Talk:Airbus A320neo family/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

“airframe commonality”

This article uses the term “airframe commonality”, for which we have no article, and states a specific number for it. What exactly does that mean, and how is it measured? ◄ Sebastian 07:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

keeping over 95% airframe commonality with the current A320 simply means that 95% of the A320neo's airframe is identical to that of the A320ceo. I don't see this as a set term that might warrant an article, merely the words airframe and commonality side by side! What isn't entirely clear, admittedly, is how exactly Airbus counts that commonality: by volume, or by number of parts, or... ? Rosbif73 (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

... or by weight, or by construction cost, or by maintenance cost, or maintenance time or ... ? Without knowing that, the term becomes practically meaningless. But thank you for your reply, which corrects my wrong impression that it were an industry term of encycolopedic significance. If it's just advertising gobbledigook then it should be made clear in the article or be removed altogether. One way to make that clear would be with {{Promotional source}}, but we can save it more gracefully. As I am editing the article to make it clear that it's a quote, I realize that most of that sentence actually isn't even in the source. I will remove those parts that are duplications of statements written elsewhere in the article and mark the “15%” claim with {{Not in source}}. BTW, if it is a term of encyclopedic significance, then that doesn't mean that it needs its own article; the above red link then could point to a redirect to an article covering the term. ◄ Sebastian 11:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Add LR variant to the Spec table??

I believe the A321LR are now out, should a column be added to the specs table? https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passenger-aircraft/a320-family/a321neo.html#a321lr

I was looking through the specs and found that the A321LR was not available in the specs table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartinpiece (talk • contribs) 16:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The A321 variant presented is already the A321LR: it's just the highest MTOW available. The A321XLR higher MTOW and range is already presented in notes. The basic airframe is the same.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Cool Thank you Marc. In that case, the MTOW, range, fuel capacity, max payload, and the takeoff distance would probably deviate from the A321neo right? I guess some of these information may be very difficult to come by, but I thought it would be nice to also show the LR variant in the table. (We at leaste show them in the same column for the 300-ER and 300 in the B777 page right?) Heartinpiece (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The 300-ER has a substantial 17% higher MTOW (and other changes: wingtips, engine model, etc. - on the other hand the Boeing_767#Specifications ER variants are in the same column for compactness), while the LR is only 3.7% heavier than the previous variant. The 230t A330 does not really deserve a separate column. Even Airbus in its family figures does not cite the 93.5t variant.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Orders and deliveries

I'm afraid there's a typo in the section: afaik June has only 30 days. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.255.61.166 (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - fixed (in the template)! Rosbif73 (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Should the black windshield aka "racoon masks" be mentioned in LR/XLR variants?

Should this information in regards to the black windshield be mentioned inside the article under LR and XLR sections? Of course, other than esthetic, I don't think that are differences to the standard windshield unless I'm wrong about it. – Paper9oll | Talk:Paper9oll 10:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It can help visual ID, especially as the 321LR/XLR are have no external changes. I think it can be relevant in picture captions, but not further.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Future-wing project and A322

Moved from User talk:Marc Lacoste

Hi, which source is seen as a self-published source??? 92.116.104.171 (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Those next to the tag.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)This should be moved to the relevant Talk:Airbus A320neo family

Probably not the best source, but i don't understand: why self-published? 92.116.104.171 (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

When there is no publisher, no editorial review, like a blog. I understand you add content in good faith, but please follow the order of the events, and prefer reliable source, thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

YOU add and delete content in good faith. Thanks for being friendly. I guess i have over 50000 edits in over 15 Years, am an engineer and pilot. Your first edit was good, but please read first, not simply sort by date! 92.116.104.171 (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Self proclamations does not help, but WP:STICKTOSOURCE does. Sorting by date helps a better understanding of the process, avoids confusion and WP:SYNTHESIS.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You need additional sources??? It is quite sure even now the best sourced section of the whole article! Is this your opinion of improving readability ? I try, but please wait. 92.116.104.171 (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

No more sources are needed as 1 is enough for non controversial content, see WP:CITEBOMB.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Copied 3 already included refs: now 17 references for 7 sentences, 11 different. Enough? 92.116.104.171 (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You might like to read WP:OVERCITE! Rosbif73 (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

My opinion, too: although its ok now. Its Marc Lacoste, who thinks he is always superior, terrorizes IPs with tags, too lazy to read the already given refs. And thinks he can do main edits and deletions in seconds.92.116.104.171 (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

No one is superior to no one. Sorry you are terrorized. You have to accept that editing wikipedia is a collaborative work, and reply to tags not remove them. Editing the mainspace is not a playground, please use the WP:preview button or use a WP:SANDBOX.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You have to accept that editing wikipedia is a collaborative work! Use YOUR sandbox! 92.116.104.171 (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Its possibly the biggest research project of Airbus. A billion € project first leading to a new A320 design. Its important that this is clearly mentioned. 92.116.104.171 (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Marc, please try to be friendly.

1. The project started first, then a facility was build for the already started project. Understood?
2. I replied to your tags and opinions. Copied already included refs, because you are unable to read them at earlier locations.
3. You try to destroy the sense of the section by disruptive editing, disrupting sentences. Please talk first.
4. I do not like your writing style at all. Its ugly. [1]
5. An article or section is not a list of sentences sorted by date!!!!!!!
6. I DO think its clear that i don't like your talking style: use your sandbox, playground and many others. Insulting, bossy. I am sure you know who i am: we had the same discussions with your same behavior before: I am one of the former main editors of aviation articles and others. 92.116.104.171 (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello 92.116.104.171, I'm certainly friendly.

1. The refs you used were not clear about that, and you went for improper WP:SYNTHESIS. I checked and mined the refs for clarification.

Most refs have different content, although sometimes only minor: but i just need this additional info to write a good article. I will check for WP:SYNTHESIS

2. I'm glad you replied to the tags.

Thanks.

3. I'm constructive, not disruptive. Disruption would be avoiding new additions or mangling things. I'm constructive by checking the refs and clarifying the content. Just write an accurate summary of the ref, and order the sentences by date. It's easy, and avoids synthesis.

a) You are disrupting related information, splitting it in a senseless manner. The last version is only very bad, not catastrophic.

b) "Just write an accurate summary of the ref": for absolute beginners. It would be too long. You have to understand the relations, the sense of the info.

c) "order the sentences by date": thats everything you can do, senseless. This section for example needs a LEAD. Some understanding, what info is in the ref related to others, is good!

4. It's not a matter of liking a style or not, at first it's a matter of accuracy. Style may be improved once the facts are clear. But judging a writing style is your personal opinion, and other editors could also dislike your writing style.

We are living in a universe, where everything is related. Except your sentences!

5. A list of sentences sorted by date is a good starting point, better than a random words.

Hey, random characters are even worse, so lets use random words????
Joking. Sorting sentences by date is NOT ENOUGH!!!

6. I'm a pleasant man and all I wrote was factual, not personal judgements. If you're trying to write something in wikipedia, you have to accept it's a collaborative work. I don't know who you are, you are not registered. Cheers.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned that i am as long in Wikipedia as you are, your reply is i should use my playground and sandbox. Friendly? Collaborative? You are getting more and more aggressive over the years, and are one of the sadly many editors why i and others have left Wikipedia.
I wonder what you want in Wikipedia?92.116.104.171 (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Future-wing project and A322 edits: talk

1. Probably some refs could be removed, but not this much. They have additional info.
2. An intro must explain names: yours do not.
3. Although you never mentioned it, i think my sentences are too long for you?
4. A321neo-plus-plus info not exactly calculated and outdated: Don't like it.92.116.104.171 (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

i need a 10 hour break. 92.116.104.171 (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, need additional 5 hours, but really starting to change the text then. 92.116.117.62 (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Working to integrate more of your sentences. First block probably ok. 92.116.117.62 (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

alternatives

Future-wing project and A322 by marc Airbus launched a new wing program in Filton in 2015. In 2016, Airbus announced a €44.8 million facility dedicated to wing development and test there, to open in 2017 with 300 engineers. In 2017, Airbus announced its "Wing of the future" programme, to be based in Filton. A new 1-2 billion carbon-composite wing could be used in the A321neo-plus-plus, compared to $15 billion for a completely new design. Other Airbus locations in the UK, France, Spain and Germany are working with 30 partners on this wing project. Airbus has already composite wings on the A350 and A220. Manufacturing would use greater automation, reducing costs to match today's metal wing. To compete with a Boeing 737 replacement, the A320 series could be upgraded with a lightweight, more efficient wing, including a final A322 stretch, by four rows. The longer and thinner wing should improve aerodynamic performance and fuel efficiency, but would require folding tips to access existing airport gates. By may 2021, assembly of the first demonstrator was to start in the coming weeks, as the project should be completed by 2023 before an eventual product launch. A “radical” A320 makeover could cost over 4 billion euros ($4.9 billion), way less the $15 billion to $20 billion for an all-new design for Boeing. Future-wing project and A322 by 92.116 In 2015, Airbus started its "Wing of the future" programme, also called the Future-wing project or "Wing of Tomorrow" programme. The advantageous composite wing is first seen as an upgrade to the existing, mostly metal A320 family wing, which was already upgraded many times. Airbus has already composite wings on the A350 and A220, but this will be an enhanced, new design with highly automated manufacturing suitable for inexpensive high-volume production. The design and multiple simultaneous tests take place in a dedicated €44.8 million facility in Filton, headed by Sue Partridge and executed by 300 engineers in this building. Other Airbus locations in the UK, France, Spain and Germany are working with 30 partners on this wing project. In May 2021, Partridge announced that for improved aerodynamic performance the wing will be longer and thinner with folding wingtips to access existing airport gates. By may 2021, assembly of the first demonstrator was to start in the coming weeks, as the project should be completed by 2023 before an eventual product launch. A “radical” A320 makeover is expected to cost over 4 billion euros ($4.9 billion), way less than the calculations giving $15 billion to $20 billion for an all-new design for Boeing. Due to the increased length and increased lift, the new wings could also be used on an Airbus A322, an A321 lengthened by 4 passenger seat-rows, being studied by Airbus. References

1. Some refs could be removed, but not this much. They have additional info. why adding the less reliable "simple flying" and "Air Data News" refs, while all they do is replicating the original bloomberg news? I did not saw additional info.

2. An intro must explain names no rule like that, and besides, the fact that different news outlets uses different names is a hint there is no established name. If one name should be kept, it should be the one from airbus. The others are inventions from news outlets, not real nomenclature.

3. my sentences are too long for you? Your sentences are not too long, they combine facts from different sources to reach WP:synthesis to be avoided.

4. XYZ info not exactly calculated and outdated: Don't like it We're not here to like or not X or Y info, but to report reliable refs truthfully.

Could you explain how the "advantageous" composite refs are not about composite usage in general but about the A320?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Separate articles should be created for A321neo and A319neo

There should be a seprate article for the A321neo and A319neo because the A321ceo and A319ceo also had seprate articles RayAdvait (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

That's not a valid rationale, as articles are judged on their own merits. You need to explain how splitting up this article would be beneficial. BilCat (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I would rather do the opposite and merge back the A319 and A321 variants back in the main A320 family article.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Marc, while we don't always agree on splitting or merging of articles, I agree with you on this one. The A318, A319, A320, and A321 are all of the same basic generation. This would be like having separate articles for the 737-100, -200, -300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -800, and -900, which we don't do. We don't even have a separate. article for the first gen 737s, as they are covered in the main 737 article. BilCat (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad we are on the same page. I'll try to merge back the variants in the main 320 family article in the coming days, then.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Qantas

If someone wants to review this news item, there may be something of value for this Wikipedia page: "Qantas goes all-in with Airbus: A350-1000, A321XLR and A220-300" https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/05/qantas-goes-all-in-with-airbus-a350-1000-a321xlr-and-a220-300/ Chalky 06:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efenna (talk • contribs)

Boldface in opening line

@Ich-Du-De: can you please elaborate on your revert [2] and comment that "the term in bold type is always identical to the article title"? In fact, guidelines state the opposite: "The title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead if the article title is descriptive." (MOS:REDUNDANCY). And also: "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it." (MOS:AVOIDBOLD). -- Deeday-UK (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The article's title "Airbus A320neo family" is not descriptive enough and also not distorted to be included in the lead sentence. Having said that, I support the idea of ​​removing the term "Airbus" from the boldface as it is actually implied in the "A320" designation itself. It should only be applied in all Airbus aircraft articles (A220, A320...A380), we need a consensus, IMO.Ich-Du-De (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

What should not be distorted, according to the guidelines, is the wording of the sentence, not that of the title, such as by repeating 'Airbus' only to be able to link it in normal typeface. The word 'Airbus' occurs three times between title and opening line: the reader is not dumb; they don't need to be told several times that it's not a Boeing. And lack of consistency is not a good reason to avoid improving an article. Wikipedia will never be 100% consistent, and that's no big deal, really. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

To make the prose a bit better, we can expand the last partn to be "produced by Airbus Commercial Aircraft" instead of just a link to Airbus. But like I said, I agree with your idea of ​​removing the first "Airbus" from the lead sentence. The big deal is that two editors is not enough for a good consensus and so we need to discuss this matter in a more general forum, e,g, a forum about "Airbus aircraft articles" cheers Ich-Du-De (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with removing Airbus in the lead, for a variety of reasons. However, the best place to discuss this is probably at WT:AIR, as it will affect more articles than just Airbus. The format is accepted as standard across aircraft articles, and is why I've opposed changing it here. There are other ways to write the sentences to avoid sounding awkward, and that should probably be done here too. BilCat (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

A320neo efficiency in practice source

The article mentions "After a year in service, Lufthansa confirmed the 20% efficiency gain per passenger with up to 180 seats, along with reduced noise and CO₂ emissions" citing https://web.archive.org/web/20170103003612/http://newsroom.lufthansagroup.com/en/news-and-releases/2016/q4/lufthansa-welcomes-its-fifth-a320neo-into-its-fleet.html

However, this appears to be Lufthansa copying Boeing's claims, not confirming them based on their own measurements.

Should this sentence be removed, or is an alternative source available (I wasn't able to find one)? YuniWrites (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Lufthansa stating the A320neo is, in fact, around 20 percent cheaper to run per passenger [...] significant reduction in both noise and CO2 emissions seems to be aptly supporting the sentence.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Airbus not Boeing here

That sentence appears to be Lufthansa copying a claim by Airbus, not confirming the claim.

(And indeed Airbus, not Booeing. Thanks for the correction.) YuniWrites (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

This sounds like a confirmation. Can you provide a link to the copied airbus claim? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Wing of Tomorrow

Probably not now, the "Wing of Tomorrow" could be a separate article with a summary here, like Boeing Truss-Braced Wing. There is a lot of interesting info even not concerning the A320neo development / successor. 79.208.185.250 (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)