Jump to content

Talk:Boeing Commercial Airplanes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 212.117.11.5 (talk) at 18:21, 18 January 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Tables

Review assistance please, I don't believe I got all the information correctly Thx. --ConradKilroy 04:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Don't You want to reverse the order of deliveries? It's kind of weird as it starts with 2007 and ends with 2003.[reply]


Customer codes

This section is really messy. I think we should clean it up, move it to the end, or move it to a subpage. What does everyone think? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:25, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


Ive added a lot more of the customer codes to the list. They need proparly formatting and linking out.

Will work my way through them

If you can help, please do

Reedy Boy 13:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers to N328KF for making a sub article (stub?) of customer codes


Reedy Boy 13:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas

Hi, How come the rest of the douglas aircraft aren't on the list? e.g. DC3


Not sure, but i added them because i too noticed that they weren't.


Reedy Boy 18:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Quotes

What are the relevance of the quotes on the customer list?

Are these old company's that no longer exist, and have not been consolidated or bought out by someone else?


Cheers


Reedy Boy 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Type of Chart which includes photos

Boeing designs

Type Photo Description
247
314 Clipper
377 Stratocruiser civil development of the military B-29
707 first Boeing commercial passenger jet
717 formerly the MD-95, evolved from the DC-9 family
720 actually a renamed Boeing 707-020
727 File:SRQ 9-15 007.jpg first Boeing commercial passenger trijet
757

What do you think? user:mnw2000 18:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should list the 707 as the 707/720. No need for two links. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 07:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. (See below) user:mnw2000 18:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section Order

How about moving discontinued designs to the bottom and current production models on top? user:mnw2000 19:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change. How about merging them into one chart like this (data not complete):

Series
Total Built
Model First
Flight
Entered
Service
End of
Production
Notes
247

75
1933 1933 Four-Propeller Passenger Airplane (Boeing's First Passenger Airplane)
314 Clipper
Four-Propeller Passenger Airplane (Boeing's First Intercontinental Airplane)
377 Stratocruiser

56
1947 1947 Four-Propeller Passenger Airplane (Boeing's First Double Decker Airplane)
707/720

1010
707-120 Four-Engine Narrowbody Passenger Jet (Boeing's First Passenger Jet)
707-320 Four-Engine Narrowbody Passenger Jet; Extended Range
717

156
717-200 1998 1999 2006 Twin-Engine Narrowbody Passenger Jet
727
File:SRQ 9-15 007.jpg
1832
727-100 1963 1964 1985 Three-Engine Narrowbody Passenger Jet (Trijet)
727-100C Three-Engine Narrowbody Passenger Jet (Trijet)
727-100QC Three-Engine Narrowbody Passenger Jet (Trijet)
727-100QF Three-Engine Narrowbody Passenger Jet (Trijet)
727-200 1967 1967 Three-Engine Narrowbody Passenger Jet (Trijet)
727-200F Three-Engine Narrowbody Passenger Jet (Trijet)
737
737-100 Twin-Engine Narrowbody Passenger Jet
737-200 Twin-Engine Narrowbody Passenger Jet; extended 737-100 by 3.75m
737-300 Twin-Engine Narrowbody Passenger Jet; extended 737-200 by 3.75m
737-400 Twin-Engine Narrowbody Passenger Jet
737-500 Twin-Engine Narrowbody Passenger Jet
737-600 Twin-Engine Narrowbody Passenger Jet
737-700 Twin-Engine Narrowbody Passenger Jet
737-800 Twin-Engine Narrowbody Passenger Jet
737-900 Twin-Engine Narrowbody Passenger Jet
737-900ER Twin-Engine Narrowbody Passenger Jet
747 JumboJet
747-100 1970 1986 Four-Engine Widebody Passenger Jet with upper deck
747-200 1971 1990 Four-Engine Widebody Passenger Jet with upper deck
747-200F 1972 1991 Four-Engine Widebody Passenger Jet with upper deck
747-200C 1973 1986 Four-Engine Widebody Passenger Jet with upper deck
747SP 1976 1989 Four-Engine Widebody Passenger Jet with upper deck
747-200M 1975 1989 Four-Engine Widebody Passenger Jet with upper deck
747-300 1970 1973 Four-Engine Widebody Passenger Jet with upper deck
747-300SR 1970 1973 Four-Engine Widebody Passenger Jet with upper deck
747-400 1989 Four-Engine Widebody Passenger Jet with upper deck
747-400M 1989 2002 Four-Engine Widebody Passenger Jet with upper deck
747-400D 1991 1995 Four-Engine Widebody Passenger Jet with upper deck
747-400F 1993 Four-Engine Widebody Passenger Jet with upper deck
747-400ER 2002 Four-Engine Widebody Passenger Jet with upper deck; Extended Range
747-400ERF 2002 Four-Engine Widebody Passenger Jet with upper deck; Extended Range
747-8I EIS: 2008 Four-Engine Widebody Passenger Jet with upper deck; extended 747-400 by 3.675m
757

1050
757-200
757-200F Twin-Engine Narrowbody Frieghter Jet
757-300 Twin-Engine Narrowbody Passenger Jet
767
767-200 1981 1982 1994 Twin-Engine Widebody Passenger Jet
767-200ER 1984 1984 Twin-Engine Widebody Passenger Jet; Extended Range
767-300 1986 1986 Twin-Engine Widebody Passenger Jet
767-300ER 1986 1988 Twin-Engine Widebody Passenger Jet; Extended Range
767-300F 1995 1995 Twin-Engine Widebody Freighter Jet
767-400ER 1999 2000 Twin-Engine Widebody Passenger Jet; Extended Range
777
787 Dreamliner
787-3 EIS: 2008 Twin-Engine Widebody Passenger Jet
787-8 EIS: 2008 Twin-Engine Widebody Passenger Jet
787-9 EIS: 2008 Twin-Engine Widebody Passenger Jet

user:mnw2000 01:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that yellow is really bad. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I used a lighter yellow. What do you think? user:mnw2000 20:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trijet 747 Photo

The photo was removed before I had a chance to update the copyright information. Was there a reason to be so hasty? user:mnw2000 23:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a jihad in this sense by several users (such as Quadell) recently. In many cases this process is automated and generates a lot of false positives. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 07:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to retrieve the photo from a cache and I will upload it once I can track down the copyright owner. user:mnw2000 18:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shoud the 787 and 747-8 be added to the production list?

Isn't the 787 and 747-8 currently under production? Should the be added to the production list, or should we rename the product list title to production aircraft currently in service. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mnw2000 (talkcontribs) 14:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's not "production" until flight testing has completed. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Government involvement

Maybe someone should start a section about Boeing tax breaks, the U.S. - EU dispute over subsidies etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.75.254.84 (talkcontribs)

Has the 737-900 been discontinued with the delivery of the 737-900ER?

Has the 737-900 been discontinued with the delivery of the 737-900ER? user:mnw2000 19:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it has not been discontinued. Nothing gets dicontinued at Boeing unless the whole product line gets discontinued. For example the 767-200ER production ended in the early 1990s but 8 years later production started again for Delta Airlines. The 747SP ended in 1983 but 6 years later 1 was made in 1989 for a VIP customer. Some 707s were built sporadically even into the 1990s! A simple order of 1 or 2 planes got the production going again. If an airline wants the 900 they can order it. Planes are hand built and as long as the whole 737 line is not discontinued, a version of it is no problem to build. You cannot get a 757 right now for example as the whole line is gone.--Bangabalunga 17:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:7J7.png

Image:7J7.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 04:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Boeing747-300Trijet.jpg

Image:Boeing747-300Trijet.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 738?

What is the 738 aircraft, and why is there no information on it? I'm curious because I noticed that a flight my boyfriend is taking is using the aircraft Boeing 738. Googling gets a few results, but I'm having trouble finding any information on what is different from the 737. I'm surprised there's nothing on Wikipedia about it! --Melissa Della 18:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 738 is Boeing 737-800. Airlines shorten it to 738. If you want information on this go to www.seatguru.com. Take care, Marcus--Bangabalunga 18:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are indeed correct, which I found out after asking my question. Thank you very much! --Melissa Della 18:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Dang, I thought the short form was the last 2 digits of the model number with the first digit of the variant. OK, got it now. -Fnlayson 18:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MD-95

Why is the Boeing 717 included in the table of Boeing designed planes. Airlines were already ordering it when it was a McDonnell-Douglas design. Just because Boeing bought out McDac, there is no reason a McDac plane should be listed as a Boeing design when it was just marketed by Boeing, and designed at McDac. ibinubu12

Fair point. I removed design from the Boeing & MD-DAC section labels. -Fnlayson 23:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are some pictures allowed and other are not?

Several photos of designs for proposed Boeing aircraft such as the three engine Boeing 747 (Boeing747-300Trijet.jpg) have been removed while others such as the Boeing 2707 have remained.

Why?

All the photos are of Boeing proposed aircraft and were obtained from Boeing.

user:mnw2000 21:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images from Boeing are generally copyrighted. Those images can be tagged fair use provided justification is provided. I added that on the Sonic Cruiser image. -Fnlayson 23:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Boeing-Logo.svg

Image:Boeing-Logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facilities Section

I am concerned that this section is mis-labelled or incomplete, or both.

BCA has 3 airplane final assembly facilities: Everett, Renton, and Long Beach. The Seattle Field site does not do final assembly, but does work on repair of airplanes. Also the Fabrication division, a part of BCA has about 10 sites around North America that are actually BCA facilities. CAS also has facilities.

There are 2 possible solutions:
1. Delete the line about Seattle field and re-title the section to "Airplane Assembly Facilities"
2. Add the various Fabrication division and CAS sites, doing a complete job of all BCA facilities. This makes the section title true.
3. Delete the entire secton.

My preference is the first.

But the answer lies in the answer to the questions: What is the main purpose of this section? How deep into the organization do we want to go in our information?

What are your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brosq (talkcontribs)