Talk:Airbus A350

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Airbus A350 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 12 months

Airbus A350 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.
Review: February 24, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Aviation: Aircraft

	Aviation portal 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
	This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Europe Mid‑importance

	Europe portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Add A Fact: "A350 breakeven achieved in 2019"

I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below

The breakeven target for the A350 was achieved in 2019

The fact comes from the following source:

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2020-02-airbus-reports-full-year-fy-2019-results-delivers-on-guidance

Here is a wikitext snippet to use as a reference:

 {{Cite web |title=Airbus reports Full-Year (FY) 2019 results, delivers on guidance {{!}} Airbus |url=https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2020-02-airbus-reports-full-year-fy-2019-results-delivers-on-guidance |website=www.airbus.com |date=2021-10-28 |access-date=2024-11-26 |language=en |quote=The breakeven target for the A350 was achieved in 2019}}

Additional comments from user: the following was marked as [citation needed]: Airbus' 2019 earnings report indicated the A350 programme had broken even that year

It looks like the statement is correct with the statement from the Airbus press release website

This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.

Soccerguy243 (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A350F mislabelled as A350-1000F

Airbus lists the freighter version of the A350 as the A350F. However, the A350F is mislabelled in this article as the A350-1000F. Although the A350F is based on the A350-1000, they have different lengths and therefore the A350F cannot be labelled as the A350-1000F. Emrys382 (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that Airbus don't normally use the same series designation for different-sized aircraft, their current (December 2024) Aircraft Characteristics publication does specifically refer to the A350-1000F, while acknowledging the differences in dimensions and weights compared to the pax -1000. DaveReidUK (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article edited to include reference to the A350-1000F designation, citing the above source. This does indeed seem to be the first instance of Airbus applying the same numerical series (albeit one with an F suffix) to two different fuselage lengths. As the old saying goes, there's a first time for everything! DaveReidUK (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A350-1000

The A350-1000 Has Enough Range to Fly Between Delhi and São Paulo Nonstop Guib25 (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up the table in specifications

I was looking at the table on specifications on various A350 models (A350-1000, A350-1000ULR, etc) and noticed that some sections were blank. This makes it difficult for users comprehend the details on certain planes. For example, in the table area on the A350-1000ULR about max payload, it is blank; this leads to a confusing section. Does it mean that the details on max payload for the A350-1000ULR are not available/have not been added to the table or does it mean that the A350-1000ULR has the same max payload as the A350-1000? If it is the former, it would be ideal to likely add a footnote or simply state "Data unavailable." If it is the former, it would be ideal to expand the box and remove the line between the A350-1000's max payload and the A350-1000ULR's max payload to signify that they have the same value. BentleyBaley (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section should ideally only cover one version of the aircraft per WP:AIRMOS. Differences between the individual variants should generally be covered in the "Variants" section. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well than, why do virtually air aircraft pages cover multiple variants of the aircraft in the specifications section? Seemingly, it would appear to me that the WP:AIRMOS might be incorrect/invalid rather than the actual pages. After all, if a convention is constantly disregarded in pretty much all pages that it should apply, shouldn't the convention then be changed? Many people enjoy being able to simply scroll to the Specifications section and see the details on all the aircraft variants and not have to find the specs for the main one, and then search through the Variants section to find all the differences; it is much easier to simply have a single concise and definitive list of specs. BentleyBaley (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because some are not following the MOS doesn't mean it's wrong. At the end of the day Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a technical directory. We shouldn't have full specs for all variants, that's not the purposes of this project. Leave that for more specialised sites, or link out to the manufacturers list of the specs for all variants. It's just not encyclopaedic for us to show them all and not of interest to the majority of readers. Canterbury Tail talk 20:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I totally agree. I simply think that the specifications is confusing, and it could easily be improved, by clarifying parts of the data or following the MOS BentleyBaley (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for any other articles that do this. Covering multiple variants in the section inevitably leads to cases where the specs are presented inconsistently or inaccurately. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why the articles are then not fixed to conform to Wikipedia:AIRMOS and cover only one variant? BentleyBaley (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that no one has gotten around to doing it for whatever reason. Most likely WP:BUSYLIFE. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose I might do it. It doesn't seem particularly difficult, and it might make a good first (or first decent edit) that I could do. Probably the most difficult part is deciding what variant to feature in the specs. BentleyBaley (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to, I've already started this one. As for choosing the variant, we typically choose the "definitive variant", which pretty much either means the baseline variant or the most common variant. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I might do it on some other articles though (e.g. Boeing 787, 747, A330, etc). I'm so sorry about getting you involved and continuing this for a while (I really haven't done any big edits. The only actual article edit I've made so far was a tiny grammatical error involving commas). Thanks! BentleyBaley (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright. I've done several of these in the past. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the weight variants might be an issue. I think we can take care of that by moving the existing WV tables to their variants' respective sections, while including weight ranges in the specifications section. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because everyone here is a volunteer, no one gets paid to do this, and there are other things with people's attention. Canterbury Tail talk 21:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]