ewt340 wrote:

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"

False, that is the marketing name.

737-8200 is and has always been the model name that has been used for technical documentation, even before the grounding.

Dash 8?

jeffrey0032j wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

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"

False, that is the marketing name.

737-8200 is and has always been the model name that has been used for technical documentation, even before the grounding.

Isn't it the same for all MAXs? Aren't the models actually 737-7, 737-8, 737-9 and 737-10? At least that's what I thought.

Once the grounding is lifted, it is better for Boeing to re-brand the MAX as low profile as possible.
737-8/9/10 is a good choice as public is get used to a 7X7-X/X00 as a Boeing plane's name,
so no one in public may immediately linked it with the MAX when they read the news/ see the plane in the airport/ see the neame on the safety card.

Even if they get rid of the “max” designation they are still stuck with “Boeing” which is after all, the source of this mess.

planecane wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

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"

False, that is the marketing name.

737-8200 is and has always been the model name that has been used for technical documentation, even before the grounding.

Isn't it the same for all MAXs? Aren't the models actually 737-7, 737-8, 737-9 and 737-10? At least that's what I thought.

It appears that the Max 8 200 has a separate designation from the Max 8.

This just proves they think everyone is dumb, stick a new name and people will forget.

So much attention to "cover things" instead of proving that the plane is safe.
If I were as dumb as they think, and flew on one of this plane, and later found out it was the same exact plane i did not sant to fly I would feel tricked, I would feel my safety has been played with and I would sue the heck of the company.

After all the pr disaster Boeing has been trough the last thing they need is someone "hiding" tricking people into flying this thing.

Just be clear, hey this is the Max 8, and we believe it is safe, the hiding thing, doesn't play that well....buy hey, we are all dumb.

yabeweb wrote:

This just proves they think everyone is dumb, stick a new name and people will forget.

So much attention to "cover things" instead of proving that the plane is safe.
If I were as dumb as they think, and flew on one of this plane, and later found out it was the same exact plane i did not sant to fly I would feel tricked, I would feel my safety has been played with and I would sue the heck of the company.

After all the pr disaster Boeing has been trough the last thing they need is someone "hiding" tricking people into flying this thing.

Just be clear, hey this is the Max 8, and we believe it is safe, the hiding thing, doesn't play that well....buy hey, we are all dumb.

The Guardian newspaper has already picked up on the name change, and no doubt will be watching aviation websites for other MAX information.

Both Boeing and the airlines need to be careful that this is not seen as deceit of, and contempt for, the public. It could easily make a bad situation worse.

The 737-8174 (eg. AA) doesn't sound that good though

jetmatt777 wrote:

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

I thought the 8200 was the year FAA will finally refuse to grandfather another 737 warm over.

LH982 wrote:

yabeweb wrote:

This just proves they think everyone is dumb, stick a new name and people will forget.

So much attention to "cover things" instead of proving that the plane is safe.
If I were as dumb as they think, and flew on one of this plane, and later found out it was the same exact plane i did not sant to fly I would feel tricked, I would feel my safety has been played with and I would sue the heck of the company.

After all the pr disaster Boeing has been trough the last thing they need is someone "hiding" tricking people into flying this thing.

Just be clear, hey this is the Max 8, and we believe it is safe, the hiding thing, doesn't play that well....buy hey, we are all dumb.

The Guardian newspaper has already picked up on the name change, and no doubt will be watching aviation websites for other MAX information.

Both Boeing and the airlines need to be careful that this is not seen as deceit of, and contempt for, the public. It could easily make a bad situation worse.

Exactly, I can see this doing more damage than good, they shouold have learned for the latest fiasco that deceipt an lies do not work well for the business.

It's like they are hiding behing a toothpick... c'mon really, Ryan Air and Boeing (well in this case Boeing has little to nothing to do ) can do a lot better.
In the long run, i can see a lot of potential lawsuits from people deceived to fly a plane they do not know is the "troubled one".

I applaud other airlines saying you can swithch ticket at no cost if you do not want to fly the Max, that , not only tells you the airline love your business, but it will mean people even if they could won't go the distance and troubles to change ticket (they might at the beginning) because if the Airline allows it, mees they are pretty confident on the plane.

yabeweb wrote:

This just proves they think everyone is dumb, stick a new name and people will forget.

So much attention to "cover things" instead of proving that the plane is safe.
If I were as dumb as they think, and flew on one of this plane, and later found out it was the same exact plane i did not sant to fly I would feel tricked, I would feel my safety has been played with and I would sue the heck of the company.

After all the pr disaster Boeing has been trough the last thing they need is someone "hiding" tricking people into flying this thing.

Just be clear, hey this is the Max 8, and we believe it is safe, the hiding thing, doesn't play that well....buy hey, we are all dumb.

If they eventually decides to change the marketing name or remove it, it is not because they believe people are stupid, but because the name has received so much scrutiny. When the plane flies again it will be very safe, as every little bottleneck is ironed out. It takes year to build up a brand, but only moments to destroy it.

Oykie wrote:

yabeweb wrote:

This just proves they think everyone is dumb, stick a new name and people will forget.

So much attention to "cover things" instead of proving that the plane is safe.
If I were as dumb as they think, and flew on one of this plane, and later found out it was the same exact plane i did not sant to fly I would feel tricked, I would feel my safety has been played with and I would sue the heck of the company.

After all the pr disaster Boeing has been trough the last thing they need is someone "hiding" tricking people into flying this thing.

Just be clear, hey this is the Max 8, and we believe it is safe, the hiding thing, doesn't play that well....buy hey, we are all dumb.

If they eventually decides to change the marketing name or remove it, it is not because they believe people are stupid, but because the name has received so much scrutiny. When the plane flies again it will be very safe, as every little bottleneck is ironed out. It takes year to build up a brand, but only moments to destroy it.

Yes, but they think you are stupid as, slap a new name and deceit you into thinkiing you are not flying "that plane".
They can spin the way they want to, better stick to it and do what other Airline do, you do not want to be on that plane, you can change ticket.

They can call it what they want, 737 Super Duper, it's still "that plane, hiding behind a toothpick, and pretending people won't notice.

Go in a bar, pick up a Girl named Shirley, and then find out it is a guy.... that's the 737-8200, the difference is, if you find out about Shirley, you can change course, once you are on the plane there's no going down.....or there is , but it might not be the way you wanted to.

yabeweb wrote:

Oykie wrote:

yabeweb wrote:

This just proves they think everyone is dumb, stick a new name and people will forget.

So much attention to "cover things" instead of proving that the plane is safe.
If I were as dumb as they think, and flew on one of this plane, and later found out it was the same exact plane i did not sant to fly I would feel tricked, I would feel my safety has been played with and I would sue the heck of the company.

After all the pr disaster Boeing has been trough the last thing they need is someone "hiding" tricking people into flying this thing.

Just be clear, hey this is the Max 8, and we believe it is safe, the hiding thing, doesn't play that well....buy hey, we are all dumb.

If they eventually decides to change the marketing name or remove it, it is not because they believe people are stupid, but because the name has received so much scrutiny. When the plane flies again it will be very safe, as every little bottleneck is ironed out. It takes year to build up a brand, but only moments to destroy it.

Yes, but they think you are stupid as, slap a new name and deceit you into thinkiing you are not flying "that plane".
They can spin the way they want to, better stick to it and do what other Airline do, you do not want to be on that plane, you can change ticket.

They can call it what they want, 737 Super Duper, it's still "that plane, hiding behind a toothpick, and pretending people won't notice.

Its because people love to bash the plane. Even when proved safe and allowed to fly, people will love to bash it. Just look at the 737 MAX grounding thread.

Oykie wrote:

yabeweb wrote:

Oykie wrote:

If they eventually decides to change the marketing name or remove it, it is not because they believe people are stupid, but because the name has received so much scrutiny. When the plane flies again it will be very safe, as every little bottleneck is ironed out. It takes year to build up a brand, but only moments to destroy it.

Yes, but they think you are stupid as, slap a new name and deceit you into thinkiing you are not flying "that plane".
They can spin the way they want to, better stick to it and do what other Airline do, you do not want to be on that plane, you can change ticket.

They can call it what they want, 737 Super Duper, it's still "that plane, hiding behind a toothpick, and pretending people won't notice.

Your response here is the very reason why the MAX will change its name. Even when proved safe and allowed to fly it, people will love to bash it. Just look at the 737 MAX grounding thread.

And you think hiding behind a new name is the correct way fo fix this? Yeah let's hide from people what they are flying with, hey let's call it Concorde and charge 20.000 while we are at it .

EDIT:
Will be advising people not to fly the 737-8200 then , the name change does nothing

Bhoy wrote:

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.

At the moment, aircraft designation is only written in their only 737-700, EI-SEV.

Just rename it NEO. No-one will notice

jeffrey0032j wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

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"

False, that is the marketing name.

737-8200 is and has always been the model name that has been used for technical documentation, even before the grounding.

You are correct.

FG says:

The aircraft instead carries the identity '737-8200'.

Although the switch is notable, the name – contrary to a number of reports – is not a new designation for the aircraft, and actually predates both the Max grounding and the two fatal accidents which led to the type's suspension from operations.

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency had been referring to the 737-8200 in documents such as its 2015 annual activity report, published in June 2016, almost a year before the first ever 737 Max delivery.

This designation has frequently been included in US federal regulatory filings from Boeing and the US FAA since at least early 2017.

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

jeffrey0032j wrote:

737-8200 is and has always been the model name that has been used for technical documentation, even before the grounding.

So first time in Boeing's history (at least for their commercial airliners from 707 to 787) the identifier of the variant has more digits than the name of the aircraft itself?

Whenever I make a flight booking our travel department sends me a warning saying “please check if the flight will be operated by a Boeing 737 MAX.” I sent them a message and told them there is no need any more for this warning since – for a normal passenger – it is impossible to fly with a MAX since they all grounded, worldwide, but, of course, they don’t care.

I wonder how long it will take and they will adapt text of their warning.

On a less serious note, I don’t know why but the name reminds me somehow of Harry Potter’s broomstick Nimbus 2000…

N14AZ wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

On a less serious note, I don’t know why but the name reminds me somehow of Harry Potter’s broomstick Nimbus 2000…

Funnily enough the broomsticks in Harry Potter also have a tendency to pitch up...

albertocsc wrote:

Bhoy wrote:

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.

At the moment, aircraft designation is only written in their only 737-700, EI-SEV.

Because it is the only plane in Ryanair that is not a 737-800.
Probably the designation is used to remain the ramp worker that this is not your "ordinary" Ryanair 737-800,
same for the 737-8200 designations (and WN's 737-800 and 321 sticker on many planes in US)

And the public being aware is "sad" because why, exactly?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

They should just rebrand it as Boeing 737-8MCAS , simple. Everyone will forget of MAX.

Airlines care...they need a three-character designator for every aircraft type. We already have the 738 and 739...so what will they call the MAX if they change the name? Currently being used is 7M8 and 7M9.

hiflyeras wrote:

Airlines care...they need a three-character designator for every aircraft type. We already have the 738 and 739...so what will they call the MAX if they change the name? Currently being used is 7M8 and 7M9.

That 3-character designator is driven by IATA, and that's most likely to remain unchanged for the 737 MAX.
Nothing prevents the airline to call them whatever they want on their website; that's where the general public will get their aircraft information.

I am not too sure rebranding is very effective when the product in question is safety related and the public is genuinely worried they might put themselves in danger by using it.

Whether their concerns are justified or not, If someone is buying plane tickets and is genuinely afraid of flying on a MAX, it would take anyone who can use a computer and have heard of Google about two minutes to find out who operates it and what it might be called at the time.

hiflyeras wrote:

Airlines care...they need a three-character designator for every aircraft type. We already have the 738 and 739...so what will they call the MAX if they change the name? Currently being used is 7M8 and 7M9.

That won't change - the A220 family is still officially listed as CS1 and CS3 by IATA, despite the marketing name no longer being C-Series.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

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"

False, that is the marketing name.

737-8200 is and has always been the model name that has been used for technical documentation, even before the grounding.

I don't remember Boeing ever using technical documentation number for aircraft name in the fuselage or advertisement even before the grounding.

Sounds like propaganda to me.

I still can't believe they will put 200 seats in this plane, even at 189 seats its cramped!! People complain about this airline but they still get passengers to go in them, I wonder once they try this 200 seat version will they fly it a second time?

ewt340 wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

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"

False, that is the marketing name.

737-8200 is and has always been the model name that has been used for technical documentation, even before the grounding.

I don't remember Boeing ever using technical documentation number for aircraft name in the fuselage or advertisement even before the grounding.

Sounds like propaganda to me.

They certainly had done so before:

https://www.airteamimages.com/boeing-74 ... large.html

If they do not have 737-800 labels on their regular planes, 737-8200 clearly is a customer-friendly move to alert passengers that they are about to enter an airplane where the sardine can approach has been taken to the next level - so that passengers can turn and run away before they are strapped into their seats and it is too late.

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?" 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.

They don't. If Boeing gets this right(still an unknown) a year from now only people like A.Net members will remember the Max. Each day that goes by at this point we hear less and less. I would not be surprised to see Boeing rebrand it as the 737-NEO.

Point to note, some airlines already had 737-8/9 without the Max printed on the safety cards, so this is not a precedent.

avier wrote:

They should just rebrand it as Boeing 737-8MCAS , simple. Everyone will forget of MAX.

737-NOTMAX

Job done. That’s how it reads on Ryanair anyway

N14AZ wrote:

Nimbus 2000…

If THAT has but been trademarked, it should be. I'm thinking a rebranding if the NRJ ... Er... SpaceJet.

Bhoy wrote:

hiflyeras wrote:

Airlines care...they need a three-character designator for every aircraft type. We already have the 738 and 739...so what will they call the MAX if they change the name? Currently being used is 7M8 and 7M9.

That won't change - the A220 family is still officially listed as CS1 and CS3 by IATA, despite the marketing name no longer being C-Series.

Didn't the code for the MD-95 change at some point in time?

LAX772LR wrote:

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.

While I admit just looking at those car badges made me dizzy many other brands use only letters and numbers to distinguish their line ups without issue. I’d argue their sales are suffering because the generation for which Lincoln had iconic brand recognition are largely no longer purchasing cars or even driving. Buick was another brand that had declining sales due to its image as an old people car. In recent years they had aggressively set out to rebrand. Lincoln, not so much.

Back on topic, most of my friends and family couldn’t tell you the difference between OEMs let alone aircraft type, but when flying gets brought up in conversation now, the MAX is mentioned by name. I think it’s because MAX is a commonly used word and name it’s easy to remember. Additionally, most people I know call the 787, “the dreamliner” with no mention of the numerical designation.

I think another reason that the MAX is getting so much recognition from the general public is the associated “scandals” surrounding its certification and the withholding of crucial design elements to regulators and airlines. I think that’s what sets this issue apart from other high profile crashes. Best to drop the MAX name quietly and move on.

77H

I like how people are blaming Boeing for this. If you want to blame someone you should blame Ryanair instead since they are the one who decides the livery. Not to mention, why are people even angry that the MAX is having a name change anyway?

Almost like choosing to call the 717 an MD95.

Aviation737 wrote:

Not to mention, why are people even angry that the MAX is having a name change anyway?

Because it’s like changing Monsanto to Bayer.

planecane wrote:

Assuming Airbus trademarked "NEO" Boeing absolutely can not do this.

Why not drop the O and just rename it as 737NE.

The previous gen 737 was the 737NG, so it fits nicely.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

planecane wrote:

Assuming Airbus trademarked "NEO" Boeing absolutely can not do this.

Why not drop the O and just rename it as 737NE.

The previous gen 737 was the 737NG, so it fits nicely.

I guess they could do that. I'd go with 737UG (ultimate generation) since I don't think the word "final" would work well in an aircraft model as FG. Certainly there won't be another generation!

jetmatt777 wrote:

Aviation737 wrote:

Not to mention, why are people even angry that the MAX is having a name change anyway?

Because it’s like changing Monsanto to Bayer.

Bayer bought Monsanto. They also didn't change the name of roundup to squaredown. Of course, the MAX has actually caused deaths. Roundup causing cancer is questionable at best.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/

Well this is interesting, as the 737MAX200's name has just been updated to match Ryanair's naming for it (B737-8-200) on the specification information website.

737 MAX 8
Seats (2-class): 162 – 178
Maximum seats: 210 220 230
Range nm (km): 3,550 (6,570) 3,5
Length: 39.52 m (129 ft 8 in)
Wingspan: 35.9 m (117 ft 10 in)
Engine: LEAP-1B from CFM International
210 seats: 737-8-200 *

Gulfstream500 wrote:

to match Ryanair's naming for it (B737-8-200) on the specification information website.

Why are we ("we" includes the world media) assuming that it's Ryanair's?

Could just as easily be Boeing, despite the earlier denials, floating a new branding... that FR just became the first to sport.

Do we have a "before" snapshot to know about when the change was made?

Didn't Boeing build the model for them? Had anyone else ordered it?

More interesting, or disturbing, they now have seats as 210.

I can’t see Ryanair going over the 200 as that would require an additional flight attendant.

737-8-200 was the marketing name for the aircraft from the very beginning. I think the original press release for the Ryanair order from years ago had 737-8-200 on the aircraft. I know for a fact I’ve seen it around for awhile. Boeing no longer uses the -200 name themselves and simply refers to it as the High Capacity -8

Is 210 the exit limit, or is there some regulation for minimum pitch which limits the number of seats that can fit in the -8?