Talk:Airbus A340

Hull loss accidents

On 20 January 1994 an Air France A340-211 (F-GNIA) was lost to fire during servicing at CDG. Another A340-312 of SriLankan Airlines was destroyed on the ground by Tamil Tigers on July 24, 2001 at Colombo-Bandaranayake IAP along with 2 A330s and a squadron of military aircrafts.

I found this very interesting

An A340-313X of Emirates ran off the runway when trying to take off from Johannesburg International Airport on 9 April 2004. The Vr calculated was much too low, so when the pilots tried taking off, the fly by wire system wouldn't allow it. The aircraft soon got airborne after damaging its tyres, brakes and flaps as well as some of the runway lights. It landed safely and all 216 passengers left unhurt.

Now, would this have prevented the Being 747 that crashed in Canada early this year. I think it was carrying goods and crashed for taking off without the necessarly take off speed.

list of operators

I don't see why we can't merge the list of operators into the aircraft's articles. I see no reason to have a seperate list, many pages have lists that are longer. PPGMD

It used to be a section in the main article, "List of images," except it was just a series of Wiki links to those airlines. People would come along and add their pet airline occasionally. In the case of certain articles (Boeing 737, etc.) it was beginning to become quite large. Since in most of these cases, the list of actual operators is lengthy, it made more sense to split it off. Thus, while the list is currently short, it can grow tremendously. In fact, 150 seconds after you posted your remark, some anonymous user came along and increased the length of the list by a factor of six. -Joseph (Talk) 23:59, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

Well compare it to a article like Navy, it's still fairly small. I think with exception to the 737 list it's hardly going to get bigger than the Navy page. We could always organize it, US, European, and other operators, to make it more organized and readable. PPGMD

The difference to the Navy article is it's largely just a short overview and then a list of units and a partial list of ships (the article then does link to several separate lists). In this case, the articles about the aircraft go into detail about the airframe. Why cloud that with a big list at the end? IMHO, inline lists are ugly, anyhow. -Joseph (Talk) 00:09, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

modification

Is there any website with a close up picture where one can view modifications that rectified the flapping problem due to the weight of the outer engines on the wings?

I made a revision and addition to the section regarding the 500 model. -Amit

Image:Pala343.jpg

It has been suggested that Image:Pala343.jpg may be a copyrighted image not available for use on Wikipedia. Please refrain from reinserting the image until the copyright status of the image has been determined. If you know that the image is not a copyright violation, please present your evidence at Image talk:Pala343.jpg. -- Essjay · Talk 15:00, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Slow RoC?

I've removed "There has been criticism about the very slow climb rate of the A343, compared to other aircraft, leaving the airports to impose a longer wait period for take off or landing after an A343." from the article because this sounds very dubious to me. Does the A343 have a markedly inferior RoC to other similar airliners? And how could a slow RoC possibly require longer delays after take-off? And just where is the source for the statement? --Jumbo 12:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Though it's quite true that the Airbus A340-300 has a slower rate of climb then aircraft that fly similar routes, I don't think it's that big of a deal unless you are forced to lower your rate of climb below it. Perhaps a section on common jokes about the A340 (ie the only aircraft to get a bird strike from behind, and other cracks on the A340?)PPGMD 14:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't heard the bird strike one, but it appeals to my SoH. Thanks. If it's a significant factor in airline/airport operations, then it's worth a mention, but to my mind it's one of a continuing series of subtle and not so subtle digs at Airbus from "Boeing-boosters" and vice versa. I guess when the airliner industry has somehow boiled down to just two major manufacturers, it's inevitable that there be some sort of snide rivalry, especially when the two firms come from different areas of the globe. But I'd very much prefer that our articles be factual and objective rather than consisting of one-eyed digs and jabs. --Jumbo 21:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

A340-313X of Emirates

In this section of other incidents, what is "Vr?"

Vr is Velocity of rotation, one of a series of key speeds during takeoff during which various actions or decisions are taken. These speeds vary according to factors such as takeoff weight, runway, length, temperature, wind speed and so on, and must be worked out in advance, otherwise things can go wrong. "Rotation" occurs when the nose is lifted off the ground so that the aircraft assumes a nose high attitude while continuing to roll on its main gear and the tail consequently comes closer to the ground. The bottom rear of most airliners is "cut away" to facilitate rotation without the tail striking the ground, although this occurs from time to time. Immediately after rotation the aircraft will rise smoothly from the runway and commence climbing out. The Takeoff article goes into more detail. --Jumbo 23:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

A340 Road

Ok, it may be an article, but should it really be linked to at the top of the A340 Aircraft page? Reedy Boy 12:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you look around at various other Wikipedia articles. This nomenclature is normal. Since A340 redirects to Airbus A340, there needs to be a way for people who type "A340" looking for the road can find it. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The longest airplane in the world

is Antonov_An-225, 84 m long, 6 meters longer than A340-600. 216.239.87.115 02:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a330a340/a340-600/ --Denniss 19:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Competition

The article seems to rely too much on some supposed competition with Boeing. Certainly there is competition, but the A340 was clearly developed as a continuing expansion of Airbus capablilities, as we have seen throughout the whole Airbus story, culminating in the A380, which goes beyond anything Boeing has done. Building an ETOPS-immune airliner was a logical next step for Airbus. --Jumbo 09:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Supposed competition? Tell that to Airbus now. While McDD was part of the equation at the time of the A340's introduction, today's realities reflect the fact that Airbus and Boeing are fighting each other tooth and nail in all areas except safety and logistical standards (which, amazingly enough, are developed jointly by both companies.) —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but there's a lot of unsourced supposition in all the "this model competes with that model" stuff in the articles. To my mind it is obvious that Airbus has worked steadily to expand its range and capabilities. The A340 was a logical next step - the objective was to overcome ETOPS limitations, not to compete with any specific Boeing model. This process is taken one step further with the A380, which has NO direct Boeing equivalent. The A380 builds directly on the work done on the A340 - notably the difficult problem of how to put four engines on a wing without the thing developing unwanted flutters - and introduces its own technical innovations.

This continued expansion and development is something that would have ocurred whether there was none, one or a dozen companies competing for airliner business. While it is fun to line up the various models and say that this one is a competitor for that one, I think we should be very careful about stating that this is why they were developed unless we have a good source. Besides which, I get really sick of Airbus or Boeing fans trying to stick in their own little poison pills here and there. This isn't a sporting competition, where we pick a team and root for it, this is an encyclopaedia, and we are supposed to be presenting factual unbiased information.

I'd like to see an article on how the airline market works as a whole, and that would be a good place for competition discussions and comparisons, but these airliner articles should focus on the subject of the article, not on the development of other aircraft. --Jumbo 19:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Airbus developed the A340 as an ETOPS immune plane that was targeted at killing the DC-10, MD-11, and L-1011 that were out there, as well as having more range than anything else out there. By the time the 777 showed up, the A340 had mostly killed the MD-11, which had program problems anyway. Early on, the 777 had a range that could not hold a candle to the early 340's, it was the later 777-200ER that slightly outdid the A343. When the A346 came out, it competed with the lower end of the 747 capacity and was more efficient. Again, Boeing brought out the 773ER afterward with a slight fuel burn advantage. The A345 went for a then-empty segment, and was trumped by the 772LR. The point was not that Airbus tried competing with Boeing, Boeing followed Airbus and built comparable products that ensure healthy competition. Mgw89 (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Note to anyone intending on splitting off a section

This page has been processed by N-Bot, which, for browsing convenience, changes links to redirects to lists to links to the relevant list sections: e.g. [[Airbus A340-500]] is changed to [[Airbus A340#A340-500 series |Airbus A340-500]].

As a result, anyone who intends to split a section out of this page should be aware that, as of 14 August 2006, the following sections were linked to from the following pages:

• A340-200 series : South African Airways, Sabena, List of civil aircraft, List of aircraft (A-B)
• A340-600 series : Virgin Atlantic Airways, Lufthansa, South African Airways, Thai Airways International, China Eastern Airlines, List of aircraft (A-B), Virgin Atlantic destinations, Emirates Airline
• A340-500 series : Thai Airways International, List of civil aircraft, List of aircraft (A-B), Air Canada, Singapore Airlines, Thai Airways International
• A340-300 series : Virgin Atlantic Airways, Lufthansa, South African Airways, Sabena, Airbus A340, List of airlines, Air Namibia, Olympic Airlines, Jet Airways, BWIA West Indies Airways, Etobicoke Creek, List of aircraft (A-B), China Southwest Airlines, Toronto Pearson International Airport, Air Madrid, Air transports of Heads of State, 9Y-TJN, Canada 3000, Austrian Airlines, 9Y-TJN

~~ N-Bot (t/c) 11:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fuel consumption?

Look at the article about the Boeing 747. There you can see the total fuel consumption per km. How come that type data isn't on the stats table of the A340??

Are you referring to where it's saying '18.7l/km' on the 747-100 column? Because as far as I can tell they just divided maximum range by the maximum fuel load. I think it's a silly row on the table and is not indicative of fuel consumption per km at all. Consumption is based on many factors including configuration of aircraft, load (both pax and cargo), weather, runways, etc. Please also sign your comments. skyskraper 05:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

aircraft assessments

The template itself says that when assessing an article reasons and suggestions are to be given. I am simply reverting an unreasoned and unconstructive assessment. Paul Beardsell 03:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous comment on 747-8

"(but the longest airliner record will be surpassed by the newer 747-8 [freighter version])." Sorry, but you can`t view in the future. I do not think, that this frase fits in an encyclopedia.

Please stop revert-cycling!

I can see there are a group of editors having an edit war over the rating at the top of this page. Please stop. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not comment on the issue? 03:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Because I don't care about the issue itself, but revert-cycling is wasteful and futile, and it was nearing 3RR. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

They had to draw the limit somewhere - they chose 3. Paul Beardsell 04:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to know why it was rated that, it's best to ask the user that rated it, and he will get back to you. But it's very common for the raters not to leave a comment. Though I disagree with this pratice it's just the way that things go. Getting into a revert war over it is pointless. PPGMD 07:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Emirates A340-600HGW Order

I have amended the wording of this paragraph because the order has yet to be confirmed as canceled - the Airbus O&D spreadsheet shows firmed orders for 18 -600s for Emirates as of the 4th June 2007. 82.152.52.97 21:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Virgin replacement claim

Where's the proof for this section, particularly the latter part about replacement aircraft: "The initial seven A340-600 aircraft were delivered with overweight wings. After the A340-600 launch customer, Virgin Atlantic, elected to receive replacement aircraft, these airframes were delivered at a reduced price to Iberia Airlines and Cathay Pacific. Cathay Pacific uses the plane on its nonstop service between Hong Kong and New York City (JFK)."

Primary users

Why Cathay Pacific was not the pimary users of the A340s? It has 18 A340s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1993923 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Takeoff Field Length

On the spec sheet it says that the -500 has a shorter takeoff run than the -600 at MTOW (3050 vs. 3100m). How can this be when the -500 has less thrust (Trent 553 v 556 or 556 v 560 in the HGW's) but weighs the same or more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgw89 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Range With Maximum Payload?

In Boeing 777 article, there are two different range values for each sub - type: Maximum range, which is most probably done by filling the fuel tanks to their maximum and taking no payload to the aircraft; and then maximum payload range, that is, as the name implies, the range possible with maximum payload on - board. But in Airbus A340 article, only maximum payload range (range fully loaded) is given. And the values for it seem to be too high; as well as leading to contradictory information. Look at this: "the A340-500 was the world's longest-range commercial airliner until the introduction of the Boeing 777-200LR in February 2006." The maximum - payload range for 772LR = 13890 km and for A345 = 16700 km. I think there is a mistake, the figures for maximum - payload range may actually be maximum range for an empty flight. Any ideas? Gokaydince (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The 777 numbers are both for range at MTOW, one the max payload, as you said, the other max fuel+as much other stuff to get to MTOW. This is the same as range fully loaded in the A340 article, and should make the cmparisons easier to understand. Mgw89 (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

History section rewrite

I'm going to try and remove repeat information from this section and clean it up a bit. I plan on using some cues from the 747 page as a role model, as well as incorporating more development info. If you guys have any good ideas, pitch 'em out there. Mgw89 (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-notable incident

I've removed the following item as being non-notable:

• December 14 2007 - A Cathay Pacific Airbus A340-300 had to make an emergency landing at Vancouver International Airport after the indicator light for the wing flaps had come on enroute to Hong Kong. After dumping fuel the A340 with 290 people onboard made a safe landing. The problem was later attributed to a faulty indicator light, and not the wing flap itself."Faulty light caused emergency landing at Vancouver airport: Cathay official".

I can't see how a safe emergency landing caused by a faulty light is notable. - BillCJ (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't see the point either. 哦，是吗？(review O) 01:24, 17 December 2007 (GMT)

Competition Section

What do you guys think of a section devoted to the competition between the A340 and other aircraft, like the MD-11 and 777? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgw89 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A340-400

I read on the German Wikipedia that Airbus had planned a stretch of the -300 to 70m, using the same wing of the -300 and the CFM56 engines. They realized the engine was too weak, and the wing loading was too high, which would have reduced range to about 6,000 nmi, so they scrapped the idea and eventually built the 75m A340-600. Does anybody have a good reference for this model? Mgw89 (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Pylons, links

I've noticed a few pages which link to the pylons page when referring to engine pylons, but this links to an article that primarily concerns electricity pylons. The closest alternative I could find was hardpoint. Is it worth modifying these links? Jddriessen (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as their is no engine pylon page, we might be able to redirect it to nacelle or jet turbine. I'll look into that. Mgw89 (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Effects Of Competition And Fuel Prices

This section has to be rewritten now that oil prices have dropped to last year's levels. Q43 (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

2007 Etihad accident

I've added a photo to the Etihad Airways article. If it is felt desirable to add it to this article a new non-free use rationale will need to be added to the picture. Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

AIRBUS A340-500 INCIDENT AT MELBOURNE: MARCH 20, 2009

Somone keeps deleting my UPDATING on the status of this aircraft. An Emirates Airline Senior VP with whom I do business has confirmed to me directly that this aircraft WILL BE REPAIRED AND RETURN TO SERVICE. When I update the article, this commenter keeps deleting my update and changing it back to "the status of the aircraft is unclear..." What do I have to do to keep him from continuing to delete my update?

Someone telling you something privately is not a "verifiable source" as required by Wikipedia. ShondaLear (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody formally confirmed to the person who posted the current text--and who keeps changing it back to his own version--that "the status is unclear", either. That is his own conclusion, and my update is a lot more accurate than his. Stop splitting hairs, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonPevsner (talk • contribs) 12:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You are still not a "verifiable source" as required by Wikipedia policy. I'll assume good faith for the time being,and let it stand with a {{cn}} tag for a few days until something official is released. However, another editor may remove your item again. Please note that I left out the other user's addition, as it was unsourced too, as you pointed out. BillCJ (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have addded the information back along with a reliable reference.--PremKudva^Talk 03:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong photo - does not show A340

The picture on the right, captioned "Aerolineas Argentinas Airbus A340-300 seen departing El Prat" does not show an A340. Please remove or replace.

It is in fact an A340, there's two ways to tell. If you click the pics you can see two distinct sets of CFM-56s, although at a casual glance they can be confused with the A330's Trent 772s. Second is the outboard flap guide coming off the #4 engine pylon, which is not present on the A330. Mgw89 (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well thanks. Now I can see it too - and withdraw my plea for replacement!

1000 Kilometres per hour..wtf??

How can an A343 (Airbus A340-300) can go up to 1000 Km/h? On a flight, I read the ground speed and it said 1053 Kmh (654 mph).

How is that possible with just CFM56-5 series engines? 154.20.29.198 (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard of Jetstream ? --Denniss (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with the CFM56? Mgw89 (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A340-600HGW

There hasn't been much talk about the A340-600HGW variant. How many have actually been delivered? Looks like Qatar has a few and Lufthansa has a few. Seems like this a/c has been a commercial flop though, since its capability is quite similar to the 777-ER, but with four engines it takes a significant hit in fuel efficiency. Can anyone find some #s on who has taken deliveries of this a/c and how many there are? I can't find it anywhere... 208.65.175.197 (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Seating Capacity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – User:Scania N113 blocked by User:Materialscientist for disruptive edits.

I am extremely sure that A340-200 has two types of 3-class seating configuration. The configuration of 261 passengers can fly a shorter range while the configuration of 239 passengers can fly a longer range. Before editing, I have cited relevant and reliable references, but I do not understand why you people still think that my edit is doubtful. You know what, even the official website of Airbus says my edit is correct.

On the other hand, some pages of other language on wikipedia can support my edit. If other pages say that I am correct, then why do you still insist on reverting my changes? If the information is different in the same page of different langauges, then what is the point of having Wikipeida with so many languages?

• Click on this link → and see for yourself ←. The truth, as according to the official Airbus website figure states clearly that the maximum seating capacity for a two-class config is 300, and for a three-class config is 261. If only you had came here to discuss this with us in the first place, you would have realised your own mistake and won't have been block for such disruptive editing behaviour here as well as on the talk pages of Bill, Deniss, Treasury and mine too. Do take the 48 hours break to reflect on yourself, it will do you some good if you learn from your mistake. BTW, calling people names won't do you any good as it reflects badly on your contribution/edit history here on Wikipedia. Be civil and observe the golden rule of no personal attack or I guarantee you that it will be a PERMANENT BAN instead of this current 48hours block the next time round you start to wreak havoc here. Also, acting like a angry mastodon and resorting to the usage of sockpuppet to remove my officially sourced figures above isn't going to help you either, please don't be ashamed that you have been warned~! --Dave ^{♪♫1185♪♫} 16:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is the consensus?

Dear Scania N113, please take note that there is no consensus amongst the regular editors here to include your cited figure. Basically, it means that you haven't convinced us that a reviewer/reseller website is to be accepted over the official specifications as released by the aircraft manufacturing company - Airbus, which has been provided earlier above. And until such time you can do so, I'd suggest that you stop this constant bickering. You have been warned before on this, so I'd prefer you stick to it or you risked getting BLOCK again just hours after your recent release from such sanctioning measure. There's no shame or hard feeling towards you because if you cannot discuss this with us properly and gained the required consensus, you will have yourself to blame for your own shame later. Take heed. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 05:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, in this case it seems that you guys are just blocking me because you do not want me to make any changes which you do not want. If you say that my links are not recognised, then how about yours? It is not convincing as well. I do not need to feel ashamed because what I did, I am doing, and what I will do is reasonable. Please look more carefully with your eyes at the graph which is located in the link posted below. Also, from your attitude, I do not think that you are willing to talk to me. Scania N113 (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, in case what you do is for provoking me, then you should bear the shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scania N113 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Link

About the link, why do you not take a look at this: http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a330a340. This is why I told you that there are two types of seating capacity. In the main page, it is stated states that there are 240 seats (rounded up from 239), and only in the cabin layout page it is stated there are 261 seats.

Moreover, some pages of other language on wikipedia can support my edit. If other pages say that I am correct, then why do you still insist on reverting my changes? If the information is different in the same page of different langauges, then what is the point of having Wikipeida with so many languages?

• Read this → WP:CIRCULAR ← , and this → WP:Reliable sources ←. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Etihad A340-500 pic: landing vs. taking off

There have been a few back and forth edits in the caption of the Etihad A340-500 at Heathrow. While Arpingstone's caption does say it is landing, this seems untrue for a number of reasons. The forward gear doors are open, which only occurs on A340s when they are retracting or extending. The only time they do so that close to the ground is right after takeoff. Second, the angle of attack is close to 15 or 20 degrees, symptomatic of a takeoff. If it were approaching at that attitude, it would either stall or have a tailstrike. The A340 has a fairly flat approach, as can be seen from all the other approach pictures, especially the Cathay Pacific -600 at the top of the article. On these grounds, I say we change it to taking off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgw89 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Based on your analysis, it could be true but can I just ask you a humble little question here? Did it ever occur to you to inquire about the photo (File:Etihad a340-500 a6-ehb arp.jpg) from the photographer (User:Arpingstone) who was actually there taking the shot? Would it help if I ask him to come to this thread to clear up your personal doubt? Regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 07:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave, for directing me to this talk page. Yes, Mgw89, you are correct, the Etihad was taking off from the southern runway (23L) at London Heathrow. I was stood at the Esso petrol station, looking across to T5 terminal. Sorry for my error! I'll now go and correct the picture details.

Incidentally, that picture is full of horrid artefacts, I didn't think they were there when I uploaded it in 2007. So I'll reprocess the original and reupload it in a few hours. I may even have a better one of that aircraft from another visit. Best - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• And there you have it... straight from the horse's mouth~! (Adrian, puns are not intended!! ;P ) Hope this settles the issue once and for all, so let us all go back to our merry ways again. Cheers and regards~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 15:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo now reuploaded at much better quality. I have not changed the picture's filename so all the Wikipedias that have used it will get the better version. - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I actually did ask that humble question, and his talk page redirected me here for things regarding articles, which is why I posted it. Thanks for checking though. Mgw89 (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

TAM spam?

I think the TAM A345 pic is a good one, why not keep it? Mgw89 (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the article has more than enough images it would have to replace the Etihad -500 image which is a far better quality than the TAM one. MilborneOne (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Mgw89 (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Airbus A340-200

In the paragraph "A340-200", under "Variants", it says that 3-class typical seating capacity for A340-200 can either be 261 (a shorter range) or 239 (a longer range). According to the record, these words had already been there before I joined Wikipedia. When I saw this phrase, I tried to change the seating capacity of A340-200 in the table from "261" to "239 or 261", but some users such as User:Dave1185 reverted my edits, and he said my information was not supported. In fact, I found a lot of websites other than Wikipedia agreeing with me, but they (especially User:Dave1185) denied the evidence. I tried to explain, but they never listened to me. Personally, I really do not think those moderators are willing to discuss, instead I think they are just trying to oppose everything that I say. Later I was even blocked because of "disruptive edits" when I continued to try to change the figures. Now, with the above reasons given, I would like someone to support me to change the figures. Without prejudice, I typed the above paragraph, in which everything is true. Thank you. Scania N113 (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, I'm not a moderator. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™} 07:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me that. Now, you should understand I have a lot of reasons to change the number from "261" to "239 or 261". 既然大家都懂中文, 那對彼此也應客氣一點吧! Scania N113 (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps you didn't understand it the first time round, if you had read the policy of WP:SYN and WP:HEAR, you wouldn't be back here asserting this bit again despite being warned by 2 other Admins not to do so. Also, you should have been blocked for using sockpuppets to conduct such tendentious edits but you were given a chance considering that you are still teenager/secondary student, so please behave. Another thing, please stick to English when conversing, this is an English-language article's discussion page, its not your talk page or Chinese Wikipedia. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™} 07:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I should really thank you for not blocking me! In fact, the situation was totally different. First of all, I did not join two reliable sources (i.e. A and B) and form a conclusion (i.e. C). In my case, I just found ONE reliable source, that is saying that the Airbus A340-200 has a typical 3-class seating of 239. Also, I do not think that saying that I repeat this thing almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error is correct. If you say so, then you should also ask yourself why do you not try to listen to me that there is a typical seating of 239 for Airbus A340-200. Moreover, I have told you that even the paragraph "A340-200" under "Variants" says that there is such typical seating, and I am just summarising this piece of information in the table. Scania N113 (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• From Airbus's official website, this presentation image represents the baseline version of A340 (ie the A342) and nothing therein says anything about 239 pax as you have claimed time and again. Per Wikipedia policy (WP:No original research, for which WP:SYN is based on): "you cannot advance a position not advanced by the sources", and the official source has already spoken. In view of this, could you please explain to us in detail about the discrepancy? Or are you going to carry on with your soapboxing? Note that this article has a separate group of editors working on it in the Chinese-language version, we do not conduct cross-wiki corrections unless both are being vandalised (for example by you, perhaps) at the same time but that's even rarer. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™} 08:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, what you have just typed is a kind of defamation because you implied that I will go to vandalise the Chinese version of this page. Secondly, if there is no evidence saying that there is a 239-seat version, then why do you allow the paragraph "A340-200" saying that there is such a version? I have mentioned this point for three times, and you have not replied directly. Scania N113 (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps, your comprehension of English is really not that good but let me just clarify it again for your benefit... "initial/prototype version (proposed by the manufacturer) is different from production/typical version (after much consultations/discussions with airline companies such as Cathay Pacific)". I suppose you have no way of knowing this if you are not already a member of the aviation task force, but I repeat myself. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™} 10:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• From WP:Disruptive editing#Refusal to "get the point":

“ In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act as though it is accepted when it is not. ”

Scania, please keep up with your own drama because from hereon I don't wish to be stuck with your Argumentum ad nauseam. Plus, I can't possibly think of any reasons whatsoever why I should not be wanting to improve the other 3 million over articles here on Wikipedia, bye! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™} 09:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dave1185, I guess that maybe you are either as ignorant as an infant. Do not comment on things on this topic when you do not know this topic well. Typical version in fact equals to inital/ prototype version. In this case, there are two typical versions (261 and 239). If you observe more, you should find out that different airline companies usually have their own versions (neither 261 seats nor 239 seats). I believe that you cannot find more than 5 airlines with the same type of seating arrangement. If there are a lot of production versions, then how can they all be called the typical versions? If you have a brain, you should notice that saying typical version is different from initial version is extremely wrong. Also, if you say this, then the number "261" should not be in the table as well. Anyway, good to see you go away. I have been looking forward to this for a very long time already. Now, let me give you a warm good-bye. Thanks for discussing. Scania N113 (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Reopening thread

I have reopened this conversation, as one of its participants objected to its closure, here, and as its closure was done simultaneously with the last comment. Even if this was not intended, this seems to be an effort to "get the last word in" and to enforce that by shutting down further input. This isn't the way Wikipedia's conversations work. Conversations should not be closed by involved parties unless participants agree. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I really should not trust Dave1185. He said that he would leave this page, but then he opposed the closure of this discussion. What is it now? Apparently, he just wants to oppose me. What a shame.