In all the articles I've read, the maximum speed is quoted as 0.89 Mach, and the cruising speed at about 0.85 Mach, which if I do my calculations correctly is about 940 km/h. Does anybody have a source for the 1000km/h+ claim? --Robert Merkel 05:08, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mach varies with altitude and it depends on indicated airspeed. As there is no single Mach equivalent, this information is normally found in each airplane's flight manual carried onboard. Machmeter posesses altitude corrections hence very transparent to the flight crew. Direct translation of Mach to km/h must take account of altitude. Generally as the altitude increases, for the same Mach No, the km/h decreases.

[By Fikri, 05:00, 25 May 2004 (UTC)][reply]

They usually cite the Mach number at cruising altitude, correct? Ryan Salisbury 03:18, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To describe "Airbus Inc. Toulouse" as the manufacturer is certainly incorrect.

1. Airbus Inc. doesn't exist to my knowledge, Airbus' US operations are under the title Airbus North America Holdings, Inc.
2. Regardless of the name of this subsidiary why would it be designated the prime contractor of the A380 programme?
3. The US susbidiary (regardless of name) is not be based in France.
4. To describe Toulouse as the centre of manufacture is also to mischaracterise the A380 programme. Manufacture is carried out all over Europe, assembly is in Toulouse and Hamburg.

As such I have changed the manufacturer simply to Airbus. I think the correct term would be "Airbus S.A.S." but this may be too specific. I believe "Airbus Industrie" is an obsolete term. Mark 23:29, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

According to the Airbus article, Airbus SAS is (was) a spin-off company to build military jets, therefor this article should refer to Airbus, not Airbus SAS. CS Miller 10:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

SAS is a French designator of company type, like "Inc." in English. The official company name is Airbus S.A.S., or Airbus for short. --kjd 10:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if someone wants to add it to the article, but a picture of the (almost complete) A380 is now available at Airliners.net - direct link is http://www.airliners.net/open.file/684291/L/

Hmmm. It seems that the license is not Wikipedia compatible. Excerpt from http://www.airliners.net/usephotos/

Restrictions on the usage of photos

All photos on this site are protected by international copyright laws.

You have limited rights to personally view the images with your web 
browser and to use them as  your personal computer wallpaper (or 
background image) on your own computer. These photos may not otherwise 
be reproduced, distributed, cropped, resized, or otherwise altered 
without the written permission of the photographer. No commercial use 
of these photos may be made in any way. All rights are reserved.  

You may not use these photos on any web page, commercial or 
non-commercial, for profit or non-profit, without written permission 
from the photographer. You may however link to the photos in the 
manner described below.

--Xeper 12:52, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is there an update on when exactly in 2005 the first flight will take place? Jawed

There is an "unveiling" tomorrow , 18th Jan 2005 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4174729.stm. Pcb21| Pete 12:20, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First flight is currently planned for 2005-03-31. --Xeper 22:10, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

f/f is planed for April, 26th, 2005. but we will see... -- 17:34, 21.4.2005 DEF

I've received an email from Airbus, "We would like to inform you that there is a strong possibility that the A380 will fly next week. We cannot give you an exact date and time as maiden flights are subject to many conditions that we cannot control such as weather conditions." -- 07:57, 23.4.2005 BST

2005-04-27 is the latest date AFAIK --Xeper 13:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

27/04/2005 is the current first flight as reported by several news sources, weather permitting. Ben W Bell 08:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am parked in front of my computer now in Singapore. Anyone any idea what is the exact time for takeoff? Last I saw was between 9.30-10am London time?--Huaiwei 05:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Imminent. You can see live video at [1]. --kjd 08:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yup, it's taxied to the end of the runway. Ben W Bell 08:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And we have a bird in the sky. She actually flies. Ben W Bell 08:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the InfoBox be updated to reflect the First flight today? Guest 11:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which infobox? They all seem up to date to me? --kjd 11:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can someone tell me where the quoted section under Delivery, will receive the first A380 during the "first semester of 2006", comes from. The statement "first semester of 2006" sounds really strange in a discussion about aircraft and since it is quoted it must be from somewhere.

Ben W Bell 12:03, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A recent change separated the freight and passenger planes order into two columns. I doubt the accuracy of the numbers. For FedEx and UPS's order it is very clear the orders are not for passenger planes, but such assumption is not quite true the other way round. My brother works for Luthansa, he told me the German airline has many freight planes for their cargo business. I doubt the 15 planes ordered by Luthansa is all passenger planes. Kowloonese 22:08, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think the statement about extra space being a well received feature is hard to prove at best: delta and american both tried to offer more roomy economy seats but gave up. No matter how big a plane, it's a trade off between economy and space and as long as travelers shop for price only space is going to lose.

Listen, someone keeps changing project cost back to US Dollars, which to me makes absolutely no sense. Due to the fluctuating €-$ exchange rate, listing the price in USD is bound to make the price quote incorrect as the exchange rate changes. Since the project is run in Euro, price is expected to be stable if it is listed in Euros.

[By 82.3.32.75, 07:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)]

Please note: the industry unit of currency is dollars, and aircraft prices are always quoted in dollars. The price is never officially listed in euro. (In fact, the euro-dollar fluctuation at present causes headaches for the manufacturer. In an attempt to rectify this, Airbus has tried to convince customers and suppliers to trade in Euro, but has not been successful).

[By 195.6.25.120, 12:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)]

The above answer comes from an Airbus owned IP address, and should be

considered gospel, I suppose. Dollars it is.

When i see the 787, this is a real Dream of an Airplane. 15:13, April 18th,2005 Def

Well, some would say that the A380 is still prettier than some other Airbus aircraft [2]... and I would expect that a 787 that can carry 550+ pax wouldn't look to good either :) --Xeper 20:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay; but the counterpart of the 787 was the A350. (=like the A330-200Lite). When Boeing built an enlarged 747 with 500-550 seats it will see like the 747-400X Stretched or they built the Boeing 777-400ER. 12:45, 20.April 2005, Def

My point was, that it is generally hard to build an elegant aircraft for that many passengers (diameter vs. length...). IMHO the 747 is not really a beauty either... --Xeper 14:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Boeing house colours probably help with the 787 looking so slick (I am European, so that's quite hard to admit! ;-) ). Take them away, and besides a slightly pointier nose, more raked-back tailfin and smoother wing-winglet junction, the 787 looks very much like any other single-deck twinjet, IMO... — QuantumEleven | (talk) 13:18, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)