# Talk:Airbus A350

I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below

The breakeven target for the A350 was achieved in 2019

The fact comes from the following source:

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2020-02-airbus-reports-full-year-fy-2019-results-delivers-on-guidance
Here is a wikitext snippet to use as a reference:

 {{Cite web |title=Airbus reports Full-Year (FY) 2019 results, delivers on guidance {{!}} Airbus |url=https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2020-02-airbus-reports-full-year-fy-2019-results-delivers-on-guidance |website=www.airbus.com |date=2021-10-28 |access-date=2024-11-26 |language=en |quote=The breakeven target for the A350 was achieved in 2019}} 

Additional comments from user: the following was marked as [citation needed]: Airbus' 2019 earnings report indicated the A350 programme had broken even that year
It looks like the statement is correct with the statement from the Airbus press release website
This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.
Soccerguy243 (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Airbus lists the freighter version of the A350 as the A350F. However, the A350F is mislabelled in this article as the A350-1000F. Although the A350F is based on the A350-1000, they have different lengths and therefore the A350F cannot be labelled as the A350-1000F. Emrys382 (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

While I agree that Airbus don't normally use the same series designation for different-sized aircraft, their current (December 2024) Aircraft Characteristics publication does specifically refer to the A350-1000F, while acknowledging the differences in dimensions and weights compared to the pax -1000. DaveReidUK (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Article edited to include reference to the A350-1000F designation, citing the above source.  This does indeed seem to be the first instance of Airbus applying the same numerical series (albeit one with an F suffix) to two different fuselage lengths.  As the old saying goes, there's a first time for everything! DaveReidUK (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The A350-1000 Has Enough Range to Fly Between Delhi and São Paulo Nonstop Guib25 (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I was looking at the table on specifications on various A350 models (A350-1000, A350-1000ULR, etc) and noticed that some sections were blank. This makes it difficult for users comprehend the details on certain planes. For example, in the table area on the A350-1000ULR about max payload, it is blank; this leads to a confusing section. Does it mean that the details on max payload for the A350-1000ULR are not available/have not been added to the table or does it mean that the A350-1000ULR has the same max payload as the A350-1000? If it is the former, it would be ideal to likely add a footnote or simply state "Data unavailable." If it is the former, it would be ideal to expand the box and remove the line between the A350-1000's max payload and the A350-1000ULR's max payload to signify that they have the same value. BentleyBaley (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The section should ideally only cover one version of the aircraft per WP:AIRMOS.  Differences between the individual variants should generally be covered in the "Variants" section. - ZLEA T\C 22:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Well than, why do virtually air aircraft pages cover multiple variants of the aircraft in the specifications section? Seemingly, it would appear to me that the WP:AIRMOS might be incorrect/invalid rather than the actual pages. After all, if a convention is constantly disregarded in pretty much all pages that it should apply, shouldn't the convention then be changed? Many people enjoy being able to simply scroll to the Specifications section and see the details on all the aircraft variants and not have to find the specs for the main one, and then search through the Variants section to find all the differences; it is much easier to simply have a single concise and definitive list of specs. BentleyBaley (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Just because some are not following the MOS doesn't mean it's wrong. At the end of the day Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a technical directory. We shouldn't have full specs for all variants, that's not the purposes of this project. Leave that for more specialised sites, or link out to the manufacturers list of the specs for all variants. It's just not encyclopaedic for us to show them all and not of interest to the majority of readers. Canterbury Tail talk 20:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Sure, I totally agree. I simply think that the specifications is confusing, and it could easily be improved, by clarifying parts of the data or following the MOS BentleyBaley (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Same goes for any other articles that do this.  Covering multiple variants in the section inevitably leads to cases where the specs are presented inconsistently or inaccurately. - ZLEA T\C 21:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
May I ask why the articles are then not fixed to conform to Wikipedia:AIRMOS and cover only one variant? BentleyBaley (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
It's just that no one has gotten around to doing it for whatever reason.  Most likely WP:BUSYLIFE. - ZLEA T\C 21:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Well, I suppose I might do it. It doesn't seem particularly difficult, and it might make a good first (or first decent edit) that I could do. Probably the most difficult part is deciding what variant to feature in the specs. BentleyBaley (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
You don't have to, I've already started this one.  As for choosing the variant, we typically choose the "definitive variant", which pretty much either means the baseline variant or the most common variant. - ZLEA T\C 21:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
I might do it on some other articles though (e.g. Boeing 787, 747, A330, etc). I'm so sorry about getting you involved and continuing this for a while (I really haven't done any big edits. The only actual article edit I've made so far was a tiny grammatical error involving commas). Thanks! BentleyBaley (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
It's alright.  I've done several of these in the past. - ZLEA T\C 22:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
That said, the weight variants might be an issue.  I think we can take care of that by moving the existing WV tables to their variants' respective sections, while including weight ranges in the specifications section. - ZLEA T\C 22:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Because everyone here is a volunteer, no one gets paid to do this, and there are other things with people's attention. Canterbury Tail talk 21:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Also people here dont like the specs of the A350 for some reason. It appears to help certain folks if the specific major variants of aircraft have more opaque specifications. Wiki is an encyclopedia with an agenda… 2A00:23C7:743C:B01:9423:F8C1:D57F:4AF6 (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Wiki is an encyclopedia with an agenda…  Not sure what kind of "agenda" would be in favor of removing excess detail from articles.  The first half was right, though.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database for comparing detailed specs of airliner models. - ZLEA T\C 22:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't really get the problem with having a table? It's interesting to some to see and look at, such as myself? ItsAlreadyTaken123 (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
The problem is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  While a few readers might find it interesting, it adds unnecessary clutter by repeating information that should be covered in the "Variants" section.  Per WP:AIRMOS#Aircraft specification, The specification should be for a single specific variant, and be labeled accordingly. Usually this will be the most famous/noteworthy/numerous variant. Significant differences for other variants may be described in the variants or development sections. Please avoid using multiple sets of specifications; in general, if two variants merit full specifications then they will also merit separate articles. - ZLEA T\C 03:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
But then the full specs you'd find in the table isn't in the variants section? I find a table easier to digest then reading through the variants section. ItsAlreadyTaken123 (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
If you wish to change the consensus on aircraft article layouts, feel free to make a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft).  Unless and until the consensus is changed, we will continue replacing tables with the proper specs template. - ZLEA T\C 22:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Respectfully, I do not understand at all why the table has to be removed? It provides a single, centralized location for all the various specs of each variant to "live" on the page, and be compared against each other in a simple fashion; without having to scroll up and down the page repeatedly. Another reason is that it is not an issue with other aircraft types such as the B777, A330, and others; so why is this just getting brought up now? It makes sense for aircraft such as the A380 where there was only ever one version put into production, but for a type where there are multiple variants, it's almost ignorant to not have all the specs for each variant in an easy-to-parse table. 2600:1700:8D60:F40:C4D3:65CB:3773:9AE4 (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
The old table was a mess of overly detailed, jargon-filled specs with blank sections and non-standardized sources.  The current "system" of tables across most airliner articles was a half-baked attempt to fix a non-existent problem.  As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia to use tables to compare detailed specs of airliner variants.  Such things are more commonly found in manufacturers' brochures than encyclopedias.  Regardless, this broken "system" is absolutely a problem on other airliner articles and needs to go one way or another, whether it is replaced by a written standard for specs tables or we fix them to follow the current single-variant standard. - ZLEA T\C 16:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
You make grand statements such as it was a mess. I didn't find the table a mess, I found it informative. Missing elements in a table just mean that there is no adequate reference. That is not hard to understand. You keep trying to say you have made things better, you have made matters worse. The system wasn't broken until you broke it. 2A00:23C4:E716:6E01:22CC:7963:20F8:21C8 (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Missing elements in a table just mean that there is no adequate reference.  That's only part of the problem.  Besides, if sources are so scarce, then an accurate, detailed comparison of specs is impractical to begin with. - ZLEA T\C 21:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Most of the tables are accurate because they come from the OEM or reliable sources. To use the small minority to justify your position is not acceptable. Simply say there is no OEM information or reliable source. This is the problem. You are trying to impose your judgement on everybody else. From what I have read your judgement is entirely subjective. It is full of grand conclusions that have no merit in fact,they are merely your opinion. Your opinion must not be imposed on a reference. 2A00:23C4:E716:6E01:22CC:7963:20F8:21C8 (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

All passenger jets produced by major companies like Boeing, Airbus and Douglas have their own well organized specifications table that includes all versions of an aircraft, which in this case should be A350-900 and A350-1000. Yet for some reason it appears that this page only shows a list of specifications of A350 as if it's an interwar aircraft or something. 
To start omitting variants for the sake of "Wikipedia is not a handbook" or something is ridiculous. Either we show specific data or we don't.141.237.208.200 (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Please see the above discussion for the reason why we removed the table.  The tables found in many articles violate WP:AIRMOS and will eventually be removed as well. - ZLEA T\C 22:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I read "its fuel capacity increased from 141,000 to 165,000 L" but down the page a bit it says "It burned 101.4 t (224,000 lb) of fuel to cover the route in 17 h 22 min:" - am I missing something? JasetheKingman (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

My best guess is that you might have misread the units, but I'm not sure if that's you're referring to.  Liters are a unit of volume, while tonnes and pounds are units of mass. - ZLEA TǀC 23:34, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Yep. On top of that, aircraft don't land on an empty tank. They have a reserve for contingencies. They also don't carry more fuel than needed as it would just be costly dead weight so their tanks are not always full at the start of a flight. --McSly (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

File:AirExpo 2016 - A350XWB (4).jpg
I believe this photo is superior due to its superior quality, improved lighting, and a more vibrant blue sky. Carson5034 (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea, the livery is very confusing and distracting to the eye and doesn't provide a great overview of the aircraft. Canterbury Tail talk 00:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
As Canterbury Tail pointed out, the unusual livery is a bit distracting.  Also, I wouldn't call this "improved lighting" as it is noticeably more backlit, and the vibrant blue sky isn't doing anything to help that fact. - ZLEA TǀC 01:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)