Talk:Airbus A380

Wing fatigue cracks

What about adding the manufacturing defects in many of the first a380s for singapore airlines and quantis where the wings are getting fatigue cracks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.40.201 (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the article now with this article as a reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Sukhoi_Superjet_100#Vote_on_flag_removal

This voting about flags and country info in orders might concern even this article. Tagremover (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Lufthansa buying both 747-8i & Airbus A380

It's curious that Lufthansa is the only airline to buy both, and worth an analysis in the article if any facts are known - is it related to the terminals they use ? Rcbutcher (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I am quite certain that Lufthansa's buying decision hinges on numerous factors, including but not limited to overall costs to benefit ratio (Please refer to Aircraft Direct/Indirect Operating Costs for more information). Airport sizes may have implications, however this is not their (airline's) responsibility and falls to the airport managers to address the issues. The analysis may be irrelevant to the A380 post. 146.87.52.53 (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Anon.

Also keep in mind that lots of airlines buy both nowadays. Take a look at how many airlines buy both a350's and 787's. And what about American airlines who bought a320neo and b737max (Why not only at one manufacturer, the discount would be higher right?) or Norwegian airlines with their mega order, again split between airbus AND boeing...Njirk (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Their seating is slightly different. The A380 can seat 525, while the 747-8 seats 467 in typical 3-class configurations. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Wing-clip incident between AF A380 and Comair CRJ700 at JFK

Although minor incidents are not supposed to be mentioned in the Incident and Accident section of the article I did decide to add it there. Not so much because the incident itself was that large (no fatalities or serious injuries and the structural damage to both planes was relative small as well) but because of the main discussion (mainly in the US and maybe fueled by Boeing) that the A380 is to large to be handled safely, especially on some airports. The taxi-ways at JFK are officially to small (narrow) to handle the wingspan of the A380 and JFK can only receive those flights because they have a special exempt-permit to do so. This discussion is imho reason enough to mention this incident as it could have major consequences to the operation of the A380 if they loose their permit to fly to airports where the taxiways aren't equipped to handle them. Tonkie (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The wing clipping with a CRJ700 was previously discussed at length. See Talk:Airbus A380/Archive 6#11 April 2011 A380 incident. The consensus was that it was a minor incident. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Fnlayson had already removed above mentioned incident as non-notable. As I also mentioned above I do think that the incident IS notable: not for the small collission between these two jets, but the effect it had on the (Boeing led) lobby to keep the A380 away from some of the most important destinations in the USA. On Fnlayson talk page I reacted to his removal and asked to discuss this: either mention something under incidents, or maybe better on another section of the A380 page as it says also something about the fierce competition and fight between Airbus and Boeing and how far the parties will go to make it difficult for the others to do business. So if you have any ideas on that please comment here... Any thoughts are welcome.

And to Fnlayson: further study of the history learned me indeed that it was discussed in length - so I do fully understand why you removed it without discussing it again: that was done already. Nevertheless I still do think that the discussion about banning the A380 from some (US) airports should be discussed and there a reference to this incident and the NTSB comments on it should be found. But again: I have no intention to start any edit-war so I would love to reach some concensus with the main contributers to this page how to handle this "controversy" (which is,as said, probably fueled by Boeing). Thanks again, Tonkie (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

And one last comment on you mentioning that it sounds like a conspiracy: that would be if someone claimed that Boeing had paid Air France to hit the Comair on purpose (or 2 months later repeat the action at Paris airshow): that I don't believe at all - but I do think that Boeing would very much like it when the A380 would be banned from (US) airports with narror runways, such as JFK. Tonkie (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

My main problem with this entry is that other planes, the Boeing 747 and Airbus A330, or even just the 737, have been involved in wing-clip incidents - It would be blatent WP:Undue weight to not list the collision incidents on the other aircraft but only that of the A380. Either they should all get incidents mentioned, or the A380 shouldn't have these incidents mentioned at all, which would be equal treatment. A rather fun statistical appearence is that the CRJ700 has been involved in many times more wing-clip incidents than the A380 - perhaps that should be made a big deal out of! Kyteto (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the initial post in this section, I would just like to warn against speculation about possible future events. Thanks. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 16:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

@All - I do agree that wingclippings have happened with other type aircraft (less spanwidth) but the design of -in this example- of the taxiways at JFK didn't take a plane like A380 into consideration and these wingclips can happen even when each plane is in a seperate (parrellel) (taxi) way, while I think that the other winclips probably happened because planes didn't stay on their own path (eg directly around dthe gates and not while craft are passing eachother in different/seperate ways). Although I did see a documentary or newsstory where a (former?) Boeing design engineer and a lawyer of whom was said he was paid by Boeing I can't find this video (not sure in which programma I saw it); the only videos and/or statements I can find only report the incident in itself, which -I agree- on itself is not that notable. So because I can't find proper proof for the "war on size" fueled by or on behalf of Boeing I won't add the above discussed info for now: this until I do find the sources about Boeing (ab)using the event to get the A380 banned or restricted on airports: So not because I think that this info shouoldn't be in the article but because I can't find the proper sources to make this hardly notable event notable. Discussion closed? (for now)?? Tonkie (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

In the A380/CRJ700 incident at JFK, the CRJ700 was parked 15-20 meters away from its correct parking position, and that is the only cause of the collision, it had nothing to do with the fact that the other aircraft involved was an A380 or the runway being to close from the parking stands. Discussion closed, I agree. Slasher-fun (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Image change

I have decided to change the thumbnail of this article, to a more recent photo of an Airbus A380 operated by Qantas. These Airbuses have been widely covered on the news and international media due to the recent problems with engine and turbine explosions. I believe that a newer image such as this will allow the viewers of the article to understand what the Airbuses look like and will be able to relate to the recent events. This image also provides a better look at the fuselage and wing spans of the aircraft as it has been taken in such a position where the wings do not cover much of the image and block out views of the main fuselage area, such as on the Emirates photo. Now that Qantas has signed a 10-year partnership with Emirates Airlines, due to start early 2013, I figured that it did not matter which airline operates the aircraft in the image, as it is flown alongside the Emirates branded A380s. If you wish to change the articles thumbnail back, please at least leave a reason why, as I have no idea what is wrong with the current, newer, clearer image, that manages to show more of the aircraft. The older Emirates photo has half of the back and tail of the fuselage covered as the wing is in the viewing angle. The image was sourced from the Wkimedia Commons and does not appear to have any copyright or reproduction restrictions on it. John.dinsdale (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Changes to the main image in the infobox should be discussed and agreement reached first. I believe that Qantas image was used previously for the main image [for whatever that's worth]. The image in the Infobox image should be one that best shows the aircraft, and not about current events. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you mean? When you say that the Qantas image was previously used, why was it changed? Its a better photo than the current Emirates photo on the scale of photo quality and camera angles. You seem confused as to the standard of the photo. The photo I have selected of a Qantas operated A380, displays more of the actual aircraft, as stated in the firstplace. The Emirates image is partially ruined due to the fact that the left wing is covering and hiding a substantial amount of the rear fuselage and it cuts of a bit of the tail. The image too, looks discoloured compared to the Qantas image that shows full white colours. The Qantas image too is newer and therefore includes the modifications made by Airbus. It is good to keep an article refreshed containing current content, instead of older content. I am sorry, I did not realise these things had to be discussed as many things have been changed before on this website without prior agreement. Would we be able to somehow ask the editors on here as too which image they prefer so that we can reach an agreement? Thanks. John.dinsdale (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You can check on previous discussions on changing the main image in the archive using the search box near the top. Usually someone finds an image that is better or from a different angle, etc. Either the Qantas image you wanted or another Qantas image was the main image for a few months a while back. Singapore and Emirates have also had images there. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I have read through a few of the top archives based on changing the info box image and have found many have wanted to change it due to quality, camera angle, advertising because of aircraft livery and agree that some of the reasons behind wanting to change it were quite absurd. However, I have found this image of a Qantas A380 taking off from Perth International Airport and I believe this is an improvement on the current image shown in comparison below.

• 
  Current Infobox Image
• 
  Proposed Infobox Image

John.dinsdale (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)