jeffrey0032j
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:56 am

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.
 
User avatar
WALmsp
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:58 am

Dash 8?
In memory of my Dad, Robert "Bob" Fenrich, WAL 1964-1979, MSP ONT LAX
 
planecane
Posts: 1134
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:16 am

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.
 
User avatar
hongkongflyer
Posts: 692
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:23 am

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:43 am

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.
 
jwjsamster
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:12 am

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:11 am

Even if they get rid of the “max” designation they are still stuck with “Boeing” which is after all, the source of this mess.
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:35 am

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.
 
yabeweb
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:41 am

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:05 am

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.
 
LH982
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 3:28 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:37 am

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.
 
moa999
Posts: 545
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:04 am

The 737-8174 (eg. AA) doesn't sound that good though
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2003
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:32 am

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.
BV
 
yabeweb
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:41 am

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:44 am

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.
 
Oykie
Posts: 1860
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:05 am

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.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
yabeweb
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:41 am

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:10 am

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 :P, but it might not be the way you wanted to.
Last edited by yabeweb on Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
Oykie
Posts: 1860
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:16 am

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.
Last edited by Oykie on Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
yabeweb
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:41 am

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:18 am

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 :D.

EDIT:
Will be advising people not to fly the 737-8200 then :D, the name change does nothing :D
 
User avatar
albertocsc
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:09 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:57 am

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. :roll:



At the moment, aircraft designation is only written in their only 737-700, EI-SEV.
 
uta999
Posts: 739
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:00 am

Just rename it NEO. No-one will notice
Your computer just got better
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21363
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:35 pm

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/
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
N14AZ
Posts: 3793
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:55 pm

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? :scratchchin:

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…
 
tropical
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:04 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:51 pm

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...
 
User avatar
hongkongflyer
Posts: 692
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:23 am

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:52 pm

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. :roll:



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)
 
f1restate
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2019 11:33 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:47 pm

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

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
 
avier
Posts: 914
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 12:38 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:47 pm

They should just rebrand it as Boeing 737-8MCAS , simple. Everyone will forget of MAX.
 
hiflyeras
Posts: 2050
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:00 pm

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.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1218
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:08 pm

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.
 
tropical
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:04 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:31 pm

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.
 
Bhoy
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:50 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:50 pm

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.
 
ewt340
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:33 am

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.
 
ACATROYAL
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:25 am

Re: 737-8200?

Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:31 am

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?
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:44 am

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
 
vfw614
Posts: 3795
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

Re: 737-8200?

Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:53 am

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.
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:53 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. 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.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:07 pm

Point to note, some airlines already had 737-8/9 without the Max printed on the safety cards, so this is not a precedent.
 
Armodeen
Posts: 1183
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:17 am

Re: 737-8200?

Wed Jul 17, 2019 1:31 pm

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 :lol:
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 675
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:50 pm

N14AZ wrote:
Nimbus 2000…

If THAT has but been trademarked, it should be. I'm thinking a rebranding if the NRJ ... Er... SpaceJet.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3811
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Wed Jul 17, 2019 3:04 pm

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?
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
77H
Posts: 1460
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:02 pm

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
 
Aviation737
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:53 am

Re: 737-8200?

Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:31 am

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?
 
User avatar
CarlosSi
Posts: 579
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:29 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:02 am

Almost like choosing to call the 717 an MD95.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 3906
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: 737-8200?

Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:38 am

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.
Lighten up while you still can, don't even try to understand, just find a place to make your stand and take it easy
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 1842
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:48 am

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 FLY KLM+ALASKA+QATAR+MALAYSIA+AIRASIA+MALINDO
 
planecane
Posts: 1134
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:53 am

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!
 
planecane
Posts: 1134
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: 737-8200?

Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:55 am

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.
 
Gulfstream500
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:30 am

Boeing website updated to match Ryanair's Boeing 737MAX200 rename.

Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:32 am

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 *
Thinking of a good signature is hard...
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12487
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing website updated to match Ryanair's Boeing 737MAX200 rename.

Sat Jul 20, 2019 2:50 am

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.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
luv2cattlecall
Posts: 806
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:25 am

Re: Boeing website updated to match Ryanair's Boeing 737MAX200 rename.

Sat Jul 20, 2019 3:23 am

Do we have a "before" snapshot to know about when the change was made?
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 675
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Boeing website updated to match Ryanair's Boeing 737MAX200 rename.

Sat Jul 20, 2019 3:28 am

Didn't Boeing build the model for them? Had anyone else ordered it?
 
StTim
Posts: 3445
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Boeing website updated to match Ryanair's Boeing 737MAX200 rename.

Sat Jul 20, 2019 3:30 am

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.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2664
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Boeing website updated to match Ryanair's Boeing 737MAX200 rename.

Sat Jul 20, 2019 3:38 am

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
 
DenverTed
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing website updated to match Ryanair's Boeing 737MAX200 rename.

Sat Jul 20, 2019 3:51 am

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?

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