Talk:Boeing Commercial Airplanes

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? &mdash;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)

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)

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)

Boeing designs
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. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 07:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Section Order
How about moving discontinued designs to the bottom and current production models on top? user:mnw2000 19:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC) I made the change. How about merging them into one chart like this (data not complete):
 * That seems alright. -Fnlayson 23:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

user:mnw2000 01:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, that yellow is really bad. &mdash;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)

Is there a reason why this table isn't in the article anymore, or was it ever in the article to begin with? I like it more than the one that is currently in the article as it has more info (i.e. number built, etc.) --Compdude123 (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it ever was in the article. Much of the info in this table is listed in multiple tables already. -fnlayson (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I really like the table and it would be nice if we had it in the article. This talk entry (and table) was created four years ago!  I think we should delete the multiple tables we currently have and just compile the info into one table.  The only thing I'd add to this table is a column listing nicknames of the planes.  Do you think I should put this table in the article?

--Compdude123 (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

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. &mdash;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)

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. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)


 * Change section name to "Major facilities" or "Assembly Facilities" like you suggested and make needed changes. Or move links under See also and remove Facilities section. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed it to "Major facilities" to cover primary production and other sites. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think Boeing Field is not major enough to list, please reply. With some agreement that can be removed. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed the same issue that Brosq raised. Listing only airplane final assembly facilities under "Major Facilities" is misleading, since it implies that Boeing Field is major and other large sites are not. The easiest solution would be Option 1 listed above, though I would change it to "Final Assembly Facilities" for clarity. Option 2 would be more complete, but would of course require more work. Plain Text (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.117.11.5 (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Please update this table. I put a message saying it needs to be updated. It hasn't been updated since 2007! --Compdude123 (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Which 777 variants still in production?
Could somebody add a citation in the table to prove that the 777-200 and -300 (not the -200ER, -200LR, or -300ER models) are out of production? According to Boeing's website, they're still all in production. If anybody has a source that says the -200 and -300 are out of production, PLEASE add it! If nobody adds a source within 2 months I will change it to "all currently in production." (in the table that shows the current planes produced by BCA).Compdude123 (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Please update the aircraft production table
Hello, I don't know if anyone has noticed this, but the table showing the aircraft deliveries hasn't been updated since 2007. Could someone update this table, please? The data is all on Boeing's website right here, http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm?content=userdefinedselection.cfm&pageid=m15527. I don't know how to update a table, so could someone please take care of this? Compdude123 (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The table is too detailed as is. Deliveries of the airplane models by year would be better, imo.  I'll try to work on this when I can. -fnlayson (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Douglas/McDonnell Douglas
I've removed the Douglas/McDonnell Douglas table of discontinued aircraft from the article, along with mentions of their aircraft in other sections. None of these aircraft were proposed, designed, or produced by Boeing at any point in its history. Douglas and McDonnell Douglas both have their own article, and these aircraft are alreadyt covered there. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Product list and details
What a really ugly looking table - far to much detail for an overview of Boeing, think it needs a lot of the detail taken out as most is available in the related articles. MilborneOne (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good point; I agree with you. How about this:
 * Trim a couple of the "date" columns. Do we really need three dates? (first flight, first delivery, and whatever "in service" means (maybe first revenue flight)).
 * 737-based BBJs should be treated as a 737 variant rather than a wholly separate airplane with its own row in the table. Similarly with the VIP 747 in the "future products" table.
 * Remove the nickname column; plenty of scope for that to be covered (neutrally) in individual articles.
 * Add some other variants into the existing cells, and wikilink them if they have their own articles, ie. Boeing C-40 Clipper
 * Maybe an improvement to cell spacing / shading to make the table prettier.
 * Remove the "capacity" figures, which are so variable and dependent on customer seat layouts &c. If we're to have numbers, I'd like to see total production numbers.
 * Why are the 747-8 and 787 listed as both "current" and "future"? Pick an entry in one table, delete the other.
 * Do any/all of those sound reasonable?
 * Personally, I think the table of discontinued aircraft is ugly too, and since the table of current aircraft already contains a lot of discontinued variants, we might as well merge the two tables together.
 * bobrayner (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems a reasonable idea, it should just give an overview and a lot of the details are in the linked articles. Dont think we need launch customer, it is not notable to the company. Seating info can be found in the related artice so could go. I think only the first flight is notable. Out of production variants are not really needed. As you say the discontinued types could be added to the table, with a note like In production 19XX-19XX might be better. I suspect future products may be better in prose. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Sukhoi_Superjet_100
This (inofficial) voting about flags and country info in orders might concern even this article. Tagremover (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Doubtful this article has never used flags! MilborneOne (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * But Boeing aircrafts. And: Its even about the country info. Tagremover (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry your statement doesnt make sense, you may consider that as an RFC it doesnt need to be mentioned on random pages that dont use flags but a notice at the relevant project will probably be enough. MilborneOne (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This concerns all readers of aircraft articles as you propose to remove 10.000 flags including country info. Tagremover (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I havent proposed anything and certainly nothing to do with this particular article. MilborneOne (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You haven´t exactly said. But the result might concern to this. Sorry for the wrong wording. Tagremover (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Why does this article need "cleanup?"
There is one of those wonderful maintenance tags at the top of this article, the one we all love: Cleanup. Like 99% of these tags, the person who added it failed to provide a reason, making it absolutely useless. Can someone please tell me why it needs cleanup and add a  parameter? Otherwise I will delete it. Thanks, Comp dude 123 20:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It was added with this edit in Jan. 2011 with no specific reason given. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the problem, the person who added it didn't provide a reason in the edit summary.  And I don't see any other problems with this article besides the fact that it needs citations and that the orders/deliveries table needs to be updated.  Both issues are already pointed out by more specific maintenance templates.  Perhaps I should ask speedyphil but I bet he's forgotten why he added the cleanup template...  &mdash;Comp dude 123 21:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Discontinued aircraft
Shouldn't discontinued versions of plane models in in production be added to the "Discontinued aircraft" section? For example, the 737-100 though 737-500 and the 737-900 have ended their production runs. Same is true for many versions of the 747. user:mnw2000 19:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Discontinued aircraft refers to models, such as the 707, 727, etc, not model variants. No longer produced variants are listed in the notes of the production table. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Boeing 7x7 series could be merged into Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Reading through the Boeing 7x7 series article, it looks like there is hardly any information other than what is already provided at the article about Boeing Commercial Airplanes (the 7x7 article mainly consists of a list of aircraft types and an image gallery). Therefore, I think it's a good idea to merge the articles.--FoxyOrange (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge. The 7x7 article contains comparatively little text. It should be redirected to the BCA article and any usable text incorporated. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge agree. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

As there have not been any opposite opinions, I've just merged the articles (the aircraft gallery was the only part of Boeing 7x7 series I considered worth to be kept).--FoxyOrange (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge Noting to add. --JetBlast (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Orders for and deliveries since 1991 is relevant for this company per se
A user removed Template:Orders for and deliveries of Airbus and Boeing aircraft from this article, claiming it was only relevant on the article about competition with Airbus. I strongly disagree: How many planes this company has produced, and how many orders it has won, since 1991 is highly relevant for Boeing Commercial Airplanes per se. The fact that Airbus figures are also shown is of little relevance. - Ssolbergj (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This is an article about the Boeing company since 1916 so it is not relevant, and we already have an article on Airbus v Boeing competition so no need for it here, note as a challenged edit you need to gain a consensus to add it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Boeing Commercial Airplanes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/mdc/97-156.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090608062814/http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/background.html to http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/background.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/regional_guidance/great_lakes/airports_news_events/2007_conference/Media/C-1%20Boeing's%20New%20Product%20Review.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061130165920/http://www.alteontraining.com:80/ to http://www.alteontraining.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)