Talk:Airbus A380/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wiring Issues 

message: 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. http://seattlepi.com/business/290663_airbus01.html 
FlyAirCanada 15:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A380 @ Vancouver 

message: 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)
thread_title:  YouTube links 

message: 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  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)
thread_title:  Delivery delays 

message: Where did 81.202.120.111 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)
thread_title:  Qantas 

message: 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)
replies: text: The intend to cancel it later this year but it's not canceled yet.  --Denniss 18:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orders 

message: 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!
http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=A380
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
194.200.3.238 15:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 a380portal.com, 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)
thread_title:  Adding external link 

message: 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)
replies: text: Probably because much of the content has come from editors in North America. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, I see it as a moot point if user preferences are set properly. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Eurodates 

message: Is there any information available concerning the shipment of parts through the Polet Air An-124s? 217.86.8.4 22:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Delivery Delays 

message: 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)
replies: text: - The Star Trek Enterprise is too much.  Maybe 1 building and 1 ship.. -Fnlayson 19:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest this pic:  84.173.234.70 18:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
thread_title: Size compared to the Starship Enterprise

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A380F 

message: For future reference, and use in the article.  - 204.191.178.69 13:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: * Or just "Development of Airbus A380". -Fnlayson 17:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support the development article. - BillCJ 18:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Similar aircraft 

message: 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 139.153.12.133 (talk • contribs).
* 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)
replies: text:  Four of the five test aircraft will eventually go to Etihad Airways.  --Ctillier 04:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test aircraft final destinations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Looks okay now, Gimme took care of it. -Phoenix 05:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stability 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bond film product placement? 

message: Didn't Cathay Pacific also order a couple fo A380s? Cause it says on the cathay page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.73.95.124 (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where abouts does it say that? Can you provide a link please? Nick Moss 07:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

message: 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 (talk • contribs).
* 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Underfloor passenger area? 

message: 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? 82.131.210.162 12:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brakes generally work pretty well. ericg ✈ 14:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lmao - They only use thrust reversers down to a certain speed anyway Reedy Boy 15:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Screeching halt 

message: 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 76.16.151.77 (talk • contribs) 
* First what?  A380?  A300? -Fnlayson 03:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: According to Airlinerlist.com 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)
thread_title:  ''First'' Airbus Bought, Maybe?