Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
| Quoting dcajet (Reply 48): Brilliant - and if this is indeed the case, Boeing needs to fire the whole marketing department. Are they so lacking in ideas? |
.....
| Quoting Stitch (Reply 7): which is the target audience for all these names Boring and Airbus come up with. |
| Quoting Sassiciai (Reply 21): Quoting SXDFC (Reply 20): How about the 777 ULTIMATE? After all Boeing hopes that their 777 will be your ultimate choice right? What's the name of the "next" version? |
.
| Quoting Revelation (Reply 24): Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 3): Seriously, the least important feature of these aircraft is the name/banding. Not here on a.net. We seem to have countless threads just because a vendor didn't number things in sequence or because an airframe was painted differently than the ones before it. |
| Quoting Revelation (Reply 28): One for the comp-sci geeks: Next++ ! |
!
| Quoting DocLightning (Reply 29): "NEXT" is clunky-sounding |
!
| Quoting BMI727 (Reply 37): 777-9 SP, etc. and use the SP as a sub-brand for advanced variants |
...
http://ww1.hdnux.com/photos/14/20/56/3214252/3/628x471.jpg
| Quoting yendig (Reply 41): How about calling the new 777 the 'Emirates'......?? |
| Quoting cv990coronado (Reply 53): I am told that the fixation on the number 8 has something to do with the Chinese belief that it is lucky. |
! | Quoting lhrnue (Reply 23): |
| Quoting Mcoov (Reply 49): I personally think it's annoying and illogical. I have no problems with skipping the -100, but skipping everything up to -800 |
| Quoting a36001 (Reply 52): And 737MAX, what the hell is that about! Naming it MAX means it can't get any better, so what happens when a new model comes, 737MAXMAX? |
| Quoting Mcoov (Reply 49): The recent trend in naming all has to do with the perception that a higher number means there were tested predecessors. |
| Quoting cv990coronado (Reply 53): Well it might be lucky for the Chinese but it doesn't seem to be too lucky for Boeing. The 787 seems to be the worst experience they have had in five decades. The 747 -8 isn't exactly my idea of good fortune. Lets go back to the old days when Boeing was great and start with the 777-400 |
| Quoting tarmacphotos (Reply 54): I'm just really worried what they are going to name the aircraft built after the 797... |
| Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 3): And then it has to be the "Max" or the "Next" or the "XWB". Wow, so extreme to the max. So next generation. So out there, down with the kids, futuristic, new age blah blah whatever. God I hate corporate marketing departments. |
| Quoting Stitch (Reply 26): Fearing that the public would view the DC-10-20 as an older or less capable plane than the DC-10-30 because it had a lower number, they asked Douglas to renumber it the DC-10-40. |
| Quoting HBGDS (Reply 46): Not a bad idea. After all, they renamed the MD-95 the Boeing 717, and when one of "us" airline nuts called them up to say that the number had already been used in-house in relation to a 707 variant, all he got was blank looks. In other words, history shmistory, so let it fly!!! |
on this "marketing" scheme... There's an addage... "K.I.S.S" = Keep It Simple Stupid... I agree w a few others... just use the next inline number that worked for many decades.
| Quoting a36001 (Reply 52): I have never and will never say "Dreamliner" when referring to the 787! It's a stupid name that sounds stupid. And to be frank, it was a nightmare of a program and continues to be a nightmare of a program. As for this MAX, NEO, NEXT, XWB, -8 or -9 crap, just name planes in sequence! the 777-400 sounds a whole lot better than 777NEXT! And 737MAX, what the hell is that about! Naming it MAX means it can't get any better, so what happens when a new model comes, 737MAXMAX? I just call the 787-8 the 787-800 anyway, and will blindly ignorantly call the 777NEXT (god that sounds awful) the 777-400. I need a drink! Rant over! |
Agreed! Buahahaha!!!
| Quoting flynlr (Reply 59): they could always move on to what the auto companies do .. 777-GT anyone? |
| Quoting cv990coronado (Reply 62): In addition with the 787 troubles it was unlikely that Boeing had the engineering capacity or financial means to built the all-new narrow body. |
 |
| Quoting 3DoorsDown (Reply 38): I can't wait until I retire so I can comment on posts like these. |
| Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 70): 1st 777-200 (A model) 2nd 777-300 (A model) 3rd 777-200ER 4th 777-300ER 5th 777-200LR 6th 777F |
| Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 71): Actually the 777-200ER came before the -300... |
| Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 72): Well it still leaves 7th, 8th & 9th places available. |
| Quoting garpd (Reply 69): My hope is they'll name it in line with the new "787" naming convention. Just an example: |
.
