Talk:Airbus A380

message: To change Airbus a380 To airbus 380, the A in a380 is airbus. Planespotter37 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Airbus includes the A in its model numbers. See A220 and A350 on the Passenger aircraft page. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2022 

message: *The statement regarding Lufthansa in the Operators section needs clarification and is currently misleading or at least a bit sparse as it can be misinterpreted as the airline bringing all A380s back to service soon which will not happen.
*Lufthansa already sold 6 of its 14 A380 back to Airbus, of the remaining 8 only 4 will be returned to service in 2023.
*See e. g. aerotelegraph.com - "Six Superjumbos: Lufthansa returns A380s to Airbus" (in German) and up to date from this week reisetopia.de - "Lufthansa reactivates overall four A380s" (in German), further sources and explaination is also found at Lufthansa fleet.
2001:A61:3A94:FC01:B442:1FCB:17EB:8AEC (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the phrase to "some of its remaining". Ruslik_Zero 19:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

text: By summer 2024 Lufthansa plans to return the remaining four A380 into service, than operating 8 A380 out of Munich 144.64.84.39 (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lufthansa's A380 operations 

message: In several sections, e.g., "Post-production Problems" and "Teardown and second-hand Market", there is historical content inappropriately written in the present tense although several years old, counter to Wikipedia guidelines regarding encyclopaedic style. An example: "Additionally, major airlines are seeking compensation from Airbus for revenue lost as a result of the cracks and subsequent grounding of fleets. Airbus has switched to a different type of aluminium alloy so aircraft delivered from 2014 onwards should not have this problem". Rather than simply correcting the tense, a knowledgeable contributor might also update the content to confirm whether the anticipated solution was successful. Again: "The fifth plane coming back from SIA, owned by Doric, has been leased by Hi Fly Malta with a lease period of "nearly 6 years". Hi Fly Malta became the first operator of second-hand A380 (MSN006). Norwegian Long Haul briefly leased Hi Fly Malta A380 in August 2018..." --Humboles (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated elements need revision and tense corrections 

message: change "split scimitar winglets" to "split winglets" under the A380 Plus paragraph. 
The scimitar moniker might be commonly associated with the 737-NG split winglets due to the extended curved tips, but is not an appropriate descriptor for the split winglets for the 737 MAX or the A380 Plus due to the lack of these curved tips. Timtamothy (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. BilCat (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2023 

message: The Engines section of this article says, "Sufficient braking capacity allowed for thrust reversers to be installed on only the inboard engines." The two sources provided are useless. The first is a sales brochure from the manufacturer of the brakes (Honeywell), bragging about how great their brakes are. The second source (which I've removed) says nothing about braking, only that Airbus was seeking new bids from contractors to design and manufacture engine nacelles with thrust reversers on the inboard engines and none on the outboards, so it's outdated and does not say anything about the statement. The idea that the brakes are so good that the A380 only needs 2 reversers seems to have come from the brake manufacturer. When I found another source that supported that claim, it gave a link to the Honeywell brochure as its source.
I've found 3 reliable, secondary sources that say the reason for only 2 reversers is to prevent the outboard engines from kicking up debris off the edge of the runway, which could then be ingested into the engines. One of those 3 articles provides much more detail. They point out the massive spooilers, which allow the wheel brakes to be more efficient as well as providing drag of their own, and the massive flaps, which allow the aircraft to land at much slower speeds than other heavy aircraft, about 20 kts slower than the 747, so less braking is needed. (I don't have a source at hand, but bigger flaps also slow aircraft down on the runway, more efficiently at the higher speeds when thrust reversers are also used. I see someone already reverted my edit, so I'll just add in those three sources I found. Dcs002 (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I reverted that revert, which makes me VERY nervous. (I don't want a struggle or bad juju or any of that. If that editor would like to discuss this section and what's best, I'd like that.) I only added one of the 3 sources. The best of the three was already in the article, so I used it a couple times, and the third article I decided to leave out. It was from USA Today, but it was one of those "Ask a Pilot" articles (appeal to authority). I thought the other two sources were quite solid, and there was no need to add another source that was a little weaker than what the article already has. I removed the self-serving bit where Honeywell was taking the credit for this decision because of their awesome brakes. They're good brakes, and I left that in the article because it was mentioned in at least one of the sources, but none of the neutral (non-sales) sources I found gave them credit for reducing the number of thrusters in the design from 4 to 2. Dcs002 (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

text: * Well done and thanks!  Don't worry much about multiple citation in places, especially if none of them support all the details in the text. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for only 2 thrust reversers - need better sources 

message: Can global airlines be an operator despite not commencing operations yet? 174.225.75.4 (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No. You answered it yourself there. They're not operating it right now therefore they cannot be an operator. Canterbury Tail talk 17:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Should it at least be shown as an airline that owns it but hasn’t commenced yet? 2600:1006:B32D:A8E2:4D57:54F3:D22F:4DB8 (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We can cover it should they ever actually operate. Canterbury Tail talk 19:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Global Airlines to list of operators? 

message: I would like to see absolute values for the fuel consumption, not
“the Airbus A380 consumes 2.4 liters of kerosene per 100 passenger kilometers”. 
Nice try. But the world is bigger than that. 2001:41D0:FE50:F000:9EB7:DFF:FEB7:76EB (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: But that is an absolute value? Q T C 17:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  consumption l/h 

message: Hello, this Emirates (airline) image is too whitish. Replace it with ANA livery! BuddyHeigh (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please suggest an image to replace it with. However ANA only has 3 A380s, it's not a major user so shouldn't be represented by an image in the infobox, that would be Wp:UNDUE. Canterbury Tail talk 20:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Image