Talk:Airbus A380/Archive 1

message: I just thought some of this information comparing it the world's heaviest aircraft, Antonov An-225, should be intergrated into the article. "At 600 metric tons, the An-225 is the world's heaviest aircraft ever... The An-225 is also larger than the Airbus A380, the largest European aircraft..."  From Antonov An-225 article. Or this http://travel.howstuffworks.com/a3802.htm
:On a related note, I made an edit to the second paragraph, which was being coy about "when it is released" or "once it is in service". Unlike the Antonov, the A380 is clearly a commercial passenger aircraft, it is flying now, and at least one of the prototypes is carrying passengers on promotional flights. It's not going to suddenly become the world's largest airliner once somebody slaps down a credit card and actually buys a ticket. In fact, I dare say that you can book flights on A380 services already, given Singapore Airlines is getting their first one in less than a year.
:The lead paragraph(s) are not the place to split hairs about this kind of stuff. There's a section further down for discussions about service dates and history. --Jumbo 21:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparing to the Largest Airplanes 

message: To describe "Airbus Inc. Toulouse" as the manufacturer is certainly incorrect.
#Airbus Inc. doesn't exist to my knowledge, Airbus' US operations are under the title Airbus North America Holdings, Inc.
#Regardless of the name of this subsidiary why would it be designated the prime contractor of the A380 programme?
#The US susbidiary (regardless of name) is not be based in France.
#To describe Toulouse as the centre of manufacture is also to mischaracterise the A380 programme. Manufacture is carried out all over Europe, assembly is in Toulouse and Hamburg. 
As such I have changed the manufacturer simply to Airbus. I think the correct term would be "Airbus S.A.S." but this may be too specific. I believe "Airbus Industrie" is an obsolete term. Mark 23:29, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: SAS is a French designator of company type, like "Inc." in English. The official company name is Airbus S.A.S., or Airbus for short. --kjd 10:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of manufacturer 

message: I'm not sure if someone wants to add it to the article, but a picture of the (almost complete) A380 is now available at Airliners.net - direct link is http://www.airliners.net/open.file/684291/L/
: Hmmm. It seems that the license is not Wikipedia compatible. Excerpt from http://www.airliners.net/usephotos/ 
 Restrictions on the usage of photos
 
 All photos on this site are protected by international copyright laws.
 
 You have limited rights to personally view the images with your web 
 browser and to use them as  your personal computer wallpaper (or 
 background image) on your own computer. These photos may not otherwise 
 be reproduced, distributed, cropped, resized, or otherwise altered 
 without the written permission of the photographer. No commercial use 
 of these photos may be made in any way. All rights are reserved.  
 
 You may not use these photos on any web page, commercial or 
 non-commercial, for profit or non-profit, without written permission 
 from the photographer. You may however link to the photos in the 
 manner described below.
: --Xeper 12:52, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture is now available 

message: Can someone tell me where the quoted section under Delivery, will receive the first A380 during the "first semester of 2006", comes from. The statement "first semester of 2006" sounds really strange in a discussion about aircraft and since it is quoted it must be from somewhere.
Ben W Bell 12:03, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delivery - Singapore Airlines 

message: I think the statement about extra space being a well received feature is hard to prove at best: delta and american both tried to offer more roomy economy seats but gave up. No matter how big a plane, it's a trade off between economy and space and as long as travelers shop for price only space is going to lose.
:Maybe on domestic flights, but things are a little different on the long-haul flights the A380 will mainly be used for.  After you've done Melbourne-Singapore-London economy class, believe me, the thought of paying an extra 100USD for a bit more space doesn't seem so bad...--Robert Merkel 14:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bloody right! And the Trans Pacific hop. These are legs where passengers can expect to get several hours of "sleep" and a little more room would make a big difference. The A380 could be expected to make the flight with a greater margin - the direct Los Angeles-Melbourne flight is heavily load restricted, as is Qantas's daylight service, which only operates during the northern winter. These 747s are already modified to provide more room (albeit by increasing business class and reducing economy seats). I don't know that I'd pay thousands more for a business seat, but if I can get a bit more room on a 380, such as on an equivalent to British Airways World Traveller Plus class, I'd cheerfully pay a premium. Pete 05:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, according to one of my lecturers at the University of Sheffield who has done a lot of work for the project, there is talk of at least one airline preparing to cram in 900 seats. I'm sure most, as you say, will provide a bit more room though. --Nathan 02:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It depends a lot on the route and the airline. If the airline is an economy airline, targetting students etc, it will probably have more seats. If it's something like Emirates, it will have more room. I wonder if any airline is planning an economy+ and an economy? Anyway it's one of the much hyped features by Airbus, you can do what you want. Want to provide cocktail lounges? Want to provide 800 seats? What do you want? We have the room. You get the idea. As for the 900, I'm skeptical. According to a source below, they're only testing it with 876 (or was it 867). It needs to be able to safely evacuate this many. If it can't it fails and if they aren't trying 900, it clearly won't be certified for 900 (well I guess some of those African airlines with their dodgy safety records won't mind but I don't think they're particularly interested in A380s). Nil Einne 22:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra space not necessarily well received

message: I presume the entry in 'Other Configurations' is meant to be a joke?
Other Configurations
1. Flying Circus - half of 2nd level is eliminated to allow for headroom for oversized animals such as elephants, stiff-necked giraffes, and expanded-ego Hollywood types. All circus dwarfs are stored in overhead compartments. 2. Refugee Transport - can seat 1400 to 2200 starving refugees of a war-induced famine. Can transport an entire Sub-Saharan cultural group intact to Toronto, Minneapolis, or other similar cold weather cities with bleeding hearts and surplus garden apartments
Laugh? - I almost started.
82.111.65.142 09:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoust Jeste, Surely 

message: the infobox gives a max capacity of 840 the body text one of 800 which is right? Plugwash 22:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i think it's referring to the eventual total capacity of the wing, being overbuilt. airbus has mentioned plans for a stretch model - if the current wing was only barely able to support 560t, then it would not be easily stretchable to any larger aircraft's weight. leave it in, for now. -eric ✈ 17:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  inconsistancy 

message: I've revised the article extensively, but the organization and the writing still do not satisfy me.  Does anyone think this article could use a good rewrite? I'd especially like some section consolidation. ✈ James C. 00:50, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
:i definitely agree. i might give it a quick restructure tonight. -eric ✈ 02:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Does anyone else feel the Opinion section is worthless?  It's another bit of "acceptable POV" that has no encyclopedic value.  Wikipedia isn't the editorial section of a newspaper, and it need not provide any "here's what the folks think" blurb.  Obviously, a statement about the public being "roundly amazed" would never appear in Britannica.  Encyclopedias are references, to which people refer only for facts.  The Opinion section presents none, and speculates about the A380 no better than any reader.  ✈ James C. 05:34, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
:I agree, let's lose it. What does being "roundly" amazed mean anyway? Sounds like someone's own projection of amazement being passed off as received wisdom, but the mixed metaphor gives it away totally. Graham 06:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion section - worthless 

message: Isn't there a bit too much Boeing detail in the whole History section?  (I also find the whole market analysis aspect silly, but I guess others like it so oh well.)  This article is titled Airbus A380, not "600 Seat Airliners" and should focus entirely on the Airbus A380. Other aircraft should at most have one sentence, and if there's more info then it should be linked (wiki-linked or otherwise).  ✈ James C. 23:48, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
:i think that the strangeness of the A380's market segment and its somewhat sketchy history deserve mention. as the Very Large Commercial Transport, Boeing NLA, and MD-12 articles are a) separate and b) nonexistent or bare-bones, i think that for the time being the boeing detail should remain. the A380 is significant in that it's much larger than the 747 and expected to fill a large (well, supposedly) market segment. 
:i feel that it's important to do more than just describe the aircraft. how can we explain the challenging market airbus chose to enter without describing the competition and their decisions? -eric ✈ 00:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boeing Talk 

message: I've updated the page to put in details of Airbus's announced delays in delivery. Here is a link in case people are interested.  Ben W Bell 10:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delivery Delays 

message: Australian News site One of the many news that compared A380 with Spruce Goose when it was shown initally. If anyone googles it they can see. This is for users requesting a media source where they compared it with A380. Therefore I'm reverting to the previous version where spruce goose is compared.--Idleguy 07:44, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
: "Chicken or fish? Here comes the world's biggest airliner. The Airbus A380 weighs many times more than Howard Hughes's legendary Spruce Goose." That's not enough to justify the image of media comparison you are trying to portray. In fact the airliner the A380 is most often compared to is the B747. Pete 10:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's one of the news comparing it with Spruce Goose 

message: The amount of new stuff introduced for the first time is so extensive that EASA requested that Airbus highlight this in dedicated courses and briefings to pilots, maintenance and management as the stuff is not covered in basic FAR Part-65, EASA Part-66 curriculum or in the ATA 104.
Fikri 16:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Technologies

message: This is turning into a Tom Clancy reader's wet dream, and the design section - on avionics in particular - is pretty much unreadable. At the least, I'd like to see less acronyms, particularly if the term is never used again. It's meaningless guff that fills up the page and ruins the article's flow, such as it is. About a month ago this was a great aircraft article about the ongoing development of a major milestone.
In conclusion, please try to make interesting contributions that are reader-oriented, rather than creating an article filled with technological buzzwords. Thanks! -eric ✈ 08:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Maybe move all the avionics and computer stuff to an A380 technology page instead of leaving it on the main one. It's all useful information, but doesn't need to be on the main page (especially since this is a page that is likely to be linked from the front page again in the future). Ben W Bell 11:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  please, can we cut some of the technobabble? 

message: Just a note that I've have de-reverted the anon's changes from some instances of AE to BE. Contrary to the claim made in the reversion, the first version of this -  - was, AFAICS, neither specifically in AE or BE (or CE or whatever else); OTOH, the first version which is in one or the other -  - is evidently in BE ("in Emirates colours").
Of course, Tannin is Austrlian so it should properly be in AuE, not that anyone cares. :-)
Either way, Airbus being a European company, policy suggests that we may want this to be in BE ("topic predominantly associated with one tounge" [paraphrased] and all that).
Thoughts? 
James F. (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine to have it in BE, since I consider it to be the only valid version of English :), however I reverted it because someone had specifically changed it. However if it is consensus that the article first became en-GB rather than en-US then I'm fine to have it in British English. Ben W Bell 11:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I agreeNil Einne 22:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  BE/AE/etc. 

message: A major milestone in A380's development is the 90-second evacuation test.  A plane can only be certified for the number of passengers that can get out of the plane in 90 seconds from just 8 exits (half of the 16 exits onboard).  For A380, they'll try for 873 people (passengers plus crew), its planned maximum capacity.  If some of the volunteers on the upper deck get cold feet and block the exits, that could be a major problem.  There's also concern that some upper deck passengers may go downstairs to avoid jumping from the 8-meter high upper deck.  If the A380 fails the test twice, they'll have to reduce the maximum capacity or redesign their emergency exiting plans.  (Boeing 777 nearly failed the test because of a single person, but the demonstration crew "helped" her out of the plane and thus the 777 passed the test.  MD-11 failed its 421-person test and was later certified for just 410.)
:We'll see when they do the test :) I'm no expert at evacuation design, but judging that the A380 has an awful lot of doors (compared to its expected capacity) that I don't think the evacuation tests should be a problem. Plus, Airbus has designed slides for the upper level which brake you (by means of a rougher surface) so you don't hit the ground any (or much) faster than from the lower deck. But in any case, this is something we can discuss in more detail when the test is done. — QuantumEleven  | (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: out of interest is the choice of which half of the exits can be used random? and if not who decides which ones get used the testers or the plane manufacturer? Plugwash 16:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone know when this is gonna happen? Nil Einne 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Searched up on it myself. It's currently slated for February. http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1759761,00.html It appears Airbus have possibly been delaying it for whatever reason. This undated article suggests they may have been in fear that someone would be injured which would obviously give them bad publicity even if it passes http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/airbus_in_fear_of_full_emergency.html but who knows what's the truth? Nil Einne 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the evacuation test was done this weekend , they evacuated just over 850 people (starting configurations will carry about 500, but they wanted to certify it for maximum-density seating), and was a success - everyone was out of the plane by the regulation 90 seconds. However, I want to wait before writing about it in the article, because the aviation authorities still need to give their stamp of approval (that there weren't any irregularities in the test or anything like that), that should take a few days. A few people were injured during the test - unlucky, I guess, but then it was done in darkness, with debris strewn across the aisles, and eight of the sixteen exits randomly closed. If I recall correctly, every airplane evacuation test done in recent times has had injuries - getting all those people out of the plane is more like a stampede than anything! :) — QuantumEleven | (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A380 evacuation test 

message: Although I don't mind the idea of a grouping of giant aircraft, does it really belong at the top of the article even above the primary photo?  Perhaps it would be better placed down tin the related content area. --StuffOfInterest 17:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. ericg ✈ 17:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it is too prominent. Maybe in the related content section at the bottom, that's the kind of area these things usually go in.Ben W Bell 17:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the concurences.  Done.  Hopefully the original author doesn't mind too much. --StuffOfInterest 17:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  And of course the original author came in to do the edit at the exact same time I did! :) --StuffOfInterest 18:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Giant aircraft box

message: Another nit to pick.  There is a section for  Media and then a box for Wikimedia Commons media in the  Related content section.  Should this box move up to the Media section? --StuffOfInterest 18:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Media vs Wikimedia

message: To those of you who helped me clean up and clarify the wake turbulence section, thank you. This is why we should be writing, rather than bitching. :) ericg ✈ 18:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  wake turbulence section 

message: I felt that the opening section was fine and tightly written as it stood, and that the mention of the Boeing 747-8 as a direct competitor was given too much prominence for a plane that is still on the drawing board - like all the other Boeing "superjumboes". I have attempted to amalgamate the facts with the existing mention in the history section. --Jumbo 13:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 747-8

message: If you look through section 1 of the text the subheadings all look like this: 
 Cockpit
Unless anyone comes up with a good reason for this, I will change it back to normal wikipedia markup -- Cabalamat 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem a little odd, but I guess the reason was to keep the TOC from clutter. I'm in favour of using standard WP practice. Perhaps its time to move this section to a sub-article Airbus 380 Design or similar. I've changed the title above, BTW, as being needlessly offensive. Non-standard doesn't mean nonsensical. --Jumbo 22:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The TOC is supposed to follow the document structure and a full TOC is a good thing. Not using wikimarkup also makes things extremely difficult to edit. Dysprosia 12:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Never mind.  It looks like the directive affects the entire document rather than a single section. --StuffOfInterest 12:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-standard &lt;h3&gt; headings

message: Substituted at 20:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment