Talk:Airbus A220

Main sections

There are some different ideas how to present the A220 article according to WP:Aircontent as this article has more aspects compared to other WP aircraft articles e.g. "Legal" and "Marketing".

As stated in the WP:Aircontent, However "the backgrounds to different aircraft can vary widely and article structures will reflect this variety". Some "frequently used sections" are described here: Development/Design/Operational history/Variants/Operators/Accidents and incidents/../../Aircraft specification/... My understanding from the quoted sentence is that this WP:Aircontent only gives a "recommended layout" and doesn't standardize it (not mandatory). Therefore, in relation to Article A220, we can add an additional section 'legal aspects', dealing with "partnership and dumping petition", while the “Marketing” can be inserted as a subsection of the 'Operators' section. If one section is too much for us, we can also combine the “Design” and “Development” sections into “Design and Development” as was done in the MD-80/MD-90 aircraft articles.Ich-Du-De (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Sections are not mandatory but it's not an opening to have a subpar layout either. Indeed, "Marketing" could be a subsection of /Operators/. But a "Legal aspects" seems misplaced; and the Boeing dumping petition, Airbus partnership then takeover are an important part of the program history, and should be accordingly present in the /Development/ section. Merging /Design/ and/Development/ would be a regression. Thanks for reminding the MD80/90 articles, they could be improved too.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually there is nothing wrong with the article MD 80/90, because the design is not other the current state of the development or program history, which can include further development. To have more than recommended sections was also proposed in the Boeing 737 article, as there are more variants and generations than other aircraft. I agree that "Airbus partnership/takeover" as well as "rebranding/marketing" are important for the program history which in a simple case can be fully inserted into the 'Development' as done for Boeing 717 with the subsection "Rebranding and marketing", but A220 case is more complex. So i proposed a more flow solution by adding an extra section 'Legal aspects' and linking it to the last 3 subsections of 'Development': 'Certification', 'Production', 'Continuing development' as well as to the subsection 'Marketing' in the section 'Operators'. The Boeing dumping petition relates only to the subsection 'Marketing' and specifically only to Delta's initial order, so it should be not included in the "Development" section, IMO. Ich-Du-De (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Nothing interesting to replicate either. The guideline to replicate is WP:Aircontent. A more flow solution should be the choice of native english speakers. The Boeing dumping petition is an important part of the aircraft history as it caused the Airbus takeover, it's not just a legal hiccup. Anyway, we're going in circles and more external inputs are needed.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree, more external inputs are needed for a strong consensus, let's wait. Just to clarify: a "more flow sentence" is reserved for a native speaker, but a "more flow article layout" is not. Ich-Du-De (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The current layout with all the dates diced, sliced and shuffled makes my head spin, it is horrible. I would agree with Marc Lacoste that the legal games belong broadly in development. For example where the current Development content suddenly jumps to Airbus ownership, there should be an intermediate section describing the takeover and any related legal aspects. There is no reason to group the legal issues together. Much the same applies to the Marketing section, much of which has nothing to do with operators. If the Development section then gets too huge, it should be divided up more or less chronologically into say Bombardier, Airbus partnership and Buyout, or whatever broad brushstrokes make sense once the chronology is clearer. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

As someone new to this article but familiar with other aircraft articles, the term "Legal aspects" sounds vague and unclear as a main section in an article about an aircraft (and so does "CSeries dumping petition by Boeing" in my view). On the other hand, the tale of the Airbus business deal is a long and tedious one, and probably fairly off-topic for the average reader wishing to learn about the aircraft itself. At present the whole article is very dense, and I think a good compromise could be to rename the article CSeries dumping petition by Boeing to "Development of the Airbus A220" and then move most of the development info to that article (leaving a "main article" hatnote of course). That way all the "high level” development information can be contained within one "Development" section of the main Airbus A220 article. - Headphase (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the two valuable inputs that support each other and to be honest I had a similar idea before, the cons is as said that the 'Development' section would get too huge. For the first step, the 'Legal Aspects' section has been renamed to 'Partnership and Rebranding'. The 'Development' section will later be reorganized to have a clear chronological order from CSeries - Partnership - Rebranding - A220. Let's just wait for a few more inputs. Ich-Du-De (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need to wait before getting started. Certainly the details of the business games could move to the other article, but sufficient must remain to shape the main technical development strand, which equally definitely belongs here. So I think renaming that article as "Development" would be a mistake; perhaps "Bombardier-Airbus partnership" would be a better focus for it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Splitting a large part of the A220 history to a possible A220 takeover by Airbus, independent from the CSeries dumping petition by Boeing article, is another project (I would support it, but it would need a consensus over the process), It should follow the merge of all history into the development main section to be clear for all.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I think we all now have common sense for the article layout which should have "a good compromise" between "technical development" and "business games" so that "the average reader wishing to learn about the aircraft itself" wouldn't find it "fairly off-topic". All passages related to business games, particularly in the subsection 'Marketing' should be moved to the current 'Partnership and Rebranding' section, which will then be moved to a new article titled Development of the Airbus A220 or Bombardier-Airbus partnership or A220 takeover by Airbus. The lede will be then transcluded as a subsection 'Partnership and Rebranding' of the main section 'Development'. and reorganized to make it chronologically clearer.—Ich-Du-De (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've reorganized the article layout, which should reflect the outcome of our discussion. For the planned new article, the provisional title is “A220 takeover by Airbus”. Please review and update it, thanks.—Ich-Du-De (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ich-Du-De: please avoid major changes to an article layout while a discussion is happening here in talk on the very subject. The consensus I understood was to merge of all history into the development main section before Splitting a large part of the A220 history to a possible A220 takeover by Airbus. Stick to that or try to make another consensus emerge.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I have started because Steelpillow said, There is no need to wait before getting started. But actually we still have to wait! Based on our discussion, there are 3 ideas that are similar to each other, at least the result is "a new article" with 3 different name suggestions:

• 1. Headphase said: a good compromise could be to rename the article CSeries dumping petition by Boeing to Development of the Airbus A220 and then move most of the development info to that article. That way all the "high level” development information can be contained within one Development section of the main Airbus A220 article., while Steelpillow wanted to name the new article with Bombardier-Airbus partnership instead, but agreed that the details of the business games could move to the other article, but sufficient must remain to shape the main technical development strand, which equally definitely belongs here.
• 2. Ich-Du-De just summarized both editors that All passages related to business games, particularly in the subsection 'Marketing' should be moved to the current Partnership and Rebranding section, which will then be moved to a new article ... The lede will be then transcluded as a subsection Partnership and Rebranding of the main section Development. and reorganized to make it chronologically clearer. The difference is that the new article can be an all-new one, but not necessary the renamed CSeries dumping petition by Boeing article.
• 3. Marc Lacoste wanted to merge of all history into the development main section before Splitting a large part of the A220 history to a possible A220 takeover by Airbus. The question is, why should we merge it first and then split it again (?) Isn't it easier to just split it and move it to the new article, like the first idea said, to avoid double work?

—Ich-Du-De (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The reason for merging is so that we can get all the material in more or less chronological order. We will then be able to review the major subsections for each phase of the story and see which parts do belong in the Development section and which do not. It will then (hopefully) be clearer where to move the bits that do not belong. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I see, missed the point "merging" in your previous comments. So there is only consensus to create a new article (with 3 different name suggestions) dedicated to "business games", leaving the remaining main section with only a "high level"/"technical" development story and an intermediate subsection describing the takeover and any related legal aspects. Two way forwards are suggested for creating the new article, each with two supporting editors:

• 1. Separate the "Business Games" / "Legal Aspects" directly from the main sections and move them to the new article, whereas the new article can be the renamed article CSeries dumping petition by Boeing (Headphase) or an all-new article (Ich-Du-De).
• 2. First merging of all history into the development main section and then splitting a large part of the history to a possible new article (Marc Lacoste). The reason for merging is so that we can get all the material in more or less chronological order and after reviewing, it will then (hopefully) be clearer where to move the bits that do not belong (Steelpillow).

—Ich-Du-De (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I also suggested bringing everything into the Development section to start with, though I did not call it "merging" at the time. Yes, this is the first thing that needs doing, before the solution to your point 1. can become clear. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

So it seems there is a consensus to bring all the history in the Development main section first. OK for you Ich-Du-De? Then we can discuss what should be split to another article, what should be its name, its content, and so on, but it's a second step.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

"First merging and then splitting" has pros: "better overview" and cons: the Development section is "difficult to read during this transition period". There is still no consensus (2:2) and both ideas will actually lead to a similar result, but you can start with yours and just keep the transition time short.—Ich-Du-De (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I've regrouped all subsections in the development main section, but the chronology is still jumping between timelines. More consolidation should be done. I didn't moved the marketing section yet, albeit it also revolves around a timeline. Maybe it should be merged too.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Now reordered more or less chronologically to try and give a coherent picture, with some subsections broken into smaller ones. Next step is to attack the marketing with the same goal in view. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Delta's order in April 2016 and the corresponding Boeing's dumping petition came after CS100 certification in December 2015. This is an important point from a marketing perspective, IMO.—Ich-Du-De (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I moved the dumping petition down. The chronology of each section does overlap a bit, but I think it is better to group each subtopic. Hope it's better now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Now also kinda merged in the marketing, and split the whole big thing into two sections according to the business partnership/branding. Still needs a mass of cleanup before we can see where we are with it all, but I am not well up in the civil airliner articles so I will back off now unless anyone asks me back; this article is no longer on my watchlist. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I've got bad connectivity this week, I'll be better for help from Sunday. Cheers,--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I went through Development to reorder parts and sections to make more sense. It could/should be more polished though. I think the picture is clearer now.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Serial Numbers when Cseries changed to A220

I'm not sure the statement the marketing designations changed to A220-100 and A220-300 at serial numbers 50011 and 55003 respectively. When I read an older version of Type Certificate No. T00008NY , my interpretation of that is, from those serial numbers on, the holder of that Type Certificate changed from Bombardier to CSALP, not for change in the marketing designation (see the note 5).

Especially as Flight Global states, in the also referred link, this was only with the 10th CS300/A220 delivered to AirBaltic , which, as the images show, is registration YL-CSJ, which is serial number 55038

Who knows for sure? Antheii (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

55003 was the first cs300 to be delivered to a customer (55001 and 55002 were/are prototypes). There were a number of cs300 delivered under Bombardier ownership, so the change can't have happened with those serials numbers. At least not in that sense that those were the first to be delivered as A220. Similar for cs100, 50011 must have been one of the first, if not the first to be delivered. Perhaps all delivered (i. e. non-prototype aircraft) fall under the new marketing designation with the change or so.--2001:BB8:2002:2400:749F:6755:1302:BDC8 (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Not To Be Confused Headnote

Can we add head note “Not to be confused with Airbus A320”, because both aircraft looks similar? Emery Cool21 (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done as hatnotes are intended to help people who have arrived at the page with the wrong search term, not for other similarities

Marketing brochure

@Ich-Du-De: Despite my warnings of avoiding WP:Puffery, you continue to add bloated material as if it came from a marketing brochure. This has to stop.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe from your perspective, but from a technical point of view it's not bloated or WP.puffery. The "design goal" of the CSeries was quite unusual (unique) for a narrow-body A/C: "comfort" (wider fuselage/cabin => more wetted area => more drag => more fuel burn) will affect efficiency, it's normal for wide-body aircraft, since comfort is required on the long haul and a longer range also helps to increase efficiency. To compensate that and to achieve more efficiency than existing aircraft in its class, CSeries/A220 needs to apply more advanced technologies, which in turn affects its production rate (it is very low compared to A320/737). Only the Irkut MC-21 does follow the same strategy, but Comac C919 doesn't, it follows the "standard goal/strategy" of narrow-body A/C, IMO. Ich-Du-De (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM We're not here to discuss our opinions on technical choices. Your opinion, and mine, don't matter. We're here to build a neutral encyclopedia. "efficiency and comfort of a wide-body long haul airliner" don't exist. "previous generation of airliners in the same class" is misleading without a clear comparison. Be careful. Avoid stating your opinion disguised in marketing language.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. Marketingspeak has its place in the Airbus product sheet, but Wikipedia sticks to facts and encyclopedic language. And we also try to restrict ourselves to the key notable facts, rather than giving almost every detail from sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and I would add WP: NOTOPINION, WP:NOTPROMO and WP:indiscriminate.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Infobox: Designer

The lead sentence at the top is well worded: "It was originally designed by Bombardier and had two years in service as the Bombardier CSeries." This means that the aircraft was launched, developed and manufactured by Bombardier, certified and entered service for two years as the CSeries. In line with the lead sentence, to reflect the phrase "originally designed by Bombardier" I wanted to add the following chronic in the infobox, "designer" section:

- Bombardier Aviation (until 2020)

- Airbus Canada LP (2020-present)

While the "manufacturer" section is actually not just Airbus Canada LP, but also Airbus Mobile. However, it is okay to write in this regard only the main assembly line. Ich-Du-De (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

"This means that the aircraft was launched, developed and manufactured by Bombardier, certified and entered service for two years as the CSeries" This is why Bombardier should be listed under manufacturer. "Design Group" is intended for Soviet-style design bureaux, not full manufacturers, which you admitted Bombardier was. If you want to add the specific dates, that's fine, but I didn't do that as I was uncertain of the dates. BilCat (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, you were using "Designer", which is only for people. See Template:Infobox aircraft type/doc for how these parameters are intended to be used. BilCat (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The Designer parameter in the infobox was set in 2017 and I just know that it is intended for a 'natural' person, not a 'legal' person like Bombardier. Therefore we should use "developed by" instead of "designed by" in the lede. This fits the infobox better, while the phrase "two years in service as Bombardier CSeries" implies that the aircraft was manufactured by Bombardier and delivered as a CSeries within that period.

There are two ways to set the value of the Manufacturer parameter in the infobox:

1. By the program owner:

- Bombardier (until 2016)

- C Series Aircraft LP (2016-2019)

- Airbus Canada LP (2019-present)

2. By majority stake owner (simpler):

- Bombardier (until 2018)

- Airbus (2018-present)

Let's use the first variant till consensus can be reached. Ich-Du-De (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with doing it by majority stake owner. BilCat (talk) 07:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)