Talk:Airbus A380/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Whalejet

The term "Whalejet" is certainly in use, as a quick googling reveals, but mostly amongst a certain community, best described as relentlessly POV. I don't think that including this term in the lead para is appropriate.

The editor supporting this usage seems to have a history of revert-warring on unsourced quotes and nicknames. Saying that something is "oft-quoted" is all very well, but without a source, we can't use it.

(I certainly hadn't heard the term "Whalejet" previously, and if asked, I would have connected it with the "Orca" B737s of Southwest - very striking and handsome aircraft indeed.) --Jumbo 17:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Do you mind explaining what you mean about saying that I "have a history of revert-warring?" —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
OK. I take it back. My blue! I looked at your contributions and noticed a few similar skirmishes. Alan Shephard jumped out at me, and a couple of others on the same page looked like they could be the same, being reverts of things that didn't appear to be simple vandalism. I have since looked further back and there's nothing else I can find to sustain my initial call.
You may well be right about the Alan Shephard quote - it sounds very like him - but it would help if you gave a checkable source. WP:NOR applies. Likewise with "Whalejet". No checkable source given, and even if it was used in an aviation machine, the general usage is very POV and negative, unlike "Superjumbo" which looks like it has been widely taken up by the aviation community and especially the press as a useful word for a class of aircraft beyond the well-loved "jumbo jet". --Jumbo 22:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Tom Wolfe is the source for the Shepard quote. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 01:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a big source. Can you narrow it down a little? Presumably it's The Right Stuff but if there is a chapter number you would scotch all criticism. --Jumbo 02:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I'll find it. Why are we talking about this here? You've segued quite a bit. Further discussion should be at Talk:Alan Shepard. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. See Alan Shepard. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 08:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
FYI: [1] —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But that's hardly an unbiased viewpoint. There's not a word against Boeing in it. Nobody's disputing that the term is in circulation, but it's used in a derogatory sense. You might as well go to the Slavery article and insist that "nigger" is a good word to use there. --Jumbo 04:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I hardly think you can compare the two. And what about "BUFF" for the B-52 Stratofortress, or "SLUF" for the A-7 Corsair II?, or "FRED" for the C-5 Galaxy? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not comparing the two. I'm pointing out that the principle is the same. Using words in a derogatory sense is not good encyclopaedic practice. With BUFF and SLUFF, the usage isn't derogatory, even though one might think so by looking at the words behind the acronyms. Looking at the B-52 article, I see this quote:
  • Among its crew, the B-52 is affectionately known as the "BUFF"
I don't think anyone is using the term "Whalejet" in an affectionate way. --Jumbo 05:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I dunno about that. A quick look at Google indicates that most references are neutral. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

See my comment above: "the general usage is very POV and negative". I got that from "a quick look at Google". It seems our impressions differ. In any case, I invite you to compare the relative number of hits returned by googling the two search terms:

  • "Whalejet 380"
  • "Superjumbo 380"

I don't mind if you start off a section on nicknames, but including a rarely used and arguably derogatory term in the lead paragraph is going a bit far. --Jumbo 08:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jumbo - I have certainly never heard of the term whalejet used to describe the A380 (certainly not in Europe), and if it was used I don't think it's very complimentary. If I think "whalejet", the first thing that comes to mind is the Airbus Beluga, which probably won't win many beauty contests :). I don't think the term should be in the article at all - IMO it's not commonly enough used to be described as an "alternative name" for the plane (in the way "superjumbo" is), and we're not in the business of listing every nickname for things... — QuantumEleven | (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with Jumbo. I've never heard the term or seen it used in any of the aviation press (or other press). The usage of the term seems to be almost exclusively in the Boeing biased US area. For a Google count I return only 479 hits for it, and quite a few of them are for a defunct German airplane hire company called Whalejet. Ben W Bell 15:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've pulled off the Spruce Goose mention. Not because it was wrong or even derogatory, but because I thought it inappropiate for the lead. The diagram includes the Spruce Goose, and clearly shows the wingspan. A flower on the head of whoever put in that diagram - it shows the comparative sizes very well. Wingspan and fin height aside, the A380 and the B747 are pretty similar in size.

A general word here, and that is that the article size is bulging a bit, so it might be time to start thinking about deleting small bits that are no longer as interesting as they once were.

An even more general note, and that is that so much of the Airbus/Boeing articles seem to be comparing one model against another. I'm not sure why this is so, but airliners from the days when there were more than two major manufacturers don't go into this sort of thing to any great extent, so I'm thinking it's probably not really necessary. Maybe someone can whip up an article on modern airliner comparisons for those who are really into this sort of stuff, but for my part if I look at an article on an airliner I want to know about that specific airliner, not its real or imagined competition. --Jumbo 04:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In actual use, among pilots, industry insiders, Wall Street analysts, etc. the term WhaleJet is just about universally used and not in either a complimentary or derogatory way. It is simply descriptive. The term SuperJumbo is much more often used to refer to the Boeing B747-8. Using the term SuperJumbo here is confusing at best and probably just false. -- M Carling 00:01, 6 Apr 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. Neither, it seems, does Google. Guinnog 21:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Terminal criticism

I've removed the following from the article:

Besides runways and taxiways, many international airports would also 
have to extensively reconstruct their terminals and handling facilities
to accomodate the A380. Most airports had been designed with the 747
in mind, and all subsequent airliners since the 747 have been smaller
until the advent of the A380.

This is purest unsourced gammon. As can be seen from the size diagram, the A380 has much the same dimensions as the 747. In fact the longest airliner in the world is the A340-600, which hasn't needed too much in the way of terminal modification, though if they try to cram too many into LAX, they might jam.

The A380 will fly with 550 pax in a typical configuration, and this isn't a great deal higher than the 747's maximum capacity. I haven't seen any useful stories about massive terminal redesign, and that's because no airport thinks it necessary. What they might need are more seats in their lounges and perhaps two levels on their jetways, but all that does is relocate the need to climb stairs from one end of the jetway to the other. --Jumbo 02:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing something. I have read numerous citations of the fact that airports do indeed need extensive modifications in order to accomodate the A380. The most important factor is the loading gate/tubes. Passengers will enter/exit the A380 on two levels simultaneously. This requires entirely new jetways and gate structure to feed them. The size/configuration of the aircraft will likely require new equipment for refueling, loading cargo, on and offloading catering, etc. Safety concerns will also require significant changes. --AStanhope 03:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
New jetways don't mean "extensive terminal modifications". LAX, for instance, has modified two gates at Tom Bradley and is now ready to handle A380s. The aircraft have been designed for compatibility with existing refueling and loading equipment. If you have some reliable sources (i.e. not speculation) to back your claims, I would be interested to see them. So far the major works at airports appear to be runway and taxiway widening to cater for the engines being hung further out than on other 4 engine wide-bodies. --Jumbo 07:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Plus a lot of these modifications are not actually needed, just beneficial. They will still be able to load the A380 using standard jetways just not both levels at the same time, so the redesign would make things more efficient but isn't totally vital. Ben W Bell 08:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Depends on what you mean by "extensive terminal modifications". The A380 has a large wingspan, which means that one A380 slot at a terminal takes the place of two or three other slots, in some cases you can fit one A380 and a narrow body where you can currently fit two 747s. Also, those slots often have to be at the ends of the terminal as at many airports there's not enough room to taxi an A380 to the inside gates. JFK has spent ~$150 million on terminal, taxiway and fillet improvements to accommidate the A380 - CDG and LAX have spent around $50 million IIRC. DFW has spent much less because its only expecting A380 freighters. My sources are the infrastructure managers for those four airports who gave presentations at a conference I attended earlier this week.
The big issue is runway width - If the A380 is not certified for operations on 45 meter runways, it won't be in passenger service in the US at least any time soon. The runway-taxiway separation is not as big an issue, it can be overcome by modifying ground traffic flow but that will cause delays. The visual obstruction of the A380 is a factor there as well as its wingspan. Toiyabe 17:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
My view of "extensive terminal modifications" would be major infrastructure works falling in between normal terminal maintenance and modernisation and entire new terminal buildings. Runways generally aren't included inside terminal buildings, so it's a little disingenuous to claim large sums spent on runway widening as being terminal improvements, and you say that "the big issue is runway width ".
One A380 slot does NOT take the place of two or three 747 slots. If you are trying to imply that a terminal that can take 24 747s can only accommodate 8 or 12 A380s without "extensive modifications", then you are wrong. I appreciate the fact that the wings are longer, and terminals built with tight limits can't possibly put one A380 into each B747-sized slot, but it's not an "extensive terminal modification" issue. Changi issued a press release late last year going into some detail about modifications, and none of this stuff seems particularly difficult or complex.
The fact is that only a few airports will handle A380 flights on a regular basis, and the terminal modifications needed to handle them are mostly a matter of relatively minor modifications such as installing new jetways, increasing the sizes of gate lounges, and making procedure changes. This is nothing like the extensive terminal modifications we saw during the 1970s when the B747 first arrived, and we should keep things in perspective. --Jumbo 22:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Chill, dude. I didn't say that an A380 takes the place of two or three 747s at the terminal. The diagrams I've seen show it taking the place of 3 narrow bodies, 2 777s or 1 A380 and 1 narrow body for 2 747s. This will vary much from terminal to terminal. I also didn't say that I view that as "extensive terminal modifications". I also didn't say those sums were just for terminals.
None of those airports I've mentioned have done runway widening. If they do it'll cost much more then $150 million (estimated at $2 billion for SFO, but that's cause they'll have to put it in the bay), however they seem confident they'll get waivers. Overall the airport managers that presented at the conference I attended thought that the A380/airport compatibility issue was overblown. Toiyabe 23:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you saw my comments as being heated. I'm trying to keep the article neutral, well-sourced, and focused. The fact that expensive modifications have to be made to airports and terminals is a matter of fact and should be included in the article. But we shouldn't let this criticism become overblown to the point where we are including biased speculation as stated fact. That's just unencyclopaedic. --Jumbo 23:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
No worries, it just didn't seem like you read what I wrote. The controversy is real, but difficult to discuss here. There's a GAO report at www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-251 which has estimated costs, although it is four years old. According to page 18 of that report "upgrading terminals, concourses and aprons accounts for 15 percent of the total cost [of A380 related upgrades for 14 US airports] ($317 million). At some airports, airlines are responsible for these areas, so upgrading them does not show up as a cost to airports". I'd be careful of including that, because a lot has changed in the last four years. It is at least well-sourced information, though.
The big problem with doing these cost estimates is that it's unclear to what extent the FAA is going to enforce the Group 6 requirements. Toiyabe 19:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Flightplan

Just out of curiosity, do you think that Boeing in some way financed the movie Flightplan. Basically the way I see it, the makers of the movie are trying to get people scared by large double decker airliners. Smartech 04:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it. After the ethics hangups at Boeing during the last few year, they are keeping their noses ultra-clean. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I suspected exactly the opposite - that Airbus may have had a hand in Flightplan. It was a glorious opportunity to show off the new large double decker passenger plane configuration. The plane featured in the movie was fantastic. They even had a special featurette on the DVD that detailed the creation of the plane for the movie. Cool stuff. --AStanhope 05:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Do you really think most airlines want their passengers to associate their product with being stuck in a confined space with a hysterical woman? Ha! ;-)
It will be very interesting how the passengers will react if it gets played aboard the A380. Smartech 05:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it's almost certain that Airbus didn't have anything to do with the film - but the filmmakers were undoubtedly aware of the A380, and thought that such a new, nifty thing as a double-decker airliner would give the film an extra 'edge'. And, yes, I'm curious if they will play it onboard A380s... :) — QuantumEleven | (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Overlong subsection title

Looking at the ToC, I see that it is wide enough to accomodate the following section title: 6.1 General characteristics (800F Freighter in brown) [11]. If the ToC were less wide, the main photograph could be made larger to take advantage of all that empty space. However, when I look at this particular bit of the article, I find that it's not a straightforward section title.

Can somebody who understands how the headings are put together modify this particular one so that we keep the information about the Freighter details being in brown, but don't include that vital information in the actual ToC? --Jumbo 03:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I like Denniss' modification - it keeps the information, but makes the heading shorter. I'll see if I can make the picture a bit bigger without breaking the formatting... — QuantumEleven | (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! It looks a lot better now! A big plane deserves a big picture. (Must check the B747 article now...) --Jumbo 12:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Drop another shrimp on the airbus

I'm extremely dubious about this source, which appears to be opinion and speculation. The facts seem to be that Thai International are buying six A380s from Airbus, while at the same time the EU is revising its seafood tarriffs. Whether the two stories, one involving commercial enterprises, the other inter-governmental relationships, are connected is not clear. No other sources for this linking can be found and it should be treated as speculative. --Jumbo 13:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't sound so strange. I believe it was either Thai or Malaysian that had a Boeing 777 order "paid for" in shrimp. In essence, Boeing had to find a customer for that nation's shrimping business, and that money was used to order the aircraft. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I'm fully prepared to believe it. It's just that there's only one source and it's very short on details. If this story is true, then why isn't being picked up by the US media, who would find it very tasty? At the very least, there's a lot of scope for fun with headlines. --Jumbo 19:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Barter economy is coming back? :) Smartech 03:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

First flights

As the A380 moves towards introduction into commercial service we should think about scaling back on the level of detail in the first flights section. Obviously we will never lose the maiden flight information, but some of the other stuff is going to be necessarily short-lived. I'm thinking of the high (terrain) altitude and cold weather testing sections here, which are more in the line of news rather than encyclopaedic. Interesting, but not something that's going to be in the article twenty years down the track. Not unless the pilots freeze at the controls and/or the autopilot goes ballistic, which is probably a long shot.

However, while the plane is still notching milestones in its pre-service career, readers who come seeking current information should be able to find it. --Jumbo 20:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

River Trent Engines

I know that Rolls Royce names their jet engines after British rivers, but it seems a bit odd to click on an engine name and go to an article on a river!

Has anyone been geek enough to compile articles for jet engines? Ideally the link should go to an article on the relevant engine, and from there to whatever it was named after. --Jumbo 00:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent Orders

It seems like the numbers for orders of the airplane are very much out of date (June 2005). Can someone please update the numbers? It will be interesting to see how A380 stacks up agains B787. Smartech 23:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find some more recent order figures. But why would you want to compare the A380 and the 787? They address two completely different markets, it would be like comparing a ferry and a cruise liner. If you must compare, compare the orders for the 787 and the A350... — QuantumEleven | (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


New York Times 'Standing room only'

This story is complete hogwash, and should be removed from the 'amenities' section. See this article in The Register 158.143.201.44 09:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought it sounded like rubbish - am removing the reference. I should point out that the The Register article hasn't gotten it quite right either - capacity is 555 with standard three-class seating (first-business-economy), and can vary depending on how much first, business or economy seating an airline wants. 853, which is what it's certified for, is all-economy seating (with no "stand-up seats") - as far as I know, no airline has yet ordered an A380 in that configuration, but the option is there if they want it. — QuantumEleven 14:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I find interesting the idea that the New York Times article, or at least the bit about Airbus (sometimes specifically the A380) and standing-room-only seats, "is complete hogwash". At the moment, it seems that the best that one can say, at least with the sources cited in the Wikipedia article and in this section of the Talk page, is that it's a case of sources' giving contradictory reports—none of which automatically makes one story true or another story false.
Interestingly,
• The New York Times names the Airbus spokeswoman, Mary Anne Greczyn, while The Register’s article (1) names only a German researcher who has seen the design, and (2) presents nothing but miltigenerational information, relying on The Sydney Morning Herald’s article and The Guardian’s blog, both of which also don't name the spokespersons they heard from.
• The New York Times reports that the company wouldn't "comment on the upright-seating proposal"; not commenting on something is not at all the same as explicitly denying it.
• The Sydney Morning Herald was told, by an unnamed spokeswoman, "I can't comment" and "I am not aware". Again, a refusal to comment; and, this time, the reason given is unawareness. Lack of awareness is not the same as the lack of something to be aware of.
• The actual Herald article, just before quoting the unnamed spokeswoman, says that she "said she could not confirm or deny the plan". So the spokeswoman also says she can't deny it.
It usually takes a few days for a correction to appear in The New York Times. We'll see what happens.
In the mean time, the tally seems to be
• "Airbus has been quietly pitching the standing-room-only option to Asian carriers, though none have agreed to it yet"
• "would not specifically comment"
• "could not confirm or deny"
• "I can't comment"
• "I am not aware"
• "fantastic story but not true"
• "It is not something that Airbus has been working on"
• "it is not an Airbus idea, we have not talked about it inside Airbus and our customers have not asked us about such an idea."
The sum doesn't seem absolutely firm in any direction.
Also interestingly, Airbus's website seems to contain neither confirmation nor rebuttal, even though its latest press release is dated as recently as yesterday.
Anyway, it may well turn out to be that the NYT got it wrong. But declarations of "complete hogwash" seem premature, at least on the basis of The New York Times (the only one to name a specific airbus person), The Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian’s blog, The Register (just getting its information from the three previous sources), and Airbus's own website, as of the time of my post.
President Lethe 16:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

From The New York Times’s "Corrections: For the Record" section of 4 May 2006:

Editors’ Note
A front-page article on April 25 about seating options that airlines are considering to accommodate more passengers in economy class referred incorrectly to the concept of carrying passengers standing up with harnesses holding them in position. During preparation of the article, The Times’s questions to one aircraft manufacturer, Airbus, were imprecise and did not make it clear that the reporter was interested in standing-room “seats.” As a result, the article said the company would not specifically comment on the upright-seating proposal. The company now says that while it researched that idea in 2003, it has since abandoned it.
A correction of the article appeared on this page on Tuesday. It should have acknowledged that if The Times had correctly understood the history of the proposal, the article would have qualified it, and would not have appeared on Page A1.

A correction appended on May 2 to the original article:

A front-page article last Tuesday about seating options that airlines are considering to accommodate more passengers in economy class referred incorrectly to the concept of carrying passengers standing up with harnesses holding them in position. During preparation of the article, The Times’s questions to one aircraft manufacturer, Airbus, were imprecise. The company now says that while it researched that idea in 2003, it has since abandoned it. The article also misstated the capacity of the Airbus A380 superjumbo jet. The airliner can accommodate 853 passengers in regular seats; standing-room positions would not be needed.

Of course, "it researched that idea in 2003" and "has since abandoned it" seem to contradict "we have not talked about it inside Airbus".

President Lethe 21:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Carrying any more than a handful of people in such seats would make it impossible to evacuate the aircraft in 90 seconds, which is the standard an airliner MUST meet. Perhaps they considered such seating for flight attendants on landing and takeoff? In addition, if you cram more passengers in, you also add to the weight. More bodies, more baggage, more food to feed them. The range would shrink dramatically, and with it the aircraft efficiency. --Jumbo 01:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
In any case, the A380 is only allowed to carry 853 passengers and no more (per the evacuation test), and they proved (during the evacuation test) that they can carry 853 using just standard economy-class seating, and don't need any 'standing room' seats to do so. QED. This story has had a far longer lifespan than such rubbish ought to have, but in any case, thanks to President Lethe for really doing the legwork on this one...! — QuantumEleven 06:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Well there are probablly countries with less strict rules or enforcement somewhere, also its not unheared of for airlines to have planes modified and retested to meet evacuation requirements with a greater passenger count. Plugwash 21:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The record for most passengers is held by a B747, with over 1 000. That was an El Al jumbo packed with refugees on a flight from Somalia to Israel. While it is conceivable that an airline could fill an aircraft with "standing" seats, the fact that it hasn't yet happened anywhere with any aircraft is a good indication that it won't happen in future. Such a fit-out would certainly not meet any international standards. For the A380, Qantas will have 501 passenger seats, and Singapore Airlines 485. This is an indication that passengers will have far more space, not less. --Jumbo 23:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
A bit of an old issue but I thought I'd point something out. There may very well be countries with less strict enforcement of the rules. However you'd have to consider will the airlines in these countries be able to afford A380s? More importantly is it likely that there will be the need for a A380 to carry more then 853 passengers between two such countries? The answer two both these questions is no. While an airline may be able to get away with exceeding the certification in certain poor African countries, you can rest assured that these poor African countries won't have A380s and if they did, they definitely wouldn't be using them to transport passengers to another poor African country. (I should mention also that the distance between these two countries will be presemuably quite large too and so they will run in to the problem of the displeasure of other countries they fly over with their airlines violating the rules. Then of course, there is the fact Airbus is unlikely to want to sell airplanes to these airlines who are going to violate the rules potentially resulting in bad headlines for them) Nil Einne 17:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Israel with El Al holds the record for stuffing a jumbo, and I don't think Boeing had any difficulties with the original sale. --Jumbo 20:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Was that flight actually in violation of the rules anyway, it sounds like it was a military operation which would surely exempt it from civilian rules Plugwash 22:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Certainly not a regular civil flight! It was a flight to get as many refugees out of Ethiopa as possible. NWT was just being sensational. The way things are going, the A380 gives passengers more room, not less, and the chance of passengers paying actual money for standing-room only seats is pretty minimal. Besides, the lawsuits on health issues would soon mount up and make it unprofitable. Can't see how you could evacuate the aircraft in any reasonable time, either. --Jumbo 23:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

TTT Tech contributing to article

user 195.230.58.11 who made edits to this and the Joseph_Mangan article just so happens to work for TTT Tech. Just a heads upTorturous Devastating Cudgel 21:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Table of contents

Is taking the mick to be honest - at a fairly large resolution the first screenful is just TOC.GraemeLeggett 13:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If it bothers you, you can always click the little "hide" button in the TOC to, erm, hide it. A TOC is very useful if you need to find a specific article section. — QuantumEleven 06:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Comparison with Antonov An-225

Why on earth do we need to state that there is only one Antonov An-225? It wouldn't matter if there was one, none or a hundred flying, its size is a matter of record. After all, if you scroll down to that nifty size comparison diagram, you'll see Hughes' Spruce Goose shown and that production run was one aircraft which is no longer flying. --Jumbo 01:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it makes a difference that the A380 is a production aircraft rather than a one-off. (As plans exist to resuscitate the second airframe and build further An-225s, it might not be a one-off for long.) ProhibitOnions 01:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

An-225 passenger capacity

why is it so low? is it simply a case of the number of seats (which could be easilly changed) or evacuation procedures or what? Plugwash 01:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The AN-225 is a cargo plane, it was never designed to carry passengers (see the AN-225 article). They have a couple of seats for the backup crew (for long flights) and some cargo handlers and such, but the rest is given over to cargo. — QuantumEleven 06:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

How Come Aircraft InfoBox Removed?

As you can see I am wondering why the A380 Aircraft infobox was removed? I think the infobox should be left.

Infoboxes go on the right. This was removed by an anon vandal and frankly I'm surprised it wasn't noticed earlier! --Jumbo 06:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Cockpit location

Does anyone know what level the cockpit's on. It looks as if its in the dead center. And if there are like special stairs to get to the cockpit wouldn't that make it safer from the hijacking standpoint. Just something I noticed.

The cockpit is mid-way between the decks (you can see it quite nicely on this cutaway). I haven't been inside a fully fitted-out plane, but during assembly you get to it from the upper deck, via a couple of steps. I presume that the same will be the case in the final aircraft, but to be honest I'm not completely sure. From a hijacking standpoint it's equivalent to any other plane, no easier or harder to get in or out. The cockpit will have a (by now standard) reinforced, locking door on it, which IMO is more than enough for the exceedingly remote possibility of a hijacking. — QuantumEleven 06:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
MSN2 has a couple of steps going up from the main deck floor to the cockpit. --Xeper 15:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
That cutaway diagram looks a bit dodgy - a third deck at the bottom with a restaurant and state rooms, I thought that was all separate and for cargo and stuff? And the wheels are down as '4 or 6 bogie'. Is this a prototype diagram from years ago? That's what it seems like so not sure how accurate it is. There's a cutaway diagram labelled as the A3XX here and here but again not sure how accurate they are because they'll be a few years old. Iancaddy 18:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
the cutaway with the restaurant, duty free shop etc. apparently makes use of a lot of lower deck facilities. I don't doubt that Airbus would build such a configuration if someone orders it, but I don't believe that any airline would want that. I don't even see how this configuration can hold all the luggage... This is defintive far from the actual layouts that are being ordered/build at the moment... --Xeper 21:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
No, if an airline orders a bar/duty free shop etc it would be on one of the two main decks - there is no space in the cargo deck for this sort of thing, the ceilings are too low. — QuantumEleven 09:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Qantas config

Qantas has announced that the plane will have 501 seats in a three-class layout. This is a significant reduction in even Airbus's suggested layout. The LAX-MEL route is a very long one and possibly this config will allow this leg to be flown free of the tight baggage restrictions that currently apply, especially in summer. It will be interesting to see how this is applied - whether by increasing the number of "premium" seats, or by increasing the pitch in the economy cabin(s). --Jumbo 19:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not really that big a reduction - Airbus standard is 555 passengers in three classes, 501 is a 10% reduction. They probably accomplish this by having a larger business class, or by increasing the pitch (distance between seats) in economy. My guess would be the former, but we'll just have to wait and see! :) — QuantumEleven 09:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Heathrow (and any other airport) docking gates

With the news today (May 18th, 2006) that the Airbus 380 has successfully tested new landing and docking facilities at Heathrow airport in the UK, I am very interested in finding out what these new 2 level docking systems look like. Unfortunatly I cannot find any images anywhere on the internet. Does anyone know of any images which show what these docking gates at Heathrow airport (or indeed any other airport) look like? Thanks. Canderra 13:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

More Tests

Are there more tests left to do for the Airbus 380? if they are, which are they? Minako-Chan* 02:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

First Flights Separation

I wonder if we should move the First Flights section off into a separate page as it is getting long. Once the plane enters full service it's not going to be of that much interest to most people so maybe a separate article linked from where it is now? Ben W Bell 06:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As said on the edit page 'This page is 43 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.' I think some of it should be moved into seperate Sections to reduce the article size. Reedy Boy 10:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, there's too much useless information in that section. We might as well add what the pilots had for breakfast that day. - Sekicho 18:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I've commented on this before. It's encyclopaedic when the first flights are all that's happening, but they rapidly fade in importance. We should have information on the maiden flight and any significant tests. Given the size of the aircraft, I think the evacuation test is noteworthy. Perhaps we could have a list of first flights of individual aircraft? I'd like to know how the production line is coming along, and this would be a good indicator. --Jumbo 18:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
That's hardly encylopedic, but if someone wants to put it together (separately from the main article), why not? For now, though, I've trimmed down the first flights section and tried to make that part of the article more relevant/coherent. - Sekicho 19:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

20% more fuel

The following was added to the lead section: "In addition, the Airbus A380 wil be carrying 20% more fuel, but with 260,000 litres of fuel it can carry more than 100 passengers extra."

I didn't think it appropriate for the lead, but perhaps it could go elsewhere, more relevant, perhaps with a source? --Jumbo 17:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Options?

What does the "Options" column in the table of airlines who've bought the plane mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crobzub (talk • contribs)

  • They're optional aircraft - the ordering airline can choose whether or not they actually want the aircraft at a later date, although that date is very often specified in the contract. --Scott Wilson 17:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The term refers to an "option contract", which is a contract to guarantee a price at a later date, for which consideration (i.e. money) is exchanged. So, part of the contract between the airline and the builder is a purchase contract (to buy airplanes now), another part is an option contract, to guarantee the future price of airplanes should the airline choose to buy them later ("exercise" the option.) I believe that dates, quantities, and configurations are typically specified.

Unanswered Questions

Some important questions the article doesn't answer yet:

  • Why four engines instead of two? Aren't two engines more efficient than four? Doesn't the vast majority of proposed a380 routes fall under ETOPS anyhow?
  • Why no winglets?
  • Why is there a need for double-decker jetways? Why not simply board the plane at lower deck level from both sides?

137.222.40.132 12:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As to the four engines, I don't know for sure but I strongly suspect that it's because the four-engine design allows the use of jet engines that are from the same family line as existing designs (the A380 engines are smaller than the Boeing 777). Something big enough to power the A380 with two engines would require an entirely new engine that would be radically bigger than anything that's flown before, and wouldn't be of much use on anything except the A380. Designing an entirely new jet engine twice the size of existing ones would be a hugely costly undertaking, and the market for the A380 isn't that extensive. --Robert Merkel 13:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
There is that, and a theoretical engine powerful enough to power the A380 with only two instead of four would be so large (in diameter) that it would drag along the the ground (assuming you want an engine with a similar sort of efficiency to existing designs) unless the wings were raised, and raising the wings creates a whole different set of problems. So the designers chose to design the A380 to fly with existing engines (which are big enough already!). — QuantumEleven 06:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
As for winglets, it has them, even if some pre-production imagery didn't. Just look at the pictures.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 13:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Double-decker jetways aren't required for the A380 - many airports will be boarding from a single jetway - but many are building them for the simple reason that it'll allow much quicker loading and unloading. Also, note that of the three options, a jetway on each side is probably the least likely. Conventionally, aircraft are boarded from the port (left) side (possibly a holdover from mounting horses from the left), so most airports, their gates and the aircraft themselves are set up that way. It'd be an even more major modification than a double decker jetway to build a starboard jetway on, and it too would be unusable for most aircraft. Finally, the starboard is generally busy with service vehicles and the like (e.g. catering truck, baggage loading etc.) and the doors are sometimes smaller (though I don't know what the A380's are like), as they are only intended for service and emergency use. --Scott Wilson 15:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The doors on both sides are the same size, but Scott is right - all airports board from just the left side. The A380's preferred boarding arrangement would be three jetways, two to the lower deck (fore and aft) and one to the top deck, but it's designed so that it can be boarded with no problems with two jetways, either both to the lower deck (as currently done with the 747, so no refit necessary) or one to each deck. It's up to each individual airport to decide how quickly they need to load and offload passengers. — QuantumEleven 06:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Yup, you can see the Airbus Triangluar winglet things (like on the A320 Series)... Wonder if they'll get changed to ones like the for the A320 series which are more like the 737NG winglets.... Reedy Boy 10:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter how many jetways it has. There's going to be a bottleneck somewhere, and if you have several jetways, it just moves the bottleneck to the boarding gate. If you have a double decker jetway, then it just means that passengers will have to use stairs inside the terminal instead of inside the aircraft. As a matter of fact, the A380 should load faster than a B747, even with just a single jetway. Each of the A380's decks is as long as a B747's, but the plane only carries a hundred passengers more. Therefore, on average, there will be fewer passengers per deck (and presumably more space, such as wider aisles and longer pitch) and this will translate into faster loading, once the passengers for the two decks are separated. --Jumbo 00:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Let us not be coy

The A380 is the largest airliner in the world. It just hasn't entered commercial service yet. It has already carried passengers on flights, albeit not on scheduled routes. The first plane for commercial delivery made its first flight last month. We can be coy and say that the B747 is the largest airliner in scheduled service, but that's about it. --Jumbo 05:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Calling the A380 a "prototype" is misleading, to be generous. At a stretch one might call the first four aircraft prototypes (although the design process didn't use a prototyping methodology) but with production aircraft already flying and the assembly line in full swing it is well beyond prototype stage. I emphasise that this aircraft has carried significant passenger loads on test and promotional flights. It is an airliner because it certainly isn't anything else. --Jumbo 11:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

To my mind it is simply a product which is complete but hasn't been delivered as yet. It's still the worlds biggest airliner even if no company is currently running it on scheduled flights. Ben W Bell talk 11:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
BTW have any of the test/promotional flights run the plane anywhere near full yet? Plugwash 12:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

While we are not being coy, let us also note that the 747-800i is not a competitor of the Airbus A380. At 450 passengers, the 747-800i is in a totally different class of airplane and has no direct competition from Airbus. The 747-800i fills a gap between the B777and the A380.

Actually no. Singapore Airlines is planning to fly fewer than 480 on their A380s, according to their website. Both planes are large and efficient, but if the A380 has 50% more space than a B747 and only 3 rows of economy passengers to put in it, I'd say that we're looking at unprecedented standards of room per passenger, and the 748 isn't going to be filling any gaps. Qantas has announced that they are only going to fly 501/380, and I can't see Emirates packing them in like sardines either. RyanAir, maybe. --Jumbo 22:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if they will only be flying 500 passengers then this totally shoots a hole in their lower cost per seat mile numbers. Just how much is it actually going to cost to fly the A380 with so few passengers. Maybe this is why its not selling.

That unsigned comment above is BS. The A380 can fly with between 850 and 1 passenger, and it's the airline who decides. There are rumors that the A380 will sport some business class (now that First is gone) as never has been seen before; rumors about individual compartments like those on wagons-lits are continuous. In matters of booking, it's always the airline who decides, not the manufacturer. The A380 can sport 500 seats with the same or greater comfort as a B-747 in a 350 seats configuration, period.

As a side note, less seats and less passengers (and thus less luggage) mean more cargo, and the container capacity of the A380 is pretty above that of a B-747. Kg per Kg, cargo is more profitable than luggage or passengers. --Bill Bones 17:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Are there any figures availible on what the 747-8 will hold in single classe economy? comparing 3 class figures without looking at the class mixes and the descisions on just how luxurious to make buisness/first seems rather misleading. Plugwash 12:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Nickname

On the subject of whether or not the most common nickname is Megaliner or Superjumbo. EADS may use the term Megaliner internally, but in the wider world the most common parlance in the media is Superjumbo. Megaliner gets ~48,000 hits on Google (I hate Google hit counts but here we are) of which 10,000 are buses, some are coaches, many are cruiseliners and ships and some are the Airbus A360 with a small selection of them being for the A380. Superjumbo gets 259,000+ hits including news stories from the worlds big name media providers like BBC, CNN etc on the first page and the vast majority of them that I can see all referencing the A380 (plus some political pamphlet that I cannot tell about). Superjumbo is most definitely the nickname for it in the eyes of the public no matter what they say inside EADS, and is used even by big name Aerospace media outlets like Space.com and Aerospace Technology. What do people think? Ben W Bell talk 17:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm biased on this, but "Superjumbo" is the name I've long heard used to describe the A3XX/A380. For the reason that the airliner is bigger than the iconic Jumbo jet. At the moment there is only one airliner larger than the Jumbo, so it is a very apt name. "Megaliner" isn't a name I've heard used to describe any airliner, and even if it was, it could describe any large airliner, such as the A340-600, B747, A380. The top hits on Google all refer to cruise liners, of which there are any number of massive ships. This is something that should be discussed before being included in the article, especially in the lead section, and I am unimpressed by sneaky attempts to insert it without consensus. --Jumbo 21:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Megaliner implies a cruise ship; Superjumbo can only mean aircraft (or possibly a very big elephant). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 22:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Google hit counts aren't all that bad, actually, if done more specifically. Try "superjumbo airbus a380 -boeing -747" and you get 57,100 hits. Now try "superjumbo boeing 747 -airbus -a380" and you get 181 hits. So in wider usage outside of enthusiast circles, the nickname is linked to the A380 rather than the 747 by a whopping 300:1 ratio. As unscientific as this may be, it is a pretty clear indication of which way the wind blows... Ctillier 04:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually Google hit counts are incredibly bad. You can be as specific as you want but the fact remains that you are only looking at a specific subset of the English users out there. There is strong evidence to suggest internet pages are biased in favour of the US over and above their relative population compared to other developed English-native countries such as the UK, NZ, Australia etc. Not only that but the internet is heftly biased against the large second-language English speakers in the developing world (India is a big one but also many parts of Africa, Pakistan, Malaysia etc). I'm not saying there is necessarily a Commonwealth English - North American English difference here or that a mistaken conclusion was made. Indeed the fact is that the A380 probably doesn't get that much attention in many parts of the developing world. But this does not negate the fact that a Google search or any attempts to use the Internet to establish the frequency of the usage of a word is usually incredibly unfair and misleading. 12:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
That's as may be, but "Megaliner" remains a nickname that is not in general circulation. I hang out on various aviation-related forums and it's not used at all, whereas "Superjumbo" is, albeit not often. Those who talk airliners tend to use "380" or "A380". Maybe Airbus used Megaliner in development, but it didn't translate to the wider world. --Jumbo 17:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

To whoever keeps on inserting the nickname "Megaliner" in the lead para, may I suggest that you consider following established Wikiprocedure, where we co-operate in writing the article and we do so in a friendly and transparent fashion. As the discussion above indicates, the consensus is for "Superjumbo" as a commonly-accepted nickname, whereas "Megaliner" is far less common and not specifically associated with the A380. However, we will always listen to a good argument, especially if sources are given. If a fact is true, notable and well sourced, then it should be included in the article. None of us are part of a single-minded conspiracy to promote Superjumbo over Megaliner, but the way you are trying to push your version is not the way we do things. Please read through Wikipedia's policies. --Jumbo 20:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Lots of Info Found

I think that we could use some info from the french article on the A380. Here it is

US contribution

This paragraph is rather deceptively worded; while the United States does produce many components, it produces far fewer than the European Union, and since it lacked any source, I've removed it. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That information probably came from Airbus North America, possibly from these two articles: [2] and [3]. Airbus likes to emphasize the US content in their products (at least in US media outlets) for political reasons. Toiyabe 18:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

When is the Airbus A380 officially "in service"

I noticed that there is a question as to whether the A380 "is" or "will be" the largest passenger jet. Since the A380 has only had its "1st flight" and has not gone into revenue service, the Boeing 747 actually "is" the largest passenger jet since the term "passenger jet" implies that it is in revene service. There are many planes that have never entered service after a "1st flight" and until the A380 actually flies passengers in revenue service we should use the following terminology.

The Boeing 747 is the largest passenger jet in revenue service. The Airbus A380 is the largest passenger jet to have flown. (Assuming that there are passenger test flights.)

---mnw2000

The A380 is taking passengers on various test and promotional flights, and has been doing so for several months. It's an airliner. It's a passenger jet. It's not in scheduled service yet, and won't be until December, when Singapore Airlines uses its first pair on the Singapore-Sydney daily service. Implying that the A380 won't enter service when five have already flown and the first delivery hull is now getting its seats installed is a very long bow to draw. The lead paragraph makes it quite clear that the A380 is not yet in commercial service, but quite clearly it is a bigger passenger jet than the B747. Let us not treat our readers as if they are idiots. --Jumbo 05:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know if an A380 has flown anywhere near full yet? User:plugwash
No, and it won't until it's certified (because of insurance issues). However, it regularly carried one or two dozen technicians who monitor the onboard systems during tests flights, as well as Airbus personnel to and from air shows etc. And I agree with Jumbo, there is no need to split hairs, the A380 is the largest commercial airliner, period. — QuantumEleven 13:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok so it hasn't flown full of passengers but have they actually tested it at near MTOW with ballest? Plugwash 22:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. If I recall correctly, the A380 has been tested at 96% MTOW already. Transatlantic test flights with passengers are scheduled for late 2006. - antiuser 22:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The first full passenger carrying test flight took place today with 453 passengers on board. What more needs to be done before we can call it the largest current passenger plane? I'm including this info in the article. Abc30 15:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
It has been officially the largest current passenger plane since it rolled out. Calling it "the largest passenger plane in service" would imply that it is flying revenue flights already, which it isn't. antiuser 20:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Broken link

The time-lapse video of the plane being assembled seems to have been removed from Goggle videos. Does anyone know another site which is hosting it? 82.26.192.80 17:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

More delays

Could we please stay with the facts on this, please. Airbus has announced a slowdown in the rate of deliveries, not a six month delay of all deliveries. Singapore Airlines first A380 has already flown and is currently fitting out in Germany. They will receive their first few aircraft on time. Qantas is going to suffer a six month delay in introducing the aircraft. I'm a little puzzled as to why Singapore Airlines is ordering 20 787s, as these aircraft are even further from service than the A380, but that's what the news reports say. Good to see that editors are including sources, but please read them fully! --Jumbo 10:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The order for 20 787s from Singapore Airlines could be a possible replacement for the early 777-200s and some of the 777-200ERs, since the 787 competes with the early 777 models. That is just my guess. -Blau

The 20 787s will be used to expand routes in Asia. The 787 is not meant to be a replacement for the 747, 777 or A380. Most likely, they are looking to retire their 4 A340's because of all the fuel they burn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.197.117.202 (talk • contribs) . --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a good synopsis of the A380's current electrical problems, which are the cause for the new series of delays. [4] —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. It must be hard for some to understand why there are delays when the aircraft has already flown. After all, what's the problem with wiring? Just run wires from the cockpit to the control surfaces. How hard can that be? Yet the thought of signals crossing over from one wire to another makes my hair stand on end. And apart from alarming safety and control implications, even if it's signals for (say) audio-visual systems and cabin thermostats leaking over, that might produce uncomfortable passenger experiences. These things need to be sorted out before installing the cabin furniture.
I've rewritten the Delivery section in an attempt to clarify the three announced delays:
  • June 2005 - a six month slippage for all aircraft
  • June 2006 - a slowdown in the delivery schedule affecting those aircraft further back in the pipeline, rather than those already built and flown.
  • July 2006 - a delay in certification affecting the first delivery only. Actually, this hasn't been a formal announcement by Airbus, more in the nature of a "read between the lines" thing.
And again, I am glad to see sources being quoted. --Jumbo 01:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The Singapore orders for 787 are not linked to the A380 program at all. Singapore had been reviewing the B787 for 2 years before deciding to buy it. The B-787 is a sexed-up replacement for airplanes in the B-767 range; it is NOT a competitor for larger airplanes like the A340, B-777, B-747 or A380. Also, it would make no sense that Boeing was building a competitor to its own jewel-of-the-crown the B-777, would it?

As for Airbus troubles, many of them come from bottlenecks caused by shifting requirements. As operators shifted their requirements, some airplanes have had to be refitted, and some even had to be moved back to previous stations of the assembly line in order to acces already finished areas to fit in additional wiring. This caused bottlenecks and Airbus feared they coul drive to a total jam, so the production pace has been slowed down. --Bill Bones 17:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Airport Compatibility List

I think this list needs serious work... first, I'm not sure it should even be in this article. It takes up a lot of space, will get much longer, doesn't convey much interesting information, and this in an article that is already on the bloated side. So... if the list is going to stay, two things need to be defined. (1) For what time is the list supposed to be valid? Now? Entry into service? 2008? 2010? and (2) What is a list of. The A380 can technically land on any runway that can take a 747. I suggest this should be a list of airports that can/will accommodate the A380 in commercial service, as opposed to diversion airports or cargo airports. --Ctillier 04:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This list is superfluous. An A380 can operate out of any airport that can take a B747. It doesn't need special airbridges or gates or anything else. The only major difference between a 747 and a 380 is that the longer wings of the latter may need wider runways and separation between taxiways, as well as restricting which gates it may use in space limited terminals. The interior gates at LAX T4 spring to mind; they are a tight squeeze for a B747, but there would be no difficulty in using the gates at the end of the "egg". --Jumbo 06:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Might I add that Denver International Airport is more than compatible with the A380. The newest sixth runway (16R/34L) is about 16K feet long, the longest runway in North America. Is is very capable of landing the A380. Although, most international flights depart in Concourse A, which is sandwiched between Concourse B and The Jeppesen Terminal, which, by the way, has a connecting bridge to Concourse A with a clearance of 42 feet, much below the height of the A380. However, the international gates are on the north siide of the councourse and the bridge connects to the south side, which houses mostly A320's and the like. The DIA article, though, says that the gates could easily be modified to support the A380. They could potentially build A380 gates if they do ever build Councourses D and E, which I figure won't happen soon because I haven't heard much about them. 67.177.244.157 -- Please Sign your comments!

That list is incomplete... Many other Canadian, and Asian airports are preparing for the A380. India's Kingfisher Airlines ordered 5 of em, and many Indian airports are getting to handle it. Delhi (DEL) and Mumbai(Bombay) are expecting a daily A380 flight and the work has begun to upgrade the taxiways and terminals. Toronto's Pearson International (YYZ) is also ready to handle the A380, since the airport is going through a major expansion. Vancouver International is also expecting A380 flights. Any suggestions?

I say scrub the entire list. Seems relatively pointless to me. As mentioned above any airport with a decent runway can handle an A380 even if they don't have the updated skybridges, loading ramps etc the normal ladder units will work fine from the lower doors. There isn't a list of airports capable of handling the An-225, or the 747, so why should the A380 have one? Ben W Bell talk 17:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't create the list, but I have tried to help in making it more informative. So here is my two cents on this issue.

I understand that some airports will be able to handle the A380 and some will not. Maybe we should add a section to each airport called "A380 Certified: Yes/No". At the same time, the number of airports that will be certified to support the A380 will be limited and maybe a list will be helpful. --mnw2000

Scrub the list - it doesn't add anything of real value to an article that's already somewhat longer than preferable. — QuantumEleven 13:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Airport Gates

Does anyone know if the already built gate corridors in the airports listed in the article load as a single jetway or one on top and one on the main floor? I'm particulalrly interested in LAX, SFO, SIN, and JFK. A ticketing agent in LAX told me when I was travelling to Singapore that they hadn't built the gate for the A380 yet, which is one of the reasons why SQ did not select LAX as one of the start cities for their flights. Any info's appreciated. --67.177.244.157 08:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.airbusjapan.com/pdf/a380/a380airport_compat.pdf http://www.asiatraveltips.com/news05/1310-A380.shtml Reedy Boy 09:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That list is incomplete... Many other Canadian, and Asian airports are preparing for the A380. India's Kingfisher Airlines ordered 5 of em, and many Indian airports are getting to handle it. Delhi (DEL) and Mumbai(Bombay) are expecting a daily A380 flight and the work has begun to upgrade the taxiways and terminals. Toronto's Pearson International (YYZ) is also ready to handle the A380, since the airport is going through a major expansion. Vancouver International is also expecting A380 flights. Any suggestions?

Engine selections

What does the 4 mean in ILFC's engine selection? Andros 1337 23:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A390 Nightmare!!!

Deleted with apologies by an apparently gullible --Coryma 00:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you've had your fun. Now go have your pills and clear the runway. This is a encyclopaedia, not a pilots bar.--Bill Bones 20:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was funny. Just so long as this sort of stuff stays on the talk page (or better yet, the user page) and we don't see too much of it. Probably would have been more effective if uploaded as an image. --Jumbo 00:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


"A 390" revisited

Well, my sincere apologies. I admit I am gullible and impatient. This teaches me not to mess with large threads. I tend not to read them. I saw the picture and assumed people were serious, so I seriously thought it might be a valuable contribution. It was not meant as vandalism, nor any sort of joke. (I failed physics, as if you can't tell that of a person that thinks the "A 390" might be airworthy). --Coryma 00:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Orders

Shouldn't Orders be sorted by the DATE OF THE ORDER rather than alphabetically. At least that seems to be the standard for other aircraft like the Boeing 787. In addition, it would be more informative since it will show that there has not been any new orders for the A380 since last year. --user:mnw2000 00:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I have up with so far: Airbus 380 Orders Sorted By Date

I still need date information for ILFC, Singapore, Qantas and Emerates.

--user:mnw2000 23:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Configuration Info?

I was wondering if Singapore is planning on adding Exec Economy to the behemoth. Also, I saw a picture on that website showing the upper deck. It looks as if it's a narrowbody design on the top. Is this true? Also, I was wondering what the seating arrangement is in a standard economy layout: 3-4-3? 2-5-2? I was just wondering about all this.Char645 06:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The standard economy class layout is 2-4-2 on the upper deck and 3-4-3 on the lower deck (I believe 3-5-3 would be possible on the lower deck with narrower seats). I have no idea about Singapore Airlines' plans, I'm sorry. --Nick Moss 06:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Also, how many rows are there on each deck in both configs?Char645`
Well that would really depend on how the airline wants to configure its aircraft. Here is what Airbus's website shows as an inidicitive layout. --Nick Moss 11:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Whalejet (again)

Whalejet is the primary nicknam of the A380 used on websites like airliners.net which is run by the aviation comunity.

A quick Google search shows that the nickname Whalejet is not commonly associated with the A380. Searching for keywords "airbus a380 whalejet" returns 353 hits. Searching for "airbus a380 superjumbo" returns 240000 hits. While a Google search is rather unscientific, the large margin allows one to conclude very firmly that Whalejet is not (by a very long shot!) the most common nickname for the A380. While the Whalejet moniker has indeed been used on airliners.net, it is controversial as many participants consider it derogatory. --Ctillier 05:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
We already had this discussion (see at the top of this page), and came to the conclusion that the most common nickname for the A380 is "Superjumbo". — QuantumEleven 06:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Just an opinion: "whalejet" is nearly unpronounceable for non-English speakers. American may laugh at this aircraft as much as they want -provided they're unable to build anything that gets close to it ::) -, but "Superjumbo" is a far more gentle nickname to non-English speaking foreigners, provided msot people already knows to pronounce "jumbo". --Bill Bones 10:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Airport Compatibility (again)

I think the article currently does a poor job of describing the way airports are preparing for the A380. There is a brief mention under the Testing section (?!?) and Amenities section (?!?) which unfairly single out London Heathrow, and then a few further points about taxiway reconfiguration in the Technical Concern section... which I don't think belong there because airport modifications do not qualify as a technical problem (financial, perhaps...)

I am not suggesting that we should revive a list of A380 compatible airports, but instead that there be a short, concise paragraph describing the issue of airport compatibility with the A380. I am willing to take a first stab at this, but am not sure where in the article outline it really belongs... suggestions? --Ctillier 05:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why should the article have any more material than it already has? Any compatibility issues are minor - if an airport can operate a B747, it can operate an A380. Realistically, the only difficulty is that the outer engines are further outboard and the wings are a few metres longer, meaning that a few airports that are tight on space will need to make adjustments. The plane itself carries about as many as a Jumbo: 485 for Singapore Airlines and 501 for Qantas, so passenger loading will not be a problem. --Jumbo 05:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Not true. There are articles all over the place about airports spending millions of dollars to widen taxiways, move lights, etc. for the Airbus A380. There is no such expenditures to accept Boeing 747 aircraft, or at the very least, it was done decades ago when the Boing 747 was first released. I think we should revive the list of airports that have announced plans to upgrade thier airports for the Airbus A380 along with thier progress (planned, underway, completed). Here is one such article for Memphis International Airport [5] planned upgrade scheduled for 2009. I think it is very valuable information to know what airports can handle or will be able to handle the Airbus A380. I was even able to find an Airbus A380 airport compatibility presentation online [6].
How about a chart like this:
Airport Upgrade Status Target Date News Sources
Flag of the United States USA Memphis International Airport planned 2009 [7]
--user:mnw2000 20:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Whether airports are spending money on improvements is beside the point. Can you (or anyone else) name a B747-capable airport that is not also A380-capable? --Jumbo 03:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Each airport is certified to operate certain officially-designated categories of aircraft. We could just state on each airport's page what that category is, and perhaps indicate that it is being upgraded to a higher category. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think there are many airports that can handle a Boeing 747, but is not ready for the Airbus A380. Why else would all these international airports that have been handling the Boeing 747 for decades need to spend a single dollar (or euro) in order to "prepare" for the arrival of the Airbus 380? I feel that supporters of the Airbus A380 do not want to believe that this new aircraft does require changes and can land anywhere a Boeing 747 can. But that just isn't the case. There are tons are articles (do a google search) about the need of airports to upgrade to handle the new plane. I was under the impression that Wikipedia is suppose to report facts, and not take make a judgement call. Can someone from Boeing or Airbus respond? --user:mnw2000 20:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue of airport compatibility is relevant to the article. However, a chart showing individual airports would be mostly a waste of space. I do like the idea of a separate section discussing the issues the are arising with the introduction of the A380, because there very clearly are quite a few, such as the wingspan affecting gates and taxiways, and also the fact that they potentially need to enplane/deplane passengers from both decks concurrently. There are also other considerations, so thumbs up for such a section from me. galar71 20:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that we should revive the list of compatible airports... it would be controversial since clearly, not everyone has the same definition of compatibility. I am just talking about a short paragraph describing the basic issues (dual jetbridges, 80x80 m gates, taxiway fillets & spacing, upper deck cargo loaders, overpass strengthening, airport compatibility test campaign, etc.) Also, I do not believe this would make the article longer. As I stated at the start of this section, issues that are currently described under seemingly unrelated topic headings would be consolidated in one place... shall I give it a shot? If y'all don't like it, you can revert. --Ctillier 04:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The deed is done... let me know what you think. --Ctillier 06:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Houm... actually airports worldwide are upgrading to face growing passenger traffic. Improve their abbility to handle the A380 is just a logical thing to do, provided they already are spending the bucks and would be stupid to not take the chance and improve the handling of a bigger aircaft. Anyway, that would be an "airports" issue. I wonder why should it be mentioned in an article about the aircraft, unless someone was desperately in need to find a crytizism -with the convenient short-term memory to forget that the B-747 was incepted in a world where it could land on ZERO, NULL, NONE airports, and many airports had to expend big bucks to handle the aircraft & enter the (then) short, privileged list of "jumbo-ready" airports. This was the second alrgest update in history, right after the "jet-ready" airports arrived. The A380 is a fair lesser trouble and the costs are asssumed as a part of the mobility upgrades. An "airport" issue completely. --Bill Bones 10:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The article erroneously claims that any airport that can handle a Boeing 747 can handle an A380. This is false, as the two aircraft are in different design groups, The 747 being in Design Group V, and the A380 being in Design Group VI. The primary consequence of this difference is that the A380 requires a 200' (60m) wide runway, whereas the 747 can operate on a 150' (45m) wide runway.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.64.107 (talk • contribs).

This is not erroneous. Refer to the section of the article on ground handling (technical concerns) for details and references on waivers for operation of DG VI aircraft on DG V infrastructure. Also note the 747-8 is technically also a DG VI aircraft by virtue of its wingspan. --Ctillier 01:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Orders by Date

Based on the addition of a stub "orders by date" chart, I have gone ahead and completed the chart best I could. Please feel free to update with additional information. --user:mnw2000 19:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

We should probably nuke the old table. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...the old table shows the totals per airline, while the newer one (which I helped start) shows them by date, so both may be concurrently useful?--Huaiwei 12:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. Some readers may like to see the "totals" of aircraft that each airline has on order. For example, Emirates has three orders (and a transfer transaction) to come to thier 43 plane on order.

Should we standarize on this "dual charge" concept? Should orders for Boeing 787, Boeing 747-8 and Airbus A350 (on thier pages) also have this dual charge concept or should it be unique to the Airbus 380? --user:mnw2000 14:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for the other aircraft pages having a simple chart that lists by airline. These other charts are unweildy and prone to being inacurate for that reason (like the one here). If there are people out there who care what date some airline confirmed it had changed its previous order by adding to an earlier order which was itself changed to reflect a move to the larger model, then they should be shot.

Picture Overload!

Can we cut down just a bit on the number of photos? Twenty is too many. Ten sounds about right. Which ones should we remove? --Ctillier 04:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the computer generated one in Airbus house colours can go for a start, don't know why that re-appeared. We all know what it looks like now, and have plenty of real photos so this is just not needed. The side view of the first completed one can go as well, there are other shots of the side that aren't blocked by gantrys and supports. Also the boarding at Farnborough seems pointless, so it's a stairwell to a door, we haven't seen that before. Also the first flight one, sorry but it's just a poor photograph. I'd also leave the GP7200 engine cutaway for an article on the engine rather than the A380 article. Just my thoughts. Ben W Bell talk 06:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The information is more important than the photos. I remember an old encylopedia that I found that had NO pictures, only text and a few sketches. We have come along way, maybe too far. Is there a Wikiapedia guideline for the use of photos in articles? --user:mnw2000 14:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I added the boarding one as I thought it shows the double deck layout to advantage. I also moved several of the photos to the "Gallery" section as I thought they were less intrusive that way. --Guinnog 14:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I just checked and Boeing 747 has 15 pics and a layout diagram, so maybe there are too many on this article now. --Guinnog 14:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Our image policy has "Articles may get ugly and difficult to read if there are too many images crammed onto a page with relatively little text. They may even overlap." Clearly this is not the case here, yet. --Guinnog 14:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so I removed a few per Ben's advice above, and added what I find a striking picture of the landing gear, with a guy standing in front of it to give the scale. I also moved the gallery under the media section-- it used to live under specifications, which didn't make much sense. I hope those changes are reasonable. --Ctillier 06:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm really pleased with the way the article has shaped up. I wouldn't say that there are too many pictures, as this is an article where pictures can tell a story that words cannot, and I particularly like the photographs and diagrams that show the distinctive features of the aircraft. The comparitive size diagram is an excellent one, as is the cross-section. The landing gear photograph is a great example of details unique to the A380. The gallery section shows the aircraft in various configurations, but I can see that we need to guard against "happy snaps" that essentially duplicate existing material. Unless, of course, they are of superior quality. Future possibilities are interior photographs, showing seating, staircases, casinos and bowling alleys (or whatever Virgin Atlantic chooses to install), but we'll probably have to wait until 2007 before we can get free photographs, though we may be able to use some press releases from Airbus and Singapore Airlines. There are videos showing the evacuation test. Can we use stills from that video, I wonder? --Jumbo 19:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Too technical?

I may accused of attempting to "dumb down" the project however I think the advanced materials/Advanced avionics architecture/Systems sections need to be simplified. I have more than a passing interest in aviation, however the section makes me want to fall asleep. Just me? Mark83 16:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think there's anything wrong with the Advanced Materials section - it's kept fairly brief and none of the information there is inaccessable to the lay person. The Avionics and Systems sections could perhaps do with some editing, although as this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia article rather than a brief overview (plenty of those elsewhere) I'd be sorry to lose too much of the technical detail. --Yummifruitbat 17:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Mangan Allegations

See WP:RS for why eaawatch.net (apparently Mangan's personal website) is not a reputable source. In any case, the paragraph in dispute is redundant with the first paragraph in the Cabin Pressurization section, which already states Mangan's thesis. Besides, the "brain damage or death" phrase is somewhat over the top. Ctillier 05:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that this appears to have no corroboration whatsoever, why is this section here? Are we to list every disgruntled ex-employee's unproven allegation? Nordicremote 23:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible additions

I have recently visited the A380 facility and have the following info that could easily be added in. Obviously people may want to find references for verifications - at the moment I am not in the position to do so myself.

  1. 15 aircraft have been finished to date. 2 of them have already been dispatched (i.e. Singapore Airlines already have the aircraft, they just can't use them coz the certification is not due until November).
  2. The assembly facility consists of 3 hangars. The large one is used to assemble the actual parts - one aircraft at a time. Then it is towed to one of the other two hangars for connecting the circuitry, installing the interior, fixing in the titanium latches for the engines and the engines themselves, painting, etc. Each hangar has a capacity of 3 aircraft, worked upon simultaneously.
  3. The assembly facility churns out 5 aircraft a month. The total time taken to build one of these babies (i.e. including the parts) is around 19 months.

In a discussion with a colleague, I was told that on the maiden (test?) flight, the pilot was very finicky about the fact that the rear wheels / landing gear, which as per specification open down by mere gravity, stayed 5 seconds still before opening. He forced them to oil it up, add animal grease to it... they cut it down to 3 sec. The pilot then accepted to take off, though requiring that the issue be solved after the flight.

└ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 02:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Maybe the dynamics in an airstream are different to what you get in a static test on the ground? This is something you'd really want to know about before you took off! --Jumbo 23:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I saw a programme which featured that problem. In the event of hydraulic failure the wheels are supposed to be able to be released, push the doors open and lock. However they were sticking on the doors. The grease was a makeshift solution I think. A long term solution was a new material on the inside of the doors to reduce friction and allow the wheels to slide over them. Mark83 13:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Development History

I was trying another copy edit of this section and decided that it could use a complete rewrite. The chronology was confusing, and the section seemed to say more about the 747 than the A380. I have attempted to rewrite it without making the article longer, and without leaving out any factual information that it used to contain. I based some of the information on the book by Norris and Wagner cited at the bottom of the article. Feedback and improvements welcome. --Ctillier 05:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Engine selection figures.

Section 2.2 of this article states that "the Engine Alliance GP7201 sales total has since surpassed the Trent 900's by a sizable margin". However, according to this press release from airbus [8], dated 25/08/06, there are 82 firm EA orders, out of a total of 159 firm orders. This should mean that there are 77 firm RR orders surely. I wouldn't call 5 orders a 'sizable margin'. Also why don't these figures match those shown in the table of orders near the bottom of the article? Abc30 14:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Some airframes have not yet had their engines selected (see order tables). But I agree with you that the margin is not really "sizable"... I would be in favor of dropping the whole sentence. Up to you! --Ctillier 20:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Drop the Tsunami Tidbit?

The trade pressure on Thailand item in the 'Technical Concerns' section is not a technical concern and doesn't really fit with the other items in that section of the article. It seems altogether rather minor and not something one would expect to be in the article 5 years from now. Furthermore, the Scotsman article, which appears to be the only source for this tidbit, is a shoddy piece of journalism-- the headline and lead paragraphs sensationally imply the Thais were told to buy six airplanes after the tsunami, when in fact they had already ordered them well before the tsunami. That changes the whole tenor of the situation, doesn't it? I move that we drop this item entirely... but I don't want to do this without discussion. What do you all think? --Ctillier 05:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of any comments, I have removed this section... if you wish to revert, please provide the rationale in this space. --Ctillier 02:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It was very dodgy and not backed up by any other story. If there was anything in it, the U.S. press would have been all over it. --Jumbo 22:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)