Talk:Airbus A330/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/a330/

  Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.airbusmilitary.com/A330MRTT.aspx

  Triggered by \bairbusmilitary\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://web.archive.org/web/20110526034050/http://www.airbusmilitary.com/A330MRTT.aspx

  Triggered by \bairbusmilitary\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Airbus A330 Incidents and Accidents Section Mistake

"In July 2014, an Afriqiyah Airways A330 was damaged in the fighting in Libya. Due to the many bullet holes in the fuselage, the aircraft has been written off."

Well to whoever wrote that statement above, in the Incidents and Accidents section, I had seen none of Afriqiyah Airways's A330 was involved in that incident. The picture on the resource I had seen was an A320 landing gear equipped with CFM 56 engines, the A320 was the damaged aircraft, not the A330. The A330 has a much different undercarriage. Also I had seen that in Planespotters.net, that none of Afriqiyah Airways A330 (Except 5A-ONG which crashed in 2010) were written off, or even stored, all A330s are active.

Whoever wrote that statement, please remove it.--Airbus A330-343X lover (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Airbus A330-343X lover: The info I could gather is that this week a Libyan Airlines A330 (5A-LAS) was severely damaged at Tripoli Airport and today an almost brand-new Afriqiyah Airways A330 (5A-ONP?) was hit by an RPG and as a result was completely destroyed (1).--Wolbo (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

That is true, however, both aircrafts are still active. Damaged, but still in operation.--Airbus A330-343X lover (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The callsign of the Afriqiyah Airways A330 is not yet certain, but if you have seen the photos it is clear that this aircraft is not active or in operation and will never be.--Wolbo (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, I see that, poor aircraft, it was brand new, and destroyed. Not only this aircraft, also 5A-ONF was damaged, also may be written off. Afriqiyah airways is only left out with only one single A330 (5A-ONH) which has only minor damage, that can be repaired. Afriqiyah airways had stored that aircraft before, and I think they should store it again. --Airbus A330-343X lover (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Lufthansa

For what reason is Lufthansa not listed as a primary user? The top picture is of a Lufthansa plane, so what is the criteria in order for Lufthansa to be considered a primary user? I myself have flown in an A330-300 operated by Lufthansa, and I believe they own over two, but it could be much more than that. -- Smeagol630 (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC) --

The Infobox should generally list the top 4 users from the list of operators in the Operators section. Lufthansa's fleet is not in the top 4. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Dedicated page for A330neo

If a new page could be created for the A320neo, why not create a one for the A330neo?

Rihaz (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably because the 320neo program was launched several years ago, while the 330neo was just launched this year. It's still a bit early for a separate article. - BilCat (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems that User:Rihazrihazrihaz has created Airbus A330neo despite your comment that it is to early. MilborneOne (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see that comment as a prohibition from making one. I think the article has sufficient text on it for now. Rihaz (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The main reason I did so was because I felt the A330neo section on this page wasn't enough. Airbus had 5-6 articles on their website about it and there are many more on other websites containing sufficient information to make an article. Plus, I think the first paragraph of the A330neo section here needs a little work. Rihaz (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

WP operates by consensus, so we usually don't give prohibitions as such, but it was good advice. WP:AIR experience has shown that it's usually better to work on improving the sections in an existing article first, and once it is quit large, then split off into a variant article. The Boeing 777X page was AFDed by a non-aircraft project editor within days of its original creation last year, despite work I and other editors did to save it, and it was only restored a few weeks ago. I hope you don't have to go through the same experience with this one. - BilCat (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• That's what WP:Splitting suggests; expand an article until it gets too large, then split off part of it. The A330neo is getting new engines and small changes overall. It could be covered in this article reasonably well for a while. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The source page is an essay and covers a variant of the A330, say no more. The neo deserves no more than a para in the main body and an entry in the variants section of Airbus A330. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talk • contribs) 04:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)‎

Oppose - I support the idea of a separate article. The neo article isn't written all that well (thus, sounds like an essay), its mainly the work of what I did on one of my sandboxes over the past 3 days and the edits people made over the last 12 hours. The essay-tone should be gone as more edits are made and more lines are re-written. As for being too small, more information on the neo is available. The article now contains barely 60% of the material I found while I did my source-finding. Unfortunately, I lost some and I had to leave out others as I was working at peak. I already think it is large enough to deserve it's own article and it will only get larger as the days pass. Rihaz (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, the neo project comes across as - Airbus is going to alter the wing a bit, put on new engines, and shift the seats around inside. It doesn't really come across as much of a departure from making a variant on any other aircraft. Some people have said they will buy them, but none have been made yet, let alone delivered. Bound be newspaper/journal coverage following the initial announcements. But we need to take an encyclopaedic viewpoint. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Timesaving is NOT to merge, but: like 777x to make a new article. And do not wait. 77.12.40.102 (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - merging A330neo text to this article in a summary manner. This neo is a minimal change to the A330, mainly newer and better engines. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment - So you think to merge A320neo, 737max or -next, 777x too, because its nearly the same situation? See that the split is more then useful, but necessary. 77.185.255.132 (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• I already commented on the 777X being different above, but I thought that article was started too soon last year. The A320neo and 737 Max have more changes than the A330neo based on what's been reported in the media. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Due improvements to the neo article, I am striking by support. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - we have separate articles for the Airbus A320neo family and Boeing 737 MAX and the level of change of these models compared to their predecessors is very similar to that of the A330neo versus the A330.--Wolbo (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The split is actually done - and sooner or later it has to be done anyway. A320neo, 737max or -next, 777x used it finally, because its good, better results, and timesaving: Don't waste time to merge now and split again later. 77.185.255.132 (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - A new article will be needed later anyway. Why make things complicated by merging now and spliting again later? Article is good enough, info seems sufficient. 27.147.248.248 (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

merge proposal removed--Petebutt (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

A350 to supersede A330?

I'm a little confused as to how the A350 will supersede the A330 as Airbus' medium wide body airliner. I mean, with the introduction of the A330neo, that seems factually incorrect. Moreover, there is no source to the claim. The line was written by someone senior to myself here, so I believe there was a good reason for mentioning that. I did not remove it for the same reason.

I would like to know the reason behind making that claim and that too without a source. Thanks -Rihaz (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

the original A350 offer would have been a direct replacement/upgrade for the A330.

The final A350_XWB_ is a different ( larger, more range ) type targeting the slot below/square on the 777-300ER. With the A350 XWB offer the stage was set for the A330 to continue ( which it did quite well ) and to later offer the A330NEO using the same Trent 1000 TEN engine with bleed air takeoff to the airframe added in ( Trent 7000 ). the upgraded airframe is rather competitive to the 787-8/9.

another item: The OEW numbers that have recently been changed to numbers offered by Airliners.net aircraft database are too low. 124...128 as earlier stated is much more realistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.57.204.38 (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Titlebox Variants Section - EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45

Is there any particular reason why this "variant" exists in the title box of the article? The KC-45 isnt looking like it will ever be produced and we dont see things like the 747-500x and 747-600x listed on the 747 page, or from my quick look around any other known cancelled/non existent variant on any other commerical aircraft page. would anybody object if i removed the variant from the title box? 125.209.178.84 (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It is there because it is a separate article on an A330 variant. The Infobox lists all the variant and derivative articles. It does really not matter if it got canceled or not. This is not a popularity thing. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Kathmandu

@MilborneOne: - the fact that two editors (myself and Ashtul) have now added this accident would seem to indicate that it is at least notable enough to be mentioned here, and that there is consensus for its inclusion. Per BRD, you should reverse your removal whilst this issue is discussed. If you read the Aviation Herald story, you will see that specialist equipment has had to be flown in to assist with the recovery of the severely damaged aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ashtul, MilborneOne, and Mjroots: I don't think so until a reliable source confirms the write-off.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we are not reading the same story, I cant see anything more than an aircraft coming of the runway in dense fog and breaking the nose wheel in the soft ground, bringing in specialist equipment is not really a factor it is unlikely that every airport has the capability to lift a A330. The only thing that might make it of note is if the crew landing in the fog below the regulation visability but nobody has said that yet. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

AH states collapsed nose wheel, damage to fuselage and both wings. Engine damage not mentioned by AH, but likely. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

JACDEC reporting both engines damaged. Mjroots (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree it is NOT notable. There have been numerous accidents like it. If it doesn't include fatalities or a result of design failure it isn't really interesting. Ashtul (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

A330 Regional

Airbus launched A330 Regional and that's a separate variant not reflect in the article. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Will add it to the article soon under the "variants" section. Thanks for pointing it out. Rihaz ^{(Talk to me • Stuff I did • Global Info)} 18:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This is covered in the A300-300 variant section already. This is just a -300 version with a different takeoff weight and all economy seating, not a new variant. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There are more technical details available now which I guess should be mentioned. I didn't really take a look at things, but will do so soon and add anything I feel the article is missing. Rihaz ^{(Talk to me • Stuff I did • Global Info)} 17:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a bad idea to add some of the details mentioned here, such as range and all. News such as Saudia becoming its first operator doesn't sound all that bad either. Rihaz ^{(Talk to me • Stuff I did • Global Info)} 18:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

A330-300 Regional range in lead section & reduction in A330neo content

The A330-300 Regional has a range of 3,000 nautical miles (5,600 km), but the lead section of the article states different variants of the A330 have a range of "7,400 to 13,430 kilometres (4,000 to 7,250 nmi)". I think we should bring the regional version's range into consideration and change it accordingly.

Secondly, the article didn't see any reduction in A330neo content, even after the A330neo article was made. Lot of the content in this section exists from the time even before the A330neo was even announced (before July 2014) and the section has only grown since then. I think much of the content there is redundant and so should be removed. Rihaz ^{(Talk to me • Stuff I did • Global)} 16:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Good points. The Lead range text should be updated. There is no issue at all there. The A330neo entries in the Variants section are short, but the A330neo section under Development is long. The latter should be shortened/summarized. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I changed the lead section. I'll try and write a draft for the A330neo section under "Development" on my sandbox and have you check it out. Rihaz ^{(Talk to me • Stuff I did • Global)} 18:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed lead picture change

I propose that the lead picture (Lufthansa A330-300) be changed to my MEA A330-200 picture, for the following reasons.

• The existing lead is too dark and is therefore not OK for the important lead position,
• My picture is in better focus than the Lufthansa,
• My picture nicely displays the underside configuration as a bonus.

Please comment on whether the change of picture will be acceptable.

• 
  The existing pic (A330-300)
• 
  The proposed pic (A330-200)

Arpingstone (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Dont have a problem with a change of image. MilborneOne (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply, I'll wait a few days for any other replies - Best, Arpingstone (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with changing the image as well. --McSly (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your agreement, I have changed the picture, Best - Arpingstone (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I propose to change it to show the -300 main variant, the first introduced and the most built (even if not by much). The operator shown should be informative, either the first, but Air Inter disappeared, or the largest : either Turkish Airlines, 62 A330, or Cathay Pacific, largest -300 operator (but it could be reserved for the -300 variant section, as could the largest -200 operator China Eastern illustrates the smaller variant. Aesthetically, there are many to choose from commons which should be pleasing, with a dynamic scene and quiet background. The current picture, while aesthetically OK, doesn't convey a purpose, neither the variant nor the operator. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the variant and operator are irrelevant to which image should be in the Lead. We simply need a good image that shows a good view of the aircraft in flight, when available. We don't necessarily have to keep the same image for years, especially if many good images are available, as there are in this case. - BilCat (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The variant is insightful, an A318 wouldn't be a good lead pic for the Airbus A320 Family. As is the operator, it's not crucial it should be the largest, but in this case MEA is certainly not the most widely seen 330s. Anyway, if nobody cares, I'll change it then. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It would still be nice if you could tell us which one you want to include before we agree that it is changed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

They are many from Turkish with the same elements : left-pointing, viewed from the front/side, over a blue sky :

• 
• 
• 
• 

Thanks, I would support a change to the fourth image (TC-JNL). MilborneOne (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, best angle, nice light --Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I propose to change the lead picture.

• 
• 

This one shows the A330 in its corporate colors and not in airliners'. It also illustrates that this machine became the first Airbus wide-body airliner to reach 1,000 deliveries. What do you think?--SebiNator (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Lead pics faces the text when possible, and the manufacturer's livery may convey a hidden "still in development" meaning. But the "More than 1000 A330 delivered" marking is nice to illustrate the event, thanks! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

variant order

I think a numerical order, as an alphabetic one, is only good when there is no other meaningful order. For airliners, a chronological order makes sense : the basis variant came first, then its derivatives. Numerical order is often the same as the size order, which could be a meaningful order, but it's because stretchs are more frequent than shrinks (as the 737-500 is smaller than the basis -300). Here the A330-300 came before the -200 and is the basis for the development of the smaller variant : if a reader reads the article, he will go through the -200 paragraph before the -300 and it won't make any sense because the -200 paragraph refers to the -300. I'll permute that unless somebody differs. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Airbus A330, Seating Configuration

Hello to All,

I would like to add seat configuration of two airlines on Airbus A330 Wikipedia article, would it be insignificant to mention in the main airliner article?

Kindly share your views so I can know whether I should add or not.

Rajcurator (talk) 06:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The section: In service engine shutdowns is currently very biased

It implies that only Trent 700 powered A330s have experienced in flight shutdowns. This is not the case, each of the 3 engine manufacturers have had in service issues with their products.

WP:Undue weight perhaps, please provide references for other engine issues.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

There is too many to list completely, just a few from the last couple of years: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] 2A00:23C4:3699:EC00:91C3:FB2:FE05:7E09 (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"А330" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect А330. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

misleading picture needs to be removed

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is a black and white picture of the A330 production line. Removed it three times already but 2 other editors undid the removal because they just want to win. Patch455 (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC) Why is it misleading? BilCat (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC) I'm interested that you feel you know my motivation when you allege because they just want to win. Do you have psychic powers? If so, they are misfiring. DBaK (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC) The black and white makes the picture look pretty old. The A330 is still a very modern aircraft and its a shame that you would put a picture of the production line of a magnificent modern aircraft in black and white even worse publish it on Wikipedia. Patch455 (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC) That's it's not a valid reason to remove a photo. BilCat (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC) I’m sorry but this picture simply does not fit to the article. Patch455 (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC) While you're welcome to your opinion, that reasoning isn't likely to convince anyone the photo needs to be removed. BilCat (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC) May I ask you a question? Are we here talking about the A330 or the DC-3? Patch455 (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC) There is nothing inherently wrong with a photograph in black and white. If this means old to you I suggest that is your problem not anyone elses. You are welcome to replace the picture with a better one and or maybe add a date (2007) to the caption to avoid any confusion or impression you are seeing. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC) @Patch455: And reverting as an IP once you have run out of reverts is a very dangerous persuit. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC) You just don’t put a black and white picture to an article of an aircraft that is not even 30 years old. Patch455 (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC) Why? Andrewgprout (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC) I think I’m making the case against the wrong person. Apparently black and white has no meaning to you which is not normal and unhealthy too. I wish you all the best. Patch455 (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC) No, not just the one wrong person. Plenty of us cannot see the point in your complaints. Black and white is a valid form of photograph. There is no more to say, except that if you don't like it you should find a better one and gain consensus for replacing it, as stated below. Thank you. DBaK (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC) @Fnlayson adding the year doesn’t make it any better. black and white simply does not fit to the year of 2007. Patch455 (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC) Most editors here, me included, seems to be fine with a BW picture. If you can find a good free picture of the assembly line in colour, you can propose it here in talk. Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC) Agreed. Marc Lacoste is absolutely correct here. Patch455, you might want to read up on consensus in WP editing. There is a load of useful information for a new user that I and others put on your Talk page: you would do very well to read it. Thank you DBaK (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC) I hope you all know that your behavior is pretty disrespectful towards this magnificent, modern aircraft. What a shame. Patch455 (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC) That is sad. I'll be glad to pitch in for some therapy for the A330. I understand it's doing the A380 a lot of good since its cancellation. BilCat (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC) ‘Inappropriate black and white picture needs to be removed from the article’ Patch455 (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC) So let me see if I understand you correctly. You believe the black and white picture is inappropriate and needs to be removed from the article. Is that correct? BilCat (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC) I feel that this is becoming an appalling waste of time as the OP is apparently not listening and apparently does not understand how Wikipedia works, or else is having fun yanking our chains, but let's WP:AGF. I am not sure I have the energy to continue, except that if there is actually a vote or an RfC or something I suppose I will weigh in. However, Patch455 did say one interesting thing in their edit summary here where they wrote someone please contact José and put the original picture up there. Now, given that it seems we will not tolerate the removal of this image just because you don't like B&W – that is, we think that it is better to have the current photo than no factory photo – and given that you, Patch455, are apparently the only person who feels strongly about this: I would certainly support replacing the current B&W one with the same one in colour or with another factory image of equivalent quality. So you could, if you wished, contact the photographer and see whether it exists in colour and whether he would be willing to make it available. Of course, it may simply not exist, and the photographer, whose work shows a load of really excellent B&W and colour photography, may not like being told that B&W is not proper photography in some way. But, if you feel that strongly about it (and it seems that you do  – this is a lot of energy expended on one minuscule issue) – why not take your own advice and ask him? Here he is: https://www.flickr.com/photos/goulao/albums and at the very least you could enjoy his other work, which I thought was well worth a look, however many colours he likes it in. That's all I have for you at the moment, and I would urge you, with the greatest respect, to either do something productive about it or just stop: on its current trajectory this looks fated not to end well. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC) responding to BilCat: Yes that is correct. Patch455 (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC) I will not contact him nor will I look at his other photos. It was a pretty bad idea to put the production line in black and white. But I believe you that he sure has made some good photos. No doubt. Patch455 (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC) The black and white picture needs to be removed. It’s misleading, unfitting and inappropriate. You all know I’m right. You just won’t remove it because you think “I have something against B&W photography”. How ridiculous. Patch455 (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Sorry, but I can't see much point in responding further though like many others I will probably continue to watch. Have a good day. DBaK (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC) So let me get this straight. You will not remove the picture because you think I don’t like B&W photography. But that’s something you want to think and not because it’s true. Only so I don’t get my way. Now I ask you what does this make you as an editor? I can already tell you that this does not show a very good picture of you. Patch455 (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC) There is nothing misleading or inappropriate about the photo. That's why we're against removing it. BilCat (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Of course it’s inappropriate. This aircraft is from the 90s and not the 30s. Patch455 (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC) This has gone on far too long. There's no point in essentially repeating the same comments here. Time to close this discussion, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Apparently not long enough for you to understand. Patch455 (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC) We understand. We simply disagree. BilCat (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC) No reason to go there (ad hominem argument). -Fnlayson (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC) The black and white does not fit to the article. It puts the A330 in the wrong light. You can’t disagree on that because it’s true. Patch455 (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Number built

There have been 1544 a330s built as of March 15th 2021

https://www.airfleets.net/listing/a330-25.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:1F94:1501:1DF0:E7BF:17A7:A09B (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

To avoid conflicting information from unofficial sites such as this one, by consensus, Airbus and Boeing airliner articles use the data released monthly on each company's official website. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Display section missing 4-5 airframes

The aircraft on display section lacks a 4-5? A330s, all in Thailand. Three or two? are at a place called Coffee War 331, and curiously two had their wings swapped while being reassembled, another one is at the Air Diamond Cafe, and finally the last one is at the Airways Land Cafe, repurposed after being damaged beyond repair in a runway incident. All seem to be Ex-Thai airways. 112.211.13.224 (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)