This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Is this chapter still relevant now that the A380 has received its type certificate from the FAA and the European Aviation Safety Agency? At least the opening sentence requires modification. 85.176.116.208 11:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's still relevant; the certification doesn't mean that the flight separation rules or ground handling issues have been completely resolved, it just means that it's safe to fly. Georgewilliamherbert 18:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The wing-test should be included under testing. The wing design was rectified and aproved, so it's not a technical concern anymore, it's an anecdot. The wake-turbulence it's not a technical concern anymore, too. The norms handle this. Maybe "controversial issues" would be a better name for the remaining of this part, it looks like these are not only of technical nature. Cirrocumulus

• The Testing section is focused on flight testing now. I think Tech. concerns is fine. I think the section largely say those issues have been worked out. Add further info with references if you can. Eventually the details won't be so important and a sentence or two for each issue solved can be worked into the Development or other sections. - Fnlayson 12:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the wing-test because it is of no concern than on any other plane in use anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.215.208 ( talk • contribs)

• Because most planes are through development and in production or out of production. I like the idea of moving a summary of the Wing section to Development or Testing. - Fnlayson 13:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ground operations-News: Airbus’ A380 has received approval from both the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to be operated on runways with a width of 45 metres (150 feet) or more. http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pressreleases/pressreleases_items/07_07_31_a380_approved_45m_runways.html Cirrocumulus 08:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This section seems to have been added and removed a couple times. The last one with references was March 2, 2007. Looks like mad claims of a fired employee. This came out like 1.5 years ago. Has there been any resolution yet? Thanks. - Fnlayson 22:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The item seems like something added by an Airbus-hater to try to discredit the plane. Personally, I'm not too keen on Airbus, but having flown on Airbuses several times, I will say that they always got me where I was going in one piece (both me and the airplaine). As long as the so-called controvery is an old claim from a sub-contractor's disgruntled employee, I don't think it has a place here. There is a Wiki article on the man, and it does list several sources. However, as long as his claims remain unsubstantiated by outside investigtors, I don't see that it belongs here. - BillCJ 23:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, agreed. - Fnlayson 14:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• I disagree, I think the discussion about the Joseph Mangan controversy should go back in. There was an article in the Los Angeles Times, an unverified copy can be found here. Thus, Mangan's allegation is citable, though the allegation itself if unproven. (See also TTTech's press release.) It appears that Mangan's argument is that other planes have air pressurization valves that have multiple motors with controllers made by different manufacturers and a manual override. Mangan stated that the A380 has air pressurization valves that have a controller made by only one manufacturer and no manual override. Does anyone have a citable reference as to what happened here? Let's discuss this further. Cxbrx 01:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not every such claim is notable. If we printed every claim ever made about a given airplane, it would dominate the article. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a repository of every fact or claim. The fact you only found an "unverified" copy of a story goes along way to indicating that this is indeed a minor issue. - BillCJ 02:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree strongly as well. I think the discussion about the Joseph Mangan controversy should be included. Another article produced by the telegraph.co.uk notes: "...officials at the air safety watchdog EASA said they took the concerns 'extremely seriously'. An EASA source told the Telegraph that the agency was 'able to confirm certain statements by Mr Mangan'." and "A probe - conducted by the French authorities for EASA - allegedly found that TTTech was 'not in conformity' with safety rules and had failed to carry out the proper tests. The key microchip was deemed 'not acceptable'." With two independent sources choosing to run stories and able to confirm the legitimacy of some of the concerns cited by Mangan, I think it deserves to be noted within the Airbus 380 article and is not "junk." Ad hominem put downs are not appropriate rationale to keep information out of Wikipedia. I will add a subsection back in later this week regarding the controversy unless there is a better argument why not to do so. Jmsevits 10:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you should gain consensus on this talk page before you add it to the article or it will be deleted as it will probably fail WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP and is not really notable either. MilborneOne 11:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

After seing shocking black and white footage of the Soyuz 11 landing aftermath no sane person should take pressurization valve failures lightly! 91.83.2.94 ( talk) 22:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I rotated and replaced the background on John's A380 image. I think it's a perfect angle, you see all windows, the whole plane from wing tip to wing tip, and I think it looks better than A380 F-WWEA LEGT.jpg. The fact that the windows on the plane doesn't look as crisp in max res is irrelevant since we're talking about a low res version for an infobox. And the argument that "it's a fake montage" is simply not valid as long as it looks realistic. (enough while 250px wide) I'm not protesting because I'm stubborn with "my" image. I'm doing it because I IMHO think it works better for this infobox. Ssolbergj 21:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ssolsberg, I agree it's a good image, and very creative, and I wouldn't mind seeing it in the article. But at this point, several different editors have removed it, and you are close to violating 3RR in putting it back. I should remind everyone that it's best not to carry on discussions in multiple revert summaries, but I am guilty of that myself, as it's sometimes easier and more convinent to do it that way. Even so, multiple reversions are not the way Wikipedia prefers things be done.

The informal consensus seem to be that the doctored image should not be in the lead, and at this point I think you should respect that. If you can build a consensus here to have the image put back in the lead, then please do so. But until then, it's probably best to leave it out of the lead. - BillCJ 22:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Several different editors have reverted me? You mean yourself and Ctillier. Two editors. Come up with arguments instead of lecturing 3RR. I'm obviously taking it to the talk page now. If the number of enunciations about the goodness of this picture counts, you've got 3 editors; me, you and Henrickson Ssolbergj 23:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• These are the editors that have reverted you, counting the one who replaced the picture:

1. TheUltimateHistorian
2. Nick Moss
3. Ctillier

OK, so several is usually 4-5. But not that I'm not on that list. Tho I did have a revert in that time period, it wasn't for the pic. And I amlost did revert you, but Wikipedia also advises agaist constantly reverting to the "last good edit". I do like the pic, but that's not the same thing as saying it should be in the lead. - BillCJ 01:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

TheUltimateHistorian and Nick Moss inserted a highly copyright-doubtful image without a tag and that probably will be deleted. I didn't revert the same thing three times. Ssolbergj 01:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's a fine image. But don't care for the storm part and its implied message. It would be fine in the delays section or something like that, imo. - Fnlayson 23:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's obviously a matter of taste, but imo the image is much more informative though not as zoomed up (on the other hand, the wing isn't cropped) Shouldn't informativeness be the most important thing in an infobox? Ssolbergj 23:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Showing an imformative picture is one thing, doctoring one to meet an end is another. - Fnlayson 01:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Anyway I replaced the background and enlarged the plane in the image. Ssolbergj 01:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reverted to old background and removed bluescreen edges Ssolbergj 11:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Enhancing the image is fine by me. - Fnlayson 18:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not like the montage. No offence intended, but it just doesn't look realistic - even at 250 pixels wide, it is still clearly a montage of a somewhat fuzzy foreground with a much sharper background. There is somewhat of a bluescreen effect around the edges of the aircraft, and the lighting doesn't look right. Ignoring that, I don't understand why the image needs a false background. What is wrong with the original image? It could be cropped if needed, or even rotated if you really wanted it to show a more wings level perspective.

That being said, while it is a decent image of the aircraft, I don't think it is necessarily the best. F-WWEA_LEGT.jpg is a much crisper image, which also shows the major features of the aircraft. About the only complaint I would have about it is the loss of the right hand wingtip.

The image posted by TheUltimateHistorian (A380.jpg) is also rather good, although it is a little too underneath the aircraft for my liking. As has been pointed out though, the copyright status of the image is unclear (I didn't realise this when I reverted the page), so it probably should be left out of the article until it is cleared up (or removed).

The image on the left is the one which was in the infobox prior to the loading of the montage image. It isn't fantastic resolution, but it does give a good overview of the aircraft.

If there really isn't a decent image available, then maybe a request should go out to anyone who edits this page and is attending the Paris Air Show this week to get one - there should be plenty of opportunity. Failing that, you could always try finding one on a website such as Airliners.net, and asking the photographer for permission for it to be used here - you never know your luck, and there are plenty of decent images of the A380 on that website. In the meantime, I propose we return F-WWEA_LEGT.jpg to the infobox. Nick Moss 08:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your last revert summary was "A photoshop montage isn't needed when there is a real image available". It's clear that you don't like "montages" (images with replaced backgrounds), no matter what. [1] I've removed the photoshop edges and reverted the background. The windows are as crisp as any a380 image if you're interested in getting both wing tips.(in 250px) I don't understand why you mentioned 1er_vol_de_l%27_A380.jpg. Ssolbergj 12:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That does look better now. However, I still don't see why the image needs an artificial background? Unless there's some very good reason to do it (such as there not being any images of the aircraft in the air available), I think it is being a bit dishonest to the readers to have images manipulated like this as part of an article. Can you tell us exactly what having the storm background brings to the image that the original blue sky background doesn't? Likewise, can you tell us exactly why the image needs to be rotated to try to depict a wings level condition compared to the banked condition in the original image?

The reason I mentioned 1er_vol_de_l%27_A380.jpg is because that was the photo which was originally in the infobox before you replaced it with your montage. To be honest, I don't see any rationale for it having been replaced in the first place - what was so wrong with it, or so much better with the manipulated image, that it needed to be replaced? Nick Moss 17:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need a montage? It's not even as though this one is especially well done, to be honest, as the attitude of the clouds makes the plane look like it's about to perform CFIT and there's a lack of contrast between the aircraft and background. Is there any reason not to put Image:Airbus a380 fb06rs.jpg or Image:Emirates A380 2.JPG in the infobox? They both show more of the aircraft, are better quality than the original 1st flight image and avoid arbitrary background manipulation which does nothing to improve the usefulness of the image. Note that I reverted the edit to the Emirates image, which was unnecessary and introduced edge artifacts. -- YFB ¿ 19:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the background is replaced is not what I'm talking about. I changed the background because I thaught it looked better, and I have got positive respons by several editors on that. As I've said before, I think that this photo is the best for the infobox because of the overview it gives. The angle is better, you see both wingtips, and the wings arent covering up anything. And please don't click on it and argument about it's lack of "crispness", because we are talking 250px, not panorama full screen. Is it really necessary to ask me why I rotated the plane so it's horisontal? Is it a cruel lie? Why do you hate photoshop? Do you wonder why people spend time editing and improving images when you think it's completely unnecessary? Ssolbergj 20:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is "hating" Photoshop. One might well ask why you hate real life! While I agree it's an intriguing image, there are more than enough real images out there not to have to resort to a doctored one. It would be quite a different matter if there were only a few poor shots of the aircraft, and doctoring the images would produce a better image than those available. Editing and improving images does have its place; sying it's not needed here in no way diminishes that. We aren't questioning your work, only its application here. - BillCJ 20:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ssolbergj, this is an encyclopedia, not a digital art gallery. Touching up photographs using Photoshop by sharpening, resizing, cropping, rotating or adjusting levels is one thing. Altering the content of the photograph with a new background is an entirely different thing, one which in my mind simply does not belong here... kind of like the visual equivalent of original research. I feel very stongly that the montage should be removed from the article entirely, regardless of its (considerable) artistic value, because it tries to pass for an actual photograph. As for the thumbnail format, I am the kind of person who expects to be able to click on a thumbnail to see as much detail as possible. If you feel so passionately that this angle best shows the A380, then crop, rotate, resize all you want, but do not alter the fundamental photograph... or suggest a better one. The montage must go! -- Ctillier 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying not to focuse on the fact that I replaced the background (or reffering to it as "the montage"), but when people say that image editing principally is negative and that real images generally are favourable, I'm commenting it. I simply disagree that replacing a background behind an innocent airplane can be compared to original research, and if an image on wikipedia is 706px or 1800px outside the 250px thumbnail is totally irrelevant. That's not how wikipedia works. Editors say that this image looks pretty/intriguing/ like an artist's concept image. OK FINE! - the aesthetics of images have got a place in wikipedia/media no matter you say, but it's not crucial. And when I do in addition think that the angle etc. is better than the other images we've got, I don't see what's the problem. Ssolbergj 21:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I just told you editing in principle is not negative - that's NOT the issue here. You are taking this far too personally. The real problem is that you are promoting your own work, ingoring the implied consensus to do it, and repeatedly inserting the pic into the lead spot when it's been removed. I'm going to take a poll on the issue below, and hopefully we can come to a clear consensus. THat way, when you add you "montage" again, we'll have something to take action on. - BillCJ 22:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• As mentioned, the Paris Air Show is coming up, and we should see a lot more good pics coming out of it, both professional and amateur (the latter usually being free usage). Thus the poll below doesn't mean we'll be stuck with the chosen pic forever, esp if a better one is forthcoming. - BillCJ 22:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal one

Should Image:Airbus A380 Storm.jpg be removed from the lead pic? Answer Agree or Disagree, with comments if necessary. - BillCJ 22:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Agree - per my nomination. - BillCJ 22:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - the montage is pretty, intriguing, artistic, but unencyclopedic. -- Ctillier 22:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree - I genuinely think it's better than the other pics we've got right now. I hope there will be more editors voting here than the 4 that allready have discussed- Ssolbergj 22:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - an OK bit of editing, but not appropriate as a lead image in an encyclopaedia article for the numerous reasons given above. -- YFB ¿ 02:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - Remove it or use the same plane image with its original background. - Fnlayson 02:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - for the reasons stated above - unencyclopedic pretty much sums it up. Nick Moss 03:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - It's a great picture, but it's a fake. That's not the image we want to present. -- Pete 10:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal two

If Image:Airbus A380 Storm.jpg is repalced, what pic should replace it? Even if you feel the montage should not be replaced, go ahead and weigh in here.
Image:Airbus A380 Storm.jpg is not a candidate. - BillCJ 22:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• 
  Current lead image
• 
  Candidate 1
• 
  Candidate 2
• 
  Candidate 3
• 
  Candidate 4
• 
  Candidate 5
• 
  Candidate 6
• 
  Candidate 7

I contacted Keta, the photographer for Candidate 1, and he has uploaded an uncropped version of the photo:

He indicated a willingness to crop to any format we wish from the original RAW file, that way compression artifacts will be minimized. When do the polls close? -- Ctillier 03:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• That looks good! And thanks for taking the initiative. I think if he cuts about a quatter of the blue space from the top and bottom, it would fit very well in the infobox. At to closing the polls, all six of the contributers include Cand. 1 in their choices, and Poll 1 is 6-1 for removing. That's pretty conclusive at this point. I'll go ahead and replace the existing pic with the uncropped cand. 1 now. We can put in the cropped version when it arrives. Also, we need to make sure the original version remaines uploaded, in case for whatever reason teh cropped version doesn't work out is is not accepted. - BillCJ 03:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll

• My vote goes to candidate 1, perhaps cropped a bit top & bottom to reduce the expanse of blue and give the subject more emphasis. Thank you BillCJ for your conflict resolution skills. -- Ctillier 22:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• My preferences are 1 and 3. I'd like 3 better if were centerd on the aircraft, without so much land. This is where "doctoring" an image is useful. One cropped would be usefull too, as "tall" images expand the infobox. - BillCJ 22:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Candidate 1 and 3 are my favourites. If the original image of #1 can be cropped a bit less so as to show the whole wingspan, that would be good (obviously if the original image doesn't include the entire wingspan, then we can forget that idea). Failing that, if #3 were to be cropped like Bill said above, that would be good. Nick Moss 03:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Candidate 1. Crisp, shows undercarriage and four engines, Crop a bit per above. Pretty pic. #3 cropped might be ok, too. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 03:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Candidate 1 for a number of reasons. - IMHO it is the best of the bunch purely from a photographic pov. It is similiar to other a/c infobox pivtures - i.e. shown in landing configuration. Shows all four engines. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 09:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Candidate 1 because it is crisp, well-lit, shows the configuration of the aircraft clearly. I also like Candidate 4 because it shows the aircraft in livery, but we probably don't need quite so much emphasis on the underneath. Candidate 2 is dramatically posed, but not sharp. -- Pete 10:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Per above, it is pretty conclusive at this point that the existing image should be replaced. As all six voters in Poll 2 showed a prefference for #1, preferrably cropped. I am adding that on to the infobox (uncropped). The cropped version should arrive in the next few days, and we'll put it in then. - BillCJ 03:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The article just got a citation needed tag on the number built, nine. This raises a wider issue. How is the "number built" field of the aircraft infobox exactly defined? As of today, nine A380s have flown, and that number is what I had put in the "number built" field of the infobox. Over in the 787 article, "number built" is already 1, for an airframe that is neither complete nor flown. If we were to apply that standard for the A380 article, the "number built" would be closer to 16. So, just when is an airframe considered "built" ? When the main structural parts are joined? When electrical systems are powered up? After first flight? I suppose the latter is easiest to verify, but even before first flight, an aircraft is obviously "built" in the common sense of the word. I am curious about what you all think. -- Ctillier 22:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'd say a plane is built when it is ready to fly. The first 787 is done or largely done. Its rollout is tomorrow. Folks maybe jumped the gun a bit by adding it before painting. - Fnlayson 22:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As of this writing, the first 787 has yet to have systems installed (hydraulics, electrical harnesses, avionics, cabin air handling, etc.) and as rolled out, it is a non-functional airframe that has yet to be completed into a finished aircraft. For example, it is still several weeks from being powered up for the first time. But I digress... my question still stands. -- Ctillier 22:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would think that an A380 is considered built when it is rolled out of the factory and delivered to the flight test department. MilborneOne 22:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable milestone... but how would one verify or cite this information without resorting to original research? -- Ctillier 22:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all above. When a plane is flyable it is considered built and I do think the 1 placed in 787 info box is/was premature.-- Bangabalunga 22:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Now the A380 is rolled out right? -- 134.155.136.77 18:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the reversion of the new pic, for several reeasons. One, the A380 looks like bloated whale at that angle. Two, the blue backgraound is just too dark to be nice to look at. Granted both of these are just personal nitpicks, and minor ones at that. But the third one is the big one: It is from Flickr, and has not been approved as legally usable yet. It would have been prudent to have waited before posting it. - BillCJ 05:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

... and it is of much lower resolution, and last but not least, our friend Ssolbergj might have learned a thing or two in the last month or so about building consensus around the choice of A380 infobox image. I have to admit, I am slightly peeved by his behavior. -- Ctillier 05:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I never broke the 3RR, and I'm perfectly allowed to debate whatever I want on a talk page until my head explode, so I think Ctiller should shut up. Because there have been disagreement over an image in the past of an article, doesn't mean that editors shouldn't follow wikipedia policies, such as inserting a brand new image you think is better. (being bold) I'm perfectly fine with being reverted and asked to join the talk page, but one should never be reverted because Ctiller now suddenly thinks by principle that we need to build consensus and have a long discussion first. that kills wikipedia. Now I can't see why Bill think the background is darker..? And I personally don't think the A380 could ever look like a bloated whale. Ssolbergj 10:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I mispoke - the pic is too dark overall - the aircraft looks gray, and it's supposed to be the same color as the second pic, right? THe current pic has a much light aircraft, which contrasts well with the blue backgraound thee. Now, I'm perplexed by your first sentence: you act like we told you that you shouldn't talk about it (I'm perfectly allowed to debate whatever I want on a talk page until my head explode), when the point is we want you to talk about it first. And why bring up 3RR now? No one mentioned that this time. The main point here is you know this is a contentious issue, and yet you went ahead and changed the pic on your own again. Yes, we're encouraged to be bold, but not when it's disruptive. Please show some consideration next time, no matter how perfect you think your pics are. - BillCJ 17:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there was a recent poll on the photo, so discussion would have been better. But reverting is easy, so let's move on. Please everyone remember to assume good faith, and to be civil. As for the photos, I happen to prefer the view from the bottom as it shows more of the plane. Also the angle of the photo Ssolbergj inserted somehow makes the tail region look very strange. My two cents. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm OK with either image. The new one is fine and has more of a side angle to it. - Fnlayson 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the new one to be honest, it gives a better impression of the size of the plane. Drutt 18:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has commented this now for two months, should I insert the new image? - S. Solberg J. 17:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does this article constantly compare the A380 to the 747 instead of the AN-225, or a combination of both? The vast majority of comparissons are with the 747. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.101.237 ( talk • contribs)

Because the 747 is the nearest commercial rival, the An-225 is a one-off and not in competition with anybody. MilborneOne 19:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Also the An-225 carries cargo, while the A380 is mainly an airliner and carries people. (There's a freighter version, I know.) - Fnlayson 19:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that there is a contradiction between the entries for the AN-225 maximum weight compared to the A-380 on the Wikipedia pages for the two. If the figures on both pages are correct (something I do not know) then the maximum weight of the A-380 is larger than the one for the An-225.

Gatorinvancouver 20:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I understand - I have just looked at the two pages and the AN-225 article has 640,000 kg and the A380 article has 560,000 kg (590, 000 kg for the 380F) which makes the AN-225 operate at a higher MTOW. MilborneOne 21:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Design

The A380's wing is sized for a Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW) over 650 tonnes in order to accommodate these future versions, albeit with some strengthening required." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_380

"With a maximum gross weight of 640 tonnes (1,411,000 lb), the An-225 is the world's heaviest and largest aircraft." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225

I guess I was confused. Sorry Gatorinvancouver —Preceding comment was added at 20:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yep. The wing may be rated for 650 tonnes, but the rest of the aircraft is not. - Fnlayson 21:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the Canadian authority was involved apart from EASA and FAA? Doesn´t have the UAE authority a much higher responsiblity for well trained pilots by the number of planes responible for? 84.173.230.75 19:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just speculating here, but could it be because Canada is a major destination point for the A380, and, as the second largest country by area, has a lot of fly-over space? - BillCJ 17:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The fly-over concern is a very good (speculative) argument. Thank you! 84.173.219.102 16:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I had hoped that someone with knowledge on airliner TCs would have responded by now, but no one has. Also speculating, the UAE may honor the type certificates of other nations, or of the EASA, so its own TC would be unnecessary. - BillCJ 17:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Fnlayson has added a hidden note in the "Testing" section asking for the date when the Airbus achieved Mach .96. I am the user who posted that info in the article. Unfortunately I cannot give a date because it was not mentioned in the documentary movie. Incidentally, cameras were running in the cockpit on each attempt to reach Mach .96 and there was a fair bit of buffeting, and movement within the cockpit. No mention was made of why the certification authorities specified that the aircraft had to achieve Mach .96 Moriori 20:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for replying. It was probably in 2006, judging by this release: "A380 reaches 1000 flight hours". - Fnlayson 21:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The A380 received a certification for 45 m wide runways these days. What has been the minimum before? Has it used narrower runways by special permission? 84.173.237.87 11:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I might be out flying here now, but I have it in the back of my mind that something similar had to be done when the 747 was introduced. -- MoRsE 16:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The B747 was so much bigger than existing airliners that it rendered any number of airports obsolete. It's a wonder that Dulles is still operating. The A380 isn't that much bigger or heavier than a jumbo. I think most terminal modifications have been limited to ensuring that some gates (notably at the end of terminals) can take side-by-side A380s. -- Pete 04:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

When I read an article about A380, I was really impressed by the design, speed(max. 0.93M) and most of all the number of passengers that can be carried. The super jumbo is capable of carrying more than 850 passengers and weighs just above 273tons, which is almost the same weight of Boeing 747(currently the biggest airliner in service, that can carry about 417 passengers). However, even with thousands of aircraft designers who tries their best to make A380 safe and efficient as possible, there are certain limits. For a start, this huge passenger jet requires longer runways and this means that every airports in the world have to extend their runways (which is not an easy task). Also, before A380 can be commercially used it must take series of trials to prove itself but some of the trials that were took recently showed certain problems like engine failures in cold regions. So, the safety of future passengers of A380 is not guaranteed I'm afraid. On top of all, the most serious problem is evacuation. According to a test conducted by AirBus(the company who designed A380), it took approximately 1~2 minutes to evacuate the entire 867 passengers. This test result was good enough pass the safety trial of the aircraft but compared to boeing 747, it takes too much time to evacuate the passengers. The difference is only couple of seconds but in disasters few seconds means alot. Just because I listed some problems of the aircraft that does not mean that I do not approve of it. With out any doubts I can say A380 is clearly the icon of luxury and a marvel of engineering that went beyond the limits of aviation. Plus, is was very innovative for AirBus to come up with design like A380. Nonetheless, there are surely flaws that needs to be fixed. By aviation critic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.150.215.19 ( talk • contribs)

So, just what needs fixing in the article? There are surely flaws in what you say above. The A380 does not require longer or wider runways. I have yet to hear about engine problems under cold conditions from Airbus or any source in the aviation media. The evacuation test took 1 minute and 18 seconds, not longer than a 747. Luxury can be provided in any aircraft, not just the A380. Need I go on? -- Ctillier 03:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw a documentry about A380 on discovery channel( Giant of the Skies) and there was an engine failure in cold regions but you above there made some critics about my article, nice job ^^ and thank you very much^_^ Next time I will be more careful about what I type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.150.215.19 ( talk • contribs)

For a super jumbo like the A380 to fly, it requires a stronger engine. The current engines that are put on the aircraft is manufactured in Britain by Rolls Royce. These super engines can provide more than 85 tons of thrust, which is 30% more stronger than the conventional engines that are used by Boeing 747. Cause of these engines the massive airliner that weighs more than 270tons can reach maximum speed of 0.92~0.93 mak. So, when you are on the A380 in the future, don't worry about the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theviper567 ( talk • contribs)

Can users please remember that Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Refer Wikipedia:Talk page. Can users please sign their contributions, thank you. MilborneOne 11:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, I created the comparison image to the left, and I added it to some other relevant pages in Feb 2007, only to have it removed because apparently it is "ridiculous".. Can I please have some opinions/comments? Apparently including arguably the most well known sci-fi spaceship makes the entire thing "ridiculous"? - Fosnez 14:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• That was discussed back then. See the "Size compared to the Starship Enterprise" section on A380 talk archive 3. One reason is the A380 is not even close in size to those others. - Fnlayson 16:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Dont think we need to provide opinions or comments as the image is not relevant to the A380. But it is ridiculous (and not just for mixing real world and fiction) and would not add any value to any article. MilborneOne 20:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The bbc reported that two of the seats have been sold via e-bay for $100,000. Seems pretty noteworthy, but I'm not totally convinced where (if at all) in needs to go in the article. Thoughts anyone? Pedro |  Chat  10:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Start lookong in the external links down the page and finding this http://www.content.airbusworld.com/SITES/Technical_Data/docs/AC/DATA_CONSULT/AC_A380.pdf

Fom Airbus http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pressreleases/pressreleases_items/07_07_31_a380_approved_45m_runways.html

And the B474 fitting in an 80 80 box and the A380-800 and A380-900 do it also.

The load on the runvay its less them B747 and B777. Taxian can be problem buth they have external cams for assistans.

Only two things its needed for operatong att an airport and its the tugg hewy enoth and the lifter for the catring to the upper deck.

You dont need trpple airbriged only for fast loading passangers, You can still doing that on the tarmack.

Pleas read facts and look in the Dicovery channel if You not nowing the fact. I You missing them You can look for this movies on the net: Discovery.Channel.Worlds.Biggest.Airliner.S01E01.PDTV.XviD-FTP.avi Discovery.Channel.Worlds.Biggest.Airliner.S01E02.PDTV.XviD-FTP.avi Discovery.Channel.Worlds.Biggest.Airliner.S01E03.PDTV.XviD-FTP.avi Discovery.Channel.Worlds.Biggest.Airliner.S01E04.PDTV.XviD-FTP.avi Discovery.Channel.Worlds.Biggest.Airliner.S01E05.PDTV.XviD-FTP.avi (Hint = http://thepiratebay.org/search/a380%20pdtv/0/3/200 ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.176.195 ( talk) 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Revering fals statment by BillCJ

Mattias W

Please be careful tossing out words like "false" in disagreements - they are not helpful. Also, the Discovery channel is not really the most reliable source when it comes to aviation. Per the Airbus link you provided: The A380 has already visited more than 45 airports. By 2011, more than 70 airports will be ready for A380 operations. "70" airports is not a lot. That is all the list does, is list the limited airports the A380 can use. Although I don't know the exact figures, I'm pretty sure there are more than 70 international airports in the world. I would like to know how many of them can handle the 747. - BillCJ 17:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be astonished if an airport that can handle a B747 cannot handle an A380. In fact, unless someone can find a non-trivial number of airports, I suggest that there is no point in having a list. The B747 article doesn't include or link to a list of B747-compatible airports.-- Pete 02:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be astonished if the 747 (Boeing doesn't use the B) could only operate from 70 airports. You seem to be under the impression that the A380 has the same exact airport requirements as the 747, but you (nor anyone else) have not produced any concrete sources to back that up. If it were so, I don't see how AIrbus would have to do compatability tests at all. I don't beleive that is the norm for new airliners, but I could be wrong. Finally, the list is in a separate article - you are free to nominate that page for AFD if you think it should be on WIkipedia. - BillCJ 04:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't waste my time with spurious arguments. Compatibility testing is the norm for any new airliner. The B787 will do exactly the same thing when it is introduced, as did the B777 before it. Realistically, the only problems the A380 faces are bridge strength, tug power, and catering vehicle lifts. -- Pete 05:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please tone it down! I told you I didn't know it it was standard or not, as least give me the benefit of the doubt I asked for.

Regarding Boeing sources, I have found some Boeing 747 pages with docs on airport compatibility, but I haven't found anything such as a number of airports that the 747 can use. Perhaps someone more familiar with such docs can find the answer. They are at http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/747.htm and http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/services.html. - BillCJ 05:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. We don't have a list of airports the B747 can use. Nor do we have a list of airports able to be used by the C-5 Galaxy or the big Russian jobbies used as commercial freighters. We don't need a list incorrectly stating that the A380 can only use a few airports.

You talk about Boeing's names for its products and using Boeing sources. And at the same time you are pushing a line that is unfairly anti-Airbus. -- Pete 09:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If You wont to geth the nolegge You nead serch the facts. The Discovery channel have made the movis with Airbus and some som things its not 100% but no bigg wrongs in the facts they saying becos then they shodd being out from Airbus.

The A380 navigator says "In terms of ground handling, over 90 per cent of the equipment required to handle the aircraft is used today on other wide-body aircraft. The remaining 10 per cent consists of a more powerful tow tractor and upper deck catering vehicle, both of which are available from several manufacturers." If the You not have the tractor its take longer time for puching and if You not have the upper deck catering vehicle its take longer time for trasporting all trollys inside the plane and You geth an roud time longer ther 90 min. Runway and taxing its alrey clered and gates with more bridges its good buth not nesesery. The thing its if You wont 90 min turnaround time or not. Read about airports on http://events.airbus.com/A380/Default1.aspx. Its only one with experiens in that so look on http://a380.lufthansa.com/en/html/logistik/index.php

2007-09-09 Mattias W —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.176.195 ( talk) 12:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I found a post on airliners.net regarding some of the issues debated here. No sources given, but the numbers sound reasonable. If 80% of all 747 flights are concentrated into just 37 airports, 70 seems like an adequate number for the A380 four years after EIS.

The main problem regarding A380 operations is having large enough gate spacing to allow two A380s, or an A380 and a 747/777/A340 side by side, since the maximum wingspan has been around 65m until now, and terminals have been designed with that in mind. Bridges servicing the upper deck is not a requirement, and given that the lower deck will have around twice then number of passenger of the upper deck, it's obvious that two lower deck bridges will allow faster boarding than one bridge for each deck. Three bridges (two lower, one upper) is better, but not required. Catering trucks able to reach the upper deck will significantly improve turn around time, but is not strictly required either. Strong enough pushback tractors seems like a real requirements. Anyway, airport only having occasional A380 service, such as diversion airports, can work around the wingspan and pushback issues by using remote stands where pushback is not required.

Finally, I believe that any reference to the number of airports, if needed, belong in the Airport Compatibility section, not the header. - Speedyprimus 12:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that "powerful tugs" are a necessity. We've all seen footage of sweating strongmen pulling jumbo jets with a rope in their teeth. Airliner handling is usually performed on incredibly smooth and level surfaces. I'm no expert, but I simply cannot imagine that a tug able to move B747s around is going to sit immobile for an A380, tyres skidding and smoking, engine straining, as the operator wrestles with the controls and curses the name of Airbus. A380s have visited various airports around the world. I remember seeing it in Sydney a year or so back, being towed to the Qantas maintenance area. I'll bet they just hooked up one of the regular tugs. Do we have any figures for tug strength? -- Pete 01:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the Wikipedia page for Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) architecture, of the aeroplanes listed as examples that use IMA, the in service date for the Rafale predates the two examples listed on the A380 page by over 20 years. If the first Rafale in 1984 had IMA avonics, then the part in the A380 page that says that it was 'first used in advanced military aircraft such as the F-22 Raptor and the Eurofighter Typhoon', is either wrong or the IMA Wikipedia page is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.139.16 ( talk) 19:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The Rafale's in-service date is not 1984, but ca. 1999, just to be clear on that. - BillCJ 20:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The Eurofighter Typhoon employs federated avionics, not IMA. Ccfn 09:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Moriori, thanks for removing the line that the A380 it also can fly in reverse. I could not remove the item myself, as my recently-discovered Boeing-bias prevents me from objectively judging matters regarding the A380. - BillCJ 02:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice one. I followed the A380 can/A380 can't hoo haa but decided not to continue involvement. Semantics. Fact is, Auckland airport in NZ can handle 747s but not A380s now. It will, after upgrading but at the moment it fits the list that was being bandied about here. However, it could be pedantic to insist on such info being included. Moriori 02:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a regular visitor to AIP, and I'll check it out on my next visit later this month. However, I can't see any reason why it cannot handle an A380. Certainly the airport management is under the impression that it can, having announced this fact over a year ago. -- Pete 03:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I phoned AIP public relations a few minutes ago. Auckland won't be able to handle A380s until some time next year, because a massive new pier containing the two air bridges will not be completed until then. Moriori 22:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there's your problem right there. You're confusing the construction of special facilities, possibly containing dual level airbridges and the like, with the ability to handle A380s using existing facilities. Of course an A380 can use AIP - it can land and takeoff safely, it can negotiate the taxiways safely, it can use an existing gate. Gates 5-10 at the international terminal are at the end of the pier and have plenty of room beyond that required for a B747. As I point out, the passenger loads will be comparable to those on a B747. B747s routinely carry more passengers than the 480 of the Singapore Airlines A380 fitout.

On a related note, some airports have facilities specially designed for B747s, such as airbridges containing two or even three entrances, one corridor splitting off to go over the wing and allow direct entry to the rear cabin. This doesn't limit B747s to only these airports, and it would give a false impression if we made a list of these airports and implied that B747s could only operate from them. -- Pete 01:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting quite good at walking away and leaving people with their opinions. But saying I am confusing something invites response. Among many of your statements was "There is no airport in the world that has the facilities to handle a B747 but not an A380". (1) Auckland has handled B747s since the 70s, but it couldn't accommodate A380s without widening the runway from 45 m to 70 m by adding 7.5 m asphalt shoulders either side, and by widening taxiway corners. (2) A A380 passenger service cannot begin at Auckland until completion of the current construction of Pier B and the dual air bridges. This was due to be completed about now, but is running late and a revised completion date has not been given. In both examples (1) and (2), an airport that had facilities for B747 did not have facilities for A380 and has to introduce them. Moriori 03:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding remains. An A380 can use a 45m wide runway. An A380 can use the existing B747-compatible gates at Auckland. There is no physical impediment to A380 operations. -- Pete 04:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As the article's Airport Compatibility section has stated for a while now, there is an important distinction between an occasional or exceptional A380 arrival and regular commercial service. Most people arguing about this issue fail to make that distinction, either by ignorance or malice. Yes, an A380 can land at any airport where a 747 can land. No, it can't reasonably do so on a daily basis without suitable airport improvements. Nobody is wrong, and nobody is right. -- Ctillier 05:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Even in regular commercial service, an A380 doesn't need facilities such as double-decker airbridges. Sure, a lot of airports are enthusiastically building facilities aimed at efficient A380 operation, but we shouldn't give the impression that the A380 is restricted to such airports. Some editors are trying to push the line that the A380 is so gigantic that it can only be safely operated where expensive modifications have been made. Realistically, it isn't that much bigger than a B747 and the early operators aren't planning on carrying more passengers than a B747 anyway. -- Pete 18:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The mixed seating capacity was decreased from 555 to 525 in May 2007. Airbus updated their A380 spec but not their layout page. Here's a couple articles covering the change. [2], [3], [4] - Fnlayson 00:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The following paragraph was changed:

The new Airbus is sold in two models. The A380-800 was designed to carry a maximum of 555 passengers in a three-class configuration or 853 passengers (538 on the main deck and 315 on the upper deck) in a single-class economy configuration. In May 2007, Airbus began marketing the aircraft to customers as a 555 seat aircraft ^[1] in a mixed configuration; due to the ever increasing size of the first class seat/suite.

So Airbus changed the 3-class seting in May 2007 from 555 to 555! How does that make any sense? Please read the sources more carefully! - BillCJ 01:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, there are sources who state that Airbus changed to 525. But EADS states that it is 555, other sources too, amd if you want to compare the figures, what you do, then 555 is the absolute minimum, as the 747-400 is in average delivered with around 370 seats instead of 416.

AND, the most important thing is: Airbus (EADS) delivers the planes as the customers want them. Wispanow 02:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Seen the references?

Last update: 10 July 2007: Technical Data Airbus A380: Typical passenger seating 555 !!! Wispanow 02:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• The date may be off a little, but Airbus's A380 spec page now says 525. Also, who said anything about the plane changing?? - Fnlayson 02:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

READ THE REFERENCES!!! ^{[2] [3] [4]} Dont talk nonsense. Wispanow 04:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please change your belligerent attitude. The aircraft is now being marketed as a 525-seater. Airbus is terrible at updating their website, so you can find plenty of references that say 555. Removing this distinction from the article is misleading and confusing. Also, throwing in lots of redundant references just to back up a single figure (which is itself contradicted in references of equal authority) degrades the quality of the article. I'm 100% with Fnlayson on this one, but for now I will refrain from joining the revert madness, no matter how burning the desire. -- Ctillier 05:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No reason for you to be disruptive like this. Seating for 555 was correct for a couple years, but is no longer current. The 525 typical seating is stated in an Airbus press release as early as May. - Fnlayson 08:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OK its 555 seat becose I geth varned for vandalism thats its fact!

2007-09-17 Mattias —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.176.195 ( talk) 18:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the new seat map comparison by Wispanow. I must object to comparing a 555-seat A388 to a 372-seat 744. This is an example of "seat magic" where numbers can be distorted to make whatever point one likes, and is probably unworthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Don't get me wrong, it's a nice graphic and a lot of work probably went into it, but the figures are not necessarily fair, even if they technically show the same seating density of one per square meter. A fair seating comparison uses the same class mix (percentage), the same seating pitches, and takes into account the detailed layout of the cabin with respect to monuments, exits, etc. This is obviously not the case for the diagram, and in my opinion it amounts to original research. Seating comparisons in general are a very slippery slope and do not meet the standard of rigor for an encyclopedia... just look at the Lufthansa 744 config cited: there are 4 different ones with 330 to 390 seats, talk about a meanlingless comparison! Do others agree with me that something needs to be fixed (or deleted) ? -- Ctillier 05:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The A380 diagram looks like a copy of the one on the Airbus site. I expect the 747 is not OR either. It took 30 seconds to check that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.146.144 ( talk) 20:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the image is removed - this an article about the A380 the comparision to the 747 is not relevant, particularly in a small image. MilborneOne 21:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant -- it shows how the new kid on the block stacks up with the big fella of the past 30 years. It is informative. An encyclopedia exists to inform people, surely. Small image? Not when people click to enlarge. That's why we have that facility. An awful lot of Wiki images would need to go if judged on their presentation on the page (before enlargement). Moriori 21:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a tacky image. If you can pick and choose between a variety of seatmaps for both aircraft, then you can likewise make any comparison you want. I'm also concerned about the source. If som WP editor just copied seatmap diagrams, then we have copyright issues. Alternatively, if he made them up all by himself, then may I ask from what place did he get his information? I suggest that we link to seatmap diagrams, particularly those used by the airline(s). I remember when the 747 first came out; Boeing's plans seemed a trifle on the fanciful side. Grand pianos and cocktail bars, travellers in evening dress ascending the spiral staircase... -- Pete 01:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this page using the obsolete 555 figure? The manufacturer defines the standard seating capacity for it's own planes: Airbus’ 21st century flagship introduces a new era of airline transportation, carrying 525 passengers aboard the most advanced, spacious and efficient aircraft ever conceived. - Main A380 page on the Airbus website [5]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.184.185 ( talk • contribs)

• Cause the image creator hasn't caught up yet. See all the discussion above. - Fnlayson 02:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn´t the "unknown" VIP customer, Mr Roman Abramovich? RGDS Alexmcfire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmcfire ( talk • contribs) 15:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Only a tabloid rumour - no official announcements or citations available. MilborneOne 22:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Was denied by Abramovich spokeswomen several days after the rumor started. Check version history of article for link. -- Denniss 23:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There a mention of "industry sources....US AMC considering it to replace the 747 presidential aircraft". Source? Archtransit 17:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• See the 2nd paragraph in Orders and deliveries. A Flight International article is the reference. The USAF has just asked for info on the A380. - Fnlayson 17:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Soft link to reference - [6]. MilborneOne 17:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hong-Kong nor Taiwan are countries, so Argentine will become 23rd country that the A380 visits. RGDS Alexmcfire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmcfire ( talk • contribs) 14:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Seem like not everyone shares my view of the significance of countries visted during testing, I think it´s very interesting where the A380 been. BTW Argentine got cancelled as Bolivia also has earlier. RGDS Alexmcfire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmcfire ( talk • contribs) 21:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Alex, please, you've been on Wikipedia long enough that you should know to post new topics on the bottom of the talk page, not top, and to sign your posts. Please try to make life easier for the Sinebot! - BillCJ 21:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

We should add the amount of kerosene per passenger to the specifications table. I guess this information becomes increasingly important, also for customers. According to Airbus the A380 uses 2.9 liters per passenger. [7]-- spitzl 15:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Depends on the seating arrangement, how full the fuel tanks are, etc. 525 in a mixed seating is the max, but that could change to meet airlines needs. Also, this is not listed in any airliner article I've seen here. - Fnlayson 17:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Such a number is definitely original research. Fuel burn per passenger is not an intrinsic property of an airframe, which is why you usually don't see it quoted in official specifications. (Marketing guys may spout all sorts of numbers, however!) -- Ctillier 05:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Article states: "The A380 designation was a break from previous sequential Airbus designations because the number 8 resembles the double-deck cross section, and is a lucky number in some Asian cultures." (no ref.)

I worked for Airbus for 7 yrs, and in their HQ for 3mths during 2000. I came across an interview with John Leahy in Flight International in which it was mentioned that the A3XX would soon have it's new designation. I emailed Mr. Leahy, as he was on the system (more out of curiosity than actually expecting a reply) suggesting it remain A3XX for various reasons. Surprisingly I received my email back as a fax, with a hand-written line from Mr. Leahy saying it wasn't possible to retain the XX, "but how about A380, being twice the size of the A340?!". Unfortunately I do not have the piece of paper anymore, but it may shed some light on the origin of the A380's name.

I find it unlikely that it was chosen as it resembles the cross-section as this would undoubtedly have been used in advertising campaigns, but I don't remember any of the sort. It being lucky in Asian cultures is likely to have been planned, but it may also just be a lucky co-incidence!

Hope this helps in some way,

Milesoneill. 16 Oct 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milesoneill ( talk • contribs) 13:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "resemblance/lucky" info since it did sound speculative. It's a pity we can't use your story as a source, but maybe somebody will ask Mr. Leahy to confirm it some day.-- Father Goose 18:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I originally put that in the article. There is a source for it, in Norris & Wagner's book. I can provide the exact page & paragraph if necessary. -- Ctillier 03:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• That'd be good if you could add the right wording back with that reference (#7 now). I remember someone questioning the last part about the number eight and that was linked in response. - Fnlayson 04:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I put it back. For what it's worth, there is even a direct quote from Noel Forgeard in the book (Chapter 7, page 73 I believe), about the resemblance to the double-decker cross section. -- Ctillier 04:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

its interesting and noteable and should be included into a 'features' section it could be along with other stuff like sq footage of floor and stuff,why delete anything off a talk page when it is obviously not vandelism or anthing,just doenst make sense to me.if ya wanna expand the article,dont delte stuff from talk pages.(four tildes,12:20pm,10/16/7) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis66Driftwood ( talk • contribs) 16:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

We get alot of strange, wierd, and insincere questions on these talkpages. I'm sorry your's was misconstrued, but please don't take the deletion persionally. As to your question, the number of lavatories on any airliner will vary according to the airline's needs, routes to be flown, layout, etc. There will probably be too many variations to make a single figure worthwile to include in a table. However, it is not true that Airbus will have a new, innovative, enviromentally-favorable lavatory, as, in tests, the outhouses kept blowing off the wing at cruising speed. - BillCJ 17:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK the waste-system of the A380-800 is designed for max. 25 toilets, standard for 3-class-layout is 17 lavatories. BillCJ: I think I didn't get the part about "outhouses bloing off the wing at cruising speed"... sounds a bit like flushing toilets directly overboard. -- Xeper 19:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! Yes, flushing toilets dierectly overboard is part of the concept. See Outhouse for more info. It's just a bit of humor/sarcasm directed at hyper-environmentalists as much as Airbus. - BillCJ 21:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah! <makes mental note> just imagine how much weight you could save on an aircraft with this concept ;) -- Xeper 22:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• neat,thanks wikimates —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis66Driftwood ( talk • contribs) 16:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I cannot parse this sentence:

"The A380 was handed over in a Singapore Airlines' first A380 was also unveiled publicly for the first time."

What is the intended meaning? Molinari 17:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• The wording is not quite right. Handed over means signing the plane over to Singapore Airlines. It was also shown publicly. Should be something like this: "The A380 was handed over to Singapore Airlines and also unveiled publicly for the first time." - Fnlayson 17:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• How about "The A380 was unveiled publicly when it was handed over to Singapore Airlines." The unveiling infers that it is the first time.
  • That's good. It was reworded to something more like that earlier today. - Fnlayson 04:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Where can you find the seatmap of the Airbus A380 with 853 seats? -- 88.77.249.144 14:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont think you will find it that was suggested that everyone stands to fit that many. I just pointless unpractical numbers to promote the plane. Boeing could claim they could fit 4000 people in 727 if they are all cremation ashes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.127.19 ( talk) 17:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Why was the airport compatibility section moved under Technical Concerns? While there are indeed some concerns in this area (which were already described in the concerns section), airport compatibility was one of the key design drivers for the aircraft, and it made sense to me that it was described in the Design section of the article. The consolidation doesn't make sense to me, and I liked the outline better before, when the design considerations were distinguished from the technical concerns. Opinions? -- Ctillier 04:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think the Tech concerns could go in the bottom of the Design section. They are design related to varying extents. Eventually these concerns can be condensed and incorporated better. - Fnlayson 04:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was reading an article on this airplane's inagural flight and it mentioned passengers seated in "first-class suites" on the Singapore airlines flight. I don't know exactly what these suites look like, but I came to this articles trying to find out and there doesn't seem to be any mention of suites here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.26.29 ( talk) 17:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It'd probably be a bit much to include more than a sentence's mention of them in this article, as their design (or use at all) is specific to each airline (Emirates is planning a similar but not identical "suite" design) and such suites exist on other planes (Emirates A340s and possibly others). Still, here's some links specific to A380 suites: [8] [9] [10] [11].-- Father Goose 21:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

All the same, a non-copyrighted picture of them would be great to have in the article, along with other shots of the interior.-- Father Goose 21:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I expanded the entire "passenger provisions" section with info on each seating class.-- Father Goose 07:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What is your definition is number built?, if it means the same thing as structurally complete, then 23 A380 have been built not 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melrosepark ( talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• When assembly is complete and ready to fly. Maybe after being checking out and ready for delivery. Do you have an article or other source for the 23, so that can be updated? - Fnlayson 01:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• • In October 2006 the number built wos thre not flying testframes MSN5000, MSN5001 the 5 flyingtestframes(MSN001, MSN002, MSN004, MSN007 and MSN009) 4 productinframes(SIA:s MSN003, MSN005, MSN006 and MSN008) shood geth new cabels in Hamburg and 13 produktions frames in TLS = 22 that shood flying(soner or later). [12] After that its have arived 9 convos and delivered 8 complete frames and one its going 6 november (the 15 october its missing!!). [13] The first with the new cabels iststalled from the begining (MSN026) its alredy on shes weel in TLS. I think fly or delivered shood be the best nuber. MW 85.225.96.49 15:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• As currently defined in this article, number built = number flown. 10 aircraft have flown so far. -- Ctillier 21:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• • This is an incorrect definition. Look at the case of recent Etihad mishap. That brand new A340 was undeniably wholly "built", mere hours from customer hand-over when moved to the open and engines fired up for pre-flight test. The poor plane broke free from anchors and wrecked itself beyond repair. According to your built = flown at least once definition this plane never counts as one "built", which is pretty ridiculous. I think "built" should be defined as "technically capable of being flown if any bureaucratic regulations are blatantly ignored". That would apply to the Etihad's A-340 also.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.2.94 ( talk • contribs)
    • The problem with us using "capable of flying" is verifying it. Airbus and most aircraft manufacturers don't put out press releases saying they finished A380 #X. They usually wait until they hand them over and so far only 1 has been. - Fnlayson ( talk) 01:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
      • The A340-600 F-WWCJ (cn 856) for Etihad Airways have flying [14] = "built". The plane wos not broke free becos its wos not anchord only parking brakes on and all 4 engine att high power att the same time. Mvh MW -- 85.225.96.49 ( talk) 22:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've delisted this GA for these reasons according to the criteria:

• 1b: It does not comply with the MOS and its related guidelines, specifically lead, layout, and words to avoid. The layout issue is basic—the style guidelines outlined in this WikiProject needs to complement the other MOS entries. I have yet to see a discussion on the MOS talk page(s) or any action to change this discrepancy.
• Entire criteria 2: There are {{ fact}} tags. Furthermore, there is original research in the lead and other areas. This does not apply to trivial, common sense content, such as The A380's upper deck extends along the entire length of the fuselage.
• 3b: This article is 71 KiB! It is much longer than a normal FA should be, and GAs should also not exceed the limit. Try splitting the article into subpages.

If this was made in error, please take it to good article review. If my comments have been addressed satisfactorially, it may be submitted for another candidature. O₂ ( 息 • 吹) 01:20, 07 November 2007 (GMT)

The ref 68 "^ "Airbus makes first delivery of A380 superjumbo", Yahoo! News, 15 October 2007. Retrieved on 2007-10-24. " its placed after the deliveries matrix in the explaning text "Anticipated deliveries are in parentheses.[68]".

Its not the rigth place and its an 3 part surce. If referens to the delivery I like SIA orr Airbus/EADS thats its and 1 source for the MSN003. Shod be moved to the main text of Orders and deliveris or deleted becos its not nesesery. Have trying the last buth its seams to bee an "holy caow" for some. Mvh MW 85.225.96.49 11:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Show me the other source in the article that gives figures for anticipated deliveries (not orders) and is furthermore grouped by year. EADS' spreadsheet does not contain that information. The reference you are trying to remove contains the text "EADS chief Louis Gallois stuck to the A380s delivery schedule for next year despite rumours of new production problems. 'The whole company is mobilised. We should deliver 13 next year, 25 in 2009 and 44 in 2010,' he said on the sidelines of the ceremony here."-- Father Goose 15:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Ref "18 a b Heinen, Mario (19 October 2006). The A380 programme. EADS. Retrieved on 2006-10-19." [15] Page 11 presetasion page 22. 2006:0, 2007:1, 2008:13, 2009:25, 2010:45

That its the ofical writend and as long no delays its the plan from EADS. It is the real 1 hand facts not thru one how is taking its thru another and place it on ther one side. 84.30.227.118 10:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• A reference is needed for the "Anticipated deliveries". There's no good reason to remove a more current reference. - Fnlayson 17:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• It should be plain which citations are being used to reference which information. It is not remotely obvious that that reference 18, appearing 6 sentences away from "anticipated deliveries", is being used used as the citation for that information. Separately, the Yahoo article contains information that is a year more recent than the EADS document, and is a statement from Louis Gallois, making it entirely authoritative.
  You have removed several other references from the article as well, apparently claiming that the references appear somewhere else in the article. Not putting the citation next to the fact defeats the purpose of inline citation. I would like to urge you to stop removing any more references from the article; your judgement of when they are not needed strikes me as wildly off-base.-- Father Goose 00:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually tend to agree that the article has way too many redundant references. The EADS presentation, no matter how old it is, contains correct and current information, and it is a primary source (straight from the horse's mouth, as opposed to a secondary source like a news article). I think the Heinen reference should be used here. -- Ctillier 23:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• The news article directly quotes the EADS chief. That's the horse's mouth as well. - Fnlayson 23:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so what is the value added by citing the news article? That's my point from above: there's a useless proliferation of redundant references. -- Ctillier 01:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The news article is more up-to-date; the prior figure listed for 2010 was 45, not 44. Having a few "redundant references" (a claim I contest) is far less harmful than removing any references that aren't redundant, so references should only be removed when two sources are given for the same fact (and not necessarily two citations in a row, as they might be sources for two different facts given in the same sentence. Furthermore, even if the EADS document was the source being used for the anticipated deliveries, it should be cited right beside them, to make it clear where that info is coming from.-- Father Goose 05:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

May I'm wrong, but I count busswords...

This article in English mentions 29 times "747", This article in German mentions 12 times "747"

The Boeing 747-8I article in English mentions 9 times "380" The whole article of the Boeing 747 in German language contains 12 times "380". (There are no subarticles of 747)

Neutrality or just marketing of Boeing?

It's possible to reduce some compares or move compares to the Boeing 747-8I article to get a balance.

Actually I tried to read this article to get some technical information. Unfortunately I had to cope with this continuously compares in every second sentences. -- 134.155.136.77 19:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• The A380 is compared to the current Jumbo. Probably overdone sometimes. It makes no sense to suggest Boeing marketing. Why would say the A380 can carry X% more passengers, etc? - Fnlayson 19:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

SOrry, 134. We get alot of Airbus fanboys, mostly from Europe, who are so trhrilled with the A380 being larger/whatever-er that the 747, they can't help to compare it 29 times. THese fanboys are so enamoured of the A380 and comparisons, one of them even created an article called Comparison between Rolls-Royce Trent 900 and Engine Alliance GP7000. We'll try to go through the articel and cut some of that back, though we might be accused of working for Boeing too if we do that. Btw, Boeing corp guy who watches this page, I'm still waiting for my check for that time I said the A380 in the Lead pic looked like a bloated whale! I won't delete it till the check clears though. ;) - BillCJ 20:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actualy I'm also a Airbus fanboy from Europe (-; Anyway I'm interested in airplanes from the whole world and their technique. I'm not interested in a "cock comparison" of airplanes. -- Mcflashgordon 20:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

By your own description, I'd class you as just a "fan", not a "fanboy". I use "Fanboy" to mean someone whose interest is generally superficial, usually based on popular magazines, History Channel-type documentaries, video games, and the like. Your interest in aircraft seems deeper than that. And I meant no offense by "from Europe" - that's where Airbus is, and so is a a large portion of its supporters and fans. THe closing comments were just plain sarcasm. - BillCJ 20:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If anything, the comparisons to the 747 are more "marketing of Airbus" than of Boeing, as most of the comparisons touch upon how the A380 is better or bigger than the 747. I added a few of the 747 comparisons to the article myself to the "Passenger provisions" section. I would have preferred stating the info more generally, but if the provisions are the same as any other plane, there's little point to mentioning them. If they're unusual, they have to be described as unusual compared to something else, which is generally the most comparable plane out there -- the 747. The sources from which I drew the facts used the 747 as a point of reference, and I couldn't change what they said, so I had to use the 747 as a point of reference as well.

There are more references to the 747 in this article than there are A380 references in the 747 article because the 747 spent 30+ years of its life without any other plane to compare it to. The A380 enters the market as the first plane to "best" the 747 (at least in terms of its statistics), so comparisons are inevitable -- in the press, and resultantly in our article.-- Father Goose 06:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Airbus SAS plans to build a 900- seat version of its A380 superjumbo. Emirates, the aircraft's biggest customer, said it would buy the new model.

Airbus will begin developing an A380 ``stretch after the standard plane reaches full production in 2010, Chief Operating Officer John Leahy said in an interview. [16] Nice