Talk:Boeing 737 MAX: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:27, 9 October 2011

Aviation: Aircraft Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

A fact from Boeing 737 MAX appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 September 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the smallest member of the Boeing 737 Next Generation family will not be continued in the family's replacement, the Boeing 737 MAX?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boeing 737 MAX.

Wikipedia

Merger proposal

Given that the 737 MAX was the outcome of/replacement for the Boeing Y1 project (i.e. the "737 Replacement" project), it seems to me that the Y1 page should become part of the "design and development" section of the 737 MAX page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is another plan to replaced the entire 737 line, then this merger makes sense. Is there any plan at Boeing to eventually replace the 737 line? Is the 737 MAX simply a interim response to the Airbus 320neo? user:mnw2000 11:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Boeing still plans on a new narrow body to replace the 737. Going with 737 MAX in the short term pushed that into the 2020s. There are several articles on Flight International and Aviation Week that mention this. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Boeing will still build an all-new narrowbody replacement, but that won't happen for another ten years. But that's no reason to merge these two articles. —Compdude123 (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merging to 737 MAX, as they are not the same thing, but it would probably make sense to merge Y1 back to the Boeing Yellowstone Project article, and trim the excess in Y1 during that merge. - BilCat (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose - Boeing has never declared 737 MAX was actually the Y1. They have never declared otherwise, either, but logically 737 cannot be Y1 - it's just an upgrade of an existing airliner. Just like B747-8 is not Y3. 737 MAX is a response to A320neo. Boeing, just like Airbus, don't see the reason to replace a hugely salable aircraft with a new project, for which they have neither funds, nor spare brainpower, NOR the real need - they have over 2000 orders, enough to keep them busy for at least 5-6 years. And the orders don't seem to be slowing down. Leo (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Agree with BilCat. A merge of Y1 into the Yellowstone Project would make sense here. The Bushranger, the 737 MAX was not the outcome of/replacement for the Y1. The 737 MAX was a response to the immense market demand for a more fuel efficient 737-type airplane (as demonstrated by the success of the neo)

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 *'''Oppose''' merging to 737 MAX, as they are not the same thing, but it would probably make sense to '''merge Y1 back to the [[Boeing Yellowstone Project]] article''', and trim the excess in Y1 during that merge. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 20:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 :'''Strongly oppose''' - Boeing has never declared 737 MAX was actually the Y1. They have never declared otherwise, either, but logically 737 cannot be Y1 - it's just an upgrade of an existing airliner. '''Just like B747-8 is not Y3.''' 737 MAX is a response to A320neo. Boeing, just like Airbus, don't see the reason to replace a hugely salable aircraft with a new project, for which they have neither funds, nor spare brainpower, NOR the real need - they have over 2000 orders, enough to keep them busy for at least 5-6 years. And the orders don't seem to be slowing down. [[User:Leo711|Leo]] ([[User talk:Leo711|talk]]) 22:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
+: '''Oppose''' - Agree with [[User:BilCat|BilCat]]. A merge of Y1 into the Yellowstone Project would make sense here. [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]], the 737 MAX was not the outcome of/replacement for the Y1. The 737 MAX was a response to the immense market demand for a more fuel efficient 737-type airplane (as demonstrated by the success of the neo)