Talk:2019 Boeing 737 MAX groundings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Airline numbers[edit]

Bloomberg and CNN have conflicting numbers about who owns how many boeings: Which source is better and which should be used? (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Table of grounding numbers[edit]

Should we create a table listing the airlines that have grounded their aircraft with the number of aircraft in each fleet? I believe this will help show the full picture by presenting the proportions of this grounding. Any thoughts?

Chocom (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that a table would make this information more easily digested. Qono (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it would help, the only issue is there is a lot of conflicting data on how many are in service with each airline. --Bohbye (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Currently the text above the table says "voluntarily ordered groundings of 380 Boeing 737 MAX 8 and Max 9 aircraft in their fleets (ordered by name)". My understanding is while some airlines chose to voluntarily ground their fleets, others are only grounded due to the respective regulatory body. Do we want this table to only contain the airlines that voluntarily grounded their fleet? Or do we want it to be a list of all impacted airlines and how many planes they had affected (as it is currently)? If the second case, we should just update the text to say "Here's the number of planes grounded for each airline", and get rid of the part about it being voluntary. Iux Aeterna (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Map of countries[edit]

The map of countries in this article shows that Canada has grounded the aircraft, when in fact they have not. Sharper 20:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

On that subject. I reverted its removal by @WikiHannibal: in this edit, but added a notice that the map may be out of date.
I think having this huge amount of "Groundings" information visualized in some way is too useful to just remove the map entirely as soon as some new development happens. Yes it's out of date, but then let's fix that. And even if it's out of date it still shows you at a glance that the 737 MAX has been banned from Europe, China etc. with the Americas being the only consistent exception. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, this is the maker of the map. I just uploaded an new version wich should be up to date at the moment. To keep the map reliable i will try to update the map at least every day. I changed the text under the map to "Remove if the information is WRONG". And added "Please tell me if it is outdated". Greetings, MartijnWo (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I swapped the map out for an SVG map template. Now anyone can update it by opening the file in a text editor, and adding or amending new country codes under the BEGIN and END comments in the file. It also has no English text in it, so it can be used by other languages. See if you can find any inaccuracies. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, You seem to have forgot Malaysia and Egypt. Both should be red. Also part of Kazakhstan is not colored. Greetings, MartijnWo (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Will add Malaysia, forgot it. Egypt isn't listed in the article. Kazakhstan seems correct to me, what part isn't colored? Perhaps you're looking at Lake Balkhash? Lakes aren't filled-in on the template map. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Egypt is now listed in the article, as is Kosovo. Sharper {talk} 14:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, new news! Canada and Iraq should be added as red. Source (CNN). And Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason also, i forgot about Kirgistan and Uzbekistan, my foult. Greetings, MartijnWo (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, what does color gray signify, and why is that not part of the legend? Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, the color gray, in the original map made by me means they have not said they will continue to use it/ground it. Cheers MartijnWo (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, so it basically means "no data". This should be part of the legend to the map. Or why not? But perhaps at present, it can mean something different - perhaps they have no max aircraft to ground... It can be confusing for the reader. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)



This is the map in question, concerns have been noted by multiple users about the map being misleading and inaccurate ("Map is misleading by mixing private airline with national responses/groundings; if anything, there should only be the red/green colors"). Opinions? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 16:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

There are 2 versions, a PNG version that is really outdated, and an SVG version that is more easily update-able that should be kept closer to the updating situation. I don't see why that one should be completely removed. Acebulf (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Acebulf i dont agree that mine is really outdated. It does not have all the "Released 12 minutes ago" information on it, but is quite new. MartijnWo (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I should have spoken more clearly, my apologies. What I was referencing is the ease with which countries can be modified in an SVG file is a bit easier (in my opinion) to modify, which will lead to it being more updatable as new information progresses. I should have said "outdatable". There was additional concerns about the "one or more" or the "all airlines" being separate categories, which lead to someone removing the map entirely. Acebulf (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the map image should be removed from this article and deleted per WP:VER as it is totally unsourced. Additionally it is not easy for any editor to update and it is not compliant with MOS:COLOR. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
How is a map supposed to be sourced, exactly, if not from the article's independently provided RS? I will correct the map to fit with MOS:COLOR, and are you referring to the svg or the png version. The svg version is able to be modified with a text editor, with the instructions being provided inside the text file. Acebulf (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Acebulf: the sources for each country status need to be put in the image file meta-data. Images are not dedicated to single articles, they are available for all articles and thus need to be verifiable. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
FWIW for the SVG version my source is the text in this article, I assumed that went without saying. Thanks for adjusting the colors. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason: Wikipedia isn't regarded as a reliable source for other Wikipedia documents, so the sources for each country status need to be put in the image file meta-data. Also, images are not dedicated to single articles, they are available for all articles and thus need to be verifiable in their own right. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Colorblindness accessible version using the colors of [1] and checked with color blindness emulator tool. Acebulf (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, I have fixed the Western Sahara situation, that now shows gray. Acebulf (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it can certainly be improved, won't have much time to do that, but hopefully others will improve the map. I'm not zealous about which version is used, but surely an SVG version is easier to charge / better (e.g. it scales indefinitely). There's the issue that "Morocco" ends up highlighting Western Sahara, maybe a different SVG template should be used.
There's certainly room to change the categories, but I think it would be a loss to remove ones where airlines have voluntarily done a grounding. If there's only one such airline then in most cases the plane is de-facto 100% grounded in that country. But it is confusing in cases where e.g. there's 2x operators and only one of them has grounded it, but I don't think there's any such countries in practice. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Fist I appreciate your efforts however the consensus has been to use the open sourced, color blind accessible, svg map for the time being. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dr. Fist: Where do you get your information about Panama and Mauritania from? I can add it to the svg version if you can provide RS. I should provably also be updated on the article. Acebulf (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Here's the link: The status of the Mauritanian plane has been switched from "Active" to "Stored" around 1PM UTC today. --Dr. Fist (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately I wouldn't call that a RS, we need to know where that website is sourcing its data. Looking at its about page there is a variety of official and unofficial data compiled by users. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed via [2]. Seems like Nigeria has also closed their airspace. I will make the necessary modifications. Acebulf (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I added a new color category for Panama, seems a bit silly to have still flying be green/brown, but I picked it from that color blindness guide linked above. It's to show the distinction between no comment and flying (Panama) v.s. an explicit regulatory decision to fly (US). As far as I can tell there's no other country operating the 787 MAX now, but perhaps I've missed something. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't that what gray is for? Either way, I'd go for blue instead, that should not be easily confused, but that specific shade has problems with it being seen as undistinguishable from the green for some types of color blindness. Acebulf (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The US just grounded the MAX, so the map becomes useless. Given it is a US manufactured aircraft, an FAA grounding becomes an effective grounding worldwide. --Bohbye (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source that states that the FAA has the authority to ground US manufactured aircraft from operation in other countries? Acebulf (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Grounding in Fiji was came along with an official statement made by authorities. Also, Equatorial Guinea grounded the airplane on March, 13th. --Dr. Fist (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The FAA has no authority to ground aircraft outside of US territories and airspace. Authority to do this is the purview of each national aviation authority as is illustrated by the earlier actions of China, Australia, the UK, etc.
However if the country-of-manufacture of the aircraft grounds the Type by suspending or revoking the aircraft's Type certificate it becomes very difficult for other nation's aviation authorities to justify continuing to allow the use of the aircraft, which is why it would have been more helpful if the US had been the first to ground the type, rather than one of the last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Flags in groundings table[edit]

We've already had flags inserted and removed, in the table of groundings, numerous times in the short lifespan of this article. They serve no useful purpose, as per MOS:FLAGCRUFT. Can we reach some consensus on removing these, please? Rosbif73 (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Remove per MOS:FLAGCRUFT --Bohbye (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove as there is no necessity to emphasise nationality, so not needed per WP:FLAGCRUFT. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep'em I don't see anything in WP:FLAGCRUFT that states anything about removing flags besides entries referring to the countries of the governments making the grounding decisions. As they stand, it adds a bit of color for what would otherwise be a fairly bland table with a ton of text. Acebulf (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I would support removal of flags, but I feel that a few extra images relating to the topic (including the aircraft involved in the crashes) could be used to offset the perceived blandness. --Minoa (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove: I didn't mind until earlier I was trying to search for "Argentina" to source something, couldn't find that in the article anymore, but on closer inspection it turned out the information was there, just with the word replaced by a flag. A layout that requires the reader to know TLDs or what ~200 national flags look like is bad design. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: the regulatory decisions made are per government's aviation authorities. It is different from a decision made by a particular airline. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per IP above. Now that the table is of governmental authorities only the flags make sense. Someone added them back after I had removed them in the table edit, and looking at it now WP:ILIKEIT. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 18:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Missed the AfD by a few seconds, but …[edit]

I was going to say:

Defer — I think that a standalone article may have potential if the ongoing crisis leads to the Boeing 737 MAX being scrapped entirely. However, I am aware that the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 does not have a separate article for the battery incidents, which resulted in the Note 7 being scrapped entirely amid widespread news coverage. Therefore, I would say it is too early to make the call on whether to keep, merge or rename. --Minoa (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that an $800 phone being scrapped is in the same ballpark of a $100M airplane. There is absolutely no talk (and there won't be) of scrapping the entire aircraft. The best guess for what is wrong currently is the angle-of-attack sensor, which would be swapped for a new model not susceptible to erroneous readings. Acebulf (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
There were over 200,000 of those phones. But I tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Political response section[edit]

I’m not so sure if that section should stay named that way, or not. This Wikipedia article is not aimed only towards the US and Canada, so why name it that way when it is only listing internal US and Canadian politics? I understand that this is related to the only two countries that didn’t ban the MAX as of today, but it should have a better title. Suggestions? --Bohbye (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE With the latest info that the US and Canada grounded the MAX, it will make sense to removing this entire section and incorporate pieces of it in the other areas of the page. --Bohbye (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, no need to have that separate. Acebulf (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Trump as a source?[edit]

Is there an official source for the US grounding? Trump's been known to say a bunch of things to the press, and him saying a regulatory agency is going to do something isn't the same as that agency putting out a statement. Every other update has been a comment from regulators. I think we should do the same here and not pull the trigger too fast. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is the official order --Bohbye (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Guess I got an answer whether I liked it or not :). FWIW I figured in this case it was OK to remove the section since it wasn't relevant anymore and it was just me asking an unanswered question. That PDF is useful, I've added it as a citation to the article. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
In my view Trump's original lukewarm response and Luddite tweet are still notable in their own right. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
It was notable, the question was whether it amounted to his personal opinion or official regulatory action. But the FAA notice followed shortly afterwards, which made the distinction moot. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

British english[edit]

British English for an American plane? Really? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Changed. Time to fix the dating format on the article. --Bohbye (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I’m not sure this should’ve been changed. The article of the crash is in British English — Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302. Didn’t appear as though there was broad consecous either, as per the style guide. Nullpixel (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
It was grounded in Australia before the UK, so the relevant first language would be Australian, not British. If it isn't American English (American plane) then it should be Australian. It should NOT be UK English, since British English isn't related to the first instance or the plane in question. It also isn't the language of Ethiopia or Indonesia. -- (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
So do Ethiopia or Indonesia use American English or Australian English? (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I guess Ethiopia would use either British or probably South African English. As it's a former Italian colony (and Italy uses British English), and it's in Africa (and the only language template I've seen for this is SA English). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Although maybe no strong language ties apply, in which case it should just be whatever language it was written in originally. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The editor who created it, User:Bohbye, marked it with {{Use dmy dates|date = March 2019}}, which seems to imply British English? He might be able to elucidate his intentions. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Martinevans123 it was a mistake both on the page itself and on the talk page. I used a saved text file on my computer from a draft I am working on for a UK related article I’m working on. This page should and is using American English and mdy because it is a US aircraft and all Boeing related articles do so as well. Mistake was corrected once it was noticed. Bohbye (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks. That's pretty clear. It makes sense to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Grounding chronology vs Grounding[edit]

Hi, I fail to see the reason why the two lists exist.

  • 1) Why not merge them? (= Probabably by adding the text from chronology to the table.) More dateiled info is needed only for China and Indonesia, who were the first. It can be contrasted with US and Canda initial response.
  • 2) Why does the chronology not include all the countries in the table?
  • 3) The map seems not to correspond with the text (e.g. National Civil Aviation Agency of Brazil grounding X map shows airline groundings). Or is it due to the MAX8 vs all MAX difference? WikiHannibal (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this would be best as a table. If we just added sequence numbers with UTC timestamps for when each regulator or airline announced to the table it would both show the chronology, and force us to find sources for that. The timeline of when airlines pulled the trigger first v.s. their regulator is also interesting. There's not always a clear distinction though, e.g. in cases where the MAX planes in a given country were only tasked with flying to a given country where MAX's had been grounded.
With regards to Brazil the map is correct, maybe you're viewing a cached version? It was changed earlier today to red. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Ethiopia is not the first country to ground[edit]

Although Ethiopian Airlines is wholly owned by the Ethiopian government, the flag carrier should not be representing a whole country. Only government bodies can represent a country. Also, for the section "Timeline of regulatory responses", should we include both countries and airlines or countries only?

From the 2nd paragraph:

Ethiopia was the first country to ground all of its 737 MAX 8 aircraft, with China, Indonesia and other countries following suit.[1][2]

Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I see that someone (not me) has fixed this issue already. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Accident Bulletin no. 5 Issued on March 11, 2019 at 07:08 AM Local Time". Twitter. Ethiopian Airlines.
  2. ^ Czarnecki, Sean (March 13, 2019). "Timeline of a crisis". PRWeek. PRWeek.

Government shutdown[edit]

Apparently the government shutdown delayed software updates:

Victor Grigas (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah well, apparently, "pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT." So couldn't they just write their own software? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Map removal[edit]

I believe the map is useless at this point because the MAX series is grounded worldwide, so airline voluntary or government-mandated is no longer relevant. Also, the map itself is not up to date unless it’s all red pretty much, again what is the point. I think swapping out the image with a generic Boeing colors MAX aircraft will make more sense. Your thoughts on removing it? Bohbye (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

As things have moved on it seems reasonable to remove the map. MilborneOne (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Removed the map --Bohbye (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I think we could add it back like "as of March 15" for history reference. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The map was never accurate and never will be, for example, Israel banned the MAX and it is not listed as such and so are other countries as well. It is useless and doesn't add any value to the story. --Bohbye (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 18 March 2019[edit]

2019 Boeing 737 MAX groundingsBoeing 737 MAX groundings – (WP:CONCISE) This is the only article on Wikipedia about the Boeing 737 MAX groundings. Therefore, this could be renamed to Boeing 737 MAX groundings until a second notable grounding event happens to adhere to the title's conciseness.

For example, see
2017 Manchester Arena bombing → Manchester Arena bombing (talk)
2018 YouTube headquarters shooting → YouTube headquarters shooting (talk)
2018 China–United States trade war → China–United States trade war (2018–present) → China–United States trade war (talk)

Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Yeah I think an obviously good move. I'd say be WP:BOLD and do it unless someone anticipates there being a second one of these we need to disambiguate from. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 23:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Makes sense. Bohbye (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Wugapodes. Sharper {talk} 00:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree with the nominator's rationale. (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. DonFB (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)