PanAm788
Topic Author
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:43 pm

The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:42 am

I'm wondering what everyone's opinion is here about what I see is the start of a new, super annoying era of aircraft naming. Maybe I'm just being weird, but I don't like that every new aircraft model is suddenly an -800 or and -8 and has a nickname to go along with it.

1) Why is "Dreamliner" still posted next the 787's name on all the photos here. I thought that was a promotional name and would go away like the 777-200LR "Worldliner". In 25 years is it still going to be a "Dreamliner"? Didn't think so.

2) The A380-800, 747-8, and 787-8 should be named the A380-100 (or maybe the -200 b/c I get that -100 sounds antique to some), 747-500, and 787-100 or 200, respectively. It's dumb that you go from 747-400 to -8. Where are -500, -600, and -700? And why drop the zeros when you are just going to put them back on anyway with customer codes? it doesn't sound any cooler or more modern. Just cheaper and emptier. And please don't let "747-8 Intercontinental" stick like the Dreamliner name is.

3) I hate the name A350-1000XWB. Quadruple digits are just so unnecessary at all levels. So is XWB. It's not even a extra wide widebody. That name better go too. Is Airbus thinking "Ooooh let's just skip -100 through -700 and add XWB so it sounds more advanced and more airlines will buy it"? What happens when they launch an upgraded version. A350-1100?! WTF man. It'll probably have some dumb new name too.

4) The worst above all else has to be the 737 MAX. The MAX series? Really!? A third grader could come up with a better name. And the naming schemes are going to be the 737 MAX 7/8/9. With a code that would be 737 MAX 832 for example. So the MAX will replace the dash and be annoying as hell to say and write? Why can't it sound like a real machine: 737-700B or 737-700/Adv. What is wrong with those names that have been around forever? Even 737-1000, -1100, and -1200 would be better, because unlike the A350, the 737 at least deserves the quadruple digits.

Am I alone here? Maybe so, but I got my rant out so I feel better. Thanks for reading.
You know nothing Jon Snow
 
David_itl
Posts: 5969
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:54 am

From the manufacturers point of view: "8" - number signified as being lucky in Asia. And where is a lot of growth in the industry to come from? Asia.


From the airlines point of view: what the nickname or model number is will not make any part in any decision in ordering the aircraft. It's down to economics. Though I believe Airbus had to signify that they amended the A350 that was launched in response to what customers wanted .
 
tcasalert
Posts: 448
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:34 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:59 am

I do agree, they should stick totally to numbers or an original model designation. Also frustrating how they give the A380 the "A380-800" and the 787 the "787-800" designation. Why not a simple "-100" as has been the case for the last fifty years with no problem at all. What about when they start designating ICAO/IATA codes for them - it will get really confusing then.

I do think the 'Dreamliner' designation for the 787 is just marketing hype and will go away. They are trying to get the aircraft into the public's imaginations, hence why we've just had several days of blanket news coverage about a "Revolutionary, ground breaking" aircraft. Sure its a good evolution, but so was the 777-200LR and the 737NG series, and the A340-500/600, neither of which received this much publicity.
Next flight: Feb 2012 - BHX-CPH-BHX - SK MD87 / CRJ900
 
maddog888
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:24 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:03 am

You are obviously a man of some taste and therefore seriously out of touch with the rest of the world. Unfortunately the corporate clones at the top of these large multinationals all went to the same school for training and all believe that the only way to sell a product is to appeal to the lowest common denominator and make it as "cheesy" and "cheap" (style not cost - though they see nothing wrong with that as well) as possible; although heaven forbid that they should have to live in that enviroment. Even more unfortunately in general it works, it seems you can never go wrong in under estimating the heaving masses.

J
 
columba
Posts: 5045
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:03 am

I think the "Dreamliner" name will stick, it belongs to the 787. It is a name like "Caravelle" or "Tristar" for me.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
PanAm788
Topic Author
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:43 pm

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:20 am

Quoting david_itl (Reply 1):
From the manufacturers point of view: "8" - number signified as being lucky in Asia. And where is a lot of growth in the industry to come from? Asia.

I get that but having the number 8 involved in every single new Airbus/Boeing aircraft's (and a majority of new derivatives') name since the year 2000 is a little much, no?

Quoting TCASAlert (Reply 2):

Glad to have an ally!

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 3):
You are obviously a man of some taste

Thank you. I try.

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 3):
and therefore seriously out of touch with the rest of the world

I fear you are right. But I try to give the masses more credit then you do.

Quoting columba (Reply 4):

I think the "Dreamliner" name will stick, it belongs to the 787. It is a name like "Caravelle" or "Tristar" for me.

Maybe. But Boeing hasn't really done nicknames in the past and this sort of ruins the whole 7X7 naming series dynamic for me. We'll see though. Hopefully it goes away haha.

[Edited 2011-10-27 01:22:33]
You know nothing Jon Snow
 
AustrianZRH
Posts: 852
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:55 pm

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:25 am

Quoting david_itl (Reply 1):
From the manufacturers point of view: "8" - number signified as being lucky in Asia. And where is a lot of growth in the industry to come from? Asia.

That's always quoted on here as reason - but that didn't stop SQ or CX or CA buying Boeing 747-400 with two unlucky 4s in it. My guess is they just want to let it sound more modern with the high digits. I also hate the -1000 series as it makes those nice A332 or B744 codes impossible to use :P...

Quoting PanAm788 (Thread starter):
747-500

This is the only version where I think the -8 can be justified. There were 745, 746, and 74G concepts which were at least unofficially offered to the airlines - but were rejected. Thus, the now realized 748 is just the next iteration of the 747-Advanced concepts.

The whole XWB, MAX, NEO (this at least explains what it is), whatever, stuff is just stupid.
WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1495
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:50 am

If 8 is so lucky and important in China, how come their own programmes are called the ARJ21 and C919, not C888? Further, stretched versions of the C919 will be called C929 and C939.

The logic of calling the base model the A380-800 was to show that it wasn't some initial, rubbish version, but rather the complete, final, all singing and dancing version. Unfortunately, the reality didn't live up to the marketing bull, and Boeing have since copied this strategy (with the late and overweight 787-8 and 747-8)
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
bluewhale18210
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:23 pm

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:59 am

Quoting PanAm788 (Thread starter):
1) Why is "Dreamliner" still posted next the 787's name on all the photos here. I thought that was a promotional name and would go away like the 777-200LR "Worldliner". In 25 years is it still going to be a "Dreamliner"? Didn't think so.

I think the original 707 was called the "Intercontinental" also.
727 was dubbed the "whisperjet"
AA calls its A300s the "Luxuryliner"

It's all marketing...

Quoting PanAm788 (Thread starter):
The A380-800, 747-8, and 787-8 should be named the A380-100 (or maybe the -200 b/c I get that -100 sounds antique to some), 747-500, and 787-100 or 200, respectively. It's dumb that you go from 747-400 to -8. Where are -500, -600, and -700?

As a Chinese I should be offended by this. Do Boeing and Airbus think that the Chinese are so shallow that they would flock to buy their airplanes just because they have a "8" in there? Or that it's red (748i prototype)?
Don't know about Airbus but Boeing employs enough people of Chinese decent to know better. Put forward a better product ON TIME will win them business, unless political pressure was applied for one reason or another.

Quoting PanAm788 (Thread starter):
3) I hate the name A350-1000XWB. Quadruple digits are just so unnecessary at all levels. So is XWB. It's not even a extra wide widebody.

I think the "Extra" was in comparison to its first design, which is the same width with A330. It can now seat 9 abreast, if memory serves.
JPS on A300-600RF A319/320 B737-400/800 B757-200F B767-300F CRJ-200/900. Looking to add more.
 
joelyboy911
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:45 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:03 am

I am of the opinion that it doesn't really matter, personally. These airliners will continue to be referred to in various ways, depending on who's talking. Most people ignore what's after the dash anyway, so it hardly matters. Have you heard the general media refer to the 787-8? A380-800? Not really.

I just don't see that the random series of digits we assign to aircraft means much at all. In fact I quite like planes with a name, rather than just a string of digits- Dreamliner and XWB are the closest things we've got. Why can't we come up with more names. Like Concorde. Stratocruiser. Constellation. Jetstream. Mercure.

The Epidemic is the prevalence of the formulaic model number. A3Boring. 7dull7.
Flown: NZ, NY, SJ, QF, UA, AC, EI, BE, TP, AF
 
na
Posts: 9170
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:09 am

Quoting PanAm788 (Thread starter):
2) The A380-800, 747-8, and 787-8 should be named the A380-100 (or maybe the -200 b/c I get that -100 sounds antique to some), 747-500, and 787-100 or 200, respectively. It's dumb that you go from 747-400 to -8. Where are -500, -600, and -700? And why drop the zeros when you are just going to put them back on anyway with customer codes? it doesn't sound any cooler or more modern. Just cheaper and emptier. And please don't let "747-8 Intercontinental" stick like the Dreamliner name is.

I´m with you here. I know its always -8 or -800 because its targeted at (East) Asians, but do Boeings and Airbus marketing strategists really think the Asian aircraft buyers and passengers are so superstitituous that it borders to idiocy? Its as ridiculous as the non-existing row 13 on most airlines (I bet on each flight there are enough people to laugh about it and fill it. And I havent heard that row 13 crashes more often than others).

As for the 747-8, there were projected 747-500s and 747-600s, so these numbers had been taken. But I agree that dropping the 00 is stupid to say the least when two digits are added with the customer code anyway.

Quoting PanAm788 (Thread starter):
3) I hate the name A350-1000XWB

XWB should be dropped asap. Its overcomplicated and useless. And a 4-digit version designation ist unnessessary, sure. I am waiting for a A350-8800XWBER NEO F to be introduced in the late 20s.
Why didnt they at least call the largest version the -800? This kottow is becoming embarrassing.
 
hal9213
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 6:03 pm

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:17 am

Quoting bluewhale18210 (Reply 8):
727 was dubbed the "whisperjet"

Now thats a funny one, from todays perspective   

Quoting bluewhale18210 (Reply 8):
AA calls its A300s the "Luxuryliner"

I can understand, if something is marketed that way to the end customer, because passengers actually do think about marketing names. However, airlines should really care less.

Well, lets all be thankful they all still use numbers! (which I personally favour). I always think that when I see German underground train designations (U1, U2, U3....) compared to the London Circle/Picadilly/Jubilee/Whatever-Line, and the US numbered street designations in big cities is a delight!

(To the OP: But I really liked your slightly cynical post, you really spoke out of my heart  )
 
777way
Posts: 6470
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:38 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:23 am

The West had given some ridiculous code names to Soviet era aircraft.
 
Clydenairways
Posts: 1102
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:27 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:28 am

Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 6):
The whole XWB, MAX, NEO (this at least explains what it is), whatever, stuff is just stupid.

I'll add NG to that list. I really hated that term given to an aeroplane when it came out. It was around the same time as Star Trek Next Generation was out so it was obviously taken from that by some stupid marketing person.

Then airlines started calling 747-200's and 737-300/400/500 "Classic". Another stupid marketing gimmic.

But sadly, this is going to become the norm in the future, even Engines have been hit with these stupid names
LEAP-X
GEnx
 
nonimaus
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 11:11 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:48 am

Quoting PanAm788 (Thread starter):
3) I hate the name A350-1000XWB. Quadruple digits are just so unnecessary at all levels. So is XWB. It's not even a extra wide widebody.

"XWB" can be justified if you look at the cabin width of Airbus' previous twins. The A300, 310, 330 (and also via development relationship, the A340) all top out at 5.28 metres in the cabin compared to 5.61 metres for the redesigned A350. The original iteration might possibly have borrowed the dimensions of its predecessors had it not been for vocal opposition from airlines about the prospect of an updated A330 derivative.

Quoting PanAm788 (Thread starter):
With a code that would be 737 MAX 832 for example. So the MAX will replace the dash and be annoying as hell to say and write? Why can't it sound like a real machine: 737-700B or 737-700/Adv. What is wrong with those names that have been around forever?

"MAX" is a bit of a crap groupthink name, but it has no bearing whatsoever on the performance, and practically no impact in terms of marketing. I don't think it gives any allusion one way or the other as to the implication of being a "real machine", whatever that is.
 
rwy04lga
Posts: 1976
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:21 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:55 am

Quoting bluewhale18210 (Reply 8):
727 was dubbed the "whisperjet"

Only by Eastern Airlines. Once fell asleep up against number 1 engine, PIT to TPA, woke up with an earache. Commented to Dad...."Some whisperjet". Sarcasm from a 10-year-old.

Quoting bluewhale18210 (Reply 8):
AA calls its A300s the "Luxuryliner"

AFAIK, AA calls ALL of its wide-bodies "LuxuryLiners".
Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
 
PanHAM
Posts: 8538
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:13 am

When I read the title I immediately thought - what's so bad about calling an airline "SWISS"???

Quoting columba (Reply 4):
I think the "Dreamliner" name will stick, it belongs to the 787. It is a name like "Caravelle" or "Tristar" for me.

I think so too, although it still is a nightmare for Boeing

Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 5):
But Boeing hasn't really done nicknames in the past and this sort of ruins the whole

Well Boieng hasn't except for the ones mentioned altready but the marketing departments of many airlines thought things up, like Astrojet, or with LH City Jet for the 737-200 (also called "Schweinchen" ((Piggy)) internally) , 727-200 was the Europa jet and so on.

Quoting hal9213 (Reply 11):
Now thats a funny one, from todays perspective

yes, but compared to the early 707/720/ DC8s it was an improvement. I lived underneath the flight path for LGA in Forest Hills Queens and I had no complaints.

Three engine generations later people claim new aircraft are noisy, they don#ät know what they talk about.
powered by Eierlikör
 
HELFAN
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:56 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:18 am

IIRC Lufthansa named all its Boeing jets in the 70's as follows:

737 - City Jet
727 - Europa Jet
707 - Intercontinental Jet
747 - Jumbo Jet

Don't know how official these names were. Dreamliner might as well remain in the public discourse since it's not a bad name as such. It's up to the public to decide what becomes a common name. People everywhere still talk about Jumbo Jet when they refer to 747 but I seriously doubt that Whale Jet will ever become a common nickname for A380.
Some names just stick, some don't.
 
PanHAM
Posts: 8538
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:28 am

The LH names where official, except "Schweinchen" of course. .The then LH subsidiary Condor inherited 2 of the first LH747-100 LH got and called one MAX and the other MORITZ after the 2 rascalls created by the inventor of the comic strips, Wilhelm Busch.
powered by Eierlikör
 
cgnnrw
Posts: 1046
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 3:11 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:08 am

Don't forget the AVRO "Jumbolino". Kinda like it personally myself.
A330 man.
 
HELFAN
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:56 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:42 am

BTW, wasn't there a name contest when A380 entered service at LH? And the winning proposal was "Lady Bee"
Is this name being used somewhere? I haven't seen it since, to be honest.
Was the contest just waste of money with such an outcome? It was indeed a silly name, if you ask me.
 
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23199
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:33 pm

Quoting david_itl (Reply 1):
From the manufacturers point of view: "8" - number signified as being lucky in Asia. And where is a lot of growth in the industry to come from? Asia.

While this is commonly suggested, I'm not sure it's absolutely true. After all, "4" is unlucky in Asia and they soaked up 747-400s like a sponge.

I've heard one of the rationales for Airbus starting -800 for the A380 was because it was two passenger decks, so the "8" symbolized two fuselage barrels on top of each other, even if the A380's actual structure is a single fuselage barrel.

I've also heard the -8 in the 7E7/787 was to recognize the original nominal range of 8,000+ nautical miles.

As noted, Boeing launched the 747-500X and 747-600X (and also showed a 747-700X concept) in 1996, but the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis killed the MoUs they had secured with MH, TG and BA and therefore the planes never went forward into production. I also believe Boeing have stated they went with 747-8 instead of 747-800 (or 747-500) to link the plane with the 787-8.




Quoting bluewhale18210 (Reply 8):
727 was dubbed the "whisperjet"
Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 15):
Only by Eastern Airlines. Once fell asleep up against number 1 engine, PIT to TPA, woke up with an earache. Commented to Dad...."Some whisperjet". Sarcasm from a 10-year-old.

Eastern was correct in applying that appellation to the L-1011, however. That plane was amazingly quiet inside at cruise.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 1412
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:16 pm

Quoting clydenairways (Reply 13):
I'll add NG to that list. I really hated that term given to an aeroplane when it came out. It was around the same time as Star Trek Next Generation was out so it was obviously taken from that by some stupid marketing person.

I've always thought that names like "Next Generation" (and add NEO/New Engine Option to that list) have a limited life.

I mean, is the 737-700 really "next generation" any more? No, it's current generation, and has been for 15 years. In 2025, will the A320neo still have the "new" engine? No, it will be the current engine.

And +1 to all those complaining about how the new counting system starts with 8.
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word, and doesn't even make sense.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
 
spartanmjf
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:31 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:48 pm

And all of the United aircraft, back in 'the day,' were referred to as FriendShips..... And nothing will ever, ever take the place of 'Clipper' in my heart.

I do kind of like Dreamliner, but the specific model designations such as -800XWB are getting way too long....

[Edited 2011-10-27 06:49:17]
"Nuts to the man in 21D!"
 
XaraB
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:23 pm

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:17 pm

Most of the comments above sound a bit like examplifications of the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", or in laymen's terms, "Old habits die hard".
Basically you are all complaining because changes are introduced to nomenclature systems you are very familiar with. But try mentally rewinding yourself some 40-50-60 years; most naming schemes dreamed up at that time was also pure marketing. The whole PanAm "Clipper" saga, the attachment of more or less successful nicknames to basically every plane.

Nothing related to business marketing has changed at all, just our age. Kill your darlings, people; your grandchildren will adore "Dreamliner", their favourite number will be 8, "cuz that's what all the cool planes Dad flew was named", and they'll all be XWB's, if current western lifestyle continues...
An open mind is not an empty one
 
vv701
Posts: 5780
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:20 pm

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 3):
You are obviously a man of some taste and therefore seriously out of touch with the rest of the world.

Like it! Made my day.

Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 5):
I get that but having the number 8 involved in every single new Airbus/Boeing aircraft's (and a majority of new derivatives') name since the year 2000 is a little much, no?
Quoting david_itl (Reply 1):
From the manufacturers point of view: "8" - number signified as being lucky in Asia. And where is a lot of growth in the industry to come from? Asia.
Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 6):
That's always quoted on here as reason - but that didn't stop SQ or CX or CA buying Boeing 747-400 with two unlucky 4s in it.

But can you say that if the 744 had been the 748 that SQ, CX or CA might not have bought more? Actually they probably would not. But when the 744 was launched around a quarter of a century ago the Asian market, excepting only Japan, was, at least in the minds of the airliner manufacturers, not a significant consideration.

Times change. And if you want to persuade Asian airlines to at least consider your aircraft then including the figure '8' in the model number is a virtually zero cost marketing ploy. So why not spend virtually nothing and even if it only results in the sale of a couple more $200 million plus airliners your gain is millions of dollars revenue. If you do not sell a single actual aircraft because of the '8' exactly how much will it have cost you? And would that be the end of the story? Almost certainly not. Just take a look at photos of the NH 787:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dobel



Have you ever seen another airline livery giving greater prominence to the manufacturer's model number than its own identity? Do you think that the model number would have had the same prominence if it had been '797'? Or is it possible that NH, by giving such prominence to '8' on their aircraft, are not promoting the 787 to other airlines on behalf of Boeing but are sending a message to the more superstitious of their potential passengers who, for traditional reasons, will feel safer flying in a 787 than in a competitor's aircraft? And how much extra did it cost NH? Probably less that one return fare between NRT and HKG.

As for defining letters such as 'XWB' it is worth remembering that at the time of their order BA was the lead customer for the 777 200 IGW (Increased Gross Weight). Do we call it that today? No. At the time did it tell airlines that it was different from the 777 200 A? Yes. Was that important? After all, if you are going to order new aircraft you look at more than just the name. But if you had already rejected the 777 200 A . . . And Boeing calling it the 777 200 IGW again cost virtually nothing more than the cost of the ink in printing 'IGW' on a few thousand bits of paper. So again it was virtually no-cost marketing stating that you had listened to and responded to the needs of your potential customers.

So "cheesey"? Possibly.

Costly? Definitely not.

Worthwhile? Almost certainly.

Rewarding? Quite possibly.
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 4763
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:30 pm

Quoting VV701,reply=26

:
Have you ever seen another airline livery giving greater prominence to the manufacturer's model number than its own identity?

Yes I have, actually:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © N94504

Coast to Coast and Border to Border, Ozark Flies YOUR Way!
 
Avi8r747
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:20 pm

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:36 pm

8 may be a lucky number for Asia, but not so much for Boeing   
It's an entirely different kind of flying; all together!
 
Rdh3e
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:09 pm

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:02 pm

Quoting PanAm788 (Thread starter):
but I don't like that every new aircraft model is suddenly an -800 or and -8 and has a nickname to go along with it.

My one comment for this whole ludicrous thread. You complain about this, but then you make it part of your user name. Just a touch hypocritical, IMHO.
 
konrad
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 3:54 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:08 pm

Quoting PanAm788 (Thread starter):
What happens when they launch an upgraded version. A350-1100?! WTF man. It'll probably have some dumb new name too.

A350-11000WTF sounds like a great idea!
 
aviateur
Posts: 562
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 9:25 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:10 pm

I agree with the thread starter on all counts. What ever happened to modesty, understatement, and elegance in commercial aviation? Everything now is so cheap and flashy and downmarket, from liveries to names.

Curiously this is something I just wrote about two days ago in one of my ASK THE PILOT columns. Maybe that's where he got the idea. Here's what I said...



....Concorde wasn't just a great * looking * plane, but that name, too: Concorde.  The main idea, presumably, was to convey solidarity in the Anglo-French partnership that designed and built the thing.  But it goes beyond that.  There's something wonderfully evocative about the sound of that word: Concorde. It says sleek, fast, stylish -- a little bit haughty and probably out of your league.

That's something I miss: commercial planes that were named rather than numbered.  Aside from Concorde we had the Comet, Trident, Mercure and Vanguard (all European products). The English laid it on a bit thick, as they're wont to do, with the Britannia, a four-engine turboprop of the 1950s, but mainly they've been good, understated choices. 

Other planes were given nicknames in conjunction with numbers, like Lockheed's L-188 Electra or the L-1011 TriStar.  The 787 falls in this category, though I'm not especially fond of the "Dreamliner" designation.   Somehow the imagery there is a little too wobbly and ethereal.  People don't want their planes flailing around or nodding off.

It could have been worse though.  Back in 2003, before Boeing had a settled on a name, Dreamliner was in contention with three other possibilities.  They were: Global Cruiser, Stratoclimber, and eLiner.  I'm not making this up.  Global Cruiser sounds like a yacht, or a really big SUV.  Stratoclimber sounds like an action hero.  And eLiner is almost too awful to contemplate.  Sort of like "iPlane." 

The 747, for its part, remains a beauty all around: elegant prow, sexy tail, and the palindromic poetry of that name: seven-forty-seven. ....


Patrick Smith
Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
 
airplanenut
Posts: 594
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 8:46 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:29 pm

My understanding is that the 747-8 got its name in part to recognize the significant amount of technology it used that originally came from 787 development (the wings, for example).
Why yes, in fact, I am a rocket scientist...
 
cgnnrw
Posts: 1046
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 3:11 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:44 pm

Oh I forgot about AA branding their wide-bodies as "luxury jets"
A330 man.
 
PanAm788
Topic Author
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:43 pm

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:12 pm

Quoting rdh3e (Reply 29):
My one comment for this whole ludicrous thread. You complain about this, but then you make it part of your user name. Just a touch hypocritical, IMHO.

Well dumb name aside, the 787-8 is still my favorite airplane. And PanAm is/was my favorite airline so I just put the two together. Not trying to be a hypocrite  .

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 15):
AFAIK, AA calls ALL of its wide-bodies "LuxuryLiners".

IIRC the DC-10 lost that immeasurably prestigious moniker when it suffered a few accidents.

Glad I'm not alone here. Thanks for all the comments!
You know nothing Jon Snow
 
KarlB737
Posts: 2635
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 9:51 pm

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:31 pm

Quoting PanAm788 (Thread starter):
I'm wondering what everyone's opinion is here about what I see is the start of a new, super annoying era of aircraft naming.

The long numerical value for an aircraft type I dislike as well. A single word or two words put together to form one like Dreamliner, WhisperJet, LuxuryLiner etc., I don't object to because it is just a single word label and it is a marketing description but again in a single word.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:47 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
Eastern was correct in applying that appellation to the L-1011, however. That plane was amazingly quiet inside at cruise.

But the name "Wisperliner" was applied to the L-1011 because of its community noise footprint. The L-1011 was by far the quietest first generation widebody.

Examples: FAR Part 36 Limits/L-1011 certification. Takeoff 105.6/96. Sideline 107.0/95. Approach 107.0/103.
 
ABQopsHP
Posts: 461
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 10:47 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:57 pm

I would have to say, this whole line of logic, could also be applied to paint schemes as well. The overwhelming abundance of Euro-white schemes out there, by virtually every air carrier, is enough to drive an enthusiast nuts. Gone are the cheat lines, and all thats left is a staid name monicker on the side, and a splash of color on the tail. It is said that all that white paint does not weigh as much as colored paint. Ok, but surely technology has advanced enough that color paint applied in a measured way, could still keep the weight of an a/c down. But I digress. This is a valid thread and thanks for bringing it up PanAm788.

JD CRPXE
ABQ ops, Cactus 202 requesting you order 5 Green Chile Chicken stew for us to p/u on arrival. ;)
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:05 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 16):
Three engine generations later people claim new aircraft are noisy, they don#ät know what they talk about.

Obviously not people that ever worked at or lived around an airport that handled BAC1-11s or CV880s.  
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
PanHAM
Posts: 8538
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:24 pm

BAC 1-11 served THF on multiple flights daily, BEA operated from HAM, HAJ, DUS STR and I believe CGN as well, up to a dozen flighs on some routes. .

When I worked at HAM Airport in cargo, there was trhe daily LH 408 to JFK, operated often enough by a 707-430, RR engines, when the pilot let the brakes go it was real fun. Phone calls impossible. Those where certainly no whisperliners.
powered by Eierlikör
 
User avatar
CrimsonNL
Posts: 1811
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:34 pm

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:36 pm

Quoting PanAm788 (Thread starter):

      I couldn't agree more! In spoken language, or when typing, I usually refer to the 747-400 as 744, or A330-300 as 333, how the heck will you abbreviate A350-1000? 351? That would be the same as the A350-100 only it would make a whole lot more sense.

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 3):
You are obviously a man of some taste and therefore seriously out of touch with the rest of the world.

      Glad there's still some common sense on these forums.

My two (euro)cents

Martijn
Always comparing your flown types list with mine
 
ghifty
Posts: 885
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:12 pm

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:09 pm

LOL. The progression of your negativity was funny to read. I have to admit that the whole time I was chuckling, and wondering "what about the Max?!"

I hope Fokker doesn't name their F-100NG the Fokker 1000 SuperTwin..
Fly Delta Jets
 
Markam
Posts: 318
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:17 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:10 pm

Quoting PanAm788 (Thread starter):
So is XWB. It's not even a extra wide widebody. That name better go too.

I will not go into whether the XBW tag should be dropped or not, but mind that, as someone has already mentioned, the A350 XBW really IS wider. Airbus engineers have opted for a double-lobe ovoid cross-section for the fuselage which makes it (proportionally) wider, allowing for a gain of more than 30cm of diameter with respect to the traditional cross-section.
 
RubberJungle
Posts: 302
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:16 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:13 pm

There's nothing wrong with giving an aircraft a name, but 'Dreamliner' is a pretty naff name.

It's not the least bit interesting or intriguing, and would have taken no effort at all to think up. It just sounds like it was scribbled on a whiteboard in a marketing meeting by someone with no imagination, who simply cooked it up from a couple of ghastly buzzwords from a PR dictionary.

One of four naff names proposed in precisely the same way, and put out to a public vote, although I suspect Boeing was going to hang the 'Dreamliner' tag on it, regardless. Just shows how bad the other options were.

[Edited 2011-10-27 11:24:09]
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23199
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:49 pm

Quoting ghifty (Reply 41):
I hope Fokker doesn't name their F-100NG the Fokker 1000 SuperTwin..

But when they do announce it, will they title the invitation "Meet the Fokker"?  

[Edited 2011-10-27 12:18:13]
 
imiakhtar
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:35 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:59 pm

Quoting david_itl (Reply 1):
From the manufacturers point of view: "8" - number signified as being lucky in Asia. And where is a lot of growth in the industry to come from? Asia.

Gulfstream renamed their G250 for that very reason:

SAVANNAH, Ga., July 18, 2011 — Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. announced today that it has renamed the super midsized Gulfstream G250 aircraft; the business jet is now called the Gulfstream G280. As demand for Gulfstream business jets grows around the world, the move was prompted by the company’s sensitivity to the varied cultures of its international customer base.

“Since introducing the Gulfstream G250 in 2008 and presenting it to customers around the world, we determined that G280 is a more amenable number sequence in certain cultures,” said Larry Flynn, senior vice president, Marketing and Sales, Gulfstream. “We value our international customers highly, and this change reflects our commitment to understanding the diverse cultures of our global business environment.”


http://www.gulfstream.com/news/relea...s/2011/gulfstream-renames-g250.htm
Whatever happened to Leon Trotsky?
 
eldanno
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:29 pm

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:17 pm

Hmm.. I don't recall having seen a 751, 761, or 771. I heard somewhere that Boeing started skipping the -100's due to the perception that they would be labelled as old and clunky right out of the box.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23199
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:22 pm

Quoting eldanno (Reply 46):
Hmm.. I don't recall having seen a 751, 761, or 771.


Boeing did plan a 767-100 at around 180 seats, but the economics were not good compared to the 757-200, which offered similar capacity, so it was dropped.

The same was with the 757-100, sized around the 160-seats of the 727-200ADV.

And there were multiple 777-100X concepts floated in the mid-to-late 1990s.

Most were for a smaller, longer-range airplane for SQ, BR and AA. By around 2000, however, Boeing was working on the 777-200X and 777-300X and this "C Market" model became the 777-200LR.

One version, however, was the 777-100B offered to DL and CO as a replacement for their DC-10 and L-1011 fleets. However, like the long-haul versions, the plane was too heavy per seat and DL and CO decided that instead of a smaller 777, they would go with a larger 767 and the 767-400ER was born.

[Edited 2011-10-27 12:46:17]
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1495
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:49 pm

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the worst current name of the lot... the Sukhoi Superjet  
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
Gasman
Posts: 1420
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: The Epidemic Of Cheesy Airliner Names

Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:59 pm

Quoting PanAm788 (Thread starter):
Am I alone here? Maybe so, but I got my rant out so I feel better. Thanks for reading.

Clearly you're not alone, and I'm joining your club!

Taking things sideways a notch. The most utilitarian of aircarft names was surely the "Boeing 707". Was it simply named that way because the marketing boys back then hadn't attended the same "low IQ school of cheese" that today's ones do, and didn't feel some need to be exotic or imaginative; or did the numbers "707" actually sound as uber-cool back then as they do now?

[Edited 2011-10-27 13:03:36]

Who is online