This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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)
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)
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)
Agreed. (See below) user:mnw2000 18:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
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):
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)
OK. I used a lighter yellow. What do you think? user:mnw2000 20:33, 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)
-- Compdude123 ( talk) 16:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
Has the 737-900 been discontinued with the delivery of the 737-900ER? user:mnw2000 19:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This (inofficial) voting about flags and country info in orders might concern even this article. Tagremover ( talk) 09:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
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 reason=
parameter? Otherwise I will delete it. Thanks,
Comp
dude
123
20:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)