Talk:Boeing 737 MAX

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Close as no consensus to merge. See Talk:Boeing Yellowstone Project about merging Y1 there instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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) Katanada (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2011 (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.

Orders Table

Are there currently any plans for an orders table/page? I would be willing to create one if people feel it is worthwhile. I have been working on a similar one for the A320neo and so would follow this structure. Bthebest (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Deliveries

Maby it would be wise to erase the delivery section as there will be no single one delivery till at least 2017. I edited the section, but my edit got reverted. Table would look like this:

	Orders		Deliveries
Type	Total	Backlog	Total	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017
737 MAX (All variants)	150	150	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	20
Total	150	150	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	20

Njirk (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the need in listing near term years as deliveries are not to start until 2017 anyway. I suggest starting the delivery years with 2017 or leave the off for now. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Norwegian order

The Norwegian Air co. have just put out an order for 100 boeing 737Max8, 22 737-800, and 100 Airbus 320Neo. This is the singel largest order any Norwegian company has orderd ever... 122 bill. NOK Ref: http://e24.no/boers-og-finans/norwegian-kjoeper-222-nye-fly/20145723 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.8.208.62 (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The link you posted is in Norwegian, last time I checked this is the English wikipedia. It would be best to use a reliable source like this on Flightglobal or a Boeing press release. BTW the A320neo order is just an MoU not a firm order, so don't go adding it to the A320neo page. And it's not as big an order as the Southwest order of 150 737MAX aircraft; Norwegian ordered only 100 737MAX aircraft. —Compdude123 (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

See Boeing press release --Denniss (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era

This section contains Bombardier C-series, which is wrong in three out of three factors. It's role is a regional jet, while 737 is a short-to-medium range narrow-body. Configuration? Well... yes, it's a three-wheeler with two wings and two engines. But C-series' maximum MTOW doesn't even reach 737's minimal one. C-series stops at 63 tons, while 737 just starts 66. Era? I'm sorry to upset the Boeing fans, but 737 was designed when Methusalah was a lad and has been only slightly updated since then, while the C-series is a much newer design. Nomad (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You can remove it. In fact there has been some recent criticism of the use of see-also sections within the Aircraft WikiProject. —Compdude¹²³ 02:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a new 737 version, which this article covers so the era does not go back to the original 737. Removing all the comparable aircraft needs to be discussed first. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Boeing 737 Max or Boeing 737 MAX?

It seems that we're in a "move war" over whether the "MAX" should be in all caps. In my opinion I think it should be, per WP:COMMONNAME. Having it be in not all caps just looks weird, considering that it really ought to be all caps. I encourage ProhibitOnions (talk · contribs) to explain his opinion here. —Compdude¹²³ 16:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the change but it was changed again by ProhibitOnions, as far as I can see we have no evidence that MAX is the same as the word Max and is clearly the common name. MilborneOne (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It's quite simple. It's not an acronym, and Wikipedia does not indulge all-caps trademarks, no matter whether "official". There are literally thousands of precedents for this (Kiss (band), Mini (marque), Time (magazine), etc.), and it's explained in WP:COMMONNAME, MOS:TM, and WP:CAPS. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME states that "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." (my emphasis) All reliable sources for aviation capitalize the MAX and so should we. —Compdude¹²³ 00:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"737 MAX" is an aircraft designation, not a name as such, therefore it should be exempt from such guidelines as enforced by ProhibitOnions. Otherwise, there are probably many other aircraft and military articles that would have to be retitled, including the Airbus A320neo page (to Airbus A320 Neo). (Note that Airbus A320 NEO would be allowed, as it is an acronym, if these guidelines applied to designations, had Airbus chosen that style.) - BilCat (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC) - BilCat (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

People seem to abide by the MOS way too much. The MOS is only a guideline, and it should be used with common sense. Common sense, which overrules the MOS 154% of the time, states that the "MAX" should be capitalized. And oh by the way the only rock-solid rules on Wikipedia are the five pillars, and a rule that "all articles should conform to the MOS" is not part of the Five Pillars. —Compdude¹²³ 15:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus to have the "MAX" be all-caps, but I would like to see ProhibitOnions' response to the above comments. Thanks, Compdude¹²³ 02:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) should probably provide primary guidance, but doesn't seem to directly address the issue. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks therefore seems applicable here. The Wall Street Journal follows this convention: Boeing Tweaks Engine for New 737 Max, as does Puget Sound Business Journal: Expect more debate between A320neo and 737 Max as Boeing tries to catch up to Airbus in orders. Chicago Tribune did all caps in at least one article however, and this site does it both ways: http://www.737max.com/ – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The manufacturer website refers to the airplane as the capitalized form. I would assume that Boeing marketing would take care of having it written correctly on their public website: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/737max.html --- I don't know whats the right thing to do here. I'm just sayin'... Katanada (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Updated info box picture proposal

Can someone update the image. The current one lacks the new sharklets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviator44 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it could be updated, but the only way to do this is to "Photoshop" the winglet from the other picture into the infobox picture. And since I don't own Photoshop, I can't really do this. —Compdude¹²³ 02:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)