Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Airbus A380: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tdadamemd19 (talk | contribs)
429 edits
Tdadamemd19 (talk | contribs)
429 edits
Line 227: Line 227:
:::::::You've already made up your mind that all of us here are pushing Airbus propoganda and purposely whitewashing the article. If you don't already know the problem with that, nothing I say will convince you otherwise. If it's just a tactic on your part, then nothing I say will stop you from continuing it. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 22:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::::You've already made up your mind that all of us here are pushing Airbus propoganda and purposely whitewashing the article. If you don't already know the problem with that, nothing I say will convince you otherwise. If it's just a tactic on your part, then nothing I say will stop you from continuing it. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 22:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


::::::::I witnessed multiple deletes of key info that had been added to the lede. I never said everyone was doing it. What I asserted was that it was being done. You and at least one other person here raised the issue of civility, and then I showed how these deletes, done with no justification presented for doing so, was a clear aspect that goes against WP.
::::::::I witnessed multiple deletes of key info that had been added to the lede. I never said ''everyone'' was doing it. What I asserted was that it was being done. You and at least one other person here raised the issue of civility, and then I showed how these deletes, done with no justification presented for doing so, was a clear aspect that goes against WP.
::::::::You are now characterizing my description of the problem here as some kind of tactic. I had clearly stated that I was, and I still am, totally open to any alternative explanation on how this article had gotten so broken as to not give the reader any clue regarding the actual financial situation of the A380.
::::::::You are now characterizing my description of the problem here as some kind of tactic. I had clearly stated that I was, and I still am, totally open to any alternative explanation on how this article had gotten so broken as to not give the reader any clue regarding the actual financial situation of the A380.


Revision as of 06:29, 16 February 2019

Template:Vital article

Good articleAirbus 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
DateProcessResult
May 30, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 5, 2007Good article nomineeListed
November 7, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
November 9, 2009Good article nomineeListed
February 23, 2012Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article


Air Force One under "operators"

Hello! Under the "Operators" heading is a paragraph explaining that the A380 was briefly considered as an "Air Force One" for the United States. Since Airbus/EADS never bid for the contract, having this info under the "operators" section makes no sense- the USAF was never close to being an operator. Is there a more appropriate section for this info? Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I moved the subsection under Variants instead. --Finlayson (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it from =Market= because 2 planes won't make or break a market, and didn't know where to put it, so it went to =operators= given the usaf was a potential operator. =variants= isn't great either, even if there was modifications, the main point is the potential sale, so i moved it again in =Orders and deliveries=. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see good reason(s) for it to be under Operators either; there is/was no connection to current or future operators that I can see. So I moved the single paragraph to be under Development. I don't think there is enough info to need a separate subsection also. Any better ideas on this? --Finlayson (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't in Operators, but in =Orders= as the main point was the potential order, not the tech devlpmt. =Dev= isn't well suited. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See this previous version of article that I edited here. It was a proposed variant/version too, but that wasn't right or good enough either. --Finlayson (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A380neo to A380plus

If the A380neo is not in issue anymore, then maybe it would make sense if the A380plus gets its own heading. Furthermore, it could be more emphasized, that the neo variant is discarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da Vinci Nanjing (talk • contribs) 17:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Airbus A380 plus

Airbus Just Upgraded the World’s Largest Passenger Jet (Airbus A380 plus) - [1]. Please update the article. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Airbus A380. 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) 19:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Airbus A380. 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) 00:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airbus A380. 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) 15:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Readers deserve an explanation as to why the A380 failed

This edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airbus_A380&diff=883301584&oldid=883300764 by User:CALDlykLIJ has buried any explanation regarding why A380 production is being ended, and why the program never came close to recovering development costs. The lede, as it stands right now, gives no hint whatsoever. I see this to be a gross disservice to the reader. I understand that there are people who are very emotional about the A380, and will want to present this article in a way that requires the reader to dig to get a clue as to what happened. But if we are to do our jobs properly as Wikipedia editors here, then we will present the story straight and clear:

The reason why the A380 failed is because the paradigm it was designed for, the hub-and-spoke system, was largely replaced by the point-to-point system. And so the industry has seen successes with smaller two-engine aircraft. Evidence the fact that more than 1400 787s have been ordered, averaging almost 90 per year, whereas the A380 has gotten 313 orders, averaging less than 17 per year.

Our readers deserve better. If the justification for deleting the explanation presented is because it included no references, then the proper fix is to add references. My understanding is that this is info that has been widely known for well over a decade. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it has been "widely known" then you will not have a problem finding reliable sources. MilborneOne (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may have noticed that well-referenced info also got removed from the lede. The problem being highlighted here is the whitewashing of this article. There are people who want to hide the fact that the A380 has been a financial disaster for Airbus. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And if anyone is wanting references for that statement I just posted here, you can just google [A380 "financial+disaster"] --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its not our job to google anything, if you want to gain consensus to add something that has been challenged then you need to provide evidence that it is realiable sources, noteworthy and not undue weight. MilborneOne (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you didn't bother to look at the info that was deleted from the lede. It contained a direct quote from the Airbus CEO, along with quotes from Forbes, etc.
And I never said it was your job to google anything. I indicated that if you wanted references for the statement added here on this Talk Page, you can find them yourself quite easily.
The larger point is that if key info has been suppressed on this article, it is our job to bring that to light. I had added key info to the lede. It got removed from there. That might be an appropriate action for a propaganda website. But for an encyclopedic website, not so much. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This New York Times article https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/15/business/airbus-a380-emirates.html
explains the point-to-point shift that clobbered the success potential for the A380, designed for the hub-and-spoke system. There have to be dozens more such references. I found this one without looking. (Stumbled upon while I was looking up something else.) I recommend that the deleted paragraph (from the edit linked at the top of this section) gets re-added with this NYT article as the supporting reference. I consider this explanation vital toward understanding what happened to the A380 and why. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are plenty of speculative older references to be found that "predicted" the demise of the A380, and there are bound to be numerous analysis pieces in the coming days and months. The BBC already has a "Why did the A380 fail?" article, for example.[2] However, the lead is supposed to summarise the body, and the above arguments aren't very well covered in the body yet. I'd suggest working on a better analysis in the body, with WP:RS of course, and then summarising it in the lead only after discussion has settled down. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The financial failure of the A380 is something that has been reported on for years. The fact that this Wikipedia article did not provide an explanation of that shows how badly editors have done our job here for all these years. Yes, now that production is being ended, it will get a lot more attention. But this is something that this article could have explained back in the 20-oughts. Not wait until after the plug was pulled in 2019. I see this to be an edit-fail that has persisted for well over a decade on this article.
I would guess that looking back into the history and archives will show how others have attempted to communicate this story clearly, yet those efforts got deleted similar to how my edit today got suppressed. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of making sweeping accusations, and "guessing" about the history, how about simply making some constructive edits to the body of the article to incorporate the information you believe to be missing. (You may well be right that the information is worthy of inclusion, but adopting a more WP:CIVIL tone in your comments here would do no harm whatsoever). Rosbif73 (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A basic fact is that the lede of this article does not communicate that the A380 was a failure. More appropriate wording is that the program has been a financial disaster.
Ok, maybe it is not productive for me to make any guesses as to why this info is not being presented. I look forward to this problem being fixed.
As for my contributions here not conforming to WP:Civil, a specific quote of where I might have done that would be much more helpful feedback. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the advice that the best approach here is to simply make well-referenced edits that improve the article. The bolded info above has now been included. The other info I had previously added which got moved to the body gives more details. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Friday Update:
I have sat back for more than half a day. Through this period, I have watched the article continue to be sanitized. Efforts to present the basic facts of the A380 financial situation are consistently being removed. It is clear that there are editors here who do not want that story to be told. The lede, as it currently stands, gives the reader absolutely no clue as to why the program got cancelled. Rosbif73, you criticized me for making "sweeping accusation". I don't see any other explanation for what has been happening here on this article for well over a decade. Your own recent efforts toward improving the article are trivial. I see no effort at all toward communicating the basic financial info which might do anything to explain to readers why the A380 was cancelled. It is clear that you have determined that your time is better spent in criticizing me and my efforts to do so. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update to the update:
I just now saw that the statement got re-added down in the section explaining the End of production. THANK YOU to the editors who did that. I see that to be a huge improvement to the article. The lede can likewise be improved by giving the casual reader a hint about these facts, or as a minimum a pointer to look down to this section to get the explanation. Thank you again, you all! This looks to be excellent work. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The A380 program has been "a financial disaster for Airbus"

In the section above, the observation was made that this article has consistently been sanitized. Here is the simple, well-referenced statement that concisely explains why the A380 program was cancelled:

The A380 program has been "a financial disaster for Airbus".
(Reference: Airbus A380 ... May Cease Production, by Jack Ewing, The New York Times, Jan 15, 2018)

This statement got deleted from the lede in less than half an hour, clobbered in this edit. And so we are back to the sanitized version. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to communicate reliable NPOV info, not propaganda. Until this gets fixed, this article will remain as a propaganda piece more than it is an encyclopedic article. The A380 has been a multi-billion Euro hole for Airbus. There is absolutely no hint of that fact presented in the lede. And digging into the body of the article, basic financial facts have been masked. So the average reader will leave here scratching their head as to why the program got cancelled.

It is our duty to fix this situation. It is our duty to present basic info clearly. We have collectively failed here. And so long as there are editors who prefer to present the whitewashed version of the story, then this article will continue to be a failure. It was known that the A380 was a financial disaster before the first one ever left the ground in 2005. Here we are 14 YEARS LATER with the cancellation of the program officially announced, and this key info is still being buried and removed from the article. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to get one's way by shaming and using inflammatory language rarely works on Wikipedia. Words like "sanitized", "clobbered", "masked", and especially "propoganda".and "whitewashed" can be read as uncivil, and you've been warned about that already. Also, selectively taking one phrase from one opinion piece isn't necessarily NPOV either. Please drop all the high-handed language, and talk to us as if we're just normal people trying to write a good encyclopedia, which is in fact what most of us here are. Plenty will be written on exactly what happened with the A380 in the next year especially, and there will be plenty of neutral reliable sources to glean from. - BilCat (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bilcat is right, no need for excitation. There is a pretty comprehensive #Market section already.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the body of the article has been substantially improved. The section you highlight, along with the #End of production section do an excellent job of communicating what had happened.
The point remains that the lede does not give the casual reader any hint as to why A380 production is being ended. That remains to be an area of improvement. And the one statement being proposed here would go a long way toward communicating the big picture in a very few set of words. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Upon closer inspection...
Here is an example of a statement presented in this article that requires scrutiny:

"...while remaining profitable per unit..."
(from #Further_continuation_of_programme)

Words like that run the risk that there are readers who do not understand the meaning of "development cost" versus "production cost", and those readers will leave this article with the grossly distorted impression that Airbus made money on the A380.
An analogy here would be like having a hospital patient who is a hemophiliac. Their body has no blood in it at all. But the report reads: "the patient is gaining 2 ounces of blood with each pint that is infused" ...while ignoring the fact that the patient had died several days ago. Now if instead you accurately report the patient's actual status, then no one is left scratching their heads when the doctor announces that the plug was pulled on their life support system.
"But you told me that Airbus is making money on each A380. Why would they cancel the program?!"
This is where that original CEO quote that got removed from the lede was key. The patient was dead, AND each pint added was bleeding out more than was being put in. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BilCat, if you looked at the original edit that was highlighted as being removed from the lede (reposting here) then you saw that a direct quote I had presented from the Airbus CEO explaining clearly why he ended A380 production was removed from the lede. And the editor who did that gave no explanation for the decision to do so. As the lede stands right now, it still gives no explanation.
Since me posting this new subsection, I have seen that the body of the article has been dramatically improved. Had I seen that earlier, I would not have posted this new subsection. My feedback would simply have been to thank the editors involved in having done this significant improvement, and then added another plug to have the lede give readers a clue as to why the program was cancelled, so that they would not be forced to dig through the article in an effort to find the reasons.
I do not see any of this as me forcing "my own way" onto anyone else. I see this as the most basic fact about the A380 program. Info that could have been presented in this article well over a decade ago, and for whatever reason, this info has not been. If you or anyone else would like to present to me the benign reasons why this info has been consistently been deleted, I would be very glad to consider those alternative explanations.
I agree that the quote I've highlighted here, standing alone by itself, does not necessarily constitute NPOV. But I am confident that it accurately reflects the general understanding of just about everyone in the industry. And this is a simple fact that has not changed for well over a decade. Yes, there will be plenty more reliable references to come. But yesterday's announcement was a surprise to no one who has followed the A380. There has been a multitude of references that this article could have used to communicate the impending production shutdown. Yet this was not done. You see me as the fault here for offering reasons why. I am wide open to any other reasons for this that anyone would like to present. I happen to see my words to be perfectly civil. A statement that appears to be slander is not slander if it is factually accurate. Well-referenced edits I have added to the lede have been removed from the lede with no explanation given. Yet I am the one who is seen to be acting with a lack of civility. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Civility is as much about tone as it is about words. You have posited a long-lasting conspiracy by wikipedia editors, but have cited no evidence apart from one very recent edit. Yet if you look at a version of the article from just before the cancellation announcement, you'll see plenty of information about difficulties (e.g. [3]). You would probably be right to say that it wasn't as well summarised as it is now, but nobody has been colluding to hide anything. We're all volunteers here, almost all of us with no agenda other than attempting to make a good encyclopedia, in line with the Five pillars. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I never stated nor suggested that it was a coordinated effort. I have no idea why the word "collusion" is now being used in this discussion. The point was that these efforts were being done by various editors. Over the course of many years. That, by itself, does not necessarily constitute any conspiracy. I never indicated nor ever implied that it did.
As for Wikipedia Policy regarding Civility, here is the more concrete feedback to you... The very first point on how to avoid incivility:
  • Explain yourself.
(WP:Civility#Avoiding_incivility)
Yet BilCat and you choose to call me out for falling short on WP:Civil, while giving no feedback here to these editors who deleted my improvements with no explanation given.
For future situations, you might want to actually read what these policies say before you go criticizing anyone for not following them. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other users not giving explanations isn't an excuse for your own incivility. If another user commenting here is uncivil to the degree you have been, I'll.call them out if I feel it's needed. - BilCat (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was not excusing incivility on anyone's part. As for your view that anything I've posted here has been done with incivility, I have yet to be convinced of that. You've objected to five specific words I have used. I had already stated that I see these words as accurate. If and when anyone does convince me that I have crossed any line of propriety here, I will be quick to apologize. A specific quote would be very helpful to assess whether it is your or me who is mischaracterizing what has happened here. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've already made up your mind that all of us here are pushing Airbus propoganda and purposely whitewashing the article. If you don't already know the problem with that, nothing I say will convince you otherwise. If it's just a tactic on your part, then nothing I say will stop you from continuing it. - BilCat (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I witnessed multiple deletes of key info that had been added to the lede. I never said everyone was doing it. What I asserted was that it was being done. You and at least one other person here raised the issue of civility, and then I showed how these deletes, done with no justification presented for doing so, was a clear aspect that goes against WP.
You are now characterizing my description of the problem here as some kind of tactic. I had clearly stated that I was, and I still am, totally open to any alternative explanation on how this article had gotten so broken as to not give the reader any clue regarding the actual financial situation of the A380.
And by far the most important point being asserted here is that a SEVERE DISSERVICE is being done to the reader, because as the article stands even right now, the lede gives absolutely no clue that Airbus has lost money because of the A380 program. That's no clue that it lost a single Euro, let alone the many billions of Euros that is the commonly known fact among those in the industry. WHY does the lede of this article not communicate that? You don't seem to care. You care far more about me supposedly having some tactic. I've made my agenda here perfectly clear: It is our duty to present an article that communicates the bare minimum of info about the A380. As it stands today, we have failed in that effort.
The body of the article has been greatly improved since the time I first posted on this article's Talk page. But this is info that should have been in the article many years prior to this week. And now the part of the article that is remaining as sub-standard is the lede. You and I can work together toward fixing that. I have already given a suggested statement that would do that. It is a well referenced statement. And if the New York Times article is not sufficient for anyone, I expect that dozens more can be found. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Production dates

The "produced" parameter in the infobox currently says 2005–present. Given that the first complete airframe was unveiled on 18 January 2005, it seems unlikely that they started production in 2005, unless they built the entire aircraft in less than 18 days. This seems unrealistic, especially for the *first* airframe. It seems more likely that production started in 2003 or 2004.

edit: found evidence of production starting in 2003: [4] [5] ElshadK (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prototypes aren't production aircraft, i.e. aircraft that will be used in regular operations or passed onto a client or end user. As a result they don't count for production dates. Production dates only cover the actual line production of end user targeted aircraft. Canterbury Tail talk 12:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F883574406