Talk:Boeing Commercial Airplanes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Tables
Review assistance please, I don't believe I got all the information correctly Thx. --ConradKilroy 04:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
Cheers to N328KF for making a sub article (stub?) of customer codes
Reedy Boy 13:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] New Type of Chart which includes photos
[edit] 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 |  |
first Boeing commercial passenger trijet |
| 757 |  |
What do you think? user:mnw2000 18:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
Agreed. (See below) user:mnw2000 18:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Section Order
How about moving discontinued designs to the bottom and current production models on top? user:mnw2000 19:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- That seems alright. -Fnlayson 23:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
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 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)
- Ok, that yellow is really bad. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
OK. I used a lighter yellow. What do you think? user:mnw2000 20:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- I like it. The light yellow IS better. Brown are gray a couple or good colors, imo. -Fnlayson 20:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
- It's not "production" until flight testing has completed. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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 (talk • contribs)
- Already covered in the Boeing article in the Subsidy disputes section. -Fnlayson 14:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
-
- 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)
[edit] 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 (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
- That must be a typo or something. Boeing's jet model numbers start and end with a 7. This began with the 707. -Fnlayson 18:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- You are indeed correct, which I found out after asking my question. Thank you very much! --Melissa Della 18:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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 (talk • contribs)
