The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boeing 737 MAX article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This 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
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
A fact from Boeing 737 MAX appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 September 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the smallest member of the Boeing 737 Next Generation family will not be continued in the family's replacement, the Boeing 737 MAX?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Boeing manufacturing issues currently solely covers issues with the 737 MAX, most of which are already covered in Boeing 737 MAX. If no content on other Boeing types is added, I see no reason to have a separate article at this time. Perhaps a section could be added to Boeing 737 MAX to cover the manufacturing issues instead. - ZLEAT\C 06:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC) ZLEAT\C06:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per rationale. Coverage of manufacturing issues on the part of Boeing before the 2020s does exist but is very sporadic and dwarfed in severity compared to the issues with the 737 MAX. Information is better suited at Boeing 737 MAX under a dedicate subheading. DigitalIceAge (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you intended the scope to be, the article currently does not contain any content that could not be merged into a section of this article. I will withdraw this merge proposal if someone expands Boeing manufacturing issues to cover more Boeing types, but until then, I see no reason to not merge. - ZLEAT\C19:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree, unless someone has significant information to expand the page, the Boeing manufacturing issues page should be merged. It is not ready at this time to be a stand alone page. KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article's scope is solely focused on the Boeing 737 Max with only one major accident cited. The event involving Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 is practically the only major topic.
Comment, I currently have no determination if I believe this should be merged into the 737 MAX section or be on its own. However, we need to look into more previous retrospective with Boeing and its manufacturing problems. I think the best examples we need to look into is how there was rudder issues with the previous 737s and how Boeing grounded 787s due to electrical system problems from its batteries. I know there's a lot covered on the 737 but I would like to see more topics being discussed than just on the 737 MAX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20chances (talk • contribs) 01:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure either issue would belong in the article. Like the MAX's MCAS issues, both the 737 rudder and 787 battery issues were primarily due to a design flaw rather than a manufacturing issue. - ZLEAT\C02:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, if there were other issues with the older 737 (from classic to NG), I don't want them to be thrown away into oblivion and they have important value to understanding the problems these planes had in terms of manufacturing issues and such. I know the older ones are important and if we had found some that might be crucial, it can help. I feel like its a difficult decision to consider either merging or keeping the article because yes, while I understand there's stuff that can work with the 737 MAX, it also ignores that more important ones that aren't related to the MAX. 20chances (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose New information about 777 and 787 fuselage gaps are available. The contents of this article has expanded beyond the scope of 737 MAX Zjin1 (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The pilots kept the thrust levers at takeoff power. Performing the appropriate emergency checklist does not absolve you from maintaining basic aircraft control. Please reference the closed discussions above.
Personally I disagree - I feel as though that parameter should be the immediate cause of the accident, not the root cause. But more than happy to yield if the consensus swings the other way Danners430 (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cause of the crashes was not an "MCAS error", as the MCAS was functioning as designed but was being fed erroneous data by another system. This, coupled with pilot error due to inadequate training, was what led to the accidents. - ZLEAT\C00:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
