actually come out and point fingers, that's closer to blame than I've seen anywhere, and it comes straight from the PM, himself a German... Anyway, I will think of a way to work in the Labinal tidbit in a place where it cannot be construed for guilt by association. --Ctillier 22:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
OK. I'll be the first to say that I know zip about A380 production specifics, but at any rate, if Labinal is indeed the systems integrator responsible for producing and installing the wiring, it's probably not far-fetched to assume they share some responsability for the wiring problems with whoever is building the relevant aircraft components. Still, it's probably better to avoid any impression of guilt by association for now. Sandstein 06:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I tried to reword as best I could. However, I feel Labinal is not relevant to the issue and I would rather remove this tidbit altogether... the most relevant A380 suppliers (including Safran, the parent company of Labinal) are already mentioned in the Production section. Opinions? --Ctillier 03:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

A380 @ Vancouver

Airbus A380 is to make a test flight to YVR during this month. I thought this information might be interesting to add in the article. YVR is also the first North American international airport that the A380 is visiting. FlyAirCanada 15:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought the term "Jumbo Jet" referred to the Boeing 747. I thought the Airbus A380 was called the "SuperJumbo" or "Whalejet". user:mnw2000 19:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links

Information icon.svg

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Delivery delays

I've seen the recommendation above to put the original and current estimated EIS dates to help get an idea of what the delays are like, something similar to this [2] it's been suggested. However IMHO, a better way to get the effect of the delays across is to how many were supposed to have been shipped/EIS by e.g. 2010 and how many it's estimated will have shipped now. Perhaps choose 2 dates to help get the idea across. IMHO, this works better then simply giving the date changes for each airline Nil Einne 13:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Where did get 28 total orders for Qantas? I have one order for 12 and one that converted 8 options to firm orders. user:mnw2000 23:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


On the a380 navigator it said that the a380 recieved additional orders from Quantas and Singpore Airlines. I apollogize if this has already be said. JJ 23:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

AP is reporting that UPS has cancelled its order for 10 A380s. I dont want to edit the article for (irrational) fear of messing it up. MathewBrooks 18:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The intend to cancel it later this year but it's not canceled yet. [3] --Denniss 18:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding external link

I have several times added an external link to the A380 page, and each time had it deleted. I am assuming this because the person deleting it thinks it is spam. While it is true that the link is to a website I work for, I feel that it is a valid link as it provides information not available in the main article (a list of major suppliers to the program) that is relevant, useful and of interest to readers, is not available elsewhere, and does not require any sort of registration or payment to view. The policy page on external links suggests that the best way to have this link added and not subsequently deleted is to post it on the talk page and have other editors view the website and decide as to its relevance and appropriateness. So here it is!

Please note I am new to Wikipedia, so please excuse any violation of Wikiquette!

I would be very grateful for the views and support of other editors, or a really clear explanation of why this link cannot be included. The website also has sections for several other major aircraft programs, which I would like to link to from the relevant articles. This is something of a test case!

Thanks for the help

Jenny Hill 15:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jenny, thanks for discussing this here. The biggest suppliers (as relevant to an overview article such as this) are already mentioned in the production section of the article. Adding a link comes down to the value added by the linked content, compared to the other links already present. That's a judgement call that any editor is free to make. While I didn't remove the link, I share the opinion that it doesn't quite make the cut. (Neither does, for that matter...) I would support including the link as a footnote in the production section of the article, after the sentence that mentions that the suppliers are from all around the world. It's not as visible as a link, but it provides the information to those who seek it. --Ctillier 05:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Looking at the article, I am puzzled as to why it uses 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 this article. --Pete 18:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably because much of the content has come from editors in North America. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The US Military uses a similar date format, e.g. 1 August 2002 (but not 1/8/2002). Feel free to correct the date format. User preferences can be adjusted to either format for linked dates, I believe anyway. -Fnlayson 18:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I see it as a moot point if user preferences are set properly. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the article previously used international format until 26 September 2006 when Raul654 switched all the dates to U.S. format. Not that I care a lot, but I preferred international format... so go for it! --Ctillier 04:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


Is there any information available concerning the shipment of parts through the Polet Air An-124s? 22:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Unauthorized modifications to Talk:Airbus A380 (copied from User talk:Skyring)

It is rude and against policy to remove on-topic comments from discussion pages. I suggest not doing it again. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 23:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

One editor asked, "Is there any information available concerning the shipment of parts through the Polet Air An-124s?". This is a pertinent question, considering the various methods of delivery of the larger assemblies of the A380. To which BillCJ replied, "I've heard acquiring parts won't be a problem once there is a good number of A380s in service. There'll be plenty of spare parts available on any runway, ths sides of the runway, and on approaches to the airports.". This is not on-topic. It is nonsense, and in no way assists the article or any meaningful discussion. I am surprised that an editor of your standing took it seriously. However, I have kept the comment on the talk page. --Pete 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is completely pertinent to ask a question on the talk page regarding the support structure for the A380's logistics train. Why would this not make its way into the article? The topic is an aspect of the A380, its manufacturing process, and/or the support structure. It's not as if Bill added a comment on the main article to the effect of "gee, I done heard this rumor." And beyond that, you removed the comments of a non-transient editor; why not make a polite comment instead? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 01:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the question is pertinent. There is no disagreement on that score. But please explain how you see Bill's response as a contribution worth keeping. --Pete 01:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The main point is, we don't take out others people's comments unless it's just plain out-and-out vandalism, like "Hi Bill" or "I slept with Bill's mom", and page blanking. Usually, when someone makes really stupid comments, we just leave it there for everyone to see how stupid the comments are.
What I wrote is just a poor attempt at humor, and a little bit of ridicule aimed at Airbus. It's not meant to be taken seriously, nor is it meant to be offensive. Even when I do say something I wish I hadn't said, unlss it's just a complete misunderstanding about something that will cause more problems if it's left there, I let it remain posted. I know I have a big mouth, and it's OK if the world knows it. At least I know better than to put it in the article itself. You should the jusnk we take out of the Boeing articles! And I imagine it's no different with the AIrbus airticles either. - BillCJ 01:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Delivery Delays

This explains the recent edits I made to this section, which I was increasingly concerned about.

(1) the failure in configuration management ultimately means the change control systems were overwhelmed by the huge number of design changes-- not that wires didn't plug into each other. The latter was a symptom of the larger change control failure, not a cause. The opening sentence is about causes, not symptoms. (2) the fact that Labinal corp makes the wiring is irrelevant -- the same company manufactures wiring bundles for the Boeing 787, which does not suffer from wiring problems. Mentioning the company in connection with the A380 wiring imbroglio is misleading at best. So I ditched the reference. (3) the IEEE news analysis states the same things as already referenced to Airbus and Flight International. It is redundant and there is nothing new here besides rank speculation by analysts. (4) the IEEE article clearly states that aluminum wiring was designed in from the very beginning. It points out that other sources have incorrectly jumped to the conclusion that there was a supposed 'switch' from copper to aluminum. This is a red herring as far as the wiring delays are concerned, and thus does not belong in the article. (5) the IEEE article quotes a random aerospace analyst (coincidentally located in Tacoma, WA next to Boeing's manufacturing sites). While that may be appropriate for a news analysis in IEEE Spectrum, I don't believe it makes the cut for an encyclopedia-- especially not with the vague statement that "other sources" say such-and-such. Gotta do better than this. (6) The Seattle PI article specifically quotes Richard Aboulafia in connection with the weight problems. Might as well state this clearly, rather than include a vague allusion to "some analysts"... if a specific citation is available, please use it. Regardless, I am uncomfortable with the selective quotation of analyst opinions (see (5)) and would rather see this reference removed. --Ctillier 04:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hours and cycles

I saw on that the total number of cycles 1995 and hours 2900, could this be right in portion to earlier mentioned cycles/hours rate? RGDS Alexmcfire

Size compared to the Starship Enterprise

What is that doing there in the size comparison image? That image is really bad anyway, but why add the "Starship Enterprise" in the size mix? Suggest this gets removed.

Done. Is the A380 so hard up for relevance that its supporters have to compare it buildings, carriers, and starships? What's next, the Great Pyramid of Egypt, the Hindenburg before the expolsion, or maybe the Death Star? Enough already. - BillCJ 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- The Star Trek Enterprise is too much. Maybe 1 building and 1 ship.. -Fnlayson 19:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest this pic: [4] 18:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice pic, but it conveys more about the QM2 than it does about the A380. (I actually had to verify the scale... it is correct!) I may be biased but I think the current size comparison picture does the trick. --Ctillier 03:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, ludicrous starship comparison, I removed image from other objects were it was used except USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) where it seems appropriate mr_uu 12:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly. The A380 is not similar in size as the other things in that image. It does not do much for you. -Fnlayson 17:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


A small request: can we please wait for the dust to settle on the A380F news before we hastily hack up the article? There is no official announcement other than media reports of statements by Gallois and assorted spokespeople, and the status of the UPS order (cancellation or deferral?) is still unclear. Will the A380F even be on offer anymore? We will know much more in a few days, so in the meantime let's keep up our quality standards. --Ctillier 03:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

When Airbus moved workers off the freighter and to the passenger version, UPS realized that it would not get a plane until 2012. They can not officially cancel the order until an agreed to date, but the writing is on wall. Should we wait for the official announcement from UPS or Airbus or rely on multiple news reports from reputable sources? What is the Wikipedia standard on sources? user:mnw2000 19:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

We can rely on the UPS press release and media coverage of it, and of the media coverage of the informal Airbus announcement of further delays / deferment of the Freighter model. The UPS press release is a reliable source. UPS hasn't cancelled it yet, but they have announced that they intend to do so. Georgewilliamherbert 20:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Both 001 and 007 have UPS loggo on the side buth the place ther FerdX wos its empty on the wisit to USA = UPS not cansled.

Yet. UPS has said it cancel the order on or after the date they are allowed legally to do so, as stated above. - BillCJ 01:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
It is correct that technically, UPS won't formally cancel until the summer, and firm orders still stand at 166. But trying to convey this in the orders table of the article will cause more trouble than it's worth. Unregistered casual drive-by editors won't appreciate those nuances. --Ctillier 05:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Timeline link

For future reference, and use in the article. [5] - 13:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Don't think there's room for it in the External links. Plenty of stuff there already. -Fnlayson 14:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
At some point it may be worth considering setting up a Timeline of Airbus A380 development sub-article. Between this and several other references there may be enough material to get one going. Also, over time, the parent article will need to be cleaned up to focus less on the development process and more on the design and operational history. --StuffOfInterest 14:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Or just "Development of Airbus A380". -Fnlayson 17:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd support the development article. - BillCJ 18:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Similar aircraft

If the B777 is not a similar aircraft, why is the AN124? After all the AN124 is not even a passenger aircraft and there is no longer any freighter version of the A380. The AN224 may fit the build only because it is the largest aircraft in the world, but it too is not a passenger aircraft. The only real similar aircraft is the B747. user:mnw2000 17:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The A380F was delayed not killed. The A380, An124 and An225 are all transports. Carrying cargo and passenger are different roles though. I don't know.. -Fnlayson 17:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Test aircraft final destinations

Is there any indication as to where the test aircraft will end up? Will they become the first few A380s to be sold to airlines and flown commercially, or will they be retired and placed in museums? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

  • Test airliners usually are delievered to airlines. No point in wasting them. Most likely it'll be many years before any A380s go to museums. Somebody else can probably tell which of these early planes will go where. -Fnlayson 14:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Four of the five test aircraft will eventually go to Etihad Airways. --Ctillier 04:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


I see this article has been nominated for GA status. I don't have time to review it myself, but I'll point out one possible obstacle to promotion. Is this article stable? The aircraft hasn't even flown a commercial flight yet? It hasn't been delivered? Surely until this happens the article is going to be quite unstable. It would be like trying to get 2008 Summer Olympics promoted before the event. Any comments, or am I way off on this? - Shudda talk 05:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I nominated it. In my opinion, the standard for stability at GAC is lower than that at FAC, and rightly so. There was an FAC nomination last year which perhaps was too early, but there is too much good content her to pass up a good article nomination. The events you mention will add/change text here and there, but not signficantly enough, in my opinion to affect GA status. -Phoenix 22:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm going ahead and promoting this article. It is well written, well referenced, and comprehensive, so I believe it meets the GA criteria. —Scott5114 03:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick promotion. Unless it can be proven at FAC that the content of the article isn't changing from day-to-day, this article can start heading that direction. -Phoenix 03:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Why does the "reviewed version" link in the GA box at the top of this page link to an ancient sandbox? --Ctillier 04:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks okay now, Gimme took care of it. -Phoenix 05:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Bond film product placement?

Airbus was also a sponsor of the Bond film, as evidenced by the clear placement of the Airbus name during one shot of the Miami airport sequence.

While I dont doubt, given the history of the latest bond films, that there is a large amount of product placement, is there any proof other than a shot? Jpk82 00:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I was wondering about that one too. -Fnlayson 00:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It was not Airbus that in the film, but a fictional company called 'Skyfleet', and the plane does look a bit like an Airbus A380, the engines are very different. When it comes to air travel, terrorism and planes exploding (even unsucccesful attempts) tends to make companies nervous. 07:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, the "Skyfleet" aircraft was a rather bad mockup, basically a 747 with two engines per pylon instead of the usual one and some slapped-on cladding to make it look like a different shape. Frankly I was disappointed that they hadn't put just a little bit more effort into it - I went to see the film with a few of my Aero Eng coursemates and we collectively laughed out loud at the hangar roll-out shot. --YFB ¿ 05:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Cathay Pacific?

Didn't Cathay Pacific also order a couple fo A380s? Cause it says on the cathay page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Where abouts does it say that? Can you provide a link please? Nick Moss 07:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's on the cathay pacific page in the fleet section.

Vandalism. Take anything you read on Wikipedia with a pinch of salt. Gerbilface 12:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Underfloor passenger area?

Does anyone know why i keep hearing it has three passenger floors? Does it have anything planned to use some of the cargo area as passenger space?

See herelook at the bottom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IceCAPPED (talkcontribs).

  • That does not show any seats in the cargo area. Although it is described as Underfloor Passenger Facilities, which could be bathrooms or a louge area. Those images could be someone's early concept. -Fnlayson 00:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Popular Mechanics magazine published a wonderfully well researched article a few years ago which described the A380 as having 4 decks in total, complete with a cutaway of such a layout: The article, the offending cutaway. You'd have thought they might have asked some questions when the cutaway looked somewhat stretched vertically compared to Airbus's images... Nick Moss 04:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I like how Pop. Mech. shows all the frames and stringers (internal structure) like they "know" where they will be. They were still designing it in 2001. -Fnlayson 15:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The artist's conception of First Class appears very cramped. Any airline wedging the premium customers in that tightly is certainly not going to waste an acre of space on duty free shops and restaurants. --Pete 18:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Screeching halt

If the A380 has only two thrust reversers, how is it supposed to stop before the landing strip ends, in case of nasty wet weather? Drogue chutes, mighty big ones, maybe? Arresting wire or "monkey-catcher" nets possibly installed at the end of runway? Possibly just keep praying? 12:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Brakes generally work pretty well. ericg 14:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Lmao - They only use thrust reversers down to a certain speed anyway Reedy Boy 15:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that neither certification requirements nor runway length calculations take thrust reversers into account... i.e. performance has to be achieved without them. --Ctillier 03:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Proliferation of references

Over the past few months the article has had an enormous number of references added to it. While citation tags seem to be increasingly popular as Wikipedia grows up, does anyone else think that eighty-two references is a few dozen too many for this article? I would favor getting it down to ~40 or so. Are there any obvious ones that we could get rid of? For instance, many of them concern order news... could we split off the order section into its own article, like the 787? All thoughts welcome --Ctillier 03:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Splitting off orderws is a good option. The other option is to cut out the unnecessary text that goes along with some of those sources, or ask contributers to stop adding every time they change the tires on the A380 prototypes, or pick new seat colors. We probably out to take an axe to the article, and remove some items that really aren't relevant anymore due to the passage of time, and try to streamline the article more. But given that Atrribution is the cornerstone POLICY of WIkipedia, complaining about the amount of refernces in an article is really going nowhere, as references are not optional. - BillCJ 04:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
A few sections will mean little when the plane is certified & enters service. One of the detailed Orders tables can go away and most of the Technical concerns stuff too. It does sound odd saying there's too many references. Anyway for now, either split off the Orders or get rid of the one of the 2 tables. -Fnlayson 04:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand and appreciate the value of good references. I am concerned about the quality of the references we have. In my opinion many of them are crusty and redundant news articles from backwater media, and they drown out the dozen or so really strong sources. I guess that for starters I'll try splitting off the orders tables into their own article (which takes care of a lot of the clutter) when I next have some free time. --Ctillier 15:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I think most people visiting this page will be interested to know which airlines have ordered the A380 and how many have sold. So the first table qualifies as being notable.
The announcment and confirmation date of every order/cancellation/change should be covered in that airline's page and doesn't need duplicating here. At some point simply having sourced info isn't enough for inclusion here.
I propose the second table is axed and any missing information is added to the individual airline pages. Gerbilface 17:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

potential bomb load?

just wondering if a military version would be possible.

Uh, I don't think so. Airliners don't make good modern bombers for a host of reasons. However, the 747 was considered for use as a cruise misslie platform at one point by the USAF, but not pursued. But I shudder to think what kind of damage could be achieved by hijackers a la 9/11! Frightening! - BillCJ 07:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
yes that leads to the question, are the cockpit doors armored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
I'm somewhat doubtful that the damage a A380 could cause would really be that much greater then a 747. As for the cockpit doors, I presume it depends on the customer's demands which depends amongst other things on regulations governing the customer. Nil Einne 01:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Use as a strike aircraft would be problematic. Large contemporary bombers such as the B-1 Lancer have very different looks, with more emphasis on supersonic capacity and stealth. However, it would certainly be possible to convert the A380 airframe for other military use, such as inter-theatre troop transport, medical evacuation, airborne command and control, possibly even as a tanker. The attraction would be the high load capacity and large uncluttered decks. Having said that, it is difficult to imagine a nation having a permanent requirement for any aircraft quite this huge, as opposed to something based on a smaller airframe. The U.S. has made several specialised variants of the B747 but what other superpowers are there? Possibly China, and the image of a fleet of A380 troopcarriers hauling a battalion at a time to some remote trouble spot is a sobering one. --Pete 18:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The main reason, possibly the ONLY reason for not using civilian aircraft and civilian-derived aircraft in combat roles (as opposed to cargo lifting and fuelling) is simple: identification. You need to be able to identify civilian or military aircraft, simply so you don't shoot down an airliner full of passengers. As soon as you start using civil aircraft in such roles, you endanger civilians as they could be shot down "just in case it was the strike version". The Nimrod is an exception, as there was an overlap between the civil role and the maritime role. Although, you are unlikely to find Comets flying on civilian service now!
Oh. If civilian aircraft are exempt from being shot down, then wouldn't it make a lot of sense to use them for military activities? The actual fact is that there are many overlaps. The B737-based Wedgetail for example, or the Lockheed Hercules. Not to mention the very many helicopters that have both civil and military users. --Pete 14:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point. As long as the distinction between civilian aircraft and military aircraft remain then civilian aircraft are probably far less likely to be shot down. Once anyone starts using civilian aircraft for military purposes then this no longer applies and said civilian aircraft comes at greater risk of being accidently shot down. For this reason both the vendors of civilian aircraft and military powers are likely to come under pressure to keep this distinction especially for large aircraft. 737 aren't used for long distance travel much so they're much less likely to enter into danger zones anyway. Most helicopters suitable for civilian use aren't AFAIK so much of a military threat so there is less urgency in shooting down an enemy helicopter of this sort and more importantly, accidently shooting down a civilian helicopter is generally going to be far less problematic then shooting down a A380. Nil Einne 01:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Consider the case of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 for one of the risks of blurring the dinstinction between civilian and military aircraft Nil Einne 01:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This is bizarre. The reason nobody operates airliners as bombers is because they are poorly suited to that purpose. However, there is some overlap in military and civil uses, especially in the areas of transport, recconnaissance and tanker operations. Attacking a B737 (or an A380) full of troops or military supplies is a valid military action. Attacking the same plane full of civilians is not. --Pete 01:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Military aircraft have been used in civilian roles, and vice versa, for almost ass long as there has been military avialtion, especially in transport roles. Some airliners have been converted to combat roles. A few examples: During WWII, Lockheed converted several of its airliners into bombers, and patrol planes. Its successful P-3 Orion series is based on the less than successful Electra, and both were in service during hte sixties. The new P-8 Poseidon is based on the 737, and will be in service alongside thousands of 737s, on which it P-8 is based.
The primary reason that civilian airliners are not used in military roles beyond transport and patrol is they are designed for different missions and to different requirements. Except for patrol missions, they don't often overlap. - BillCJ 01:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

First Airbus Bought, Maybe?

Did any airline company buy the first Airbus that had flown? If so, who did, and what will the Airbus look like in that airline's livery? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

  • First what? A380? A300? -Fnlayson 03:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
If you're talking about the first A380 then it's very doubtful that it would be sold. Modifications would most likely have been made to the design from the initial prototypes which were probably designed slightly differently anyway and not to accommodate standard airline fittings. Ben W Bell talk 07:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
According to and this article by Bill Sweetman in Aircraft Technology Engineering & Maintenance - June/July 2005 , MSN002 (F-WXXL), MSN004 (F-WWDD), MSN007 (F-WWJB) and MSN009 (F-WWEA) will all be going to be refurbished and delivered to Etihad Airways, with MSN009 being reengined to RR Trents (MSN007 still has the Trents at the moment - I don't know when or if it will get GP7200s as suggested in the article, but if it does, they will also be reverted to Trents before the delivery to Etihad). MSN001 (F-WWOW) will be retained by Airbus. Nick Moss 08:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)