Jump to content

Talk:Boeing 737 MAX

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pseudonymous Rex (talk | contribs) at 23:28, 13 March 2019 (→Requested move 11 March 2019). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAviation: Aircraft C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion not met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.


Split Seminar Winglets

Fnlayson, I noticed that you removed the "Split Seminar Winglets," could you explain why?--Airplane Maniac (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I explained that in my edit summary, but I'll restate it here for clarity. Boeing's name for the MAX's winglet is "Advanced Technology" winglet. APB's version is named "Blended Split-Tip Scimitar Winglet" on the company's web page. The APB winglets are for 737NGs. Here are the sources in the article on this: [1] [2] [3] which support this. The Boeing winglet is split and flat, while the APB winglet is split and curved. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I read this and I understand what you did. Thanks for explaining, I understand now.--AM (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I saw that. Thanks! :)--AM (I would LOVE to talk!) 19:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Max 9 and 10 confirm 757 cancellation blunder

The 737-900 and now max10 announcement confirm the blunder of cancelling the 757, which was more capable, and rode better in turbulence. Dmp717200 (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are not forums for discussing the topic, or your opinions on the topic. - BilCat (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They could be for proposing an addition ... so one addition could be 737max vs 757 as implied by Dmp717200 202.87.170.66 (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

737 MAX Launch

Hi, I think you have misinterpreted the flightglobal source that was provided. The heading reads "Malaysian carrier Malindo Air will be the first carrier to put the Boeing 737 Max 8 into commercial service" meaning Norwegian would be the second "from late June." The source does not state Malindo debuting the jet in October but the source says " Southwest Airlines is scheduled to take delivery of its first 737 Max 8 in May, but will not debut the new jets on commercial services until October." Also the ATW source is outdated which would make Malindo the launch operator "with the re-engined jet to first start on the Kuala Lumpur-Sinagpore route during the second quarter, and later to Bangkok Don Mueang and Guangzhou." -- User:33ryantan 12:00, 21 March 2017‎

When I read the article first, it was "Launch customer Malindo Air is scheduled to take delivery of its first 737 Max 8 in May, but will not debut the new jets on commercial services until October" (emphasis is mine). I though the title was incoherent too. It was certainly a mistake, corrected since.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do I have to justify proper English usage in an article?

Phrasal adjectives (also called compound adjectives) are hyphenated. When a number of words together modify or describe a noun [in this case "fuel"], the phrase is ordinarily hyphenated. If two or more consecutive words make sense only when understood together as an adjective modifying a noun, hyphenate those words.

Therefor, hyphenate two or more words when they come before a noun they modify and act as a single idea, as in these phrases (in boldface): "The 41:1 overall pressure ratio, increased from 28:1 and advanced hot-section materials enabling higher operating temperatures permit a 15% reduction in thrust-specific fuel consumption (TSFC) along 20% lower carbon emissions, 50% lower nitrogen-oxide emissions, but each weighs 849 lb (385 kg) more at 6,129 lb (2,780 kg).[22]"; and in, "The smaller Leap-1B engine will weigh less and have a lower frontal area but a lower bypass ratio leading to a higher thrust-specific fuel consumption than the 78 in (200 cm) Leap-1A of the A320neo.[citation needed]"

I think this settles the matter; please revert your reversion!

Someone else can fix the link, preferably the author of the article. Autodidact1 (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Industry terms don't always follow grammar rules. Please provide reliable published sources showing the usage of the term "thrust specific fuel consumption" with a hyphen. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think Autodidact1's point is that the default should be normal grammar. It's the industry-specific deviation that should require a source. 204.194.77.3 (talk)

BUT the problem is that without hyphenation, there is no clue as to what "specific" applies to. But there doesn't seem to be a reason to use jargon .. its strongly implied that the fuel flow rate is what determines thrust.. (which is fuel per unit time, not mileage which is fuel per unit distance.) 202.87.170.66 (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seating vs A321

Some comments:

rv: No calculation of 193 seats referenced. And seats are NOT typically, range details without relations make less sense. and vague details in the intro?

Again: no ref accessible. According to Wikipedia rules please post the non free ref, best with details of calculation.)

Lacoste:the ref given is http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/boeing-defines-final-737-max-stretch-offering and states "compared to 193 for a similarly configured A321neo") (undo)

rv: Much too vague. And additionally related text is not written as unproven, undetailed opinion of journalists. Delta has 197 seats in 3 classes in PRACTICE.

And link not accessible.

Unclear if the new Airbus cabin is used, which Max10 competes with. I am tired of "Buy American" patriots, also a few journalists. 87.150.114.89 (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your participation. The typical seating and ranges are those advertised by Boeing, as referenced in the #specifications section, the WP:LEAD doesn't have to be referenced for data sourced in the body. Aviation Week is perfectly reputable, and while American, certainly not pro Boeing. Access is open after free subscription for this article and anyway wikipedia is OK with offline/WP:paywall refs. Please stay WP:CIVIL and don't assume anything too fast about editors: I am myself French, live in Nantes and studied in Toulouse, both Airbus cities (but I don't have a preference and I hope that shows). The Wikipedia way of solving disagreements is to provide refs, and you don't. Please learn without disrupting articles, thanks! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its not about aviationweek as news presenter, but there is no scientific analysis at all. You did not read carefully and understood that details are missing. Answer before reverting. Ref added, with details which you don't have and related to the new cabin which competes with Max10. Please learn without disrupting articles, thanks! 87.150.114.89 (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: Since when is the max. seating / exit limit typical? 87.150.114.89 (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given this back-and-forth edit war, I have protected the page for three days, and reverted to the version of the article that was in place before the edit war began. Please discuss and come to a consensus here on the talk page. Editors are reminded that Wikipedia is not a place to conduct "scientific analysis" on content, per the WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. WP:CIVIL, WP:LEAD, and WP:RS are also relevant links that should be perused before stating your positions. Thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Main pic

As Randy Tinseth points out, the 737max is in service since one year. Perhaps the main pic could reflect that, showing a plane in a carrier livery instead of a subconsciously in-development airframer livery. I went through the 133 pics in the category to select a few, and right now the best, front side over a blue sky are from China Eastern or China southern.

  • current, unpleasant due to a skewed sky
    current, unpleasant due to a skewed sky
  • China Eastern, front side, blue sky
    China Eastern, front side, blue sky
  • China southern, front side, low sunlight
    China southern, front side, low sunlight
  • Acefitt 1
    Acefitt 1
  • Acefitt 2
    Acefitt 2
  • Liam Allport via FOX 52
    Liam Allport via FOX 52
  • Acefitt 3
    Acefitt 3

Both show pretty well the most obvious external difference with the NG, the split winglets, and the nacelle chevrons when zoomed in. What is your preference?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, both of them are in poor light, blurry, underexposed, and noisy. I'm going to be bold and go ahead and replace it with one of my images, from a very similar angle. -- Acefitt 03:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Light on both is contrasty and the exposure is OK, the low sunlight is pleasant but a bit unusual for a main pic so I picked the usual one. While taken with a compact and not a DSLR, they are technically sufficient for a thumbnail or a 1Mpx preview, they are noisy at 100% only. While yours is sharper at 100% (but downrezed), it is too much from below so I reverted it. Perhaps you have another one more level, with a tighter crop and a 3:2 AR? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are noisy and very poor quality pictures by any measure, but yes I have one that meets those criteria. Note that twice in WP:ACI it states that higher quality images are preferred. -- Acefitt 10:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the current Air Canada picture is ideal, as its unusual livery with the black frame around the cockpit windows is not representative of most 737s. Elshadk (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree not distinguishing the windshield isn't great, good for Air Canada branding but not for airliner descriptions. The attitude is too pitched up and the angle is too much from the front, showing not enough the fuselage and toot much the wing. @Acefitt:, please gain a consensus on your picture here before changing it again, thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marc Lacoste: Where does it say in the documentation that your interpretation is correct? Point me to the page please, because I don't see it on WP:ACI. All I see is notes about quality pictures trumping the other criteria. It's almost as if I'm standing on WP:ACI, and you're standing on nothing. -- Acefitt 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox image should show the aircraft general configuration, for which the China Eastern/China southern are well suited: the wing and fuselage are similarly sized, the windshield is clear. Furthermore, any changes should be discussed before, and you avoided that. You are perhaps confusing image quality (composition, light, clarity...) with technical image quality (pixel count, noise, coding...), but the standard image view, not 100% view, are similar anyway.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marc Lacoste: Just to provide a third opinion here, I'm pleased to see that the original photo is back. Both of the Chinese airliner photos you suggested are of such low technical image quality as to be distracting. The gray underbelly of the China Eastern blends in with the poorly exposed sky. I also, IMHO, would prefer to see a jet in Boeing's "house colors" or in the livery of the largest operator (Southwest Airlines) as opposed to the livery of just a random operator. To reference the discussion below, a jet in those liveries also gives something to talk about in the caption that isn't the airport or plane features. --RickyCourtney (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are noisy but technically OK. As explained on top, the MAX is in service since a year and the Boeing livery suggests "prototype". There is no good pictures of Southwest MAXs yet in commons. Note that any operator is OK since the article is about the plane not the airline, and is less interesting than aircraft features.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marc Lacoste: I'm not sure what "technically OK" means, the point remains that better quality images are available, and should be used per WP:ACI. At least somebody else told you so maybe now you'll believe it? -- Acefitt 22:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"technically OK" means that they depict well the aircraft in normal sizes. High resolution don't mean high quality. There is no minimum size in WP:FILESIZE neither in WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES. You are confusing high resolution and high quality. Composition and light are more important.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Composition is an incredibly subjective criteria. While I believe that the slightly better on the Chinese aircraft, the composition of the other photos is perfectly acceptable. But because this is a subjective criteria, different editors may have different opinions and there’s really no “right” answer. As to the lighting criteria, which is also somewhat subjective, I believe that the lighting on the Chinese aircraft is terrible. The skies look drab and muddy and provide very little contrast that allows you to see the plane. By comparison, Acefitt‘s photo has very vivid lighting which I believe is superior. Either way, I think we can find an even better image than the four suggested. Has anyone looked on Flickr for images with proper permissions? —RickyCourtney (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the lighting, I adjusted the levels on the 1st one, maybe you have to clean your browser cache (ctrl+shift+R). There is not many free pictures yet as it only entered service a year ago. I found this one in flickr but the split winglet isn't clearly showing.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are more than enough free pictures and this doesn't even need to be a discussion because, for the purpose of the lead image on this or any other airliner article, I am willing to provide any of my high quality images. You state that composition and light are more important but don't understand what that means, because the images are badly underexposed by at least a full stop and mine have far superior bright and vivid midday lighting. For the maybe fourth time, you are ignoring the statement in WP:ACI that states higher quality images are preferred, and have made it clear that you don't understand what constitutes high quality. At this point the decision should obviously be out of your hands and an objective third party can decide. -- Acefitt 16:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your second picture has a more balanced composition, but it would be better for the infobox picture if the airplane was flipped, going left, and the problem of the Air Canada Livery masking the windshield is still here.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The flip doesn't matter as WP:ACI, which you have still chosen to ignore, states that quality trumps that rule. The windshield being a problem is only your opinion, given that it doesn't "obscure" the windshield it simply surrounds it. I see nothing in WP:ACI (you know, that thing you refuse to acknowledge exists) prohibiting Air Canada's livery, or any specific paint for that matter. I could switch it to a WestJet, but you'll still find some reason to somehow claim the 2 underexposed cellphone shots are better. Maybe you should read WP:ACI? How these discussions generally work is it that an argument has very little merit if contradicted by the documentation. I have cited the documentation this entire time. You have cited your flawed notion of what constitutes photographic quality. Might I direct you to WP:ACI? -- Acefitt 09:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ACI: "the aircraft in images should preferably face the text" and Elshadk above: "I do not think the current Air Canada picture is ideal, as its unusual livery with the black frame around the cockpit windows is not representative of most 737s."--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you have many other picture, share them so we could pick the most relevant.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, good job for finally reading the documentation so you at least have some credibility, but bad job by cherry picking from the text and conveniently ignoring the "However, image quality is more important than this rule." -- Acefitt 16:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FOX 52: We are currently engaged in a group discussion trying to determine the best lead image; the one you just put in is basically the same as "Acefitt 2" above but of much lower quality, so there's no reason to consider it. Further, at this point we are seeking a photo that is not Air Canada due to "concerns" above about AC's livery misrepresenting the windshield. I've added Acefitt 3, which a) points left, b) is relatively high quality in good light, and c) is not Air Canada. Seems to tick all boxes. -- Acefitt 22:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then of the current contenders "Acefitt 1" seems to the best one, and I disagree that the Air Canada livery somehow is “fooling” the reader, that it’s windscreen is in a different shape. The only important structural change to be focused on should be the split winglets - FOX 52 (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's a ridiculous complaint that holds no water and the windshield is of very little consequence, but appeasing people with opinions you deem to be invalid is a fundamental principle of this project, so I guess we're going with a WestJet. They're the only 2 MAX operators in my neck of the woods at the moment so it'd have to be one of the 2. -- Acefitt 03:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your Westjet picture indeed avoids this. It's still a little pitched up but and show more wing than fuselage, but less so than your Air Canada one. Maybe your POV for leftward aircraft is not as good as for rightward ones. I agree the light is better on your AC pic. Also, white engines better shows the chevrons. I still prefer the Chinese airliners composition, but we should pick the westjet pic and move on.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial text in lead image caption

No other page for an airliner has trivial information in the lead image caption. With scimitars introduced for the NG, it makes the split winglets of the MAX even more insignificant. It's hardly worth a mention in the lead caption... who cares what is a noticeable difference from the NG? Why does it matter? That's not what the lead caption is for. See WP:CAP which specifically addresses infoboxes: "An infobox image and, in the absence of an infobox, a photograph or other image in the article's lead section, serves to illustrate the topic of the article, as such, the caption should work singularly towards that purpose."

Identify what it is, period. It says nothing of trivia. -- Acefitt 19:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors have disagreed with your claim of it being trivia. Please stop edit warring over this and try to build a consensus to support your edits here first. - BilCat (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I am not the original editor who reverted it, so that's 2 editors (and the MOS) in opposition. Given that no other aircraft lead caption has trivial information, the question then becomes, "what about the 737 winglet is so significant that it deserves mentioning?" It is not even the most significant visual difference to the NG, so why not mentioned the revised lighting? The revised engine? The revised tail? It's entirely your opinion, which is why it's trivial. -- Acefitt 23:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The split tip winglets are the most distinct change visually in the 2-3 images presented; the engines and nacelles do not show up as well in these images. The caption did list something more important than the aircraft being "on final approach", imo. WP:CAPWORD does say to "extending it[caption] so that it adds value". -Fnlayson (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What has yet to be addressed is a matter of consistency within the project, where every other aircraft caption concisely states the type, and perhaps if the photographed aircraft belongs to a large operator of the type. I'll call the winglet bit "extraneous" from now on because people are offended by it being termed trivial, so the question remains why the MAX article has to be the only one in the project that deviates with extraneous text? If we want to add a piece of random information to the caption for every type knock yourselves out, but I have a feeling if I change the A330 caption to "a noticeable difference from the A300 is a more conventional wingtip instead of a wingtip fence" I will be reverted and you won't jump to my defence. -- Acefitt 04:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The A330 is a longer A300, with a larger wing, belly fairing and canted winglets" is a relevant description, stating from where its design come from and what are its external design changes, aiding visual ID.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marc Lacoste: Okay, so go add that and edit war with them when they revert you for adding trivia to the caption. I won't be involved. -- Acefitt 10:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the information about the split wingtips is trivial. The 737NG had no such thing for its winglets, which were also a big change. The infobox caption should be simple and clear Elshadk (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am responsible for the caption change when I changed the picture. I asked myself what is visually important for this 737 variant: the elements that distinguishes from other 737 variants, so: split winglets, engine chevrons and round tailcone. The most obvious are the split winglets but aviation partners offers some for retrofit, so a secondary id element was needed and the engine chevrons are more visible than the tailcone. Per WP:CAPWORD, this is more valuable than a specific flight phase (final approach) or worse, an airport that you can't see when there is only sky. I reverted to the consensus state before the edits and reverts, please gain another consensus before changing it, thanks. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus reached on anything, nowhere do I see anybody praising your trivial addition to the extent that it could be deemed consensus. It is interesting that you "asked yourself" a question that doesn't need to be asked and is irrelevant, and are then deeming your opinion (an opinion that conflicts with every other page on the project) to be consensus. As such, given that the caption before you changed it had no trivial addendum, that is what will be reverted to until a consensus is reached. Likewise with the image. -- Acefitt 22:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was defended by others than me (Fnlayson, BilCat). The process used is called introspection. Please remain WP:CIVIL, thank you.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so 3 to 2 is the consensus state? There's still a fundamental problem where you're deeming your opinion to be consensus, when said opinion is contrary to the method used on every other aircraft page. You have conveniently ignored this key point in each of your responses. -- Acefitt 22:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus yet.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. So until one is reached the previous state will remain, which is the flight display image, not the poor quality image with your caption. -- Acefitt 16:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary users

@Fnlayson: Air Canada and Southwest each have 15 frames, and there are reliable sources stating as such. The question is whether we are deeming the only reliable source to be the Boeing order sheet which is now outdated given the rapid delivery of frames. -- Acefitt 00:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aggregating different sources is close to WP:OR: different dates, different methodologies, etc. Other reliable sources for the number of craft may be used but they have to state both (eg flights' annual airliner census) and there is no need to be on the edge : WP:NOTNEWS.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was No source cited or mentioned in the edit. So I used Boeing's order & delivery page to check and make a consistent comparison of deliveries to the top users. As mentioned by Marc, Flight Interntational's annual listing to cite the top operators is what's often done on airliner pages. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MAX 200 name

I believe Boeing has recently dropped the use of the name "MAX 200" to describe the variant of the MAX 8 with the additional emergency exit, and is instead calling it the "High-Capacity MAX 8" as per various sources including prnewswire and heraldnet

I won't edit the article just yet until I find a few more reliable sources but it's something which should be looked at

Update: found a source from Boeing themselves: boeing.mediaroom.com

ElshadK (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence. This one mentions the specific change from MAX 200 to high-capacity MAX 8 pilootenvliegtuig.nl ElshadK (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

prnewswire and boeing.mediaroom are the same press release, prnewswire is just a reprint. The max 200 is a max 8 subvariant (1 more exit pair) and is presented as such in the article, not as a main variant, and the 737-8-200 is still used by Boeing, with "High-Capacity 737 MAX 8" used as a synonym. Perhaps one day Boeing will change its name, so the article subtitle would be changed too. Renaming happens. Till then, nothing special.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MCAS

Nothing about MCAS och the European or Brazilian FAA-counterparts not agreeing on whether pilots should be informed or not? Maybe at least tell why the "hidden" MCAS is no issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.181.169 (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another crash

Like with Lion Air last year, a Boeing 737 800 MAX used by Ethiopian Airlines has crashed, killing over 150 people. Leo1pard (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article? it is already mentioned. MilborneOne (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are there so many problems with this aircraft model's airspeed indicators? 173.88.241.33 (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really relevant to this talk page as this page is for article improvement, you could try a forum like pprune or similar as this is an encyclopedia not a forum. MilborneOne (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain lead edit

Fnlayson, please explain your lead edit to disregard flight system under scrutiny for both crashes:

The MAX 8 has been involved in two crashes[1] in which there were no survivors. In both incidents, the MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) of the aircraft is particularly under scrutiny for faultiness. The Federal Aviation Administration of the United States issued an emergency order[2] concerning the system, which details a scenario in which erroneous flight data from the angle of attack sensors could cause the nose to pitch down and initiate an unrecoverable stall, especially at lower altitudes. The emergency operation directive included giving the flight crew horizontal stabilizer trim procedures to neutralize any similar scenario.

You said it lacked sourcing and it is out of place, but yet if you view pages for the DC10, or 787, for example, you will see information such as this in the lead. Also, sourcing is there for the claims and no certainty of the MCAS was stated. Thank you.

Reverted edit until further discussion is had by users. I contest the MCAS should be mentioned in the lead paragraphs. I would also attest to the fact that the two crashes should be detailed further in the lead as in the 787 battery troubles and DC10 cargo door problems in their respective Wikipedia pages (as an example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curivity (talk • contribs) 23:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits are being reverted. What does the community think? Should we put MCAS issues in the lead paragraphs?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Curivity (talk • contribs) 23:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gregg, Aaron. "Ethiopian Airlines crash is the second fatal incident to involve a Boeing 737 MAX 8". The Washington Post. The Washington Post. Retrieved 10 March 2019.
  2. ^ HEMMERDINGER, JON. "FAA issues emergency 737 Max airworthiness order". FlightGlobal. Reed Business Information. Retrieved 10 March 2019.
What you added in the lead is too detailed for a summary. The Lead is supposed to summarize the body of the article and not introduce new information (see MOS:LEAD for more). Also, the text starting at "concerning the system" is not clearly cited since it follows the references. I moved this text and refs to Accidents section and shortened/reworded. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Fnlayson Yes, I understand. I wasn't presenting new information in the lead as the MCAS issues have already been introduced and described in the body. I maintain we should describe the specific faults in the lead as we learn more information.

737-9 incident in Houston 3/10/19

I was on this flight - UA1168 left engine caught fire in flight - airplane made emergency landing at Houston (original destination). Everyone evacuated safely to the tarmac. Kmajmudar (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a minor incident and therefore not notable; "I was on this flight" is WP:OR; there does seem to be a report at [4] but I can't access it (probably due to poor GDPR compliance by small US news sites) to read the details. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strikethrough for operators that have suspended flights

I don't remember having seen this usage before, and it seems unnecessary here. Suspension of operations is no doubt temporary; it is briefly described in the Accidents and incidents section, and the full list of airlines that have suspended operations is given on the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in any case. Thoughts, anyone? Rosbif73 (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't either. Some editors seem to be going to extremes here. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently removed a large table of "grounded" airlines from the accident article, it has been reverted. MilborneOne (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the operators section, it has just been added to make a point, a sub-article for orders and delivieries was sufficient last week. MilborneOne (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 March 2019

Boeing 737 MAX → Boeing 737 Max – MOS:TM / MOS:ALLCAPS. I count about 35 sources that are cited in the article that have "Max" in their titles (with mixed case). That is a large number. I see no indication that the all-caps "MAX" is anything other than a promotional styling. The company's self-published material follows the all-caps, but we should pay more attention to independent sources. Wikipedia guidelines say to use ordinary English styling in such a situation where the sources are mixed. (I note that there was some prior discussion of this issue in 2012, although not a formal RM discussion, which is archived in Talk:Boeing 737 MAX/Archive 1#Boeing 737 Max or Boeing 737 MAX?.) —BarrelProof (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - "737 MAX" is the company's aircraft designation, not a name as such, therefore it is exempt from the guidelines. The company has every right to call an aircraft what it choses, and that is "737 MAX". - BilCat (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BilCat: according to the United States Patent and Trademark Office,[5] it is a trademark registered by Boeing for use on aircraft, so we need to comply with Wikipedia policy for article names containing trademarks for this. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Both of the above comments seem like some variation of just saying "it's official!" Is there something more to it than that? Also, the WP:NCCAPS remark about capitalizing proper names is only about capitalizing the first letter of a word, not about using all-caps, and also I believe this isn't strictly a proper name since there are hundreds of these airplanes – please see the "Corvette" example in the Proper noun article. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are also hundreds of thousands of Corvettes. Also, if "Boeing 737 MAX" is substituted for "Chevrolet Corvette", that paragraph would read the same. So I'm not sure what your point is in mentioning that. Also, if this article is retitled, then there are several other aircraft and military articles that would have to be retitled, including the Airbus A320neo page (to Airbus A320 Neo). (Note that Airbus A320 NEO would be allowed, as it is an acronym, if these guidelines applied to designations, had Airbus chosen that style.) Oddly, no one has ever proposed changing the A320neo article's title. Curious. - BilCat (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See also Airbus A330neo. - BilCat (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You asked what is my point in mentioning the Corvette example. It is that that the proper noun article notes that "Corvette (referring to a car produced by the company Chevrolet) is not a proper name" and "Similarly, Chevrolet Corvette is not a proper name." And "Boeing 737 MAX" is also not a proper name. So the boldfaced guidance above about what to do with a proper name is irrelevant to this discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I figured out why. :) - BilCat (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is referring to capitalising the first letter. There would be no other reason for it to start from the "second word". It is not referring to all caps. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, a google search will show news sources do not unanimously use "Max", many do capitalize all the letters. funplussmart (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that some sources write "Max" and others write "MAX". The relevant Wikipedia policy here is WP:TITLETM, and it says we should follow standard practice (that is, "Max") "unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark". Your observation therefore supports the move. TypoBoy (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (agreed): Reputable aviation press such as Flight Global use "Max" and "Max 8", a recent example is here. zmm (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per WP:TITLETM, stylized titles are typically noted in the lede, whilst the title of the article remains as it is expected by the convention. Thus, there should be a sentence that goes something like Boeing 737 Max, often styled as Boeing 737 MAX, ... etc.BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 06:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose That some journalists don't get the name correct isn't a good argument for making it incorrect here, too, in my opinion. Mainstream news coverage of aviation is of notoriously poor quality. The correct name, per Boeing, is Boeing 737 MAX. News sources that are more reputable in aviation matters typically use the correct name with the capitalization. For example, Aviation Week's tag page for the Boeing 737 MAX uses the capitalization, as do most of their article titles that you can see listed there. Even well-known frequent flyer blogs like View from the Wing, One Mile at a Time, and The Points Guy correctly use the all-caps. While I apparently can't link those here, you can do a Google site search on their domains to confirm. Vbscript2 (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vbscript2: but Wiki policy for article titles at WP:TITLETM explicitly says Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim); however, if the name is ambiguous, and one meaning is usually capitalized, this is one possible method of disambiguation. We are bound by that. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that it is demonstrably the most common usage among sources that actually know what they're talking about. The usage of all upper-case seems relatively consistent among sources that are reputable in aviation-related matters. AvHerald is another example. Like I said before, some reporters who aren't very knowledgeable of aviation getting it wrong seems like a rather poor justification for making it incorrect here, too. I would also disagree about being 'bound' by WP:TITLETM. There's also WP:IGNORE to consider. Though, in this case, I think keeping the all caps does follow at least the spirit of the "demonstrably the most common usage" language in WP:TITLETM. Vbscript2 (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also of note, the US Federal Aviation Administration, the UK Civil Aviation Authority, the Air Line Pilots Association, and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association all use "MAX", not "Max." The usage seems mostly consistent among sources that are actually reputable in aviation matters. Vbscript2 (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WWGB: there are no plans to change the name, so it will still comply with WP:COMMONNAME. The change proposed is to write it using standard English capitalisation per WP:TITLETM, another part of the naming policy which we are required to use. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia guidelines, the question isn't whether you can find some independent sources that use the all-caps styling. It is whether there are independent sources that don't. Actually, the article in The Wall Street Journal that is cited in this article uses "Max". So do the cited articles of BBC and The Guardian (plus the 35 that have it in their headlines). —BarrelProof (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether there are some that do or some that don't, it is whether the trademarked usage is demonstrably the most common (per WP:TITLETM, though that is not the only applicable guideline). Rosbif73 (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose I was focusing on MOS:TM, which is phrased a bit differently: "examine styles already in use by independent reliable sources. From among those, choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner. Do not invent new styles that are not used by independent reliable sources. ... Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one". I think the 35+ identified sources are sufficient to demonstrate widespread use. (The degree of independence of the sources is also important, of course.) —BarrelProof (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That specific analogy would be relevant only if this article would refer to the frequent spelling as Max somewhere in the first few lines (like the A-10 article does). Since it does not, the analogy is at best flawed. Arnoutf (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rogerd: the proposal isn't to change the designation though, the only change proposed is to write it in standard English - to conform with the Wikipedia article naming policy at WP:TITLETM. There is nothing though to stop us qualifying it at the top of the article, to explain how Boeing stylise it per MOS:TMSTYLE. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my original argument, that the manufacturer's designation should be used. --rogerd (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rogerd: given that, according to move request closing instructions: Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions, Which of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines or naming conventions are you relying on to support your "original argument"? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The all uppercase usage is the common usage on many sites as demonstrated by others here. --rogerd (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as per the last discussion we had on this earlier when it was confirmed from sources close to Boeing that MAX is not an acronym or a captialisation of Max just a Boeing marketing name. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you supply a link to that previous discussion please. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Look on this talk page's archive page. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This item from 2012 then, I guess. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MilborneOne the argument there in 2012 assumes that the requirement to use standard English is only a MOS guideline, and so can be ignored. Now, in 2019, WP:TITLETM is official Wikipedia policy, and trumps MOS guidelines and project conventions, so really needs to be complied with I think, regardless of how we characterise the nature of Boeing's use of the word. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brandmeister: I think you've misunderstood WP:NCCAPS. It means just the first letter of words that are proper names, not all the letters. Like Supermarine Spitfire is not Supermarine SPITFIRE. That means, as it's the proper name of an aeroplane model, we can call this article Boeing 737 Max (but not Boeing 737 MAX) and we don't have to follow the normal rule of no caps - as with Airbus A320 family where "family" isn't part of the proper name, for example. Please reconsider your declaration. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, but as per others. Multiple official documents follow Boeing's own capitalization, like FAA's Airworthiness Notification, EASA's type-certificate data sheet, ICAO's Boeing Product Update etc. Brandmeistertalk 16:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: Then why don't we rename COBOL to Cobol or AstroTurf to Astro Turf or Astro turf? --rogerd (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We use the common capitalizations of those because they're the common ones. For terms that are sometimes, but not always, capitalized funny, we use standard capitalization, even if the vendor has a non-standard one. @DeFacto is pointing out (correctly) that a lot of the people who weighed in above seem to think that the rule is "spell it however the vendor does" That's not the rule. TypoBoy (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rogerd: COBOL is an acronym, so is correctly written in all capitals, and isn't a trademark anyway, so WP:TITLETM policy doesn't apply. AstroTurf is correct per WP:TITLETM, as neither word is written fully capitalised (AstroTURF or ASTROTurf would be wrong). -- DeFacto (talk). 20:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Even though some writers in journalism are writing it as Max, Boeing officially writes it as MAX. --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The default according to WP:TITLETM is “Max”. Boeing’s trademark is “MAX”. Unless the trademark “MAX” is the most common in sources other than Boeing, the default “Max” should be used. I reviewed recent news stories that involve this airplane, and about 2/3 of sources called it “Max”. “MAX” isn’t demonstrated to be the most common usage, so the article should be titled with “Max”. I support the move. — Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Total 737 Max's Delivered

The article currently says "350" delivered but adding up the past several years deliveries in the chart equals 320.

Map of country's and airlines who grounded or banned the 737 MAX 8 (Please add it to the 737 Max 8 subtitle)

File:737 max 8 grounded map 12-3-2019 19pm-CET.jpg
Map of country's and airlines who have banned/grounded the 737 Max 8. Wikipedia editors, please remove this when it is outdated

MartijnWo (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That map image belongs at 2019 Boeing 737 MAX groundings instead of this general article. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in lede to describe what role the plane is designed for and markets it is designed to serve

I've just come to the article and read the lede expecting to learn what role the plane was designed for (short range, medium range, long range; budget airlines, full service airlines; high efficiency etc) but did not find it. Nor did I find it when I scanned the rest of the article. I'd suggest this information should figure fairly prominently in the article. Oska (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s designed to make potential air passengers fearful of flying. Boscaswell talk 04:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Template added by 173.129.78.7 (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grounding

While editors are edit warring over giving Trump credit for everything we can add the FAA announcement actually grounds all the MAXs in the whole world not just US. MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article now says that Trump announced the FCC ..., where my understanding (from radio news) is that Trump ordered the grounding. That may or may not be important. Gah4 (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

"Following these crashes, Boeing and the FAA recommended the plane be grounded worldwide."

What kind of bootlicker thought it would be a good idea to put the FAA prominently in this sentence, the one agency who was last behind the grounding? 91.10.14.249 (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_737_MAX&oldid=887647664"