Talk:Airbus A320 family

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quick Punctuation Fix[edit]

Since we are on the English version of Wikipedia the following bit in the top of the page:

"As of 31 January 2018, a total of 6.005 A320neo family aircraft"

Should read:

"As of 31 January 2018, a total of 6,005 A320neo family aircraft"

I do not have an account so I cannot change this. I hope somebody can change this :)

new main picture[edit]

Hi, the present main picture is OK, but a little bit bland as it looks like hundreds of other airliner pics. I stumbled upon two pictures taken from above, which I think better depicts the airliner general configuration, better showing the low wing and underwing engine position. In the usual taken-from-below picture, the engine, wing and fuselage are a bit mixed-up.

  • Current Lufthansa, OK but bland
    Current Lufthansa, OK but bland
  • proposed Austrian, sideways from above, above clouds
    proposed Austrian, sideways from above, above clouds
  • proposed JetStar, from above, showing both engines, above land
    proposed JetStar, from above, showing both engines, above land

Between the two, I prefer the JetStar one as it better shows both engines and the contrast of the light aircraft against the darker land is more striking (while the clouds are a good metaphor of an aircraft natural element). Other thoughts? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with the Jetstar too. 194.223.23.148 (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easyjet in Primary users infobox section[edit]

There's a comment in the infobox saying EasyJet is divided in EasyJet Ltd (130 A320s), EasyJet Europe (136 A320s) and EasyJet Switzerland (28 A320s): it can't be listed as primary user, added by Wind of freedom in [1]. Is there any consensus for this? As far as most readers are concerned, Easyjet is effectively a single airline; the fact that it operates under three AOCs is a mere technicality. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that multiple AOCs should not prevent to group easyjet as a single entity. When I book a ticket on their website, I don't care which AOC will fly me. When Airbus sells its airplanes, the delivery AOC is irrelevant in the negociation.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We talk about "user" and the user is not the brand but the airline with an AOC. Easyjet is both an airline brand and an UK AOC, but the brand is not the user, the user is the airline AOC. --Wind of freedom (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we editors understand the nuance, but the brand is not just painting on the side: it's the parent company of the AOC holders. Maybe a footnote explaining the nuance would be a good compromise?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A footnote seems like the best way to clarify this and end back & forth editing, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, if someone doesn't know: not all Easyjet branded aircrafts are registred in UK, but many of them are registrated also in Switzerland or Austria depending if they fly for Easyjet Switzerland or Easyjet Europe. And now a question: is it correct listing Easyjet as primary user when the Wikilink send you to Easyjet UK page? Because this will be a wrong information. Maybe we could say "Easyjet Group". If you think Easyjet should be listed, I think footnote is a good idea. --Wind of freedom (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
footnote added --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the country of registration is not always the AOC country: an European AOC can have N- registered aircraft, or some leased elsewhere, etc.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure you need additional permission to operate an N-reg or non-european aircraft in Europe, certainly the case in the UK. MilborneOne (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There may be multiple divisions but EasyJet is a single company and i agree it should be listed on the primary users, because orders are not placed by neither "easyjet switzerland" or easyjet europe but rather, they are placed by the EasyJet Airline Company Limited T.Man21flex (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A321 stretch —something doesn't add up[edit]

According to the A321 section, "the A321 fuselage is stretched by 6.93 metres (22 ft 9 in) with a 4.27 m (14 ft 0 in) front plug immediately forward of wing and a 2.67 m (8 ft 9 in) rear plug.". 4.27 + 2.67 adds up to 6.94. Which of the three figures is wrong?--Leptictidium (mt) 20:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but that looks like a rounding issue; maybe 4.27 m and 2.67 m were both rounded up to the 2nd decimal place, while the total stretch value was rounded after adding. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought as well. Any ideas how we can address this in the text?--Leptictidium (mt) 21:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IAE V2500 or P&W V2500[edit]

Hi, IAE V2500 engine owned by Pratt & Whitney today? BeirutMa2021 (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review the engine article, IAE V2500 and engine manufacturer article, International Aero Engines for details. (I don't think I can explain the situation well enough.) -Fnlayson (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Different number of hull loss accidents here than on the page about airbus accidents[edit]

On this page it says there have been 47 hull loss incidents. But on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Airbus_A320_family It says there have been 36 hull loss incidents. Only one can be right, but I don't know which it is since they both cite the same source and I'm not sure how to make sense of it to fix it myself. Clockiel (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One is dated (here), the other not: it was updated from the same source since a while. You can fix it by copy-pasting the paragraph here instead of the outdated one there.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back A318, A319 and A321 here[edit]

Hello everybody, in the A320neo talk page, there was a proposal to split the 319neo and 321neo parts into separate articles. I proposed the opposite and to merge the A319(ceo) and A321(ceo) variants back in the main A320 family article, here (forgetting the A318). This was supported there by BilCat (and I was thanked for my proposition by Rosbif73), so I'm willing to investigate further.

I went through these variants articles history: there was a first discussion about a split in March and July 2010, followed by a second one in February 2011 (after a project talk proposition), followed by the A318 split in the same month by MilborneOne. After a five year hiatus, SempreVolando splat out A319 in 2016 and then A321 in November 2016

So, here we are now. Do you think a merge back here would be useful or do you think it would be detrimental? Thanks for your opinions.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support a merge : The A318, A319 and A321 articles are way too repetitive compared to the main article here, and merging them back would not expand the main article so much as rendering it bloated, while that would be much better for future maintenance, avoiding repeating the same events here and there.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge - Merge all A320ceo articles into the main Airbus A320 family article, per nomination. BilCat (talk) 08:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge per nom, noting that the A321 article also has some snippets that relate to the A321neo. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ELAC[edit]

The DAB at ELAC points here, presumably as it's a standard term for the Elevator and Aileron Computer. I'll have a go at fixing that.

There's no mention of it in this article, but the ELAC of the Airbus has been implicated in multiple accidents and I get more than a quarter million ghits on ELAC Airbus. So it should be mentioned somewhere IMO, and this article is probably as good a place as any. Andrewa (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May i propose a new Main picture[edit]

F-WWAI A320-131 Airbus Industrie(prototype) FAB SEP88 (13753510323) crop

I don't see anything wrong with the current Jetstar A320 picture, but it might be better to use the picture above as it shows what the A320 looked like before TheOriginalSSE1 (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A low quality image doesnt seem to be an improvement on the one already in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improved readability[edit]

Hey,

the Specifications table is about twice as long as a desktop screen on the popular resolution 1920*1080. The table is loaded with technical facts and has 5 columns. In the lower half of the table, the reader doesn't have to scroll up to see which model is meant with a sticky header.

Also the engines table is longer than the desktop screen and has 3 columns. As there are multiple tables in the article, it helps the reader to see in which table the reader is currently by having a sticky header in this particular table.


In contrast to that, in these articles the sticky header does not make sense:

Bauxite#Production and reserves

Renewable energy in the United States#Current trends

WikiPate (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Airbus_A320_family&oldid=1216895063"