jensona6
Topic Author
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 2:15 pm

Updated: Boeing website updated to match FR's Boeing 737MAX200 rename

Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:06 pm

No April fool joke around here, but it seems like RyanAir themselves decided to rebrand the B737 MAX 200 as B737-8200. Weird indeed?

Source: https://twitter.com/AeroimagesChris/sta ... 02560?s=09
Last edited by SQ22 on Sat Jul 20, 2019 7:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Title updated after threads have been merged
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 6384
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

Re: 737-8200?

Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:11 pm

jensona6 wrote:
No April fool joke around here, but it seems like RyanAir themselves decided to rebrand the B737 MAX 200 as B737-8200. Weird indeed?

Source: https://twitter.com/AeroimagesChris/sta ... 02560?s=09


Aren't those Max 8 seating 200?
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 3879
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: 737-8200?

Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:12 pm

Fun Fact: The “8200” comes from the future cabin capacity they are seeking to get certified for.
Lighten up while you still can, don't even try to understand, just find a place to make your stand and take it easy
 
Wingtips56
Posts: 1177
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:26 am

Re: 737-8200?

Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:17 pm

It's one way of dropping the tainted-"Max" name from public-facing fleet information. Expect more, unless Boeing comes up with a new name.
Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines (Retired). Flight Memory: 181 airports, 92 airlines, 78 a/c types, 403 routes, 58 countries (by air), 6 continents. 1,119,414 passenger miles.

Home airport : CEC
 
swapcv
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:21 pm

they are trying to shake of the stain of the MAX but 8200 is very lame and uninspiring.

Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 13911
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:27 pm

Wingtips56 wrote:
It's one way of dropping the tainted-"Max" name from public-facing fleet information. Expect more, unless Boeing comes up with a new name.


Is there any evidence that the public as a group (not a.net members) has difficulty with the name? Ask your non-avgeek wife/husband/significant other if he or she can name the grounded Boeing airplane. Mine can’t.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
Babyshark
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:35 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
Wingtips56 wrote:
It's one way of dropping the tainted-"Max" name from public-facing fleet information. Expect more, unless Boeing comes up with a new name.


Is there any evidence that the public as a group (not a.net members) has difficulty with the name? Ask your non-avgeek wife/husband/significant other if he or she can name the grounded Boeing airplane. Mine can’t.


737Max, no.

"That new 737", yes.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2648
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:43 pm

Don’t know why they are sticking with the -200 marketing name, Boeing themselves dropped it awhile ago. They should just call it 737-8.
 
a320fan
Posts: 772
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:04 am

Re: 737-8200?

Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:48 pm

I expect the Max name to disappear quite quickly once service resumes, and I reallly don’t get this distinguishing the 200 seat config as a separate type, it’s just a -8 with an additional exit. Should U2 designate their A319s with the additional exit as a different type?
A319, A320, A321, A330-200, A350-900, A380, 737-700, 737-800, 777-200ER, 777-300, 777-300ER, 787-8, Q300, Q400
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 4871
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:17 pm

swapcv wrote:
they are trying to shake of the stain of the MAX but 8200 is very lame and uninspiring.


Which is probably exactly what they want to achieve...
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
triple3driver
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:24 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:17 pm

Babyshark wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
Wingtips56 wrote:
It's one way of dropping the tainted-"Max" name from public-facing fleet information. Expect more, unless Boeing comes up with a new name.


Is there any evidence that the public as a group (not a.net members) has difficulty with the name? Ask your non-avgeek wife/husband/significant other if he or she can name the grounded Boeing airplane. Mine can’t.


737Max, no.

"That new 737", yes.

I asked my wife what that grounded Boeing aircraft was called, and she said, "oh, it's that new 737, the one with the stupid name, right?" :lol: :lol: I swear to God I'm not making this up
If you can walk away from it intact, it was a good landing!
 
KFLLCFII
Posts: 3489
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 7:08 am

Re: 737-8200?

Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:29 pm

triple3driver wrote:
Babyshark wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

Is there any evidence that the public as a group (not a.net members) has difficulty with the name? Ask your non-avgeek wife/husband/significant other if he or she can name the grounded Boeing airplane. Mine can’t.


737Max, no.

"That new 737", yes.

I asked my wife what that grounded Boeing aircraft was called, and she said, "oh, it's that new 737, the one with the stupid name, right?" :lol: :lol: I swear to God I'm not making this up


Her statement is an honest reflection on how not just Boeing's engineering department has recently taken a nose-over into the ground, but so has their marketing department.
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
 
User avatar
PPVLC
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 12:07 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:33 pm

A rose by any other name...
Cabin crew L188 707 727 737 767 A300 DC10 MD11 777 747
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 13911
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:53 pm

KFLLCFII wrote:
triple3driver wrote:
Babyshark wrote:

737Max, no.

"That new 737", yes.

I asked my wife what that grounded Boeing aircraft was called, and she said, "oh, it's that new 737, the one with the stupid name, right?" :lol: :lol: I swear to God I'm not making this up


Her statement is an honest reflection on how not just Boeing's engineering department has recently taken a nose-over into the ground, but so has their marketing department.


I dunno. I’m not sure the public cares about type names at all. I travel a ton for work but most of my coworkers with similar travel patterns aren’t into aviation. Even they don’t know or remember types most of the time (my best-traveled partner recently couldn’t differentiate between a 330 and a 777). The 380 and 787 might be slightly different because they are relatively unique inside, but that’s a lot different from various flavors of 32x or 737.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
KFLLCFII
Posts: 3489
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 7:08 am

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:35 am

Cubsrule wrote:
KFLLCFII wrote:
triple3driver wrote:
I asked my wife what that grounded Boeing aircraft was called, and she said, "oh, it's that new 737, the one with the stupid name, right?" :lol: :lol: I swear to God I'm not making this up


Her statement is an honest reflection on how not just Boeing's engineering department has recently taken a nose-over into the ground, but so has their marketing department.


I dunno. I’m not sure the public cares about type names at all.

But then that begs the question: If those of us with a technical background don't care about type names, and if the public also doesn't care about type names, then why even name a type? Certainly Boeing wouldn't spend millions of dollars in marketing materials and aircraft decals/factory paint schemes just to please a very small percentage of the population who happen to be aviation enthusiasts and/or fanbots...err...fanboys.

So there has to be a reason, and I can't jump to any conclusion other than for the public at large who would probably be more likely to remember the type name of a plane they were on (if one was provided) than a type number: There are probably far more middle-aged/elderly adults who remember stepping foot on a "Whisperliner", "Whisperjet", "LuxuryLiner" or "LuxuryJet" who may have enjoyed it and also have no idea what numerical type of plane they were actually on...But "Max"? That probably doesn't have much meaning to them other than the name of the neighbor's annoying kid...or dog. ;)
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
 
SuperiorPilotMe
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:55 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:41 am

Cubsrule wrote:

I dunno. I’m not sure the public cares about type names at all.


Ask the executives at Lincoln who keep blaming lagging sales on their own indecisiveness on what to name their own products and not uninspired bland dinosaur product in an unforgiving and dynamic marketplace increasingly shifting away from luxury product.

The flying public rarely cares about what they fly and when they do it’s bad news, exactly like what we’re seeing here. Planes are sold and marketed to airlines. Airlines are marketed to the public.
Stop the stupids!- Claus Kellerman
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3188
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:13 am

Cubsrule wrote:
Wingtips56 wrote:
It's one way of dropping the tainted-"Max" name from public-facing fleet information. Expect more, unless Boeing comes up with a new name.


Is there any evidence that the public as a group (not a.net members) has difficulty with the name? Ask your non-avgeek wife/husband/significant other if he or she can name the grounded Boeing airplane. Mine can’t.


True but, the there a large numbers people that do fly that are afraid to fly on it.
 
SXDFC
Posts: 1963
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:07 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:30 am

Using Ryanair or LCC logic..

+25.00 for a seat
+75.00 checked in bag
+5.00 boarding pass fee
+20.00 food fee
+25.00 bin space fee
+ 30.00 airplane fee (because of delays, Boeing will only charge 30.00 an airplane)
+10.00 bathroom fee
+ 10.00 oxygen fee

Total: 200.00

737it will cost 200.00 to fly on this plane
 
bhxalex
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2019 8:40 am

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 6:27 am

SXDFC wrote:
Using Ryanair or LCC logic..

+25.00 for a seat
+75.00 checked in bag
+5.00 boarding pass fee
+20.00 food fee
+25.00 bin space fee
+ 30.00 airplane fee (because of delays, Boeing will only charge 30.00 an airplane)
+10.00 bathroom fee
+ 10.00 oxygen fee

Total: 200.00

737it will cost 200.00 to fly on this plane


Original
 
jghealey
Posts: 131
Joined: Fri May 11, 2018 5:46 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:42 am

danirich26 wrote:
I don't understand why Boeing continue to pump out MAX's that can't fly and end up gathering dust in some corner of an airport or parking lot, instead of just admitting defeat for now, stopping building the MAX or at least slowing production way, way down (talking 1 or 2 a month) and just focussing on fixing the issues that it has before restarting full production.

I think (although I may be wrong) that they need to keep going with production, otherwise there would be disruption in the supply chain - also, they would have huge delays were they to stop production when the MAX is allowed back into service
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 6384
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:45 am

danirich26 wrote:
I don't understand why Boeing continue to pump out MAX's that can't fly and end up gathering dust in some corner of an airport or parking lot, instead of just admitting defeat for now, stopping building the MAX or at least slowing production way, way down (talking 1 or 2 a month) and just focussing on fixing the issues that it has before restarting full production.


Because, according to a report I've read not too long ago, if they were to stop production, it would take them three years to either restart it or to get it to current production level (not sure how & why), but also stopping production would impact lots of smaller business around the world that have a part in the program. So Boeing has decided to take the risk of keeping production on with the hope of seeing its aircraft flying again with airlines.
 
Ronaldo747
Posts: 326
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:46 am

danirich26 wrote:
I don't understand why Boeing continue to pump out MAX's that can't fly and end up gathering dust in some corner of an airport or parking lot, instead of just admitting defeat for now, stopping building the MAX or at least slowing production way, way down (talking 1 or 2 a month) and just focussing on fixing the issues that it has before restarting full production.


Not that simple. You have to stop the whole supply chain behind that as well. If you want to get up the 737 production again, this take many months to set up the supply chain as well. In this case, it is far better to still produce and store them.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10550
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:51 am

Cubsrule wrote:
Wingtips56 wrote:
It's one way of dropping the tainted-"Max" name from public-facing fleet information. Expect more, unless Boeing comes up with a new name.


Is there any evidence that the public as a group (not a.net members) has difficulty with the name? Ask your non-avgeek wife/husband/significant other if he or she can name the grounded Boeing airplane. Mine can’t.


You'll be surprised.

The subject came up in the pub the other night. I think due to the prevalence of '...737MAX...' headlines, it is something which almost everybody is now familiar with, and has a very negative opinion on.

This will not be an easy return to service for Boeing or the airlines operating it, any rebranding will be a real help.
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12403
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:14 am

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:
Ask the executives at Lincoln who keep blaming lagging sales on their own indecisiveness on what to name their own products and not uninspired bland dinosaur product in an unforgiving and dynamic marketplace increasingly shifting away from luxury product..

There's definitely some truth to what they're saying though. Whoever came up with some of the names for Lincolns 10ish years ago, needs to be drug into the street and shot!

Back when I did online sales for them, which then required a followup call on leads... IMAGINE just how fun it was trying to get hard-of-hearing old people (ya know: the ones who actually buy Lincolns) to understand the difference between "MKZ," "MKT," and "MKC" or between "MKS" and "MKX."

Idiots! And I mean the marketers who came up with that, not the potential customers: the latter were used to names like "Town Car," "Continental," "Navigator"... not this crap.

Some people would literally get so confused over just the names alone, that they wouldn't want to do business. As stupid as it sounds, you'll be surprised at just how common that was.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
cesar666cu
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:08 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:57 am

Actually Boeing name the Ryanair 737 Max variant as 737-8200.
Those reference can be find in the FCTM for example.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 5433
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:01 am

It needs to be rebranded and Boeing should lead the way in this area so there is a common industry name.


First it needs to get in the air though
 
MGC1191
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:20 am

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:26 am

I don’t necessarily agree with the notion stated above that the flying public will be blissfully unaware that they will be riding a Max once they are back in service.

After the two crashes and after Boeing’s continuing issues getting them back in the air the media has drilled “Boeing 737 Max” into the General traveling public’s mind.

Remember it wasn’t very long ago where passengers all but staged a mutiny on a Southwest flight because WN uses Max 8 safety cards on their -800s.

Moving on, I think a rebrand is in the works for sure. My only question is if renaming the name is enough to fool the public?

For example if they started calling them the.. oh... I dunno... “737 Leap 7/8/9/10” surely after a while the public would catch on, especially after the sensationalized CNN headline “BOEING 737 LEAP JET IS JUST RENAMED 737 MAX!”

I don’t have an answer. I’m just thinking out loud.
 
User avatar
albertocsc
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:09 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:49 am

737-8200 was already the internal name for Ryanair MAXes before all of this happened, so it seems they just decided to use it also for the general public.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21213
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:11 pm

Wingtips56 wrote:
It's one way of dropping the tainted-"Max" name from public-facing fleet information. Expect more, unless Boeing comes up with a new name.

PPVLC wrote:
A rose by any other name...

The problem for Boeing is that the only way forward is for the regulators to bless the 737 as safe again and use that as leverage to convince the public that everything's OK now.

Thus the "making a safe plane even safer" strategy.

But of course that process is taking a lot longer than Boeing suggested it would, and the longer it takes, the more damage they suffer.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
ACCS300
Posts: 471
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:05 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:51 pm

Be transparent Boeing, leave the MAX name please, the public should be fully aware and have the right to make the choice to fly this thing once it's back in the air. Same goes for airlines who are choosing to create a new name for the birds.
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1941
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:22 pm

jetmatt777 wrote:
Fun Fact: The “8200” comes from the future cabin capacity they are seeking to get certified for.


Fun for who?
 
AirwayBill
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:37 am

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:47 pm

Is there any legal obligation of specifying aircraft type on fuselage? Why not just drop the whole label?
 
SelseyBill
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:38 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:48 pm

Revelation wrote:
Wingtips56 wrote:
It's one way of dropping the tainted-"Max" name from public-facing fleet information. Expect more, unless Boeing comes up with a new name.

PPVLC wrote:
A rose by any other name...
The problem for Boeing is that the only way forward is for the regulators to bless the 737 as safe again and use that as leverage to convince the public that everything's OK now. Thus the "making a safe plane even safer" strategy. But of course that process is taking a lot longer than Boeing suggested it would, and the longer it takes, the more damage they suffer.


Revelation; I ask in all seriousness as a tried and trusted poster, do you think there would be any benefit to Boeing and the whole MAX programme; (or whatever name it might be re-branded as); to say they will only clear it for flight again, once all the world certification bodies in unison have cleared it to fly again?

I can see a situation where the FAA might get ahead of circumstances and clear it for domestic US flying which might be fine with WN, but this might be less easy for UA & AA given they will be carrying code-share passengers on connecting flights from countries/continents where the MAX may not have been cleared.

I'd imagine there might be a sizeable gap between when the US and say, the Chinese authorities clear the 737, but it has to benefit Boeing to get permission from everyone together doesn't it?
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:35 pm

cesar666cu wrote:
Actually Boeing name the Ryanair 737 Max variant as 737-8200.
Those reference can be find in the FCTM for example.


Exactly here is an article about it and that the naming is not new:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ew-459666/
 
GZM1
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2019 2:21 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:04 pm

It looks like a telephone number: “Just call 737-8200-FLY”
You understand I expect to get paid for this.....
It’s all Greek to me! Aeroplane Basic Category Cycle Dynamic Economics Ecstasy Fantasy Galaxy Geometry Harmony History Horizon Idea Logic Magnetism Music Mystery Nautical Orchestra Organism Phenomenon Political Problem Symphony Technology Telephone Zone
 
Yflyer
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:05 am

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:06 pm

triple3driver wrote:
I asked my wife what that grounded Boeing aircraft was called, and she said, "oh, it's that new 737, the one with the stupid name, right?" :lol: :lol: I swear to God I'm not making this up


If you ask someone like that they might not remember what it's called, but if someone saw 737-MAX8 on their itinerary it may very well jog their memory and make them go "Isn't that the new 737, the one that was grounded?" I bet if you had reversed the question and asked your wife "What's a 737-MAX?" you would have gotten an answer like that.
 
max999
Posts: 1114
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:05 am

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:59 pm

SQ22 wrote:
cesar666cu wrote:
Actually Boeing name the Ryanair 737 Max variant as 737-8200.
Those reference can be find in the FCTM for example.


Exactly here is an article about it and that the naming is not new:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ew-459666/


Doesn't matter what the internal model designation is, this is a change to move away from the Max name. The name creates a reputational risk for any airline that flies it.

When the order was announced back in 2014, Boeing and Ryanair were quite enthusiastic with the Max branding as evidenced by Boeing's press release: https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2014-09-08 ... th-Ryanair Looks like all enthusiasm is gone now.
All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
 
Silver1SWA
Posts: 4577
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:11 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:42 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
Wingtips56 wrote:
It's one way of dropping the tainted-"Max" name from public-facing fleet information. Expect more, unless Boeing comes up with a new name.


Is there any evidence that the public as a group (not a.net members) has difficulty with the name? Ask your non-avgeek wife/husband/significant other if he or she can name the grounded Boeing airplane. Mine can’t.


The public is certainly aware of “737 MAX” and that it’s “unsafe.” Could they tell if they’re looking at a MAX? Probably not. But I have overheard conversations with random people saying they will never step foot on one again.

As noted above, WN -800/MAX safety cards caused a lot of confusion and panic as people freaked out thinking they were flying on a MAX instead of -800. The safety cards have since been swapped out and destroyed.

Sadly I think if the MAX is renamed the media will pick up on it and ensure the public stays aware.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
berari
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 3:47 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:48 pm

Maybe Boeing is branding the MAX the 8000, so the 200 seater becomes the 8200.

André 3000 will snicker.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:02 pm

Wonder if negative Boeing MAX branding is having any impact on sales of Pepsi MAX? Posters here know the link to Boeing and the 737, but for the general population, is the recall simply 'MAX' and something bad?
 
Bhoy
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:50 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:40 pm

AirwayBill wrote:
Is there any legal obligation of specifying aircraft type on fuselage? Why not just drop the whole label?

Ryanair's 737-8AS' don't have a mention of aircraft type on the Nose by the door, so I don't know why they even introduced it, unless the original idea was to boast about the new Aircraft type in plain view of everyone boarding. That worked out well for them. :roll:

 
Newark727
Posts: 1541
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:52 am

LAX772LR wrote:
There's definitely some truth to what they're saying though. Whoever came up with some of the names for Lincolns 10ish years ago, needs to be drug into the street and shot!

Back when I did online sales for them, which then required a followup call on leads... IMAGINE just how fun it was trying to get hard-of-hearing old people (ya know: the ones who actually buy Lincolns) to understand the difference between "MKZ," "MKT," and "MKC" or between "MKS" and "MKX."

Idiots! And I mean the marketers who came up with that, not the potential customers: the latter were used to names like "Town Car," "Continental," "Navigator"... not this crap.

Some people would literally get so confused over just the names alone, that they wouldn't want to do business. As stupid as it sounds, you'll be surprised at just how common that was.


I have to say that I'm glad I'm not the only person who feels this way.

Anyway -8200 seems like a bit of a mouthful... at least one digit too many. 737-8200 is a phone number not a plane.

edit: don't actually call 737-8200. It's probably a phone sex line.
 
vxg
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 12:31 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:00 am

I am sure they are having a ton of internal meetings about this and may have even hired external branding consultants and researchers to figure it out.
We can all post what we think for free.
I'll throw out my little bit of advice - I'd rename it the 737-NEO. Why not? After all its a "New Engine Option" and there's nothing unique about those words that should make it a trademark or copyright. It would introduce enough doubt in the general flying public to wonder if there was any connection between the Airbus NEO jets and the Boeing ones....and in all that FUD, the connection with the MAX name fades into a distant memory. I suspect they'd have too much pride to use that name though.
Eventually that thing will get certified and it will have to have a name - so we'll all find out in the next few months I'm sure.
 
planecane
Posts: 1080
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:07 am

vxg wrote:
I am sure they are having a ton of internal meetings about this and may have even hired external branding consultants and researchers to figure it out.
We can all post what we think for free.
I'll throw out my little bit of advice - I'd rename it the 737-NEO. Why not? After all its a "New Engine Option" and there's nothing unique about those words that should make it a trademark or copyright. It would introduce enough doubt in the general flying public to wonder if there was any connection between the Airbus NEO jets and the Boeing ones....and in all that FUD, the connection with the MAX name fades into a distant memory. I suspect they'd have too much pride to use that name though.
Eventually that thing will get certified and it will have to have a name - so we'll all find out in the next few months I'm sure.

Assuming Airbus trademarked "NEO" Boeing absolutely can not do this.
 
sunking737
Posts: 1455
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:48 am

We have the Dreamliner, why not a different name for the 737..Stro Cruiser...or some name from a bygone area
"Don't believe it unless its parked on the ramp, or printed in the schedule...SUBJECT TO CHANGE"

I'm a SUNDUCK......Worked for RC & SY @ MSP
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12403
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:56 am

DDR wrote:
If the DC-10 didn’t have to change it’s name.....

...sure, though take a look at DC10 sales post 1979.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
ewt340
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:19 am

The official name for the model and the config is B737MAX200. So it doesn't really make sense to changed it to -8200.

Either way, they should just replaced it with "That horrible plane on the news"
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 3828
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:28 am

AirwayBill wrote:
Is there any legal obligation of specifying aircraft type on fuselage? Why not just drop the whole label?


Air New Zealand did this with their 787s. Not only are they not branded as 'Dreamliners' but there's no external branding of the aircraft type at all. This was due to the 787 grounding the year before Air New Zealand took delivery of their first one.
First to fly the 787-9
 
speedbird52
Posts: 763
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:30 am

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:34 am

JAAlbert wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
Fun Fact: The “8200” comes from the future cabin capacity they are seeking to get certified for.


Fun for who?

O' Leary
 
crazyplane1234
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 6:58 am

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:34 am

smartplane wrote:
Wonder if negative Boeing MAX branding is having any impact on sales of Pepsi MAX? Posters here know the link to Boeing and the 737, but for the general population, is the recall simply 'MAX' and something bad?

In my country, "Maxx" is the trim level of a car! Perhaps the negative branding is having an impact on Mazda 2 sales! (Ironically, the trim level below "Maxx" is called "Neo!")
Image

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos