Jump to content

Talk:Airbus A350/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

NPOV

I question the NPOV of this article, since it seems negatively slanted against Airbus. The focus is almost entirely on the negative aspects. For example: Doubt is cast about the Eur3.5 billion price tag and it is implied that the A350 is nothing but part of a FUD campaign. This is done by quoting unnamed authorities ("many industry and financial analysts"), which is a fallacy.

The factual accuracy of the article also leaves to be desired. For example, given that Boeing hoped to have 200 orders for the 7E7 by the end of 2004 but only got 52 (50 of which come from a single airline) (Reuters) it does not seem accurate to talk about "strong preliminary sales of the 7E7".

Removed POV tag as the above doesn't seem related to the current article. Also, please try to remember to include your username and a time-stamp. Dan100 18:53, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, looks good to me. Jeroen 12:58, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Respectfully, it is not OK. The sales are not the point, and it is OK not to consider this aspect; agree with that one so far.

The NPOV of this Article, nevertheless, remains questionable. Still, Airbus is the only one blamed therein for receiving Government backings, which reflects the Boeing position only.

The Airbus argument, however, is for instance that majority of these backings airbus receives are not a present, but are repayable, and Boeing receives tax relief/tax aids outside regular writeoffs, which are not just a deferral, but just another form of subsidy on the business results after all.

The arguments on the Airbus side remain completely unmentioned, which makes this article clearly biased to one party's, i.e. Boeing's, point of view, thus discrediting Airbus.

Also, this rather political aspect, taking place on international level, is nothing which concerns the Aircraft A350 and its technology itself. In fact, this Boeing vs. Airbus dispute arose before official announcement of the A350. It actually derives from A380 financing. If anywhere, this dispute should be mentioned in the article about the companies, but not in an article about the product.

I recommend that any statements about backings/financing be removed, or at elast altered to objectively reflect the full story. Airbus, and also the European Union, have also made their statements to the WTO. A WTO decision is not yet finanlised, it is even not sought for by the American side; talks are ongoing. This shows that the story is not that easy. The article should remain a neutral focus on the Aircraft itself.

Cheers,

Airplanedude 26-DEC-2004 20:04 PST (sorry not username yet.)

I think it is possible to discuss the controversy between Airbus/EU and Boeing/US without loosing NPOV, but I agree that the focus of the article should be the airplane, not the politics surrounding it. I propose a format similar to that used for the other Airbus planes: History, Technology, Variants, Specifications. The Boeing/Airbus dispute can be discussed in the History section.

Jeroen 08:36, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I did a fairly substantial revision of the article. Tried to make it more NPOV by rewriting some of the disputed paragraphs about the US/EU trade dispute and rearranged the information into 4 chapters.

Jeroen 09:51, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Now this is good. Thanks for your work and time; my Job Situation does not allow me to write something up myself Aerospace Products. sorry. However, thanks a lot Jeroen. -Airplanedude 20:36, Jan 03, 2005

I have to back your observation, the article as it is currently is very neutral. I think the financing war is unwarranted since both companies are guilty. The only diffrence is how well they have managed to hide the financing. Airbus fail hopelessly here as the transaction is very obvious. Boeing is financed in a very tricky way. An article that handled Boeing financing very well is this article [1]

NPOV questioned: "Since the A350's introduction, the 787 has outsold it by a factor of over 10:1." I do see two problems with this sentence: First, I miss the exact and complete list of preliminary sales for the A350. Second, if the preliminary sales are compared wouldn’t it more appropriate to compare only the part of contracts that were closed after both airliner programs were communicated? Therefore, I ask to delete this sentence or to introduce a more NPOV into this article. Thanks. MikeZ 21:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have just deleted the same passage before I saw this discussion. I too take objection to the 10:1 sales figure. It misrepresents the state of the competition for 7E7/A350 size jets, the A350 spec will not even by fully defined until late Feb/March 2005. Boeing's early lead is just that, an early lead due to the few years head start it has had for marketing. Further, while Boeing may (and probably will) outsell the A350 it will be nothing like a 10:1 ratio in the long term. Mark 00:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • From the launch at Dec.2004 to update are 5 month and Airbus have only 10 orders for the A350. The Boeing 787 has in the same time after the launch ( april 2004 - aug.2004 ) 62 Orders plus 66 optinos.

13:24, April,28th,2005. DEF

Wishful thinking

From what I read in this article, it seems unlikely that this plane will ever exist. Ten airplanes? That's nothing. CoolGuy 16:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, what is possible is that the A350 may not exist as described in this article. To this point, it has been clobbered in the marketpalce by the Boeing 787, mainly because the A350 is seen as not being aggressive enough of a competitor. Much like the Sonic Cruiser became the 787, I would guess that the A350 (as currently proposed) will give way to a new product. The difference is that the Sonic Cruiser suffered for being too forward-thinking, whereas the A350 is suffering for not being forward-thinking enough. Just imagine Airbus' dilemma had the Sonic Cruiser actually been accepted by the marketplace. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:43, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

New Orders

I added an order by TAM announced on June 16th, 2005. I also revised the official order count based on the press release. I also removed the following line:

  • However, these list of orders are viewed widely with skepticism. Many experts believe that the A350 could not hold up to the all-new design of the Boeing 787

These orders are as firm as any aircraft orders (whether they be Boeing, Airbus, etc.)--there are no degrees of "firmness", unless one wishes to qualify the individual companies making the orders (US Airways, for example, cancelled their massive order for Embraer aircraft, so it can happen). While the second statement may very well be true (I at least lean towards it), to preserve NPOV, it's better to link these claims to the actual experts (IE: articles) than to leave them unfounded.--Dali-Llama 19:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Anyone think this link "Airbus' plans for new plane hint of vapor trail" should also go? It's outdated and the claims appear to be much more likely to be incorrect. Incidently, the article was also wrong about Boeing since they have now apparently decided to make the 747-8. Having said that, the Seattle PI paper appears to be very pro-Boeing, perhaps not surprising given Boeing is a Seattle company. An opinion piece of theirs I came across earlier appears to show a similar bias http://seattlepi.com/opinion/249208_boeing22.html Nil Einne 20:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is most definitely not pro-Boeing. They have a habit of raking Boeing over the coals. I suppose you think the Chicago Tribune is pro-Richard Daley, too, don't you? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Similarity A330/A350

There seems to be a real bone of contention about this phrase:

... Airbus was forced to commit 4 billion Euros to a mostly new design. While the A350 superficially resembles the A330, they only share a few components. The only commonality with the A330 is the cockpit and flight characteristics to preserve the common pilot type rating.

as opposed to

...to a differnent derivative design. The A350 superficially resembles the A330 and they share components.

To my knowledge, the first is the more accurate statement. The information from Airbus [2] clearly indicates that they're greatly upgrading the cockpit (to A380 technology), redesigning the wing, putting in a new generation of engine, putting in a new tailplane, tweaking the overall aerodynamics and upgrading the interior systems. They're rebuilding large chunks of the plane in composites (probably not as much as the 787, but still a considerable amount). While the fuselage exterior will probably stay the same (it hasn't changed since the A300), there will likely be considerable differences between the A330 and the A350. If you look at the published expected stats from Boeing and Airbus, you'll see that the two planes are expected to have broadly similar performances - that should give an indication how much difference there is between the A330 and A350. — QuantumEleven | (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur. While it may share individual components (Much like Boeing fuselage Section 41), the fact that a new wing has been designed greatly alters the aircraft. Despite the A330 and A340 sharing the same fuselage, no one calls it an "updated design". Even the fuselage, in this case, has been severely altered to incorporate new materials. Like most aircraft from the same manufacturer, they are bound to share visual commonalities and components. In this case, the use of new composite materials, a new wing and new engines do not warrant the "updated design" label, much like the A340 could not be called an "updated" version of the A330. I think we are really underestimating how its performance and capabilities changed with a new wing and new engines (and from an aerospace engineering perspective the wing is certainly the biggest challenge when designing a new airplane). It takes off 15 tons heavier than the A330 and, model dependent, has 3,000km to 4,000km more in range. All this with the promise by Airbus to do it cheaper. --Dali-Llama 01:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

List of potential customers

The 787 and 747-8 articles lists some potential customers for those models. I personally think this article should have a similar list. Potential customers for the A350 I believe include United (very split between 787 and A350), Emirates, Ethiad, and possibly British Airways. American and Delta probably not, as they obviously prefer Boeing aircraft. Andros 1337 22:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

We need to nix this list on here and Boeing 787 entirely. It's a whole lot of unwarranted speculation. Might as well list anyone who has not placed an order for either of these aircraft. I suggest we either delete the list or at least pare it back to major contests in the press (SQ, EK, etc.) Comment at Talk:Boeing 787#Potential customers list instead. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 10:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I really have to disagree about United Airlines. United already flies the 777 and the new (as of May 2006)version of the A350 will be larger and more directly a competitor of the 777. It doesn't make any sense at all for United to buy the A350.

Firm orders or commitments

The "orders" table should distinguish between firm orders with a signed contract (which is about 50) and commitments/letters of intent/memoranda of understanding (which is about 125). The Boeing 787 order table is a good example of this, with the pink color coding.

Why are the cancelled orders not included in this table? The B787 page includes the 3 cancelled planes.

Article redesign in view of recent events

It seems this article is now in need of a major overhaul, with this news: [3][4]. Where to even start? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. The A350 has essentially been scrapped in its current form. Also, Qatar has publicly stated that it will not be placing an order for its 60 aircraft until Airbus actually settles on a design. They are leaving the possibility open of placing orders for the Boeing 787 since it will enter service 4 years before any redesighned A350. [5] [6]

There needs to be a section in this article talking about all of the different versions of the A350 that Airbus has put forth. Also, there should be a discussion of how this plane was really just designed as an attempt to slow 787 sales. I find it amusing how the Boeing 787 article is written by smug Airbus aficionados who criticize the Sonic Cruiser and Boeing 747X while this article fails to mention how the A350 has been nothing more than a "paper" airplane since its beginning.

I have rushed in where angels fear to tread :-) and started the overhaul process. I think the "main" article needs to focus on the A350 as now proposed (A350XWB) and the specs of the "original" version need to be either deleted or farmed out to another article ("A350 original version"). Ecozeppelin 11:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be handled a little like the 787 article. The difference is that the changes to the 787 were evolutionary, where as the A350 had between four and six (depending upon how you count it) iterations:

A370

"This new aircraft has tentavley been called A370."

I think this needs a reference, all sources I have been able to find that discuss and a370 in the vein of a further development of the a350 seem to point to blogs or forum posts. I've yet to establish a primary source that would be considered wiki worthy. If one can be added it would be great, if not I'm unsure it is worth including. 144.136.232.199 07:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC) skyskraper 07:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is there any discussion about an airplane that has no basis in fact? Airbus still calls its planned aircraft, the All New A350. Why not simply wait until Airbus announces thier plans? --user:mnw2000 16:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was the comparison table removed?

The comparison table of other relevant aircraft removed? I don't see why the Specifications section needed to be completely deleted. --Smacksaw 13:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

To make room for the A350-1000 and its rival, the 777-300ER. The 787-3 and the 787-8 are not really comparable (especially the 787-3) as they are smaller than the A350-800. Andros 1337 01:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Orders

Have the old orders been nullfied? If so, we need to redo the table. Only Kingfisher and Finnair have confirmed to stay with the new A350XWB. Andros 1337 20:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that the old Orders table is null and void except in cases where the carrier explicitly clarified that they were still going to take delivery (Finnair, ILFC.) Therefore, the numbers are meaningless. Perhaps we could include a footnote for carriers that have stated that they will take the XWB. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
We can't decide for ourselves that the old orders are null and void! I agree we should be very clear that the aircraft is different from the one the carriers ordered, however until they say "no, we're cancelling" I think the fair thing is to assume they will keep their orders. I can't see any cancelling as Airbus are bound to offer sweeteners for them to stick with the project (e.g. A350XWB at A350 prices). Mark83 18:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
According to Flight International, not every existing order is a sure thing: [7] —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
As if to back it up, TAM ordered some 777s to cover for the A350 problems.[8] —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A350XWB vs A350

It looks to me like the "XWB" is more of a marketing tool than the actual model number. All of the model numbers I've seen still use just "A350-(model)" and not "A350XWB-(model)". As all of the relevant information is already in the main A350 article I'd prefer to see the XWB article converted back into a link. As is it is redundant. If the official model is "A350XWB" then the "Airbus A350" article should be renamed to "Airbus A350XWB" thus preserving the edit history on the article. --StuffOfInterest 15:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on all points. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. "XWB" is just a marketing designator - it's still the A350 aircraft, just the latest incarnation. So there shouldn't be a separate article, just an explanation of the evolution in the main A350 article. Ecozeppelin 15:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both. This is why I originally tried to "prod" the XWB article. Someone else decided to be bold. The original author of the XWB article will have to be convinced. I really don't want to clog up AfD with more clutter. The Airbus A370 article is already over there. --StuffOfInterest 15:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As a semi-related note, we are going to have to go through some of Burbank's other contributions. A quick look at a few of his edits showed things such as changing "specifications" to "leading particulars". Just doesn't sound right. -StuffOfInterest 15:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a difficult call. As a physical design it is a whole new aircraft, with new cross-section, new wings, new engines, etc. But it's a replacement for the old A350, with the same design team, same marketing, etc. From the airlines POV, it's a tweak, but from Airbus POV it's all-new. The "Fat-boy" XWB is a marketing name, much like the Dreamliner, but the design behind it is pretty solid now. - dSpammer 20:00, 12 August, 2006 (BST)

User:DSpammer's edits

I realized that I am coming close to WP:3RR, but DSpammer is making some questionable edits, so I'll stop reverting. Can we please stop with the hyperbole and whitewashing? This user has done damage to Airbus NSR in the past. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

His most recent edit has to do with the interior cabin width compared to the 787. Do you have any reference you can point me to on if the difference will be 3" or 6"? If so, I'll be glad to revert out his edit (while hopefully preserving the followon editor's reference addition). --StuffOfInterest 21:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I was using hyperbole & whitewashing - I certainly didn't mean to! I guess it's all down to your POV - I thought I was *removing* hyperbole, not adding it. I guess in general I'm pro-Airbus, whereas you're pro-Boeing. I've always tired to be as neutral as I can. As for the 6" V 3", I'll dig out a reference as asap & link to it. - dSpammer 18:56, 12 August, 2006 (BST)

A350F cross-section

Why is the cross-section of the freighter version smaller (5,74) than that of the passenger versions(5,91)?--Arado 18:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of other aircraft

Does anybody else think that comparison of other aircraft belongs here? It's not mentioned in other articles (except Boeing 787, but I'll see if I can get it removed there, too), and if anybody wants, they could start a separate article for aircraft comparison. — Alex (T|C|E) 06:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems fair enough to include a comparison. It's interesting to see the differences with the models Airbus plans to spend €10B to compete with. Sure you can flip to the other articles but it's nicer to have the relevant models only and all displayed together. Nordicremote 22:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A350 Mark VI

OK, now we are on the sixth iteration of the A350: [9] —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

How about a section on the page with a description of all six iterations? user:mnw2000 18:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, how about having a section called "A350 Designs"? We can then have paragraph for each design or a chart to show the differences between the designs.? user:mnw2000 17:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. To further clarify the designs I listed above, here are the six major incarnations:
  1. A330-200Lite
  2. A330-200Lite + GEnx/T1700, now badged as the A350
  3. A350, initial GLARE incarnation, 2010 EIS
    • Above with wider interior cabin (couple of inches)
  4. Above with A380 cockpit (this modification alone added several months delay)
  5. A350 XWB, GLARE version, 2012 EIS
  6. A350 XWB, CFRP version, 2013 EIS —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
There are a couple of sources claiming this is the 6th iteration but neither go into any detail. Clearly the plane has changed much over time but those changes are given in the description. Why do we need a list of the 6 when there have been many more than 6 changes to the design and it is rather arbitrary to allocate verison numbers to some changes and not others? I see no value in this list and suggest it is removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.48.0.60 (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
In light of the recent sources posted by Joseph to the article, I believe the list should be reinstated, perhaps as a small table. THe A-350 has undergone many changes sinces its announcement, and the list helps to summarize these changes. - BillCJ 16:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
This article, if true, would represent Mark VII: a switch to unitary monolithic CFRP barrels (a la 787), as opposed to the riveted CFRP panels on Mark VI. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, are you sure of the six iterations? I know some people don't care what J. Leahy says, but "Leahy also laughed off the A350’s multiple re-births: “Everyone was writing that we redesigned the aircraft six or seven times. We didn’t. We redesigned it three times, and that was enough.”" http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/27/213527/airbus-managers-show-their-gallows-humour.html Maybe some of the changes are "minor" changes, something that continues to happen as the plane is designed, the nose, for example, is going to be like the one of the A380 http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/06/12/214536/playing-catch-up-no-room-for-delays-of-the-airbus-a350.html (this is a good article about the actual design) and the internal diameter is now to be 5.60 m, but it's still the A350XWB. I think it would be better to reduce the details of the erratic history and add details to the new version, that is what would be build and of interest. --Cirrocumulus 17:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

| This section was blatant OR, I'm surprised it lasted so long. The source says this is the sixth iteration of the A350 but only details a couple. I have removed this section as OR, please find a verifiable list of these six before reinstating.

"Two biggest customers"

I removed the bit about GECAS and ILFC being Airbus "two biggest customers", since they are really in a sense, only indirectly so as they're leasing companies, and in a sense only respond to the demands of airlines who lease from them. Also looking at fleet composition is also not a fair decider of "largest customer" since many of the planes owned by ILFC and GECAS were mostly bought from or negotiated in some form or another, after delievery to another customer (a number of airlines have sold their aircraft to GECAS and ILFC and then simply leased them back). It's also fair to notice that ILFC and GECAS orders for newer airplanes (the Boeing 777, the A350, and the A380) have been outpaced by other airlines, and in the case of the Boeing 787 ILFC is only a handful of frames away from most other airlines ordering the craft (GECAS is also conspicously absent form the order list). The point being, individual airlines, especially Asian carriers such as Singapore, and Middle Eastern Airlines such as Qatar and Emirates, make up a far larger concern of Airbus. SiberioS 18:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

GECAS and ILFC throw around a lot of weight. The EU was so afraid of GECAS that this was the reason the GE-Honeywell merger was scuttled. In any case, the statement accurately captures the mood behind the situation. I think you're trying to argue specific points and this is really a Big Picture thing. I think it would be a mistake to assume that heavyweights like Udvar-Hazy and Hubschman to make all their decisions. At the same time, these statements are really GECAS and ILFC speaking on behalf of their customers. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, because its simply not FACTUALLY true, and perpetuates a myth that has been repeated adnauseum in many business articles that ILFC and GECAS somehow represent either a majority or even anywhere NEAR a stranglehold on the order of aircraft. Last time I checked, statements that aren't factually true aren't generally approved of on Wikipedia, and thats what this is. I wouldn't mind changing the text to "the two biggest airline leasing companies" or "major customers" but two biggest customers is just FACTUALLY WRONG.24.88.79.249 20:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I assume you are the same person. In any case, the chosen text is per the cited links, and simple examination of the respective manufacturers' order pages bears this data out. Nowhere does it say "majority" or "stranglehold" -- just that they are the "biggest customers." A simple look at the number of Boeing and Airbus aircraft ordered by these two firms is a testament to this fact. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The moniker is still specious, but I'm not willing to push it into a tit for tat. Looking at orders for 2006, GECAS and ILFC are not Airbus' largest customers, and even looking at other models and their orders/delieveries, they will be outpaced by other individual airlines with all Airbus fleets for historical purchases from Airbus, as well as for the next few years will be outpaced by orders from other Airlines. I still don't think that the moniker is applicable, or even particuarly useful (especially in light of the Emirates A380 negotiations which shows, monetarily, Airbus is most concerned with pleasing). SiberioS 21:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
GECAS and ILFC were often cited as two of the main voices of opposition to the abandonment of the original A350 concept, and hence two of the main drivers for the relaunched A350. Mark83 20:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

XWB Fuselage in carbon fiber, not Al-Li

The Fuselage section of the article should be updated because the A350-XWB will no longer use Al-Li skin.

Carbon fiber will be used. The discussion now is whether to use four panels to build the fuselage on aluminium frames or to use a single barrel construction like the B787.

If someone with more detailed information could please update the article.

Thank you. Steveq34 17:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can list the reference here, I'll take a look at the source, and see what we can do. Thanks - BillCJ 17:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
For the four shells concept (for reparability) I have this reference:

http://www.eads.com/xml/content/OF00000000400004/7/19/41508197.pdf Steveq34 17:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

For the possible switch to the solid barrel concept, I have the following reference: http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=7727 Steveq34 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

XWB fuselage update

THere is a report at http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=9009 that Airbus is finally changing to an all-composite barrel fuselage, and may announce at the Paris AIr show (June?). However, the report and date adjustments made to the article today by user:Aston2012 were unsourced and premature, and were rightly reverted. Wiki is not a breaking news site, so it's probably best we wait until Airbus makes the official announcement, so we can accurately repot how much "crow" they've had to eat :) - BillCJ 21:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been denied twice in recent days by high ranking Airbus spokesmen (Gallois and Leahy) ( http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/116017.asp ), however maybe there should be a related 'rumours' section or page for these type of unsubstantiated but likely rumours? - AnAnonymousLogin 09:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Old Orders

I propose we get rid of the old A350 orders table. The old A350 is gone. However we should still have a writeup about its beginnings and how it came to be XWB but eliminate the old orders table. We should just have the new orders table and delete all the old customers. If they move on to the new plane, then add them.--Bangabalunga 17:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur. - BillCJ 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, currently the old orders are still under contract and Airbus will not be in breach of them until either 1. they miss the delivery dates for that order, or 2. they miss a contractual checkpoint in the design and production under that contract. We should not randomly delete them from the article because they still exist as liabilities on Airbuses bottom line, and they will continue to do so until either they are cancelled or they are converted. The old orders table should stay, with an indication of whether or not they have converted or cancelled. - AnAnonymousLogin 10:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The orders have all been moved to the new List of Airbus A350 orders page, in line with the similar List of Boeing 787 orders page. THe new page still includes the old orders. Please take up any further discussion of the old orders on Talk:List of Airbus A350 orders. - BillCJ 18:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Composite frame

I added the following: There are early reports from September 2007 that Airbus now plans to use a composites placed over a composite frame instead of an aluminium-lithim frame as previously planned. [25] Differential expansion of a metal frame compared with composite skins was anticipated to be a problem with the old design but a metal frame was simpler to build using the exisiting Airbus infrastructure.

I used this preliminary report http://www.designnews.com/blog/380000238/post/860014486.html . If confirmed, the more definitive citation found should be added as well as changing parts of the article (such as the introduction) to reflect the change.

Archtrain 15:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A350 XWB List Prices

Boeing included list prices for their aiplanes on their website (boeing.com). I can't seem to find list pricing for the A350XWB. Is anyone able to provide this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Update to Boeing/Airbus dispute and military contracts

The New York Times reported that the World Trade Organization is getting ready to rule against Airbus on a number of Boeing's complaints; the article also goes into an important economic reality that would blunt the effect of any ruling - namely, that both jet makers already farm many parts of new airplanes out to many countries. For example, 35% of the 787 is actually built in Japan. See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/business/global/04wto.html?hpw

On another topic, both Boeing and Airbus benefit from military contracts. Airbus' parent, EADS, has military contracts, including the A400M transport project; Airbus cannot seriously make the claim that only Boeing benefits from building weapons.

Perhaps more article editing is in order.Raryel (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"parallel cross-section width from door 1 to door 4"

That is clumsy English, I think. Does it mean the cross-section doesn't change in shape or size over that part of the aircraft? Perhaps it means that the width is constant but not other dimensions? Grassynoel (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It was very unclear. If door 1 and 4 are shown in this image File:A350xwb_nose_2009B.png, then the width is constant, but the height is not. So I changed it from "parallel cross-section width from door 1 to door 4" to "constant width from door 1 to door 4". -Fnlayson (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Composite fuselage

In light of the problems Boeing is having with composite fueslage panels for the 787, has there been any word from Airbus on whether the A350 might have similar problems, or how they might avoid them? - BilCat (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Airbus is using composite panels, which are bolted together to form the fuselage sections. More bolt together pieces this way, but is more like conventional aluminum construction. Airbus will probably do more structural testing sooner in the design process. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It would be good to have a section of the article compare and contrast the composite design and assembly approaches used by Boeing and Airbus - each has pluses and minuses.Raryel (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Will probably have to wait until more info comes out. More will probably come out on the A350 around the time of its roll out and first flight. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

A330 Image

The unrelated A330 image has been removed by myself and another editor but has been restored. Propose that as it has nothing to do with the A350 it should be removed. The vague could be replaced by the A350 is not a valid reason for inclusion it adds no value to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's silly. What's the point of having a photo of a different airliner just to say "Many aircraft of type X have been ordered by business Y. Here's an exterior photo of a different aircraft, type Z, painted in Y's colours."
A lot of articles for airliners tend to get overwhelmed with lots of similar photos, but this one is a little sparse since the usual frenzy of images of a real aircraft type in flight is not yet possible. Are there any other images we could add? Design, manufacturing, interior, ...? A330 has ten photos of which all 10 are photos of the aircraft exterior; there are no images concentrating on cockpit or cabin, manufacturing process, or particular structures or components, or even a lineup, or some image of an A330 in the context of broader airport operations. I'd hate to see the A350 article go the same way. bobrayner (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The A330 and A350 are related. The A350 is to replace the A330, at least to some degree. An early A350 design was a derivative of the A330. One of these points could be mentioned in the image caption and if needed referenced. -fnlayson (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Are there any usable (in terms of licensing) images of that early phase of A350 design? bobrayner (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The A350 is a vastly different aircraft than the A340 familly - though they may seem similar at a glance, they are completely different aircraft. Therefore, a picture of the A330 in this article can only be qualified as misplaced.--DragonFly31 (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The original A350 design was not vastly different though. The image was near that part of this article. But it does not really matter. The image has been removed and not added back. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Key words and timeline

Primary (high-importance) key words
  • Boeing 787 Dreamliner
  • Airbus A330
  • composite material
  • Trent XWB
  • fuselage width
  • Qatar Airways, launch customer
  • Enx-1A-72
  • fuel efficiency
Seconday (mid-importance) key words
  • wing
  • cost of programme
  • early customers (besides Qatar Airways)
  • cockpit
  • A350-800
  • A350-900
  • A350-1000
  • Boeing 777-300ER

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs) on 23 May 2011

Not sure is this a question ? MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
What is this here for? -Compdude123 (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I was planning a string of edit, and this helped me to include the important aspects of the A350 using keywords. I haven't added the timeline, though Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 01:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Schedule slips on big projects - infobox

For giant projects such as a jetliner, skyscraper, or canal, would it make sense to have an infobox entry: introduction date (original), and introduction date (current as of DDMMYY)? There could conceivably be a category for total delay. I mention this here as there was an announcement today of further delays, but the idea applies to any large project or manufactured item. Fotoguzzi (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Better to cover these things in the text so there is explanation, etc. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Fuel Capacity of A350-800

The fuel capacity as per the Airbus website is 138,000 lts. It is listed as 129,000 lts on the wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winaiwiki (talk • contribs) 05:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we should wait for the real plane characteristics to be published. BadaBoom (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Inventing a word

We had "winglets" on Boeings, "sharklets" on A320. How about "sabrelets" for A350? BadaBoom (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ummmm, no I don't think so. Wikipedia isn't the place to invent new words that would only confuse people. The words "winglets" and "sharklets" were invented outside of Wikipedia. —Compdude123 15:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:Europe article importance - LOW!?!?

Airbus is one of the largest companies in EU and one of the core competitors on the aviation market. It employs 54 thousand Europeans. And A350 is the key model, which will define the company's well-being for the next 20-30 years. How can it be LOW? I believe it should be TOP or at least HIGH. BadaBoom (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Um, the aircraft hasn't been built yet, it has not flown yet, it has not entered airline service, it has not been covered that greatly compared to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner (which is rated "High"), it is not as ground-breaking as the B787, it is not iconic. Also, who said it would be crucial to Airbus? Once the aircraft makes its first flight and news coverage picks up, then I think the importance can be raised to "Medium". So far, nothing significant has occurred yet. Also, according to what you said above, Airbus should be, and is, rated "High", but not this article. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The third new airframe for the company in the past 50 years is hardly less important than a plastic plane that was 3 years late, don't you think? BadaBoom (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Although a new design, the A350 is not the first of a kind. The importance rating is for WP:Europe. That could be raised a notch or two, but it is not of High importance to Europe at this point, imo. WP:Aviation banner does not have an importance scale, btw. No reason to get into forecasting/crystal balling here. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes, I understand that. But actually, it IS one of a kind. It's the first airplane (the A350R) designed to connect ANY two cities in the world while being fully loaded - something B777 failed to achieve due to, I suspect, an "undocumented" design flaw. A350 is the first all-new two-engine wide-body design for Airbus. All that time, they've used the same A300 fuselage on ALL their widebody twins.
All that in mind, I just can't agree with "Low". Maybe "Top" is too much - until it flies. But let's at least up it to "High". BadaBoom (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this is the key product for Airbus. Maybe the A320 and the A380, but while this is important for airbus it is definitely not important enough to be of high importance to Europe. —Compdude123 15:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, it's definitely much more important now than A380. Even initally A380 was expected to barely break even, but with the delays and problems it has brought and still bringing on Airbus, I doubt A380 program is even profitable by now. A320 is their key model and the main bread-winner, but A350 MUST sell well, otherwise A320 sales won't cover the losses. BadaBoom (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
It's really important for EADS, no doubt on this but I agree it has a low importance for Europe. Europe is a continent, European Union is a political construction. This plane is not so important, it is not a symbol of the continent nor a structural element of the European Union. That's just one of many planes constructed in Europe. Europe will survive even if the plane does not fly. v_atekor (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Some Progress.

For the technoheads that visit pages such as this one, Airbus has released a picture of first power up of the flight deck: http://www.airbus.com/galleries/photo-gallery/filter/a350-xwb-family/cache/0/#open=galleries/photo-gallery/dg/idp/25459-a350-xwb-msn1-flight-deck/?backURL=galleries/photo-gallery/filter/a350-xwb-family/cache/0/

This is a bit of a milestone in its own right for more ... "business-oriented" followers of this aircraft. 139.168.114.150 (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This article's graphics have gotten very stale

Though the A350 is a dynamically developing project, this Wikipedia article's graphics look exactly the same as they did 3 years ago: the same artistic Etihad side-profile that appeared 3 years ago, and the same whitish-colored interior mockup that appeared 5 years ago. I don't have the expertise to find publishable sources, and I know Airbus is better about sharing stuff with the hobbyist community than Boeing, so certainly some talented person might be able to update the graphics. -Rolypolyman (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks much better now! -Rolypolyman (talk) 08:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Rename to Airbus A350 XWB

This article should be moved to Airbus A350 XWB, a la Boeing 787 Dreamliner. The press calls it the XWB, Airbus calls it the XWB, I don't understand the discrepancy. I've read the post Talk:Airbus A350/Archive 1#A350XWB vs A350, and according to StuffOfInterest's logic, Boeing 787 Dreamliner should also rid the "Dreamliner" name. Cheers --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - XWB isnt a name just a marketing thing, Dreamliner is nothing to do with this article. MilborneOne (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
You're telling me "Dreamliner" is not marketing? And besides, it has everything to do with this article. The naming of Boeing 787 Dreamliner sets a precedent for this article as well. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
No. Not needed. Airbus added XWB to differentiate the current A350 from the initial design. Use of "XWB" is [seems to be] declining now anyway. Naming for the Boeing 787 article is unrelated and besides WP:Other stuff exists. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
How is it different from the Dreamliner, which started out as the 7E7? As far as I know, the A350 is referred to as the XWB as often as the B787 with its Dreamliner name. Oh and I need a reference for "Use of "XWB" is declining now anyway". --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Dreamliner is used by itself, but XWB is not among other things. Do some checking. Usage in the aviation/aerospace media should be obvious. Flight International and Aviation Week never use XWB these days. With that said if Airbus is regularly using XWB in its press releases now, then I'm OK with this change. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
No, not if you're going to demand it from me with an attitude. Just neutral. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if my comment came across as dickish. I just wanted some confirmation/clarification on your stance -- neutral it is. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Support the XWB name. Apparently the official name at Airbus and as Sp33dyphil write in line with the B787 name. Prillen (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Support - See how Airbus calls it - what more do we need ? BTW "Dreamliner" was THE marketing name - it was suggesting "an experience to fly with" but I'm sure that had turned quite into the negative with the current problems. --Denniss (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Can somebody rebut Denniss's point, or are people OK with the move? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a neutral, an oppose (although no rebuttal was made to my response), three(?) supports. Any more objections?--Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose - It is an inevitable feature of the airliner building trade that there will be a number of other variants of the A350 coming soon to an airline near you. Each of them will be distinguished by their own alphabet soup or numerical suffix. To name this article so restrictively that it cannot include any information about other variants makes no sense. All of the Airbus A3## and Boeing 7#7 aircraft types have become "families" of variants of a basic design, it will be so too for the A350. Roger (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment Could !voters please be so kind as to use the traditional bolded "Support" / "Oppose" / "Comment" prefixes to their posts here as is the standard custom for such matters. Even in this (so far) short discussion is hard to pick out exactly how many of each !votes there are here as they are not clearly marked as such. Roger (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
You may have missed the point that Airbus itself calls all three current variants as members of the A350 XWB family of aircraft. --Denniss (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Roger, your comment about the "alphabet soup" has no bearing on the official designation of the aircraft as "XWB". That is an industry/operation-specific issue, and are used in many manufacturers' logs to distinguish the aircraft of each airline, and such is irrelevant to this discussion. Like Denniss says above, you've missed the point that Airbus calls all the variants "XWB". As such, I interpret your "Oppose" as being baseless. Please rebut this, or else it'll be one neutral, one oppose (with no response to rebuttal ie. its nullified), and three supports. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I was not aware of that. Added to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions. Thank you. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody seems to be able to come up with any argument that I or anyone else have not rebutted against, and with one neutral, two opposes (the rebuttals to which have not been reciprocated, thus nullified), and three supports, the move will go ahead. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Just as a note, when conducting a RM, its a good idea to have a non-involved person close and tally the result. Doing it yourself can be considered bad form, especially when you declare !votes 'nullified'. While this does appear to have been the correct result, please bear that in mind in the future. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

What is the difference between 'A350' and 'A350-XWB'?

The name of this plane is not properly and consistently defined:

- The topmost graphic is labeled 'A350'. But the caption contradicts that and calls it 'A350-XWB'. There are only three possibilities allowed here and you must use one of them, and use it consistently: 'A350', 'A350-XWB', or (something like:) 'A350 also called, equally validly, A350-XWB'.

- For most of the article, the plane is called 'A350-XWB'. But in the 'Variants' section, you then abandon the user and list three variants of a plane called 'A350'. Is there a fourth variant which this listing failed to include, namely -XWB? Or, is '-XWB' some kind of in-house developmental moniker that doesn't apply to the commercial variants? If so, is '-XWB' now obsolete? If not, then what plane does '-XWB' apply to? Explain. --Jim Luedke 63.209.235.156 (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The "XWB" was added the aircraft's name after Airbus redesigned the aircraft in hopes of attracting more orders. It doesn't really apply to a certain variant of the A350. The "-XWB" part is pretty much just marketing. (It stands for Extra Wide Body, by the way.) Hope this helps. -Compdude123 (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
^ Yea, XWB signifies the change to the wider composite design. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The A350 (original) was replaced by the A350 XWB (concept). But Airbus refers to the revised design as the A350, not the A350 XWB. This page should be redesignated A350. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.30.23 (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Better visit the homepage of Airbus or have a look at the infobox image - imagine what you see there: A350 XWB. --Denniss (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- See Airbus's web page at A350 XWB family page and in press releases. Shortening the name to "A350" sometimes does not change things. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/a350wxb/
    Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Order history

I believe the order history is incorrect. The first order was for 20, according to press releases at the time, not 2 as shown but putting 20 puts the final tally 18 more than Airbus's total of 812. I reduced it to 2 when I changed the format of the table to make it add to 812, which it must, because it was the lesser error. There remains an error, or errors, in there somewhere totalling 18 that I cannot find and with my very limited bandwidth am unlikely to find. If somebody feels so inclined it would be great to establish the true orders history. One day, if I get some bandwidth and the time I will do it myself but it would be best to get it fixed before the first delivery later 2014. Ex nihil (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

'A350-800'

-800 will be build or not?? The date 2016 is wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragdy (talk • contribs) 07:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Emirates order cancellation

"On 11 June 2014, Emirates cancelled an order for 70 A350s (50 A350-900s and 20 A350-1000s) valued at $21.6 billion at current list prices, and representing 9% of the A350 production backlog." Definitely significant enough to warrant inclusion, the previous version mentioned that it had a negative impact on the stock prices of Airbus and Rolls Royce. We should expand to include that Emirates was never particularly satisfied with the A350 development. (It should be noted on the MD-11 article that there was a big section on the order cancelled by Singapore Airlines, as the MD-11 initially failed to meet performance targets). JacksonRiley (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The order cancellation is already mentioned in 'Early designs' section after text about the airline placing the order; this is not being excluded. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The Emirates cancellation was made late in development, and chronologically it is wrong to place it in Early Designs.JacksonRiley (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought that we agreed on this content, as I was okay with you trimming the cancellation impact on stock prices of Airbus and Rolls Royce, but otherwise leaving it there. I've put the cancellation under a new header, Entry into service. JacksonRiley (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see where that was discussed or agreed upon here. The main sections for aircraft articles should generally follow the layout at WP:Air/PC. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Am fine with your recent changes. JacksonRiley (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"On 11 June 2014, Emirates cancelled an order for 70 A350s (50 A350-900s and 20 A350-1000s) valued at nearly $22 billion based on current list prices, which represented 9% of the A350 production backlog." Looks like Fnlayson and I are in agreement, anyone else wants to weigh in? JacksonRiley (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not in agreement on keeping the current cost of the Emirates order cancellation. I'm just tired of the back and forth edits about that other and other stuff. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
We usually don't include the price tag for contracts and don;t see why there should be an exception here. If JacksonRiley wants to include it, he needs to provide specific reasons. --McSly (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
He already explained why a massive $20+ billion cancellation which makes up 10% of order total more than meets notability standards, however you want to play a dirty little game here pathetically trying to threaten and warn me off of the page [14] all while smiling approvingly at Wolbo's numerous edits on the page while her demands other editors discuss this on the talk page even though he is absent.Judithar1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
agree 10% is a noteworthy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judithar1 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Contract

Where are the evidences/sources for the contracts with the airliners regarding purchase and delivery day for each airplane? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wertzt (talk • contribs) 08:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you will need to explain your point as we don't mention contracts in the articles. MilborneOne (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Airbus A350 XWB. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Airbus A350 XWB. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines A350 operation

Hello fellow editors,

I've discovered from 33ryantan that Singapore Airlines have been operating their first A350 since 8 March 2016, plying the Singapore-Kuala Lumpur Route[1]. However, these flights seem to be for crew training and familiarization and although they are revenue flights, they are barely significant on the Airliner's website and the official inaugural flight is still scheduled for 9 May 2016 on their dedicated A350 webpage.[2]So should Singapore Airlines be considered an operator now (technically plausible but barely notable) or wait until their 'inaugural' flight?

Guysayshi (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Guysayshi

References

  1. ^ "A350 SQ107 flight".
  2. ^ "S'pore Air A350 website".
They are an operator provided they have actually begin and are operating commercial revenue services with the aircraft, which is the case for Singapore Airlines since 8 March on the Kuala Lumpur Flights (Jakarta flights will also follow). These are not training flights, they carry revenue passengers. The same applied to other A350 operators whose entry-into-service dates correspond with their first revenue services with the aircraft. These are almost always on short haul sectors for the first few months (for example, Finnair was first to Amsterdam, Oslo and London for a while, before they started long haul routes, their 9 October 2015 entry relates to the first revenue service which was to Amsterdam). Hope it helps. SempreVolando (talk) 10:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airbus A350 XWB. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thai airways A350 runway overrun

On airliners.net it says that a Thai A350 overran a runway Planer 12346578955 (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

And tyres were damaged. I'm inclusionnist but come on wikipedia doesn't need to reference every incident. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Airbus A350 XWB. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Percentage of composites?

The section says that the A350 is 53% composites. Can anyone shed some light on whether this is 53% by weight or 53% by volume? Flanker235 (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

in the given ref : by weight. It's usual - can you imagine calculating or measuring each part volume?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
This data is most likely taken from CAD models these days. So there's little difference in determining weight or volume fractions. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Marc: thanks. Somehow I missed that. Might be worth adding... Flanker235 (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Tense and timing adjustments needed

Just read this article for interest's sake, and noticed that some of it is rather dated - specifically there are some references in the design section saying that Airbus is considering (x) when it comes to design. Considering the aircraft is in service and doing its thing worldwide, it may do well for someone knowledgeable of the subject to give this a once-over and bring some of the more dated phrasing and references forward to be more current. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

900ULR range?

a recent edit changed the 900ULR range as 9,700nmi with reuters (but not the usual aviation editor Tim Hepher) as a ref, saying "Airbus has increased the range of its A350-900ULR to 9,700 nautical miles" to fly SYD-LHR nonstop (a 9,200 nmi route but 9,600 nmi ESAD with winds). I suspect this is a mistake, as the Airbus range claim of 8,700nmi was made for the 8,300 nm SIN-JFK route, and Singapore already configure its 900ULR with only 170 seats. To fly 1000nm, there would be only 50 passengers on board (a bit like the ACJ). I asked Airbus for confirmation and I'm waiting for a reply.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Airbus write "The A350 XWB actually offers [...] ultra-long haul routes (up to 9,700nm)" in "Aircraft families > A350 XWB family". but still, as it is so much over the current -900 capabilities, I maintain the dubious claim. A possibility would be to see the launch of a heavier -900 ER variant, not just a 5t mtow bump like the ULR but with the recent -1000 6-wheel bogies and engines as it was envisioned in 2007. Even if the OEW is a bit higher, a shift to 308t MTOW would certainly enable such long routes with a complete payload. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The range does seem dubious as presented. The 9,700 nmi range must be for a partially filled or multi-class cabin and/or at a higher TO weight. Airbus's A350-900 page lists 280 t as the MTOW now with no info on -900ULR. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Or to effectively launch the -800 shrink, with a 280t mtow it would do 10,000nmi. We'll see if Qantas orders either one at Paris air show I guess.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Airbus confirmed this strange 9,700nmi range [15] so I removed the dubious tag, but maintains 19h flights, a bit too much as that's 511 knots average [Mach 0.89 (511 kn)], with no slowdown for takeoff and landing. 19h should be for 8,700nmi flights (458 knots avg, [Mach 0.80 (459 kn)]). Still, 9,700nmi is a stretch and should be only available with a minimal payload like a corporate jet, unless a higher MTOW is in the works.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Airbus A350 XWB. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airbus A350 XWB. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Reference number 210, which is a PDF file on the A350 characteristics hosted on the Airbus website, could no longer be accessed via the link given. Johngabriel.ibay (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add: Safety improvements and considerations

Please add a section discussing improvements or hazards to safety introduced by this new model. If this discussion is already present, please restructure the list of contents to make it more obvious to the reader. -- Newagelink (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you have a link? The A350 doesn't seem to have been designed with a special emphasis on safety: modern widebodies are already extremely safe, it follows on. You can read it was ETOPS certified from the onset. For other airliners, there is a Accidents and incidents section, but there isn't any yet.--Marc Lacoste (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2017

Replace

Intended for lease to SriLankan Airlines, delivered to AerCap leasing pending allocation to new customer.citation needed]

with this:

Intended for lease to SriLankan Airlines, delivered to AerCap leasing pending allocation to new customer.[1] 82.194.37.178 (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Sri Lanka to pay $170 million to AerCap for A350 cancellation: Finance Minister". reuters.com. Reuters. 4 October 2016. Retrieved 21 November 2017. The government canceled four A350 aircraft it had signed to lease from AerCap.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Airbus A350 XWB. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Airbus A350 XWB. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2018

CORRECT ACJ SECTION RANGE TO CORRECT CONVERSION OF MILES, 20,000KM IS 12,427 MILES, NOT 11,000 MILES 80.195.95.176 (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The value in the article is actually correct. The unit for the imperial value is nautical mile, not mile so the conversion of 20,000 km is indeed roughly 11,000 nm. --McSly (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for Good Article

I use this airliner to compare to airliners I am currently working on and to be honest, with all the sources and text that are plentiful and consistent, there should be a nomination for good article for the Airbus A350 XWB. Opinions? - Josephua (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

-1000ULR

Of course Airbus is pushing its pawns for Qantas' LHR-SYD dream. The -1000 has more payload/range than the -900 and may be its proposition. If selected, it could of course be named ULR as the -900. But giving some bling-admirer any credit for an "exclusivity" is stretching things. Al Baker may have told him the -1000 MTOW would be bumped, but it's not fresh news as Flight already wrote it a year ago. There is no new "technology" to use more fuel volume: only adding fuel pumps in empty space. The -1000 fuel capacity is already nearly maxed out at 159m3 against 165m3 for the -900ULR. The 350-410 pax @ 9000nmi range is only paraphrasing the -1000 present capacity and the approximate LHR-SYD distance (9,188nmi, really). 3t more MTOW would give 220nmi more range to 8,620nmi. It would need 8t more to reach 9,188nmi, either a (not insignificant) MTOW bump, or (more realistically) a payload reduction of ~80pax to 286pax, with more space (and higher fares) for everyone, like SIN-NY. And even then, range wouldn't be enough to counter the jetstream westbound, Qantas would have to be creative to use the jetstream the other way around.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not fresh news. Yes, it's speculative. Yes, work will be needed to achieve the extra range. But it's no more speculative than many of the other future variants we regularly write about, and your initial reaction of deleting the paragraph seems a bit excessive. Rather than dissing the cited source (naming somebody and questioning their credentials is hardly NPOV), how about reworking the paragraph to use the more reliable source you have. Rosbif73 (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
It's already the sentence just before.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Why didn't I spot that! Sorry for all the ado, I'll delete almost all of it then. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
:) I'm not clairvoyant every time either! (BTW, others sources used the -1000ULR tentative name well before, I'll replace the refs by earlier ones)--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Airbus_A350/Archive_1&oldid=1259680048"