Talk:List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries 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

Europe Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aviation: Airlines

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 articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the airline project.

Options column[edit]

SkyMark have cancelled their A380 orders. Sorry I don't know how to update the list.

Solarsail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.85.22 (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers in the "Options" column for the orders table are not explained. Could someone please explain this in the article. I myself have no idea what the numbers mean. EuroSong ^talk 16:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates[edit]

Emirats last 8 its some time firmed and sometime not. Emirates saying they have 55 on order so I think it can be not pinked. The "VIP" its werry posible one off emirates how going to the shake I belive becos hi wont its NOW and not waiting for yers for it. The laste delivery shoving that Emirates its taking testframe CN 9 + 7 !?!?!?! 2007-09-27 MW --85.230.176.195 18:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The final proof of an order having been firmed is the Airbus orders and deliveries spreadsheet. If it isn't shown on that spreadsheet, the simple rule is that the order is not shown as firm (i.e. with an asterisk). When in doubt, check the spreadsheet. --Ctillier 00:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is something wrong with the spreadsheet as the Emirates orders add up to 141 instead of 140. I suspect there is a mistake in 2007, as they announced that the orders were a total of 58 when the big order for 32 was placed in 2010.
18 June 2007 11 November 2007 Emirates 2008 8
11 November 2007 11 November 2007 Emirates 2008 3
Pacomartin (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The June 8th 2010 Emirates order for 32 aircraft says delivery in 2008. That doesn't seem right. EdHayes3 (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates will receive 14 more A380s from 2019 until the end of 2021, taking its total A380 order book to 123 units. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeGK (talk • contribs) 20:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A380-800F[edit]

Intresting UPS still not cansled. The loggo still flying in the test frames. The FrdX wos erased werry son after cansling the order buth not UPS buth they saying they shod do that in the sommer(2007??) perhaps only an showing off. The time will tel... 2007-09-27 MW --85.230.176.195 18:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPS was cancelled. It's no longer in the Airbus O&D spreadsheet. --Ctillier 05:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On the fligt to SF the UPS loggo its removed from 007 and the BA not ther yet :(( 2007-10-05 MW 85.230.176.195 19:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There must be something wrong with the order numbers. 7 + 10 - 17 - 10 = 0 ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.47.181.253 (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bar graphs[edit]

A few suggestions for Ssolbergj... please kindly consider. I would make these changes myself, but I'm not very comfortable with creating / splitting templates.

(a) try not to place the bar charts side by side with the tables-- it breaks the layout for smaller screen resolutions / window widths.
(b) keep the customer table at the very top of the 'orders by customer' section. Put the bar graph (by customer) below the table; although informative, it is not what one immediately expects from a List of Airbus A380 orders.
(c) Move the chronological bar graph to the chronological section, under that table... that probably requires splitting the template.
(d) Make sure the bars in either graph add up to a meaningful number... you seem to have left out cancellations. Perhaps there should be some text to state assumptions.
(e) Is the recourse to templates really necessary? Can't you inline the graphs in the article to make editing less obscure?
(f) What is Barockgarten großsedlitz panorama.jpg in the template?

Thanks for adding the bar charts, they are useful. cheers --Ctillier 03:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(a-c) Ok
(d) It's written A380-800 above both graphs.
(e) Ok
(f) An unprofessional solution to size the table. I'll try to fix it. - S. Solberg J. 22:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, looks great! --Ctillier 04:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VIP[edit]

The long spoken VIP its comfirmed bye Airbus on http://www.airbus.com/en/myairbus/headlinenews/index.jsp.

"Airbus books record sales for its family of corporate, executive and VIP jetliners 25 September 2007"

"A record number of sales have been logged so far this year by the Airbus Executive and Private Aviation team, including five VIP A330s/A340s, and the first-ever order for an A380."

The customer its not reviled (I still think one off the Emirates).

2007-10-01 MW --85.230.176.195 17:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not far awey for No 1. And "VIP 2" LHT [1] or " Edése Doret " [2] ? "VIP 3" = AF1 Mvh MW 85.225.96.49 20:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Production list[edit]

This is difficult information to source... it is useful, but does it even belong? Are there suitable examples for other aircraft types on Wikipedia? --Ctillier 05:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look on the Franch Wiki and You see one. http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Airbus/A380/index.html, http://www.airlinerlist.com/ and photos telling some and some meatings on the net. I do think its intresting in the beginig buth after the first 100 I think its no so hott longer. I think the best its to do an new page with it and link it from the main page under deliveris like the order page. The MSN5000, MSN5001 and MSN001 ar owned by Airbus and ar not for sale. 2007-10-13 MW 85.230.176.195 15:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another question... what is the intended nuance between A (active) and B (built and flying) ? --Ctillier 05:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - From the begining the parts its fitted together at the FAL (TLS) buth not flying yet(roled out) = Constructed(Built, not flying yet) After the first fligth the frame its going to Hamburg for outfitting and painting = Built and flying. And after the oufitting and painting its flying buth not delivered = Active (perhaps deliverytesting ??). Wen delivered = Delivered. If not asembled at the FAL (TLS) buth probely the parts its on zite = Unknown(not easy to nowing buth verry intresting). If some its nowing an bether system for showing the status off the frames pleas speak upp to geth it bether. Wos wondring about making difrent backrondcolurs in the status feld buth I think its not nice only messing it upp. 2007-10-16 MW 85.230.176.195 17:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ops wos forgething Thanks for helping with the spelling not Eng spoken :) MW 85.230.176.195 17:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates / ILFC[edit]

Its the ILFC frames that Emirates taking (MSN025 & MSN028) leased or ar they bying them from ILFC ?? 2007-10-16 MW 85.230.176.195 18:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kingfisher follow-on order[edit]

Press reports indicate that Kingfisher is considering converting its 5 options into firm orders. That's not the same thing as announcing an order, let alone firming it, so they should not (yet) be counted in the article! Otherwise, why not add Iberia, Air India, and whatever other airlines are 'considering' an order. As long as there is no announcement, letter of intent, or memorandum of understanding, it shouldn't be counted.

Does anyone object to the removal of the possible Kingfisher order from the 2008 total? --Ctillier (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absent any disagreement, I have deleted the future Kingfisher order. The link provided http://www.livemint.com/2008/01/13235805/Kingfisher-doubles-A380-orders.html only quotes Vijay Mallya as "planning to convert the options to confirmed orders" and states Kingfisher "will buy" more A380s. That's great, and we can add it when it actually happens. --Ctillier (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Airlines follow-on order / Total options[edit]

If the information is right, they use their 3 options, also it should be 48 options total and not 51 anymore. Cirrocumulus (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firm orders / LOI[edit]

Don't you think, it would be better only to show the firm orders? I think the MOU/LOI/Announcements could have a place in the "Orders and commitments sorted by chronology" list (not adding to the totals), but not included elsewhere (totals, diagrams, lists) until firmed. It's not firm until in the books. Some MOU/LOI/announcements need a lot of time to be firmed, sometimes they get not firmed at all. If there is no reason to do otherwise I would change those items. I was not logged:Cirrocumulus (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I corrected the lists and graphs to show only firm orders, with exception of the list "Orders and commitments sorted by chronology". I hope it is better this way.Cirrocumulus (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Production List[edit]

Anybody know why this page has a production list, I would not thought it is notable and can be externally referenced. Is it going to be maintained when production is in the hundreds? MilborneOne (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the writing abow. I think its not gonna live for ever, buth in the start persons its intresting woth its hapening and picur of Quantas firat planes wos getting somt husends linking and I think its going bee the same with all first deliveris to coustoms. As long new info its coming and its posible to uppdate then its OK. Its posible to move to an sub page buth not nesesery. Is also starting to being refered to on other plases on the net. MW 85.225.96.49 (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's interesting and noteworthy in the first few years of the program, especially in light of the production delays. As for referencing, a picture of an aircraft in the air should be sufficient evidence that it has indeed flown --Ctillier (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not concerned with referencing more with the notability of a list like this, when would you suggest it stops after 100,200 900. With a few hundred aircraft in-service it would need daily maintenance to keep it updated. None of the individual aircraft are really notable, the prototype and first in-service are covered in the main article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is OK to have until the production is ramped up to the 44/year. Cirrocumulus (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved recent comment by Jackelfive to more recent discussion here. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EIS: Korean Air, Malaysia Airlines, 2008?[edit]

Does anybody have information about that? I think it is not correct after the new schedule.Cirrocumulus (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Air EIS: 2010, I corrected this.Cirrocumulus (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Airlines is talking with Airbus about a new timeline actually.Cirrocumulus (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grupo Marsans / Air Comet / Aerolineas Argentinas[edit]

While it appears to be a firm order, I'd wait until the confirmation is in the orders book (or an official press release). But I think it has to be booked as one customer (Grupo Marsans) and not as 2 independent ones. Cirrocumulus (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orders and deliveries by year[edit]

I just added a table with orders and deliveries by year, using the Airbus official numbers. Only the year 2006 maybe controversial, in the Airbus documents I couldn't find the cancellation from Fedex, but it was 2006 (otherwise the numbers don't add too). With this I updated the graph.Cirrocumulus (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New graph: cumulative net orders[edit]

I just added a new graph, it contains the same information as the net orders by year, but I think it gives a better idea of the developing of orders. Should we have the two, or only one of these? Cumulative or net by year?Cirrocumulus (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orders: 192[edit]

Please wait until an official statement appears, or better, the official orders book. The number of 196 was stated here Headline news. Airbus S.A.S. :http://www.airbus.com/en/myairbus/headlinenews/index.jsp "The A380 has garnered a total of 196 firm orders from 17 customers, plus four additional commitments, ... , along with new orders/commitments from such important customers as British Airways and Grupo Marsans in Argentina, Enders explained. " It is not clear what are orders and what commitments, it is not official and it is not error-free (Grupo Marsans is actually Spain, not Argentina-based). Please wait until official releassment in 10 days, thanks!Cirrocumulus (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As of 29 Feb. 2008 the Grupo Marsans (Air Comet/Aerolineas Argentinas) has not ordered! It appears to be the commitment, that could be confirmed in the future. Cirrocumulus (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does EIS stand for?[edit]

I did not find it in the legend nor does eis apply in any way. 85.179.191.176 (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK Entry Into Service - the date an aircraft gets handed over to the airline and/or begins revenue service. --Denniss (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A380 orders and deliveries[edit]

Can somebody explain to me how to reset this pages into the previous format as the display at the moment is awfull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joefourie (talk • contribs) 21:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klick on "History" and brose thru all the old versions and if You needs reset klick undo that version.

Mvh Mattias W 85.225.97.155 (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Airlines slots / Emirates[edit]

Its romer from Germany taht Emirates have taking the 3 early slots from Malaysia Airlines. The MSN shodd bee 018, 024 and 032, and tahat its the order signed 11 november 2007. Pleas do not changin befor enny more info its avible. Therfor its werry likly that all the Emirates reggs its change like some saying for the MSN009. Mvh Mattias W 85.225.97.155 (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: It's rumour from Germany that Emirates have taken the 3 early slots from Malaysia Airlines. The MSNs should be 018, 024 and 032 and it's the order signed on 11 November 2007. Please do not change this before any more information is available. It's very likely that all of the Emirates registrations will change, like some people are saying for MSN009... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.103.122 (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four engines bad, two engines good![edit]

I heard the very large 517kN turbofan engines from B-777 are now undergoing a further design table upgrade to 645kN and can be manufactured, if there is any interest. Should it be possible have twin-engined Airbus 380 then?

Supposedly this would reduce operating costs as much as 30% due to lower maintenance needs, although the need to have Antonov-124 to haul drop-in replacements for those mega-engines does drive up costs. Anyhow, airlines generally hates tri-jets and four-jets, because jet engines and engine technicians are quite expensive and the more engines you have per plane, the less fuel economy you get, which hurts in the pocket these days due to sky-high oil prices. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this page is to discuss the related article on orders and deliveries, it is not a blog or a place to ask general questions. MilborneOne (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etihad Airways order/ Total orders[edit]

The wording of the press releases from Etihad and Airbus are somewhat unclear. From Flightglobal this order is for 10 new A380, but the former 4 are cancelled (Airbus told something like "near to 200 orders" and not 200 orders reached). It is better to wait until the order list for July is released. Some orders take quit a while until the real firm order is placed. I prefere to stick to the 192 orders until then. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/07/17/225839/farnborough-2008-etihad-switching-four-test-a380s-for-10-new-build.html Cirrocumulus (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Production List - Delete ?[edit]

Is it time this was removed - none of the aircraft are particularly notable and it is just a link farm against WP:EL guidelines. The only source of reference is Airlines.net and most of the information can be found on fanboy websites which are far better for this sort of information than an encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree. The list will become unmanageably long also. --John (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - unencyclopedic. --Rlandmann (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No contest. Agreed. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, too. On Airliners.net, no problem, but in Wikipedia it is non-encyclopediac. - Ahunt (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Production list has now been removed (twice!) per support above. MilborneOne (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The production list should be definately be kept, at least for now. I can understand about deleting it a few years later, when production gets to common to mention. But for now, many of us, find it very interesting especially in these early stages of deliveries. It is also a great way of monitoring when the next A380 is going to be delivered to the airlines. Jackelfive (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC) (Moved down from above -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

while it is only a list, it is helpful. So long it is up to date, keep it.Cirrocumulus (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of interesting and useful things are not allowed by Wikipedia policy for one reason or another. Sad but true. Any justification for keeping this list needs to be based on Wikipedia policy. Note that we must not forget the specific policy to Ignore all rules. So - does this list make Wikipedia better? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. One of the things Wikipedia is not is an indiscriminate collection of information. --John (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, positive aspects I see:
-It is continually updated and offers reliable information
-It helps to get the numbers of builded and delivered planes
negative aspects:
-not so relevant information for an encyclopedia
-very large (but at the end of the article)
Cirrocumulus (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the majority view is still to delete, pity the users who keep adding it back dont tell us why they think it is important! MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, two of them said that it is important because it is constantly maintained up to date. While this is something that wikis are very well suited to doing, Wikipedia is the wrong wiki to be doing it on: it is not encyclopedic and is firmly against policy. Having slept on it, my vote is unchanged. Unfortunately the darn list is now sooo long that it crashes my ancient pox box when I try to edit the page. Could someone else oblige? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC) P.S. Ah, that's cracked it. 83.104.46.71 (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You musst see the Info Sir, on Number *7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.136.188.131 (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are Pros and Cons to having this production list.
- Pros - Information is up to date. Sources can be verified.
- Cons - Not Wikipedia policy for one reason or another. Too cluttered.
Like what Jackelfive has mentioned, it will get messy once rate of production increases. To please both parties, why not look into removing unnecessary details and keeping the essentials. - Planenut (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree, while helpful, Wikipedia may not be the right place for it. But sure worth a link then.Cirrocumulus (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy keeping my eye on when he planes are getting delivered and to whom so I say keep the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.34.150 (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia not a plane spotters site, if you are that interested in the subject I would suggest that Wikipedia would not be the prime source of information on the subject. Perhaps we may have to take the article to AfD for resolution. MilborneOne (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mistaking that it's going to become unwieldy as production increases (if it isn't unwieldy already). For those who advocate keeping it, plan for the future and either find a place to host the list offsite (http://aviation.wikia.com ?), and/or find a way to pare it down to a summarizing table here (not a plane-by-plane accounting).--Father Goose (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that this type of information is too specific, detailed, and trivial for an entry in an encyclopedia. There are, however, at least two other wikis that would love to have it - PSW and the (sadly dormant) Airframes. Both of these offer opportunities for quickly publishing up-to-the-minute news on new A380 production (which seems to be the main impetus for retaining this information in this article). --Rlandmann (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The production list is really the only interesting aspect of this entire category. I have found 5 different websites that direct traffic back to this page, just for the production list. If planespotters are using it for their purposes, so be it, if it is driving traffic back to the site. I personally only look at this page for the production list, as I feel thousands of others do. It looks to me that only four people want to remove it, for their own reasons, without considering the value to others. This issue really should be reviewed by an administrator, as it looks like a few viewers are trying to have their way, and remove information that others enjoy. I put forth that if you do not like this information, then don't look at it, as many others find it extremely entertaining and very useful. I also put forth that four people do not make a quorum that can decide for removal on a website used by millions. 24.125.95.102 (talk)Everton44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.95.102 (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin, and if these millions find it so useful then maybe they should come and give their encyclopedic and policy-based arguments here for keeping it. At the moment I'd say this contravenes our policies and that there is no consensus to keep it (which is how it works; we don't need a consensus to remove it, you need one to keep it). There are many, many, cheap or low-cost web hosts out there for fanboy stuff like this, no offense intended as I am a bit of a fanboy myself when it comes to planes. We just don't do this kind of thing on Wikipedia, and this is way too detailed and not well-enough referenced for our purposes. --John (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an especially accurate description of how things are done on Wikipedia. I've offered what I feel is a more forthright response below, and I note that the table is now hosted at http://plane.spottingworld.com/A380_production_list .--Father Goose (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, could we have the that big production list back please. I liked it and it was informative. You are discussing wether it should be here or not. At the end of the day it doesn't hurt anyone if it is there but people do miss it if its gone. Please can someone put it back!!! If someone thinks the data is too specific and trivial - DON"T READ IT!!!! Those of us who do find it interesting should still have the right to see it.

Production list was the only reason I had this page bookmarked, so now I will delete is and book mark plane.spottingworld instead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.161.93.138 (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A380 Types Matrix[edit]

Was looking at this and since it's more towards the specifications on the A380 main page, should we merge both sections? Any objections? - Planenut (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is too detailed for the main article, it could stay as a description for the orders table.Cirrocumulus (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Variants table[edit]

Is this not max weight specs for the 841, 861, and 842, respectively? (the source PDFs don't make this entirely clear, but it seems likely). If so, it should be merged into the "models" table. Personally, I'd only add MTOW so as not to cramp the table.--Father Goose (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is getting unnecessarily trivial for an encyclopedia article! - Ahunt (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, um, what does everyone want to do with this table? Leave it in place, merge it with the "Models" table (MTOW only?), delete it altogether, some other option?--Father Goose (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly support merging the MTOW info into the models table and getting rid of the rest. - Ahunt (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons to keep the production list[edit]

The production list is really the only interesting aspect of this entire category. I have found 5 different websites that direct traffic back to this page, just for the production list. If planespotters are using it for their purposes, so be it, if it is driving traffic back to the site. I personally only look at this page for the production list, as I feel thousands of others do. It looks to me that only four people want to remove it, for their own reasons, without considering the value to others. This issue really should be reviewed by an administrator, as it looks like a few viewers are trying to have their way, and remove information that others enjoy. I put forth that if you do not like this information, then don't look at it, as many others find it extremely entertaining and very useful. I also put forth that four people do not make a quorum that can decide for removal on a website used by millions. 24.125.95.102 (talk)Everton44

Consensus is the means by which these things are decided on Wikipedia, and the consensus has to be forged amongst those that show up for the discussion. That means you, I, and the half-dozen or so other people who have commented on this issue so far. It doesn't mean that the majority view wins, but rather that one way or another all of us present are going to have to resolve our differences and decide on what is the best way forward.

It isn't that we want to get rid of the production list, per se. There are several issues involved that make Wikipedia a poor choice to host it. The most important is the question of verifiability: much of the production information comes from plane spotters' personal reports, which are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Another is that Wikipedia strives to be a readable reference work, not a collection of data or directory. A third issue is a combination of technical limitations and a desire to keep the encyclopedia structure in easily-digested chunks, the rationale for which is laid out at WP:SIZE. This table fails to align with each of those principles, especially as it grows larger and larger.

We're not saying we want to get rid of the table, just that Wikipedia isn't the right place to host it. A site with a different set of constraints and goals would be a better place for it. This article can link to the new location of the table, for the benefit of those readers that want the highly detailed statistics of what is happening to each and every plane. Other readers, who might only be interested in an overview of A380 orders, will be better served by a shorter page containing only that overview, with the option to view the full list of planes elsewhere. For the reasons listed above, Wikipedia is not the right place to host the full list. Is it so vital that the list be on Wikipedia itself? Especially given that it jives with Wikipedia's general standards of verification and content presentation, wouldn't it be better to transfer it to a different site, where its ongoing presence will not be embattled?--Father Goose (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've transferred it to http://plane.spottingworld.com/A380_production_list and added a link to the table's new location to this article.--Father Goose (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. --John (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely explained! - Ahunt (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good solution! Thanks! Cirrocumulus (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second the thanks to Father Goose, an elegant solution and a better location for this type of information. MilborneOne (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't agree with removing the list, but oh well. Before I log off this discussion, could I ask that whoever moved the list to check the links that they moved it with, as now it looks pretty bad, and some of the links do not work. EVERTON44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.114.242 (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Father Goose (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cod some make an new subpage for the produtionlist an copy the old ther, make link from the main artikel and the order subpage. Then its nothing to do with the orders and cand being working on by persons that have the intrest off it. The referenc to plante spotter its verry bad its only romors and not uptodate and mutch vrong in it. The wiki list its refered in the german forums that its the best and I think the persons how like to haveit´uppdated can du that and therest dont bother. Mattias W 85.225.7.88 (talk) 10:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list that's on Planespotters is a copy of the list that was here. The one that was here was only rumors and out of date. If you can update the list on Planespotters with the information from the German forums, that would be great.--Father Goose (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The planetspotter its one off the oldest list(older that the wiki) buth its not uppdated well and its not corect in menny things. Look in the MSN050 and You realice that an new model its prodused (A380-842). The lis its from the beginning an copy from the france wiki but uppdated vith more info and You perhaps have talking with the person how have make it from the begining. As long persons find it intresting and its uppdating OK then it have an place!! Woth is it wrong with the latest update off MSN047 "MSN047 A380-841 VH-OQG Qantas 2009-Q4 HX, CV2008/7 7C4926 " With referenc off the convoy ?? Evry change off status normaly being referenced by an photolink or pressrelases so I think You kan not blame that. I am not an German(The german spells Mattias with th) buth werry ofen You can geth info fron ther forums that its from inside like then and plan its landing for utfitting and I think its still plenty persons that finde it intresting(like that gay ho spend two weeks in one off the showers buth wos not saying that untill the week befor Emerated showing it). Woth wos the part that wos notupdated in the list ?? If You nowing that I think its more polite to corecting then deleting the hole list. If You dont like it on tha oder/delivery page make an subbpage for deliverys becose its still intresting verry menn persons. Mvh Mattias W 85.225.7.88 (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The exact list that used to be in this article is now at http://plane.spottingworld.com/A380_production_list . If any of it is wrong or old information, it was wrong here on Wikipedia too. If you know where to find better information and want to correct the article, create an account at Spottingworld and fix it.--Father Goose (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I will not do that and I like Your style to allweys forse Yor will infront off others. Long live the wikkkki !!!!!! 85.225.7.88 (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

firm A380-800 orders by customer, with details table and graph[edit]

hi, the table contains the customer and the # of planes = 220 and the graph contains also the customers + Air Comet and the # of planes is 204 (4 for air comet), and in the introduction it`s said that the # is 200. Plz someone explane that to me!! thx Mohamed Salim Nashwan - محــ سالم ــمد نشوان (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies[edit]

For Lufthansa and China Southern the dates are different in both tables. Is it a good idea to have two tables or should they both be merged into one? --84.119.66.178 (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

proposal to adapt bar graph[edit]

I was wondering whether we should add the deliveries to the bar graph. In my view this has a number of advantages. (1) It adds information to an otherwise rather empty graph. (2) It shows in one look the time lag between order and delivery (3) it shows the current order portfolio (i.e. those on order but not delivered) as the diff between the bars, while it also shows the total order (size of bar). It would look like this

**A380 firm net orders and deliveries (cumulative by year)**

Arnoutf (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond my skills to add this for you but my feeling is - Don't ask, do! That way you'll have tried to improve Wiki rather than just talking about an improvement. Which in my view is a much better use of ones time.

Air Comet[edit]

As User:Ihgyqxfs pointed out, Air Comet is now out of operation, and no A380s have been delivered. Should it be removed from the list? TEK (talk • e-mail) 21:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The PR has even disappeared from the Airbus website, so I think the Air Comet orders can be removed from the table, but maybe we should leave a note somewhere saying something like "firmed but never appeared on O&D recap, and the airline ceased ops since". Slasher-fun (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These were never firm orders, there was only a Memorandum of Understanding ([3]). Ihgyqxfs (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to decide where we want to go with this article. Do we want the order history of real oders, or do we want a more comprehensive history of all orders. It seems we do the latter, e.g. the FedEx order of 10 freighters of 16 jan 2001 is listed as a cancellation on nov 7 2006. So although these planes were never delivered we keep them in the list.

My suggestion would be to add something like the following to the table at the relevant place to keep the overview complete.

21 December 2009

Grupo Marsans - Air Comet

(-4)***

^[1]

.*** Committed but not confirmed orders at the time of bankruptcy.

Arnoutf (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to understand the difference between a firm order that was cancelled and a memorandum of understanding that never was a firm order. Ihgyqxfs (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand, the questions remains whether a MoU is sufficiently interesting to mention even if it is cancelled later. If it is, we should keep it in and add cancelation date, if it is not we should remove it per your suggestion. I see some value in both positions. Arnoutf (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As with the other similar articles a MoU is never enough to be noticed here. It was either entered because of misleading words in the Airbus press release or someone added a non-firm MoU option. BTW, the 2007 pressrelease is still available, just search for Comet in either Airbus or EADS press center. --Denniss (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok in that case I am convinced by the rationale for deletion and agree to delete MoU agreements. Would that include the nov 09 order by Vietnam airlines too? Arnoutf (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it now. Lumialover (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, neither a firm order nor a firm option. Does not seem to appear at the Airbus order list. --Denniss (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Bloomberg, Skymark have cancelled their A380 order.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-28/airbus-said-to-drop-order-for-six-a380-jets-with-japan-s-skymark.html

Solarsail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.85.22 (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skymark Airlines order[edit]

Someone may like to add details of the 4 A380s (+2 options) ordered by Skymark Airlines in Japan. Details here and here. --DAJF (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we? It's not an order as it's not even noticed at Airbus or EADS website. They may want to order the aircraft next year (or just get some press coverage). --Denniss (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to keep the article up-to-date and accurate would seem to be the most obvious reason, but if there are specific criteria for what orders can or cannot be included here, then fair enough. That is why I mentioned it on this talk page rather than just barging in and adding the data myself. --DAJF (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Press Release by Skymark Airlines here.--118.9.58.182 (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly very interesting. The reason why people here are reluctant to add things, is that such "promises" are often not finalized. E.g. President Bush/Obama ahve announced orders before which never materialized. That's why there is a hard rule for these tables: it should be the signing of a "firm order". That having said: this one seems indeed quite serious, so I think (hope) it will be firmed up soon... L.tak (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I (maybe prematurely) reverted the addition of the skymark order as it is an MOU "only" according to Airbus. However, it is announced, so I guess we could keep it in the "orders and commitments bij date"-section, indicating ** (which means "** Commitment, not a firm order", but which is not used at the moment). L.tak (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to add it until it is an order this is not a news service and as an encyclopedia we can wait until an order is confirmed. MilborneOne (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skymark have now (2/17/2011) announced a firm order for four A380's check out http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-17/airbus-wins-order-for-a380s-from-japanese-budget-carrier-skymark.html for more info

Should be on February O&D then. We'll see. Slasher-fun (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Air Comet cerrará sus operaciones due to bankruptcy

why exactly are we not going to 240 orders?[edit]

and mention Asiana, but not the increased total? I would agree that the calculation 234+6=240 could constitute original research, but we don't have to do this, because Airbus does it for us here! I don't see the point waiting for them to update the table... L.tak (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because we wait for Airbus to update their spreadsheet. We often had the problem that orders announced as firm orders were not so firm and were aded to the spreadsheet much later. --Denniss (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get that straight: announced as firm orders by airbus on their own website? I'll let myself be convinced by a single example... L.tak (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here's one : announced as "firm order" like Asiana's one (including the "Including this contract, total firm orders for the aircraft now stand at 196 from 17 customers"), never appeared in any O&D document. Slasher-fun (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, so much for airbus press releases as reliable primary sources. That's disappointing. But indeed a good justification for waiting for the tables! my mistake, L.tak (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "1st SIA flight":

From Airbus: "First A380 Flight on 25–26 October ". Singapore Airlines. 16 August 2007. Retrieved 16 August 2007.
From Airbus A380: "First A380 Flight on 25–26 October". Singapore Airlines. 16 August 2007. Retrieved 16 August 2007.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ILFC Cancellation[edit]

ILFC today signed an MoU to convert their 10 A380-800 orders to 100 A320neo orders, so we need to update this page to reflect that.

I performed a significant number of edits, however someone made some partial edits (leaving the ILFC order data in places) so there was an edit conflict. I replaced the page with my edits, but the page was subsequently reverted back to the original page by L.tak as it's currently an MoU so the order technically is still in effect until such time as they sign the formal paperwork to cancel it.

I'm willing to replace the page with my edited one, but am posting this to see if we can agree on the edits that need to be made. Kiskaloo (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As we have a reliable sources like flightglobal that say the order is cancelled I dont see why it cant be removed, if we have concern that it is still "on the books" we can add a note somewhere to that effect. MilborneOne (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify a bit. We have reliable sources stating there is an MOU and that is likely to be executed. But anything less then a firm order (or a firm cancellation if that exists) is always a grey area. For all the previous additions (I could give examples, but looking at the talk page+archives will show several examples) in the past years we have always waited for the firm orders, simply because it's the only thing which gets cancelled etc (MOUs just disappear without anyone knowing...). It's even that strong that some would agree (and have reason, see discussion in Jan) that disclosure of a full order only counts if airbus puts it in its order book at the beginning of the next month. I am not saying we should do that..., but I think we should be evenhanded with respect to orders as well as cancellations... L.tak (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your caution over orders particularly as you say when they are MoU and I dont have a problem with waiting for official confirmation for orders. But as this is a cancellation albeit tied in with the MoU for the A320s as the ILFC said This new agreement with Airbus will replace ILFC’s prior commitment for ten A380s. [4] Perhaps leave the line for ILFC but zero the numbers and add a note about the A320 order tie in. We may have to add a note about the cancellation to the totals. Most readers would not really know the logic behind it and would expect the entry to be removed so a note would be the best, but see what others think. MilborneOne (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide the links please. For some reason I ma having trouble finding them. I agree however that we should err on the side of caution, especially as this is an MoU. I think a note beside ILFC's (but leaving the order on as it stand) order saying that they have signed an MoU with intent to cancel is acceptable; rather than blanking it and saying that its still on the books. Ravendrop 21:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable, just to repeat ILFC press release MilborneOne (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree it's reasonable to somehow mention it. My suggestion would be to put place the 10 as (10)^note but could also live with placing a 0 with a note... L.tak (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has come up again due to the conflicting numbers on this page and on the main A380 page. See the discussion here: Talk:Airbus A380#ILFC Cancellation Inclusion Ravendrop 00:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since ILFC have now firmed up their order for the A320neo, it is pretty safe to say that their order for the A380 has now been cancelled and replaced with this new order. Thus, I think the order totals (234) can now be made the same for both this and the main A380 article. Ivowilliams (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since April O&D sheet will be out in a few days, can't we just wait to have a reliable source? Slasher-fun (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the logic, if there is an order we have to wait until it's on the books, same aplies to a cancellation, or not?Cirrocumulus (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Edit: OK, I see Airbus is also speaking of 234 orders and don't show the ILFC order, while I would wait until it is on the books, I see the conflict.Cirrocumulus (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Airbus have updated their O&D spreadsheet for April and it shows 100 A320 orders for ILFC and 10 A380 cancellations, so this is now official. Kiskaloo (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delivery dates ?[edit]

Just after looking on net trying to find list of deliveries by date in a simple format but unable to find it. When I saw the title of this I expected to find it. If some one has this info I think it would be a good addition. The table could have column for Date, Customer etc. As of today looking at the article it would have 48 entries. Something like this

Delivery	Date	Customer
1	15 August 2007	Singapore Airlines
2	-	-
3	-	-
4	-	-
etc	-	-

Leo1977 (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's been decided it was a bit too much, so those data are available on the external wiki you can find in the "see also" section. Slasher-fun (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the "see also" section ?. Looking at the Internet today I came across many articles dealing with production delays on the A380. Most articles for the last number of years up to the present time quote Airbus as stating that production has yet to stabilize and giving predictions of how many deliveries per month they expect to reach by a certain time. A list of deliveries would enable viewers to see what progress is being made. The title of this article is inaccurate if no list of deliveries is included, without it it should be called something like "List of Airbus A380 orders and deliver statistics" Its not as if there are hundreds of deliveries at this time, don't think it will make the article overly cumbersome. Leo1977 (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can find an excellent production list from the 1st link under the External links section right at the bottom of the article. One can sort the table by delivery date and it gives a very good indication on the progress in A380 production/deliveries. It is regularly updated, and so it was felt that there was no point in having it in this article as well. Ivowilliams (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1.1 Deliveries or First Commercial Flight[edit]

Should section 1.1 be labelled 'Deliveries' or should the heading be altered to reflect the data actually contained which is 'First Commercial Flight'. The table above already outlines deliveries. Evanderm (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Order from Lufthansa...[edit]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/29/uk-deutschelufthansa-brief-idUSLNE78S04G20110929 - Fan Railer (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and again, bad secondary sources. Neither LH nor Airbus stated this as firm order. LH board of directors just approveds the purchase of several aircraft. It'll be announced once it's firm. This is wikipedia, not a news site; we don't have to jump on every bandwagon just because some sites claim an order as firm without proof. --Denniss (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sukhoi_Superjet_100#Vote_on_flag_removal[edit]

This voting about flags and country info in orders might concern even this article. Tagremover (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Air Austral Cancels Order?[edit]

Still awaiting a primary source from Airbus to be released with its May orders and deliveries report, but for now, it is good to keep an eye on these developments: http://www.nycaviation.com/2012/05/air-austral-cancels-orders-for-840-seat-a380s-report/ https://www.ch-aviation.ch/portal/newsletter.php?view=32 Fan Railer (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just thought I'd add to this some more info:

http://www.ipreunion.com/photo-du-jour/reportage/2016/02/11/air-austral-boeing-787,39516.html http://www.ausbt.com.au/airline-dumps-plans-for-840-seat-all-economy-airbus-a380

I'm pretty sure that the order is cancelled, so we should update the Austral order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.141.238 (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent numbers[edit]

In the "By customer" table, the "Deliveries" column adds up to 79, but at the bottom, and elsewhere in the article, and in the A380 article, it says 77. It looks like the discrepancy is due to +1 for both Malaysia Airlines and Thai Airlines compared to what it says in the lead. RenniePet (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the total value to 79 to match the sum of the total deliveries (as Malaysia had received their second and Thai had received their first. This was not consistent with a total delivery count of 77. --johnbell149 11:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbell149 (talk • contribs)

Orders and Deliveries[edit]

The orders and deliveries charts in Airbus A380 are both nearly identical to those in this List_of_Airbus_A380_orders_and_deliveries but the figures do not always agree. I propose that Airbus A380 Orders and Deliveries transcludes the charts verbatim from this List_of_Airbus_A380_orders_and_deliveries and let this specialised page provide the research and citations. That will save a lot of duplicated effort and avoid contradictions. Right now List_of_Airbus_A380_orders_and_deliveries appears to be more up to date. Cross-posted to Talk:Airbus A380#Orders_and_Deliveries, maybe discuss there Ex nihil (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Good idea to consolidate the data, well done.

At the moment it is saying 264 orders in the text, but the consolidated table and chart are showing 262.

And now for a much more serious problem: Could the key numbers please, please, please be restored to the caption under the pretty picture of the A380 at the top right corner of the article? Please? I know it is redundant and duplicate (that's double-redundant?), but it is THE important thing I look at every day, and the quality of my life has been dramatically reduced by the 2, 3 or, on a bad day, 5 or 6 seconds it takes for me to find the numbers in the text. Thank you for your consideration. RenniePet (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to put it back but if you do maybe you could also be appointed to synchronise, on a daily basis, the numbers in the picture, the the corresponding numbers in the introduction to Orders and Deliveries, the Template for Orders and Deliveries that appears in Airbus A380 and Orders and Deliveries and the text of Airbus A380 and ensure that each of these have proper updated citations. Meanwhile, I have tried to make the intro easier to read so you will now waste only 2 seconds finding what you need. E x nihil ^(talk) 00:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very, very much for the reformatting of the introduction. That does make it much easier to see the number of deliveries and orders. Your editing efforts in general are appreciated from here. And thanks for the suggestion of me becoming synchronizer-in-chief for the caption text, but now with the reformatted introduction I think I'll adjust my habits and get along on that. RenniePet (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers don't add up[edit]

In the table of "Firm Orders" the sum of the number of orders by airline is 249, but the number at the bottom of the table is 264. It appears that someone removed the Kingfisher and Hong Kong Airline orders, but didn't change the table sums. The main A380 page has the same problem, showing 262 orders. It would seem appropriate to keep those orders listed, but indicate that they have fallen through, by listing '-15' in the number of orders for 2012 or 2013. --Spencer Klein, Berkeley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.197.40 (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, the numbers don't add up. The operators list doesn't either. The true numbers are given in Airbus's own Orders and Deliveries spreadsheet, which is published monthly, last on 28 Feb 2013. If we are patient and wait until Easter Monday we will probably be able to reset ALL the tables then. The errors creep in during the month when people do partial, incremental edits based on all kinds of other sources. The actual number in the February 2013 spreadsheet is 262. On Monday that will b at least 264, maybe more. When it is published it would be good if somebody could correct ALL the tables and summaries in both Airbus A380 and Orders and Deliveries. Cancelled orders may be of interest to record somewhere but of course cannot be included in the Firm Orders and shouldn't contribute to the total orders. If we take the Airbus spreadsheet as gospel an use only that, then our numbers updates will be very simple and they will always add up. E x nihil ^(talk) 06:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Orders[edit]

Why, since Emirates ordered an aditional 50 A380 on November 17, 2013, are they nowhere mentioned in your list? Thanks for correcting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.53.85.67 (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because it's not on the official list at http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/backstage/orders_deliveries_table/November_2013_-_Airbus_Orders_Deliveries.xls ? They will hopefully soon catch up with what was announced at http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/news-events-single/detail/emirates-orders-50-additional-a380s-boosting-fleet-to-140/ --David Biddulph (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates have ordered 50 more A380 which is not reflected in the list and neither in the A380 wiki http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1387803158.html

Agreed re: extra 50 order in 2013 - the press release from Airbus themselves was published 23rd December 2013 now that deal has been finalised and signed. http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/news-events-single/detail/emirates-airline-firms-up-order-for-50-additional-a380s/ Gnubyexample 22:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper! As soon as the new Airbus Orders & Deliveries Spreadsheet becomes available containing an updated number of net orders the page will be updated. Updating now would either create inconsistencies in the article (between the orders by airlines and the overall number of orders) or numbers that are not verifiable. SideshowBob7 (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected[edit]

I have protected the article due to an edit war on what is regarded as a source for the article, please discuss and come to a consensus, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, first of all I'm sorry if I have broken any rules. My first point is simply that the Emirates order has not been booked by Airbus in their official Order & Deliveries overview, available on the Airbus Website. And this despite the first announcement of the "order" happening on November 17 and the most recent Orders & Deliveries update being dated November 30. So as of November 30 the "order" obviously was not firm enough to be booked and since Airbus has not given out any official release stating otherwise in the meantime we can only assume it still isn't. The second point is the Airbus press release doesn't say the order is firm at all it only says "order" which can also mean non firm order. (The same happened already with the Asiana Order back in 2011, which was announced as an "order" during summer but wasn't booked by Airbus before December.) Concerning the deliveries, the additions I removed were all against the source indicated in the footnotes. So I think we should be patient and keep things as they are until Airbus confirms the numbers in it's next Orders & Deliveries overview. SideshowBob7 (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please use only the official Airbus O&D and ignore the press releases, they are not reliable. This has been discussed before. The only reliable source for current, confirmed order net of cancellations is the official Airbus O&D. Press releases need to be ignored as they can mean anything or nothing; it may merely indicate an intention to sign a contract subject to negotiation, an option, perhaps a real commitment, or any number of things. They are written by marketing and communications departments for a particular purpose, maintaining the accurate net figures we need is not one of those purposes. Trying to adjust the total, net figures by going on various press releases as they happen has lead to chaos in the past and then somebody has to rebuild all the figures from the next spreadsheet. Once they are genuine, committed orders Airbus will adjust the O&D list. Sometimes press release orders take months to appear, or for a different number, or never appear. The press releases also rarely account for cancellations so it puts the net figures wrong. Just use the official Airbus O&D, relax, read the press releases because they may be indicative of the future, sit back and wait for next month's spreadsheet. E x nihil ^(talk) 03:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- While this is protected the O&D template does not seem to update and shows an old version. The template itself is currently correct. Can somebody please give the Template: A380 Orders and Deliveries a kick? It would also be really useful if the IP address who is making the changes based on press releases could join this discussion, otherwise it would appear at this point that there is no support for making changes based on press releases rather than on the official Airbus O&D monthly spreadsheets. E x nihil ^(talk) 08:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E x nihil ^(talk) 08:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the protection as it appears from the discussion so far that the consensus is to use the official Airbus data to update this page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it took less than one hour until some IP User made a change that doesn't fit the official Airbus spreadsheet, really annoying! SideshowBob7 (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was unreasonable to keep the article protected when the discussion had a clear consensus and no input for over a week, that said I have gone back to semi-protection to encourage the IPs to discuss the issue. MilborneOne (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

How does one edit the consolidated figures, that are common to this article and the A380 article? It looks like a macro, and it is beyond my wikki-skills to know where the macro resides. (Reason I want to edit it is that the orders numbers are inconsistent - one table says 20 orders in 2014, the other says zero.) RenniePet (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a template. Edit at Template:A380 Orders and Deliveries. But I have corrected it already. Took out the 20 unofficials. E x nihil ^(talk) 00:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to remember that. RenniePet (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First deliveries[edit]

If the table lists the first commercial flights, it should be called that...not "first deliveries". Either change the name of the section to "First commercial flights", change the table to list the date of the first delivery to each airline, or change the section to "First deliveries and commercial flights" and have a column for each event in the table. AHeneen (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I have changed the title to First commercial flights by each airline MilborneOne (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an opinion about including both delivery date & first commercial flight date in table? AHeneen (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it the delivery to the airline is probably more notable to this page, the first scheduled service date is more significant to the aircraft article when listing operators. Perhaps just change it to first deliveries. MilborneOne (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot do that without changing all those dates. The dates are commencement of service. E x nihil ^(talk) 15:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to comment here, but I had already changed the dates to the date of first delivery (and removed refs to first flights) when you changed the section title. All dates shown are the date of first delivery. AHeneen (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Well, I'd better change the titles back. First delivery dates are a lot easier to reference than first service dates but others may have a view on that because the consensus to date has been to record the service date. E x nihil ^(talk) 08:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Air airbus A380[edit]

Korean Air To Debut Ninth Airbus A380 on 6 July http://www.superadrianme.com/travel/korean-air-ninth-airbus-a380/^[1]

Hardly notable in the big scheme of things. MilborneOne (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.superadrianme.com/travel/korean-air-ninth-airbus-a380/

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2014[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please update the number of A380s delivered to Emirates - the total number is 49 ^[1]

Probably true but cannot be updated because the sum would not then match the official monthly Airbus O&D numbers and introduce discrepancies. Will be updated as a matter of course when the next Airbus O&D is published. Be patient. E x nihil ^(talk) 08:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source. The current Orders & Deliveries list published monthly by Airbus still lists 48 deliveries (through 31 May 2014). I did not find any press release on the Emirates website or any news using Google (searched: "a380 delivery emirates june 2014" & "a380 delivery emirates July 2014") that Emirates has received their 49th A380. I see the source. I have checked the aircraft's registration (A6-EEW) and it is flying according to FlightRadar24. I'll update the list. Delivered 27 June per [5] & [6]. AHeneen (talk) 08:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updating this puts all the totals out. We know it's in service but previous discussions decided to rely only on the official Airbus O&D to prevent the inevitable discrepancies introduced by using multiple sources such as this one. It will all come out in the wash eventually and the new Airbus figures are due now but I would recommend not updating it right now to avoid confusion - or the next comment will be that the totals do not sum or the sums do not match the quoted sources or the tables disagree with each other. Slightly lagging numbers are considered the lesser of two evils. E x nihil ^(talk) 09:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.abcdlist.nl/a380f/a380f.html}}

Notice about using Airbus Orders & Delivery report[edit]

After updating the table to reflect the new Emirates deliveries total (section above), I received the following message on my talk page:

You changed the Emirates delivery numbers in List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries. This is not a small job and cannot be done in isolation, the tables now do not sum, and they disagree with each other. These tables, or templates, are also included in other related pages and causes discrepancies on those pages including rendering some of the text in those pages incorrect. The tables also do not match the references cited. Changing this little number is a very big job. In the past it was chaos because people updated the tables piecemeal in response to press releases and other sources, consequently, the consensus arose to use ONLY the official Airbus O&D, this pretty much fixed the numbers churn. This comes out monthly so we just need to wait. I would recommend that the change be reverted. E x nihil ^(talk) 09:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I searched the talk page to find support for the claims and see the discussions. However, I think it is a bit misleading to not have the list displayed without any note to readers that the list is based on the monthly Airbus spreadsheet. (Although many Wikipedia pages aren't constantly kept up-to-date,) Readers expect the list to be accurate without any note to the contrary (eg. "As of [date]"). I also think it is very unhelpful to editors (like me) to not have some type of note on the page (like a hidden note) that only the Airbus O&D report is to be used to update the table. Therefore, when changing the 49-->48, I added a note about the source ("The following orders have been placed and deliveries made, according to Airbus, as of 31 May 2014:[ref]") and a hidden note to other Wikipedia editors ("ATTENTION EDITORS!! Please use only the Orders and Deliveries report published by Airbus to update the table. The most recent report can be found as a link on this page: http://www.airbus.com/company/market/orders-deliveries/"). A note about how to adjust the table to stay accurate should also be made who understands what needs to be mentioned. I think an administrator is needed to add a note to the editing page (what is displayed above the edit box when editing), which may also be helpful. AHeneen (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skymark cancellation[edit]

Since Airbus has officially confirmed the cancellation, there does not seem to be a point in keeping that order listed until the spreadsheet got updated. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

seems to me the table could keep Skymark but put the number at zero (and like for other changing orders) so long as it does not require revamping the format tremendously, why not have the table contain extra information like growing or shrinking orders? that shows a history of the project which is useful to know about programs which over time become big hits or failures. 69.201.168.196 (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My original revision had a reference link ^[1] to a statement by Airbus that they had cancelled the sales contract (and by extension, the order), but that change was reverted on the grounds we needed to wait for a statement from Airbus (confused). If the editing policy for this page is to wait for Airbus to update their Orders and Deliveries spreadsheet at the end of each month, that is fine, but that should have been the stated reason so as to prevent confusion and ambiguity. Kiskaloo (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.airbus.com/no_cache/newsevents/news-events-single/detail/airbus-terminates-purchase-order-with-skymark-airlines-for-a380s/

Kingdom Holding Company cancellation[edit]

Looks like the order from Kingdom Holding Company for one executive flying palace is no longer in Airbus' spreadsheet, so it should go in the orders table as a cancellation? Then the total would be correct. RenniePet (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added to main. Not sure how to add here. Dubois, Thierry. "Airbus Cancels Only VVIP A380 Order" AINonline, 5 February 2015. Accessed: 16 February 2015. TGCP (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2015[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Source [10] link is broken. Correct link: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32347783 Slalom2209 (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Amortias (T)(C) 00:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update and archiving needed[edit]

This page needs archiving and the article needs updating. It still got Transaero and VA orders in it. I understand that VA's lack of interest is hard to prove by a reliable source, but Transaero doesn't even exist anymore! And Aeroflot is too busy getting rid of their 787s to care about the Superjumbo order. How many times have I said NOT to put Transaero's order in that table but NO, they kept saying there's (OMG!) a memorandum of understanding. DUH! Le Grand Bleu (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Airbus lists both (Virgin and Transaero) as orders in their official documents, see: http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/corporate-information/key-documents/?eID=maglisting_push&tx_maglisting_pi1%5BdocID%5D=89175 and: http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/corporate-information/orders-deliveries/?eID=maglisting_push&tx_maglisting_pi1%5BdocID%5D=89335 If you have a better source than official documents from the manufacturer, feel free to provide it.SideshowBob7 (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transaero Airlines bankruptcy[edit]

Hello.

Transaero Airlines went bankrupt and the Russian government is shutting it down on October 26th. This should mean that their order is cancelled. Can someone confirm if this is correct and then update the orders list?

Thanks.

24.86.109.134 (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should just wait for the primary source to be updated, as usual. Some other airline may take over the orders Transaero had for example. Slasher-fun (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. According to an A380 Full production list (link: http://www.abcdlist.nl/a380f/a380f.html), the Transaero orders have been cancelled. Ln 196, the first scheduled to go to Transaero, had parts built before the order was cancelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.194.164 (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Air order ?[edit]

Iran Air article states 12 orders. ?? Rcbutcher (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They have only signed an agreement to order, they have not actually ordered them yet but it is expected in the next few months. MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then surely for consistency the Iran Air article should apply the same rule ? Rcbutcher (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should - I have changed the Iran Air article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Air article currently states " Iran has reached to an agreement with Airbus group to buy 114 aircraft". Sounds like a purchase to a layperson like me. Rcbutcher (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purchase agreement is not a firm order, only an agreement to purchase something in the (near) future. This special order may depend on permissions from various other organizations, both in Iran and Europe. --Denniss (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries. 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/20110527090235/http://www.flightglobal.com:80/articles/2011/05/24/357064/qatar-airways-plots-paris-a380-and-a330p2f-deals.html to http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/05/24/357064/qatar-airways-plots-paris-a380-and-a330p2f-deals.html

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: 18 January 2022).

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} 07:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Air France-KLM Drops Order for Two Airbus A380s"[edit]

The Air France data needs to be updated: http://www.wsj.com/articles/air-france-klm-drops-order-for-two-airbus-a380s-1458149046 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.140.23.90 (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This will resolve itself with the next month's official Airbus O&D. Leave until official. E x nihil ^(talk) 02:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Air Austral cancellations[edit]

The Air Austral order seems to be only recorded as -2 instead of first +2 and then the cancellation of -2 in the list of orders and cancellations 202.136.240.130 (talk) 07:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2016/ Adding Iran Air to the List of A380 Customers[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add to "Orders by customers" table: -Customer: Iran Air -Entry into service:2019 -Firm Orders:12 -Deliveries:Null -EA:Null -RR:* -Press Release: http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/news-events-single/detail/from-the-a320-to-a380-iran-air-selects-the-full-airbus-jetliner-portfolio-for-its-fleet-modernisation/ ^[1] Khashayarkzmi (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If and when this order is listed in the Airbus O&Ds it will automatically be updated to include it, but not before. You may have to be patient and wait until the next month's release from Airbus. If it not in that release then Airbus do not regard it as a full commitment. There is no reliable way to compile numbers from news articles, the actual status of this is unknown and looks more like an intent to commit rather than a commitment. E x nihil ^(talk) 09:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

clickable link to A380 please[edit]

this article lacks a clickable link back to the A380 and could use one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.57.165 (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the very first line of the article "There are 319 firm orders by 19 customers for the passenger version of the Airbus A380-800,..." The name Airbus A380 is a clickable wikilink which will bring you back to the main article. Arnoutf (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 13:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 01:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2017[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Emirates deliveries should be 100. See http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2017/11/emirates-welcomes-100th-a380-to-its-fleet.html ChrisJLewis (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leave as is. The numbers are whatever is in the current, monthly Airbus Orders and Deliveries. The numbers are not changed to reflect any other media claims. If true, it will come right in the October Airbus O&D. E x nihil ^(talk) 23:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done You're answered. — Ammarpad (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 07:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 21:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Line closure[edit]

I've removed the EK orders from the orders list, but not yet updated the other tables as Still some inconcistency in the numbers.

Plus you've got some 40 options which presumably need to get cancelled. Not sure if there will be a formal announcement about this.

Remaining orders while are presumed to be cancelled. - 20 Amadeo - 4 Transareo / 3 Air Accord (I'm not sure where the difference is) Which gets you back to 251 which I think will be the final number of commercial deliveries.

Moa999 (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Emirates total now be 123 with 14 of these still to be delivered. MilborneOne (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2019[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Record Emirates cancellation of 39 aircraft (from 162 to 123) and Amedeo's cancellation of 20 aircraft (from 20 to 0). Sources: Emirates cancellation: https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2019/02/airbus-and-emirates-reach-agreement-on-a380-fleet--sign-new-widebody-orders.html Amedeo cancellation: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/amedeo-cancels-dormant-a380-order-455780/ 2607:F600:1006:3500:952C:392F:E73F:EB92 (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done:. I've updated the main article with your citations. For the orders&deliveries article, the edits will be made when Airbus formally updates their order book at the end of the month. Specter Koen (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Closing request as answered Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 16:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates' order won't be cancelled UNTIL Emirates FIRMED UP the 40 A330-900 aircraft and 30 A350-900 aircraft.

Re-closing as answered. Please put new requests in new sections, and please sign your talk page posts with four tildes ( ~~~~ ). BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First A380 Delivered to ANA[edit]

First A380 (flying HONU) has been delivered to ANA. This edit must be added to this article. TaraPrasadMishra (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Tara[reply]

Semi-protected edit request Incorrect engine selection graph[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On the details graph with engine selection

1) You show Rolls-Royce as the engine supplier for Air France's 2 cancellations. It should be EA. Air France never ordered Rolls-Royce engines for the A380. Change Air France's 2 cancellations engine supplier from Rolls-Royce to Engine Alliance

2) For the Emirates 39 cancellations you show all as Rolls-Royce. This is incorrect. 20 of the 39 cancellations (and all 16 options) never had an engine supplier selected (neither RR or EA). Please split Emirates's 39 cancellations out into 2 lines. 1 line showing the 20 orders and 16 options that never had an engine supplier - engine choice should be NA (currently you are showing Rolls-Royce). The second line on the chart should show 19 canceled orders all with Rolls as the engine sypplyer.

3) For the Emirates 20 orders with 16 options, you need to change TBA to NA (no engines will be chosen - the order is cancelled)

Rolls Royce and Engine Alliance both submitted bids for Emirate's 20 orders with 16 options. Neither engine was chosen and the entire order cancelled.

DonePaulroepke (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time to fix this page[edit]

I want to reopen a point of previous discussion. I'm tempted to be bold and change it, but I'd rather persuade than start an edit war.

It's time to update this page to reflect objective reality. I understand that accepted practice is generally to only change order and delivery totals based on the official order books from the airframers. In this case, that means following Airbus's June 2019 guidance,[7] which says that the A380 has 238 deliveries on 290 orders, leaving 52 to go. One is the third frame for ANA, the other 51 are for Emirates, with 111 delivered out of 162. I understand the value of consistent practice, and I understand we shouldn't change totals based on rumors and LOIs that mis-reported in the press.

However, in this case, that policy is keeping us from making an accurate, useful page that will actually inform the wider public.We have kept the order status that way since February, and it's getting silly to proceed this way. We know that Emirates won't take these frames. Emirates has said so.[8] It's been widely reported in the news.[9][10][11] I understand that we have a broad policy, but a policy should not be so inflexible as to prevent the flow of useful information to the people who use Wikipedia. An exception should be made. The most compelling reason to do this? Airbus has published its own confirmation that the order is being cancelled. Their press release says, "Following a review of its operations, and in light of developments in aircraft and engine technologies, Emirates is reducing its A380 orderbook from 162 to 123 aircraft. Emirates will take delivery of 14 further A380s over the next two years. As a consequence and given the lack of order backlog with other airlines, Airbus will cease deliveries of the A380 in 2021."[12] That was 14 February 2019. We are now more than five months past that. The A380 line is shutting down in two years, and there are now only 13 aircraft to deliver (111 delivered to Emirates as of June 2019, says Airbus, and -- per the press release -- only 123 total in the order, thus 12 left) and 1 remaining for ANA, again per the 06/2019 order book. We should not keep waiting.

I assume good faith here on the part of everyone. People are trying to be consistent and accurate. However, I have to say that we've reached the point that insisting on sticking to "order book only" numbers is more about form ("We always do it this way") than function ("What is this page for?"). People visiting this particular page presumably want to know how many A380s are left to build. There are 13. The page says 52. We know that the 13 figure is true, Airbus has told us so. We have a 100% verifiable source whose accuracy is absolutely unquestionable. The A380, sadly, is being discontinued, and soon. Thus, sticking to a total of 52 back orders is, I'm sorry to say it, lying to people who aren't as informed about aviation affairs but are genuinely curious about this airplane.

I quote our first policy: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." The WP:Air guidance says we have to stick to the wrong numbers until Airbus's accountants see fit to formally change their numbers (which might, by the way, not happen until 2021). It's time to break that rule, because it's not improving Wikipedia in this case. Five months is long enough. Thanks for listening to and considering my point. Sacxpert (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not stating this information is not helpful to the reader indeed. We have more occasions where -to me- obvious errors or inconsistencies were present in what normally would be the most reliable source. A way to solve that is not to change the numbers, but to state both sources, objectively. Something like "the Airbus orderbook includes xxx A380s from Emirates, which Airbus and Emirates have confirmed will not be delivered". L.tak (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with L.tak's approach. I maintained the current guidelines on a previous discussion because I believed Airbus would update their orderbooks within a timely manner, which they have not. At this point, their own information is too outdated to be useful. I think adding a footnote for Emirates's order would work best in synthesizing the two official statements. Specter Koen (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please Update[edit]

1. ANA had concludes its 3 orders, green blue & orange turtles 2. Probably has only 8 Emirates to be constructed, if not already changed to A350, smaller aircraft, due Coronavirus less travels — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiChata (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Air Comet cerrará sus operaciones due to bankruptcy

[2] ttp://www.superadrianme.com/travel/korean-air-ninth-airbus-a380/

[3] ttp://www.abcdlist.nl/a380f/a380f.html}}

[4] ttp://www.airbus.com/no_cache/newsevents/news-events-single/detail/airbus-terminates-purchase-order-with-skymark-airlines-for-a380s/

[5] "ran Air selects AirbusA380 for its fleet modernisation". Airbus. Airbus SAS. Retrieved 28 January 2016.

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]