Airbus A380 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 30, 2006 Peer review Reviewed June 18, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 5, 2007 Good article nominee Listed November 7, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted November 9, 2009 Good article nominee Listed February 23, 2012 Good article reassessment Kept Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Aviation: Aircraft GA‑class This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the aircraft project. This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal. This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Europe GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

This information deserves to be in the article (from Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/06/qatar-airbus-group-idUSL6N0M33HO20140306:

Explaining why Qatar had decided against flying to Los Angeles while introducing three new U.S. routes, Al Baker said, "I will only go if I cover my costs... I would not necessarily want to make a big profit but at least I don't want to lose.

"If you go those long distances, especially with an A380, you will lose your shirt, because the A380 is a very expensive airplane to operate on ultra-long haul. Unless you get the right yield, you won't make a profit on the airplane," he said.

"This is why we have a very small number of A380s. The A380s were very good when the fuel price was 30, 40, 50 dollars a barrel, but when you have to spend 100-120 dollars for fuel it becomes very difficult," he told reporters.

The article currently seems to suggest that the A380 is a good performer in this market segment in terms of fuel economy, when it actually fares poorly. 69.201.168.196 (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comment relates to getting passengers on seats on long thin routes which is not really related to fuel economy and is not unusual thing to consider in the airline business. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the title of that article I linked is "Qatar Air may buy more A380s, but not for longest routes". That is not a comment about getting passengers into seats, it's about the expense of flying an A380 long haul, expenses that are only covered by the plane being full of people every time. 69.201.168.196 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No they're saying that due to the costs of running over longer distances (crew and fuel etc) that they need to get enough passengers and the routes don't justify that. For example only 60% capacity wouldn't be economical when they could run a smaller plane that is nearly full. The A380 isn't economical on any route if you don't get enough passengers on it, that's what it means by yield. Canterbury Tail talk 21:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A380 is still the leader on longhauls. See this excellent analysis here A777_A380_B747_analysis and if Airbus proceeds with the A380neo competition will be beyond reach. Ex nihil ^(talk) 13:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article you reference, it's says the current 777 has better fuel economy than the 380, and it says the 777 is already planned to dramatically improve so the 380 will require a revamp too. All I'm saying is that the article should contain information like this, and like the article I referenced: that the 380 is a very heavy plane and is more sensitive to low yields than the competition is for the reason that long haul you have to haul a heavy plane and heavy fuel to carry the heavy plane. My only guess is that people who work for Airbus might worry about their job prospects, but the article should contain info about the plane to discuss the limitations that people in the real world are discussing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.168.196 (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Planes are like ships, the bigger they are the less it costs to ship each unit of freight. Long haul is more profitable than short since there are fewer landing cycles on the maintenance sheet, and less fuel used for climb out. The Dallas-Sydney route is used as an example of distance. In reality, flying the same route westwards can use 25% more fuel than flying the same route eastwards. To fly the round trip a plane needs way more range than the GC distance.220.240.252.95 (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found this news from Channel NewsAsia stating that Airbus has been given the green light from EASA to equip flotable black boxes incase of an accident happening in the oceans. The source is found here: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/airbus-to-equip-long-haul/1585992.html?cid=FBINT Xizuki (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S, I won't usually check replies that often, unless theres a notification sent to me (because I joined Wikipedia a few months ago) so I might not "refresh" this page usually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xizuki (talk • contribs) 11:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC) P.P.S if I don't reply within 3 days you may let me know through my Talk page.[reply]

This graphic is current as of May 2013. In the interim, Japan is no longer a future operator with Skymark cancellation and other changes have been made as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans100 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just added refs for A380neo, and then removed them again, as it appears unlikely : [1] [2] . The open discussion could be relevant for economics, though. [3] TGCP (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed A380neo should be mentioned somewhere in the article. It has gotten enough media coverage to state what it is, at least. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BilCat removed this from the lede:

"While no longer losing money on each plane sold, Airbus admits that the company will never recoup the $25B investment it made in the project." citation: airbus a380 haunted by lack of orders marks decade in the skies

Why wouldn't that belong in the lede? Boeing and Airbus started working on this project together, Boeing concluded that there was not room in the market for a big plane, that it's not where the market is headed. Airbus pursued the project, many analysts agreed with Boeing that the project would never pay for itself. Now, finally, Airbus admits that the project won't pay for itself. It's a nice set of bookends that define this disastrous project, it was predicted, it got worse during development, and then in the 3rd act of the 3 act tragedy the protagonist realizes it himself. I'm going to put it back in, but before that BilCat has a chance here to discuss why he thinks this page should remain simply a "we love the big plane" circlejerk. Stop whitewashing the white elepant, this should not be an Airbus marketing page, this fact I'm trying to add has a proper citation, and it's among the most important facts about the A380 project so the lede is the perfect place to repeat it. 68.175.11.48 (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article refers to "break-even" and links to definition page... but that definition page says break-even occurs when all prior costs have been recouped; the usage that Airbus executives and this article intend means "no longer incurring additional unrecouped costs", a different more lenient definition that hides losses. 96.246.62.105 (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info should not be covered in the Lead without coverage in the body of the article as well. Such details should be added in the body of the article. Significant content in the article body can be summarized in the Lead/Intro/Lede. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Airbus A380. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110720062209/http://www.scenta.co.uk/travel/technology/cit/1700616/how-to-make-an-elephant-fly.htm to http://www.scenta.co.uk/travel/technology/cit/1700616/how-to-make-an-elephant-fly.htm

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

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you will need to explain what you are asking about as we don't mention contracts in this article MilborneOne (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is something metioned regarding deliveries so it should be written from where this information is. No evidences/sources-> everybody can write his own story — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wertzt (talk • contribs) 09:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orders and deliveries are based on data from Airbus (monthly updates). --Denniss (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]