Talk:List of commercial jet airliners

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here) --Mikepurves (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The "list of aircraft" and "list of civil aircraft" listings are so large as to be unwieldy. Most modern passenger-carrying airplanes are either jet or turboprop airliners. Lay persons and aviation enthusiasts who want a quick reference to find an airliner would have to wade through a vast number of irrelevant information and may never find what they are looking for. The "list of jet airliners" should consist of approximately 50-60 aircraft, easily identified and easily cross-referenced, and each will be directly linked to the individual airplane's wikipedia page. A "list of turboprop airliners" is proposed upon completion of this list.

The author requests 5 days to complete this page and further review before deletion.

Mikepurves (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Prototypes
I removed the Avro Canada C102 Jetliner as it never entered service, I suggest the list should stick to airliners that entered service rather than prototypes, thoughts? MilborneOne (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The most interesting thing about the list is that there are not many entries. As we have plenty of room, I favour including prototypes such as the C102 provided they have flown.  Drawing board designs shouldn't be included unless they are especially notable (e.g. the Boeing 2707?)  The main thing is to avoid cluttering the list with obscure no-hopers.  The C102 seems valid and interesting because it was so nearly the first in this class and attracted serious interest from the likes of Howard Hughes.  Andrew D. (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * OK I dont have a problem with that as long as it is defined that they have actually flown, other one to be considered is the Baade 152. MilborneOne (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * To MilborneOne and Andrew Davidson: Thank you for this discussion; it was a close call for me. The criteria that make the most sense to me are that flyable aircraft were built with at least one successful flight (first flight), even if the aircraft did not sell.  I was unaware of the Baade aircraft, and will include it. Mikepurves (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Beriev Be-200
An un-named poster has added the Beriev Be-200 to the list. I believe this should be removed because it was designed primarily as a water firebomber. Beriev claims to offer an airliner version, but it was not originally designed for that purpose, no actual airliner versions have been built and no airline has expressed any serious interest in the aircraft.

By any standard that would allow inclusion of the Be-200, many other airplanes could meet the "airliner" standard although they were never originally intended for that purpose nor any built or sold. One famous example would include Lockheed C-5 military transport; while designed as a military cargo/troop transport, after construction began Lockheed also proposed to make a 1,000 passenger civilian airliner from that aircraft with the civilian designation "L-500." No airliner versions of the C-5/L-500 were ever built and no airlines were interested in it.

I will leave the Be-200 up for a week; unless comments give good argument to keep the Be-200 on the list, I will remove it.

Mikepurves (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is considered to be a civilian jet "airliner". MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete in due course. E x nihil (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the Beriev Be-200 Altair: Not primarily designed as an airliner, no airliner versions have been built and no airlines have expressed interest in an airline version. Mikepurves (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Pictures
Wouldn't be so nice and useful to add a column with one picture of each model? Or at least a gallery section with all models at bottom. Cause there is nothing like seeing each plane. FkpCascais (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The place for galleries is Wikimedia Commons - go get stuck in! This is a text-based encyclopedia, and "nice" is not the same as "encyclopedic". The consensus format for its lists of aircraft is given at WP:AVLIST. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * With due respect to Steelpillow, I disagree. Representative photographs do not make an article or a list LESS encyclopaedic, they make it more so.  Once again, Steelpillow says "the consensus format for lists of aircraft" does not support using photographs as part of lists.  For anyone who would question that, go to his source site and visit the edit page.  See who edited it to add that criterion.  The name adding that "consensus" is Steelpillow.  BTW, take a look at countless other lists, including many other lists of aircraft: they include representative photos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airlines_of_Germany

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airlines_of_Russia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airlines_of_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

Photos are not just "nice." They are information. They add context. And they take up little space. But maybe I have simply given Steelpillow more targets to delete information from...

Finally, Steelpillow's comment, "this is a text-based encyclopedia" is respectfully nonsense. Photos are used, along with visual models, videos, and audio media throughout Wikipedia -- including on many, many lists.

Mikepurves (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Mike made my point. I fully agree with him. FkpCascais (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Here we go having to meet the same old arguments.
 * Galleries: Please read the Wikipedia policy WP:GALLERY. In particular, before before putting up your personal opinion as a realistic option, please digest the bit which says:
 * If you don't like it, go win your case at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy before coming back here.
 * Style guide: If you want to claim that I lack WP:GOODFAITH, spit it out or shut up. Yes, I did a lot of work on WP:AVILIST. That does not mean I have to step back from it! It was built through consensus debate, I didn't just blow in from Mars - go check the talk page (Some preliminary discussion was also carried out on the Aircraft Wikiproject and the Aviation Wikiproject talk page. Let me know if you have trouble finding the relevant archives). Then, you know, somebody has to update the guideline once consensus has been reached. If you want to revisit that consensus, as you are fully entitled to do, the guideline's talk page is the place to go. If you want to complain about my role, I'd suggest you try the Aviation WikiProject talk page. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Other articles: WP:OTHER is no argument here. Sure there are plenty of articles which breach the guideline, but they don't set a precedent because they also breach the policy on galleries. They need to be brought in line too. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Other articles: WP:OTHER is no argument here. Sure there are plenty of articles which breach the guideline, but they don't set a precedent because they also breach the policy on galleries. They need to be brought in line too. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * To Steelpillow, several points:


 * First, the standard you proudly claim to have established (of course, "by consensus"), reduces the information available on the list, reduces the visual interest, and takes away useful context.


 * I certainly understand having and adhering to an editorial standard. But the arrogant and high-handed approach you took to enforcing an editorial standard you created, particularly when it made the page worse, not better, was offensive to say the least.  As you will see above on this page, another poster made changes that I questioned.  I gave the poster adequate opportunity to respond and explain the change before I reverted the page.  You simply slashed and burned.


 * You cannot create Wikipedia on your own; the encyclopedia was created with the intent that knowledge dispersed among all people could be accessed. But this requires their active support, both with information and with money, and Wikipedia openly asks people to contribute liberally.  You certainly didn't create this page; it didn't exist at all until I did the job.


 * You said above, "If you want to claim that I lack WP:GOODFAITH, spit it out or shut up." Here it is.  You are on an ego trip.  Both your high-handed stripping of the page as well your own words on this Talk page prove it.


 * When FkpCascais wrote, "Wouldn't be so nice and useful to add a column with one picture of each model? Or at least a gallery section with all models at bottom.  Cause there is nothing like seeing each plane", your response was nothing less than dismissive and insulting to his intelligence: "This is a text-based encyclopedia, and 'nice' is not the same as 'encyclopedic'."  Very classy, and very encouraging to would-be users and contributors. (Not to mention being false: again, Wikipedia uses more than text, and pictures do not make it less encyclopedic.)


 * When I sarcastically wrote, "But maybe I have simply given Steelpillow more targets to delete information from...", I didn't expect you to prove me right in your reply: "They need to be brought in line too." If that doesn't sound dictatorial, I don't know what does.


 * Do I expect to persuade you by pointing this out? Not at all.  Egomaniacs don't change when they're called out, instead they go into a narcissistic rage.  But here's the rub.  Wikipedia does rely on contributors.  You bully those who do the work of contributing.  You make Wikipedia worse, not better.  I'm one contributor who is finished contributing to Wikipedia after dealing with you, and I'm quite certain I'm not the only one.  Maybe you might try creating some content, instead of bullying those who do. "Cheers" Mikepurves (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Forget about the gallery, I was refering mostly to a solution sort of List of airlines of Russia. FkpCascais (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:AVILIST says not in lists of aircraft. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

In Service
How about a column for number still in service? 41.69.2.34 (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure it has any encyclopedic value, this is just a summary of the types and the individual aircraft articles dont find it important enough to mention. MilborneOne (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would like to see the number still in service. Or even an In service Yes/No. However, this might be a nightmare to administrate unless there is an easy source. And what consitutes ' In service'? There are a few B707s still in use but not in commercial service. Many people are interested in whether they are still flying, and that is an easy question to answer. E x nihil  (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think most numbers could be verifiable. Even if some trade annual such as Jane's were to publish authoritative figures, they would only be a snapshot and the real number would be constantly up and down, and editors would be constantly warring over the reliability of sources and whether adding another 2 to 146 is Original Research or not. What is "in service"? A vintage machine restored to flying condition and flown once or twice a year? I'd prefer to steer well clear. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect that you are right. Too hard.  However, if somebody were to find a nice single, authoritative source that would be good. A pity, I would love to know which of these were actually still flying.  E x nihil  (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Yes/No column would certainly be usefull. FkpCascais (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have access to a single source (end of year 2016), I have added the column.Yosef1987 (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I noticed two aircraft where the in service figures were higher than production, so I checked the individual WP pages and transposed the (updated) figures quoted there. Sorry if this cuts across an automated method of updating the page. Scartboy (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Noticed that:
 * Boeing 787 Dreamliner
 * United States
 * 2
 * 2009
 * 2011
 * in production
 * 1072 (July 2023)
 * In service
 * 96190 ( 96 x the production ones)
 * as per
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_787_operators
 * There were 865 Boeing 787 aircraft in airline service as of November 2022 Larieu (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Table split by production status
I don't know when that change took place. It seems like it was not discussed. I very much disagree with the change. A single table makes sorting meaningful: for example sorting to see the the timeline of introduction for all jetliners, or sort in-service including those not being produced anymore with those that are. A simple column for the status should be enough as it was. zmm (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree 100%. Also what exactly is the difference between "Out of Production" and "Historical"?  I can make no sense of which aircraft are in which of those categories. 208.38.228.55 (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Numbers in service
Since Wikipedia is not news, I don't think we need to keep updating the in service numbers inconsistently (some types but not all), i.e. a single source should be used say once a year for all types, and be fixed until the next census is published. For the sake of consistency and maintenance of citations. zmm (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Breakdown of variants?
I'm not 100% sure about this, so hopefully it can be discussed. Right now, for example, the 737 and MD-80 variants are lumped into one each. It makes sense for the MD-80, since it's essentially a single family. But for the 737, there are 4 distinct families (original, classic, NG, Max). I think it makes more sense to apply that logic, and breakdown variants when warranted, but how do we make sure that a consistent logic will be applied? (I don't know the answer to that.) zmm (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: As an idea that won't cause any issues, perhaps utilize expanding rows? Where a type (737) can be expanded into the different families, each expanded row containing each family's specific data (numbers in-service, built, year, etc)? I might give it a go, but I need to study the tables markdown. zmm (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Cargo airliners
The headline suggests that the list includes not only passenger-aircraft but all jet-airliners. So there should be included cargo-aircraft like the Il-76, C-17 or Y-20 or the headline should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DC:3F24:8645:8D28:2F98:A602:76B4 (talk)


 * Dedicated military aircraft are not airliners. BilCat (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Historical section order
Is there a particular reason why the first two tables have the lists in alphabetical order by manufacturer, but the Historical list apparently has no order at all? BilCat (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)