Vatveng From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1068 posts, RR: 1 Posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3734 times:
OK, let's do a little role-playing here:
Imagine it's 2009 and you're in the board room at Boeing (a fantasy for some here!) and you have just signed off on the design of the 737 replacement, using 787 technology and all the other bells and whistles we've all been discussing over in Civil Av. Assume 3 variants initially with sizes comparable to the current -700, -800, and one larger between the -800 and the 783. Also assume that you've built in the ability to shrink it to -600 size and possibly even E-195 size in the future, but these 2 smaller variants may or may not actually be built and aren't part of the initial offering.
Now comes the question from marketing: What do we call this family of aircraft, and what do we name the variants?
727EMflyer From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 547 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3702 times:
I do not understand the reasoning behind the -3, -8, and -9 used on the 787, so I would vote for using traditional 200, 300, 400 etc, with 100 available for downsizing.
Perhaps the new single aisle will be more revolutionary then even the 787, and it will be time to open a new naming system! If they jumped to 808 they could maybe lock in chinese customers on the name alone, and HA and AQ would almost be obligated to fly the type (due to widespread use of the Island's telephone area code of 808 in business names and pop culture).
Crox1 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 308 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3682 times:
Would / Could Boeing move away from the 7X7 numbering, if they did and started an 8X8 series, then surely it has to be something that is different from everything that they have done before, as in the evolution of of the 7X7's series, what had they done before in civil aviation that was similar, when they brought out the 707?. We don't need NNG, if its an upgrade to the 737, then let it be the 737-1000, 1100, 1200 etc etc.
Both optimists and pessimists contribute to the society. The optimist invents the aeroplane, the pessimist the parachute
I think it might be smart for them to keep the possibility open to shrink the 737, especially since the 717 has been killed off, in case Airbus decides to build an A317 "big regional" to try and siphon off sales from Canada and Brazil. Highly unlikely, I know, but building in the ability to shrink the 737 would keep Boeing's options open should the French try a stunt like that.
FriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4129 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3637 times:
It should be the 797, only because it keeps with tradition. After that, maybe an 807 or something. Whatever it is, it MUST keep a 7 in the name, because EVERY Boeing passenger aircraft since the 247 has had one (except the 314, but that was an entirely different kind of aircraft):