Talk:Boeing

"Boeing" or "The Boeing Company"?

I'm just a newbie but is it common practice to have the main article listed under the short name of the subject entity? I would expect the article to be titled "The Boeing Company" with the "Boeing" entry redirected to "The Boeing Company". Of course, the opposite is the case.

Is this typical or exceptional? Am I being too fussy? Or is it difficult to make the change? Does anybody object if I make the change?

I won't do anything until someone more experienced weighs in, but I'd like to see the title changed to "The Boeing Company". andersonpd 02:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, Paul. Typically you'd see the redirect FROM "Boeing" TO "The Boeing Company" where the article actually resided. That is, after all, the actual name of the company we're talking about. I'd definitely propose moving this article to its correct location and swapping the redirect - unless someone can provide some reason this hasn't already been done. --ABQCat 00:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Corporate Blogging

Will someone introduce Randy's Boeing Blog considering the attention its been getting in the corporate world. [1]

just a thought. --ConradKilroy 06:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

List (or category) of Boeing aircraft?

Is there some reason why there is no comprehensive list of Boeing-made aircraft, or am I just not finding it? Stan 15:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There was a huge list. It was large, unwieldy, and ugly. They were reformed and split off into Boeing Commercial Airplanes and Boeing Integrated Defense Systems. Don't you agree that the Boeing article is big enough, as it is? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Airbus anonymous editor

An editor made a series of anonymous edits at Airbus and Boeing just a few minutes ago. Their IP address was 195.6.25.118, which belongs to Airbus SAS. I don't know if this is the first occurrence, but it strikes me as an enormous conflict of interest. Perhaps Boeing employees have done the same thing, but they haven't yet been caught at it. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Not Boeing employees... we've they've got ethics!

Seriously though, I don't see it as an automatic conflict of interest. WP:NPOV applies the same whether it comes from an editor at a corporate IP or the same editor at their home IP. I also think that there are enough editors watching the articles to keep each one "honest". McNeight 19:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is a big deal being made out of this? Airbus employee or not, they're a common vandal and their behavior was spotted. I'm not sure why you (or someone else, or whomever - I have no idea how this happened) passed this on to Flight Global, who of all things made it a front-page news item. ericg ✈ 19:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It was me, and actually, all I did was Cc them on it when I mailed the Airbus webmaster and postmaster. I just wanted someone else to see it. The article's author asked me for more info about it, so I provided the links to edit history, the IP address, and a link showing that it was an Airbus IP. I was surprised to see it show up on the front page of their website. I'm not sure where the "increasingly concerned" part came from though that they mentioned in the article. Must be a slow news day. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Last Douglas A/C

Gah, I made an edit to the statement about the 717's end of production, under the impression that it was referring to the 717 production end signifying the end of the Douglas-designed era, with the C-17 really being the last.

Giving it a bit more thought, that's not true on either count though - in hindsight, it appears that the original intent was to point out that the 717 was simply the most recent design by the company, and there are other Douglas designs still in production (Export F-15's come to mind). Mea culpa -- kcm

Those are really McDonnell aircraft. The Apache is a Hughes design. The C-17 really is the last Douglas aircraft. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 11:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• The C-17 is a MD airplane. The 717 as the 3rd generation DC-9 is the last Douglas airplane. -Fnlayson 15:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Boeing 777 image

I apologise for any confusion -- I typically hear more complaints when I am not replacing the image when doing cleanup. Here is a bunch of free, reusable images of the Boeing 777. Jkelly 21:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Reference needed

The very first sentence -- 'Boeing is the world's largest aircraft manufacturer' -- needs referencing, this position being contested (and taken, I thought) by Airbus.--DragonFly31 13:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Boeing makes military and civilian aircraft. Airbus, while owned by EADS and BAE Systems, has a much more limited scope. Airbus had more civil airframe sales last year; Boeing sold very slightly less, but the value was higher. ericg ✈ 16:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft Matrix - Boeing vs. Airbus vs. Others

I have created a aircraft matrix that lists airlines, sorted by the size of thier fleet, which aircraft from Airbus, which aircraft from Boeing, and other aircraft in thier fleet. It can be found at user:Mnw2000/Airlines-Aircraft Matrix. I think it should be link at Airbus, Boeing, Embarer, etc. as well as all alines pages. Can some assist me in that effort?

Here is a sample:

Airlines	Fleet	Airbus	Boeing	Others
Lufthansa	429	A300, A319, A320, A321, A330, A340	737, 747	CRJ200

--marc 18:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)--[user:mnw2000]

Focus on commerical airplanes

• This article is on the entire Boeing company. It is thin of Military Aircraft and Space hardware/rockets. - Fnlayson 00:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Lawsuits

Wasn't Boeing sued for breach of contract, by refusing to sell McDonnell Douglas airplanes to those airlines that had options by contract to buy more aircraft?--Vercalos 22:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Never heard of it. When did that happen? -Fnlayson 01:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

What does B&W in "Before 1950s" means? Is this the name of plane (possibly named after cofounders boeing & Westervelt), or name of type of planes (like jet)? Read article isn't enough here. I had to search google to find out answer.

Washington address

Does anyone have the corporate address in Seattle? Chris 01:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Boeing has multiple sites (like 4) in the Seattle area. Which one? Corporate HQ is in Chicago. I looked for a general web page listing the sites/locations, bur couldn't find one.. -Fnlayson 04:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Time

In May 2005, Boeing announced its intent to form a new company, United Launch Alliance with its competitor Lockheed Martin. The new company will be the sole provider of rocket launch services to the US government. The joint venture is expected to gain regulatory approval and be complete near the end of 2005. ??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.139.0.62 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

• That's been updated with friday's announcement. -Fnlayson 02:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Boeing Subsidies?

Does anybody know of a possible citation that could be used for these Boeing subsidies? Tax breaks are subsidies? I'm not aware of *any* tax breaks that Boeing gets which Airbus would not also receive for any manufacturing it would do in the states. IMHO these spurious accusations of subsidies for Boeing only appeared after Airbus began to feel the heat in the WTO for it's huge loan guarentees that insulate it from ever needing to accept risk for product development cost. Now THATS a subsidy!

Zebulin 17:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC) I found a good source for subsidies that aren't tax breaks or military contracts or other inappropriate concepts of 'subsidies' and placed the citation in the article.

Zebulin 17:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

1970's section

I was reading the section and came across this sentence: "Boeing did not receive one single order during more than one year"

Someone want to explain what that means? Did Boeing not receive a single order for a period of more than one year? Either way, perhaps it should be rephrased.

• I changed 'during' to 'for' in the sentence. -Fnlayson 20:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Employment

I am wondering if it'd be worth mentioning the employment dynamics in the article, for example that in the early 2000-s, Boeing laid off tens of thousands of people (some 20,000? or more?) in Seattle area alone ([2] in 2001 and more over the following years), which must've had quite an impact on the economy of the region with them being one of the major employers. I am afraid I don't have reliable sources to cite for accurate numbers and the sequence of events, but if someone interested in economics could write about this, I think that'd be appreciated by many. - Introvert • ~ 05:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• That'd be OK to mention lay-offs in the relavent spot with sources cited. But Boeing is a worldwide company. The focus should not be too much on one area, such as Puget Sound, imo. -Fnlayson 06:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Considering Boeing's current employment of 150,000, laying off a full eighth of their workforce - regardless of location - should be considered worthy of emphasis. ericg ✈ 08:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for your comments ~ yes, the disconcerting sight of their near-empty assembly building at Boeing Field struck me, a few years ago. A mere mortal :), I'm interested in the today's dynamics: I was reading about their alliance with Lockheed and some of the research and re-design that they seem unfolding, also about fleet expansion and orders for aircraft placed with Boeing by major carriers such as Lufthansa or Alaska, and does it seem that they may be winning over Airbus, too. So it caught me curious, are they ever going to hire big? or if they do, then might that happen in the Puget Sound area, at that. I'm hopeful that somebody someday will help with good info on this. Thanks again, and regards - Introvert • ~ 02:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the situation is far more complex than that. One has to consider that many of the lost employees were rehired. Many of them moved to other departments (chiefly IDS.) And many of them were spun off (Spirit, etc.) —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you. Your's a quick and clear answer to my long-winded question, I guess... (perhaps also explains why the information isn't easily available) Thanks again - Introvert • ~ 05:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Headquarters picture

Can the Boeing headquarters picture caption specify which building it is? From the picture, I can't tell if if it's the front building or the taller building behind it. enderminh 21:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Try clicking on the image and look at it full size. It looks like one building to me. There's a Boeing logo near the top of the tall part and a Boeing sign by the doorway of the shorter segment. -Fnlayson 22:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I can get a new picture and send it to wiki —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.164.143.111 (talk • contribs).

• Why? What's wrong the current one? -Fnlayson 17:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for removing timeline graph

Boeing history timeline

1. It says "Plasecki", should be Piasecki
2. It says Piasecki merged into Boeing in 1941, should be 1960.
3. It says Hughes Aircraft Company merged into MDD in 1984?? No! It was acquired by General Motors in 1985 and renamed Hughes Electronics.
4. Hughes Helicopters, Inc. was what MDD acquired.
5. No recognition of the fact that Raytheon acquired a massive chunk of Hughes Electronics.
6. No recognition of the fact that the satellite division remained independent until 2000.
7. That's the history I know about. Others should check that the creator hasn't mangled more of the history. Mark83 23:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Right, McDonnell Douglas acquired Hughes Helicopters in 1984. That's where the Apache, MD-500, and other helos came from. And the commercial helo products were spun off to MD Helicopters in 1998 (approximately). There's been other sales like the Rocketdyne part recently. -Fnlayson 23:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur on the removal and mistakes. It looks like they switched the "Hughes Aircraft COmpany" and "Hughes Tool Company Aircraft Division" dates. The Hughes Aircraft and Hughes Helicopters history is confusing anyway. From the Hughes Helicopters page (some of which I researched and wrote, to be transparent):

Hughes Helicopters ... began in 1947 as a unit of Hughes Aircraft, then was part of the Hughes Tool Company after 1955.[1] It became the Hughes Helicopter Division, Summa Corporation in 1972, and was reformed as Hughes Helicopters, Inc. in 1981. However, throughout its history, the company was informally known as "Hughes Helicopters". - BillCJ 00:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If we sorted a list of companies/dates and asked User:Emoscopes (or another willing user up to the task) very nicely, maybe they could produce the Boeing equivalent of Template:BAE Systems evolution. Not only is it clearer, but would provide a nice consistency between two major aerospace company articles on WP. Mark83 00:29, 3 November 2007 (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)

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)

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)