Talk:Boeing

Biased?

An initial read of this article seems to indicate surprising amount of bias towards Airbus. Just saying tongue and cheek, but this article seems to suggest Boeing as a large evil corporation and Airbus as fighting the good fight. Is this because Boeing is an American company as opposed to a European one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.80.6.3 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Name

The article is a bit unclear on the name. It says "In August of the next year, Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas in a US$13 billion stock swap under the name The Boeing Company. However this name had actually been Boeing's official name previously adapted on 21 May 1961". Does this mean that the company has been The Boeing Company since 21 May 1961 and as a result of the merger, the new company took the name, without modification, of what had been Boeing? If so, the wording is confusing. The wording used at, e.g. AMD would be better. Nil Einne (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Boeing Red Barn

I was recently on a tour at the Museum of Flight near seattle WA. I got a picture of a red barn they said was the first boeing factory. Is there a reason this is not mentioned in the article? Does anybody who maintains this article think a picture of this barn would be useful? Thanks. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 22:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a picture of the Red Barn would be useful. You should upload it and add it to this article. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Boeing Boat Works

25 years or so ago I went to a remote cottage in British Columbia and in one of the old boathouses on the property was one of those classic old 1920 or 1930's wooden cruisers with "Boeing Boat Works" on a metal plate on it. Does anyone know anything about this part of Boeing's history? AlbertaSunwapta (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Furniture, anyone?

Re Boeing history, NOBODY seems to have mentioned FURNITURE! I went to the Boeing museum at or near Seattle in 1988 and saw at least one specimen of Boeing furniture dating from the years after WW1. The item was a pastel blue dressing table. The museum notes said that with the end of hostilities, the world demand for aircraft had been expected to collapse. Aircraft builders of the early 20th century had the woodworking skills to produce fine furniture, so they went back to their former trade (perhaps only as a sideline, in parallel with aircraft-building?). (As this is my first ever Wikipedia 'talk', please forgive any technical goofs...) Rogerathauxton (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. I am currently adding more info about Boeing's history from 1917-1927 as there is a big "gap" in the History section for this time period. Compdude123 (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday, I added info about Boeing building furniture; also was surprised nobody has mentioned this. And this afternoon, I just made a big edit and added info about planes that Boeing built between 1917 and 1930. I filled the "gap" in the history section from 1917-1927. --Compdude123 (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing Criticisms section?

Just curious, why do european companies/products often have a criticisms section (see EADS for example), and american companies and products don't need one? Where is the NPOV? Supersymetrie (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dedicated criticism and controversy sections are not required to present negative view points. These section are often magnets for biased and unsourced additions. There is even a template that discourages these sections ({{Criticism-section}}). Also there are multiple negative sections under the 2000s section already. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Environmental Record

Is it just me, or does it also appear to others that an effort has been made within the Boeing and Airbus articles to present Airbus in a more favorable light? There would appear to be several examples of this, but the most glaring are the Environmental Record sections. This section of the Boeing article is almost exclusively devoted to what a huge polluter Boeing is, while the equivalent section of the Airbus article is exclusively devoted to efforts Airbus is making to save the environment. Since we now know how Boeing ranks as a polluter in the U.S. and how many superfund sites it is responsible for, would it not be appropriate to see equivalent information for Airbus instead of just reading about how aggressive Airbus is in developing alternative fuels? Full disclosure: I am a Boeing employee (non-management), which is why I am bringing this to the discussion page rather than attempting to revise the articles, which should be done by someone without my conflict of interest.Doobie61 (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just had a look at both. In my view the only major balance problem with the sections is that the Airbus article is lacking information regarding its pollution as a result of its activities as exists in the Boeing article. The biofuels section of the Airbus article seems NPOV to me - with the expception of the final sentence: "This flight and the company's long term efforts are considered big strides towards environmentally friendly airplanes." -- I believe it to be written in good faith but sounds a bit like marketing speak. In comparing the biofuels section with that on the Boeing article it does appear that Airbus are more pro-active in this regard, perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject could let us know and/or edit the articles if that is incorrect. Mark83 (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

See also

I think a link to Boeing Commercial Airplanes is needed here. Who would like to paste this: Boeing_Commercial_Airplanes? Big thanks.--83.135.26.175 (talk) 10:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The link is in the Infobox, and in the Divisions section of the text. It's probably not necessary in the "See also" section too, per the guidelines on those sections. - BillCJ (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, two links to one article are enough. -Compdude123 (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

References to Airplane Models and Production Totals

The 757 total is incorrect. 1050 were produced, not 1055. There is a tendency to mix Boeing engineering model numbers, with marketing model numbers, with military customer model numbers. This does track with popular nomenclature, but can be quite confusing, even to people who have worked for Boeing for a long time. Boeing model 299 was the U.S. Army B-17. Noting that the 299 came before the 307 isw significant, since the 307 was developed using the 299's wing and major systems. This relationship is correctly noted for the 345 (B-29) and the 377 Stratocruiser. It was the 707 that led to a commercial airplane marketing notion of mdoel numbers as something other than just the sequention number assigned by engineering. Engineering used many variations on the model designations, most of which were ignored by marketing. This led to considerable embarrassment with the MD-95 (really as DC-9 Model 95) was renamed the supposedly skipped 717. The 717 had actually been the engineering model designation for the KC-135 series of tankers and related "EC" planes. When this was pointed out to marketing, they quickly dubbed the MD-95 the 717-200, but I'm pretty sure that this was the first model designation totally invented by markeing. Boeing's practice since the 1930's has been to use a 3+3 model number. The first three digits are the master drawing number, including the feature variations. The first digit of the second three designates the major derivative series, and the second and third digits indicate the intial operator or customer (lots of variation here with leased planes, and planes that are subleased or resold before delivery). So from an engineering model designation point of view, the numbering system has not changed with the 747-800 and the 787-300, -800 and -900. Internal drawing references use the same 3+3 system that has been in place for over 60 years. However, marketing decided to drop the second two digits and adopt the Douglas one and two digit sub-model designation, which is they way Boeing did it during the 1920's and 1930's. In fact, the 707 was developed using the deliberately misleading 367-80 designation to suggest that it was a multi-engined turbo-prop, which is what the 300 series models were.

The 300 series aren't turboprops; Boeing NEVER, EVER built a turboprop plane. Therefore, the 300s aren't turboprops. --Compdude123 (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There have been some notable departures. For example, the subsidized Boeing SST was designated model 2707-100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkidofriend (talk • contribs) 04:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Link to founder's article

There should be a link from the name "William E. Boeing" in the history section to the respective article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.243.128 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

His bio article is linked twice in the article, including in the Lead section. That is generally considered enough, per WP:OVERLINKING. - BilCat (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing aircraft

Odd that we have an article on the Boeing P-26 but no mention of it in this article. Also, and I'm not sure about this, but I seem to remember that Boeing built a trimotor passenger plane before the 247 -- Anyone know of it? Sca (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Update re above: What about the Boeing 40 and Boeing 80? Sca (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

True, there's nothing on the 1917 to 1927 time in the History section. If you could write something mentioning those and any notable other models, that would be good. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I Just added info about Boeing's history earlier this afternoon, using info from the history section on Boeing's website. The history on Boeing's website is very extensive and there's narratives containing a lot of info about Boeing and other companies Boeing has purchased over the years. There's also info on pretty much every Boeing aircraft. Here's the link to the website: http://www.boeing.com/history/index.html

If I missed anything in my edits or made any mistakes, feel free to make changes. --Compdude123 (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

KC-X default winner?

An item in the KC-X article, dated March 2010, indicated that the Northrop Grumman/EADS consortium has pulled out of KC-X bidding process, thus making Boeing the default winner -- if it submits a bid. It would improve the article if this major news proves true and is citable from reliable sources.--TGC55 (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The KC-X article certainly does not say that. Wording about Boeing being the only remaining bidder was in it briefly however. If you have issues with the KC-X article use its talk page directly. There's nothing that really needs to added to this article until the bids are turned in (WP:NOTNEWS). -Fnlayson (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

SUGAR Aircraft concepts

Could we possibly add in the SUGAR concepts? Maybe it could be in the Future Concepts section. Here's a link that may be helpful. http://aviationweek.typepad.com/files/boeing_sugar_phase_i_final_review_v5.pdf Thanks! 66.67.22.212 (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Boeing updating elements of the Boeing entry

Hello everybody. I'm Todd Blecher with Boeing's Corporate Communications department in Chicago. We appreciate the efforts of everybody who works on this entry. I do have a question for the community. Elements of the entry are outdated, such as the information about the US-EU trade case and Boeing's environmental record. How can I best help the community update those and other elements of this overview of our company?

I appreciate your consideration.

--Todd Blecher (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking Todd. I'll give you my two cents. Pointers to reliably sourced (i.e., secondary sources) articles that support areas of the article that are unsourced today, or to articles of the same caliber that cover aspects of Boeing that might be important to an encyclopedia article about Boeing but are not covered in the WP article today, are very helpful. You are, indeed, doing the right thing by not editing Boeing-related Wikipedia articles yourself! Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Boeing's intentions with commercial space

This topic seems to not be covered in the current Boeing article. This source—Boeing flags its intentions in commercial space, BBC News, 2010-07-23, accessed 2010-08-04.—provides a verifiably sourced set of information about Boeing's plans in the growing commercial space industry. This is the first article I've read that is as explicit and clear on this subject. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Concept aircraft

• 367-80 Stratoliner Prototype, N70700, MASDC, November 12, 1973
• EC-137D Airborne Warning and Control System Prototype, 71-1408, Boeing Field, Seattle, June 18, 1973
• 727-63 General Electric Unducted Fan Testbed, N32720, Mojave Airport, November 9, 1986
• 747-121 General Electric Engine Testbed, N747GE, Kramer Junction, California, August 24, 1999
• 1 737-900 Prototype, N737X, Edwards Air Force Base, November 2, 2000 NT-43A Radar Test Bed, 73-1155, Death Valley, January 24, 2003
• 1 767-200 Airborne Surveillance Testbed, N767BA, Southern California Air Logistics Center, Victorville, June 17, 2005
• 1 757-200 F-22 Avionics Testbed, N757A, Air Force Plant 42, Palmdale, California, February 13, 2006
• 747-273C Evergreen International Supertanker, N470EV, San Bernardino, May 31, 2006
• 720-051B Honeywell engine testbed N720H, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, December 27, 2007
• 757-225 Honeywell engine testbed N757HW, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, February 1, 2010
• 4 787-8 Prototype N7874, Mesa Gateway Airport, Arizona, May 23, 2010

Source: http://www.air-and-space.com/Death%20Valley%20sighting.htm .... LanceBarber (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What message are you trying to convey by posting this? In other words, why is this section here? Do you want us to add the info to this article? --Compdude123 (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Duopol!!, Geerman American Böing?, American identity?

The duopol of Boeing and Airbus and its reasons (high market entrance costs...) should be mentioned!! It could be added, that Böing/Boeing had German heritage? (relevance: support of the USA in WWI and WWII) Maybe it should be added, that US-Americans identify themselves with Boeing and that there is much negativity towards Airbus in the US media/public? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.15.70 (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Does not seem that relevant here as this article is about the company. Its founder is covered at William Boeing. -fnlayson (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Boeing to close Wichita, Kansas plant

Boeing started in Wichita, Kansas in 1938 and now will close by end of 2013. During World War II, the Wichita employment peaked at 29,795 in December 1943.

• http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-04/boeing-to-shut-plant-with-2-160-workers-as-u-s-trims-defense.html
• http://www.kansas.com/2012/01/04/2162092/boeing-to-close-wichita-plant.html
• http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/Boeing_Calls_Meeting_For_All_Wichita_Employees_136605708.html
• http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9S2B4I01.htm

Quote "Employment at the plant peaked during World War II as the company churned out four bombers a day. Its 40,000 workers included President Barack Obama's beloved grandmother Madelyn Dunham, known as "Toot," who did her part for the war effort by working the night shift as a supervisor on the B-29 bomber assembly line." NOTE: I don't know the correct maximum employees during WWII, because I've seen numbers from 30K to 40K region.

Historical photos and information about Wichita plant, since Stearman Aircraft:

• http://www.kansas.com/2012/01/04/2162186/boeing-wichita.html
• http://www.wingsoverkansas.com/legacy/article.asp?id=375

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)