Comments:Airbus A380 test flight delayed after accident

I had read that A380 are bigger, but not larger than the other big passenger jet of Airbus and Boeing. Accordingly, I think this article is biaised/misleading, showing that the accident is due to its largER size, which is not case.

Some Plane lovers may them quickly make an inquiry ? 218.170.132.85 17:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Please explain your complaint? I don't understand. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The A380 is not larger (from winglets to winglets) than other big passenger jets. Accordingly, this A380 accident have nothing special, and is not link with the size of the A380, as the article lead to think.

I fact, the full story that I had read was that American airports, under Boeing and USA gouvernment's pressure, decline to receipt the A380, saying that he is to large for their facilities, which is not the case, since they perfectly receipt the same-size (from winglets to winglets) other current big passenger jets of Boeing and Airbus, and since the A380 was think mainly for international airport (with big facilities).

So I [Yug, french administrator] think that this article is biaised, according to Boeing's friendly sources. And I think -but I'm not an expert- that the sentence "which has a 79-metre wingspan, is too big (and thus too complex for ground crews) to be practically operated at most airports" is a pro-boeing biaise. And I hope that someone with more knowledge will be able to check the facts.

(sorry for the bad english) 218.170.132.85 19:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I just found the right side image. Is it a big passenger jet (other than B 747) about 75 m ?

Or was I reading pro-Airbus newspapers in France O.o ? 218.170.132.85 19:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

One could argue that the hangars are too old for the larger type of planes necessary to sustain the number of passengers wanting to fly in the 21st century, and (of course) the introduction of a rival to the 747 is good for dissolving any monopolies that may be currently in effect.

Perhaps the statement "...airliner, which has a 79-metre wingspan, is too big (and thus too complex for ground crews) to be practically operated at most airports." could be changed to imply the plane is too 'advanced' for the old systems, or that - 'the ground crews need unprecedented degrees of skill in order to fulfill it's potential as the most comfortable and efficient passenger plane in it's class. 194.112.32.101 20:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Bigger/larger = same thing, IMO. And the article does not state or even suggest that the size caused the accident. It informs of criticisms that the size would cause problems, and it tells you it's big, but equaly points out that the accident occured as a tug operator was shoving it back. You can decide for yourself if you 1) blame it on an unpracticaly large airliner 2) blame it on the tug operator 3) blame it on a combination of this and/or other factors 4) blame it solely on other factors or 5) leave it to other people to determin the cause of the accident. The article does not attempt to tell you which of these is correct, it just presents the facts as they stand. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is titled with Airbus A380 but it should be titled with Airbus A380 superjumbo ? 81.240.112.70 08:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's really nescescary in the title. It's official designation is 'Airbus A380', and the title is meant to be short and to the point. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

A380 test flight delayed

Evidentally one of the ecommentators did not look at the graphic of wingspans. the 747-8 wingspan is 11.3 meters less than the A380- that works out to about 18 feet per side- which does seem to be considerable. I find the original article fair and probably accurate as to the reason for the flight - to familiarize new owners with care and handling of the new plane.

Comments from feedback form - "It is difficult to explain to ..."

It is difficult to explain to aviation ignorant populace that Wing-lets are for looks and can be removed. Flight character will not be affected. a Wing-let got damaged on a Air India aircraft and the Airline removed the wing-lets but the passengers refused to fly until both wing-lets were replaced. The Airline make a decision based on sound engineering principles. Ignorance rules the world! —50.15.164.10 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)