Have The -8/-800s Lived Up To Their Superstitions?

Spiderguy252 · Sun Dec 27, 2015 6:57 pm

Yep, I am obviously referring to the often publicized notion of Airbus and Boeing designating the numeral '8' onto fresh products off of their lines in the hope of winning customers from the Asiatic region, where this tactic was professed to reap rewards due to the digit in question being superstitiously beneficial.

I always felt that this was a rather flimsy premise, but can we conclude whether this has indeed worked either way? As ridiculous as it may sound, have Asian carriers warmed up to the 787-8 more so than if it had been a good old 787-100? How about the 747-8i? The A380 versus an 'A360'?

I guess the A350-800 and the A330-800neo can be excused because the manufacturer lost interest in the former after the stretched versions rendered it as the modern version of the A342, and the A330-800neo is still in early days of its sales cycle.

Good thing Boeing had the 787-'3' in the works, otherwise the 787-8 would've been shelved in favour of the 787-9, -10 and -11. The irony though? The -3 was plugged exclusively around Japan IIRC.

In essence, I find it hard to believe that multi-billion dollar businesses work in such a fashion that they can be easily swayed by - in this case - a 'lucky digit' here or there. And since they aren't, why did A/B go down this path in the first place? Nothing to lose or did they genuinely have a hunch about something?

LSZH34 · Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:03 pm

A330-800 and A330-900 just sound painfully wrong

14ccKemiskt · Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:11 pm

The lucky 8s are probably an afterthought and a marketing ploy. The real reason behind the number lies elsewhere. The 8 in A380 most probably really comes from the similarity with its cross section. The 8 in 737 series came from that they had reached -500 and with the NG they just stepped it up with -6, -7 & -800. The 8 thus became the "modern" number to stick around.

If the 8 would have any real sales impact, wouldnt we have seen some more A358 sales?

777way · Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:12 pm

Orders in China were cancelled for 787 by MU.

Stitch · Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:59 pm

Quoting Spiderguy252 (Thread starter):
In essence, I find it hard to believe that multi-billion dollar businesses work in such a fashion that they can be easily swayed by - in this case - a 'lucky digit' here or there. And since they aren't, why did A/B go down this path in the first place? Nothing to lose or did they genuinely have a hunch about something?

Honestly, I think it is the media adding 2+2 and getting 21.

Under the current Boeing Commercial family naming schema, 787 was going to be the number assigned to their next program in whatever form it was. The -3, -8 and -9 were the initial design range targets of the planes in nautical miles.

The 747-8 was named because Boeing wanted to tie it and the 787 together as the 747-8 used some systems (like engines) from the 787. Also, arguably it was the next available number as Boeing did announce the 747-500X and 747-600X in 1997 and also floated a possible 747-700X at the same time.

Boeing did not want to name the 737 MAX family the 737-1000, 737-1100 and 737-1200 so they just dropped the last two digits of the current 737-700, 737-800 and 737-900 to begat the 737-7, 737-8 and 737-9. And like the 747-8, moving to a single number ties into the naming scheme adopted with the 787 where customer codes (the last two digits following the first) are no longer used. So whereas an American Airlines 737-800 is a 737-823 (as their Boeing customer code is 23), their MAX planes will be just 737-8.

The above applies to the 777-8 and 777-9, as well. Tying them in with the 787 family of systems and technologies and structures.

Quoting 777way (Reply 3):
Orders in China were cancelled for 787 by MU.

But Air China, China Southern Airlines, Hainan Airlines and Xiamen Airlines are all 787 customers. Air China is also a 747-8 customer and the 737-8 has done quite well in China.

jb1087xna · Sun Dec 27, 2015 8:01 pm

Quoting Spiderguy252 (Thread starter):
I am obviously referring to the often publicized notion of Airbus and Boeing designating the numeral '8' onto fresh products off of their lines in the hope of winning customers from the Asiatic region, where this tactic was professed to reap rewards due to the digit in question being superstitiously beneficial.

I always felt that this was a rather flimsy premise,

I completely agree with feeling it was flimsy, similar to how some hotels will omit 13th floors. I believe Skywest's CR1s end with the 14th row instead of 13th.

777way · Sun Dec 27, 2015 8:18 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):

So what? a superstitous Chinese airline cancelled orders still.

RedChili · Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:48 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Honestly, I think it is the media adding 2+2 and getting 21.

More than a month before the 7E7 was renamed the 787, SeattlePI reported that Boeing was waiting to rename the plane as a nod to Chinese customers for an expected order for 60 787s. In the end of the next month, the plane was named the 787 on the same day that the Chinese order was announced.

http://www.seattlepi.com/business/ar...die-but-787-to-be-born-1161965.php

Aesma · Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:00 am

Quoting LSZH34 (Reply 1):
A330-800 and A330-900 just sound painfully wrong

Considering the existence of the A340-500 and -600, it's not that illogical.

DocLightning · Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:20 am

Quoting jb1087xna (Reply 5):

I completely agree with feeling it was flimsy, similar to how some hotels will omit 13th floors. I believe Skywest's CR1s end with the 14th row instead of 13th.

Yeah, but omitting a 13th floor or a row 13 on an aircraft costs nothing and may prevent some irate superstitious guest or passenger from refusing a room or a seat. Individual consumers can behave very irrationally.

Boeing and Airbus would have to be very cynical to expect their Asian customers to behave so irrationally, although some such behavior has occurred in the past. I think Eva Air tried to reject an airframe that had suffered a minor accident in production and had to be repaired before delivery because it was "cursed."

Stitch · Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:44 am

Quoting 777way (Reply 6):
So what? a superstitous Chinese airline cancelled orders still.

If they were superstitious, they would have kept them for luck.

Quoting RedChili (Reply 7):
More than a month before the 7E7 was renamed the 787, SeattlePI reported that Boeing was waiting to rename the plane as a nod to Chinese customers for an expected order for 60 787s. In the end of the next month, the plane was named the 787 on the same day that the Chinese order was announced.

Yeah, I am sure Boeing played it up for for PR purposes, much like they chose July 8th 2007 roll-out of the mockup to play up that date of 07.08.07. But the plane was going to become the 787 whether or not Chinese carriers ordered it (and Air China was the first Chinese customer - and eleventh 787 customer - when they did so six months later in August 2005).

And Chinese customers didn't order it because it had an "8" in it, just as they did not shy away from ordering the 747 because "4" is nearly homophonous to the word "death". They're also huge fans of the 777, even though the number "7" is considered only slightly less unlucky than "4" in Chinese culture.

Spiderguy252 · Mon Dec 28, 2015 7:03 am

Quoting LSZH34 (Reply 1):
A330-800 and A330-900 just sound painfully wrong

What are your opinions on the A340-8000?

Andy33 · Mon Dec 28, 2015 7:38 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
much like they chose July 8th 2007 roll-out of the mockup to play up that date of 07.08.07

Though this simply shows the ignorance of Boeing's PR/Marketing managers employed at the time, since that only works inside the USA and a very limited number of other places. Most of the world uses other dating systems - so July 8th 2007 would be 08/07/07 in places using the international standard DD/MM/YY (or YYYY) convention, 2007/07/08 or 07/07/08 (ICAO standard) in others, and that's before we consider countries where the year wouldn't have been 2007 because they use a different start point, or the IATA standard DD/MMM(alpha)/YYYY.

Maybe the whole thing was for the benefit of Wall Street and not the actual customers for the plane?

aerorobnz · Mon Dec 28, 2015 7:40 am

If any airline is making decisions for fleet solely based on superstition I don't really want to fly that airline because their management could be making other critical behind the scenes decisions based on superstition rather than best practice. TBH I would be exceedingly surprised if any airlines were operating this way.

LAX772LR · Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:34 am

Quoting Spiderguy252 (Reply 11):
What are your opinions on the A340-8000?

Just an internal marketing ploy for the built whitetail... it would've just been an HGW A340-213X.

AVFCdownunder · Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:04 am

That must be an urban myth. It's hard to believe that a modern airline would be too concerned whether their purchased model number was 777, 787, or 350, as long as price, availability, specification and performance met their needs.

Stitch · Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:30 pm

Quoting andy33 (Reply 12):
Though this simply shows the ignorance of Boeing's PR/Marketing managers employed at the time, since that only works inside the USA and a very limited number of other places.

They're an American company holding the roll-out in America with a strong American media presence so it would have been ignorant of them to not use the American dating system.

Quoting andy33 (Reply 12):
Maybe the whole thing was for the benefit of Wall Street and not the actual customers for the plane?

Wall Street only cared when the plane started being delivered to customers and Boeing started depositing their bank transfers.

Revelation · Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:52 pm

Quoting Spiderguy252 (Thread starter):
Yep, I am obviously referring to the often publicized notion of Airbus and Boeing designating the numeral '8' onto fresh products off of their lines in the hope of winning customers from the Asiatic region, where this tactic was professed to reap rewards due to the digit in question being superstitiously beneficial.

To me the silliness is shown best by noting that the newest Chinese airframe, the Comac ARJ21, has no eights in its designation.

Quoting Spiderguy252 (Thread starter):
The A380 versus an 'A360'?

Yes, and the full designation of A380-800 instead of, let's say, A380-100 or A380-200. Surprised they didn't just go for A380-888!

777way · Mon Dec 28, 2015 4:44 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):

Quoting 777way (Reply 6):
So what? a superstitous Chinese airline cancelled orders still.

If they were superstitious, they would have kept them for luck.

Goes onto show that even they saw it as marketing ploy and nothing more.

Viscount724 · Mon Dec 28, 2015 6:22 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):
Yes, and the full designation of A380-800 instead of, let's say, A380-100 or A380-200. Surprised they didn't just go for A380-888!

I'm sure it's not a coincidence that CX's daily HKG-YVR-JFK flight has been CX888 for many years. Their original HKG-YVR nonstop in 1983 (their first service to North America) was CX800.

AC's HKG-YVR nonstop is AC8 (previously CP8) and their PEK-YYZ nonstop is AC88.

However AC888 is YOW-LHR and AC8888 is a Jazz Dash 8-100 YUL-YQM, neither of those major Chinese markets.

Burkhard · Mon Dec 28, 2015 9:07 pm

I would say that only the natural 8 was a success.

The 737-800 got the 8 just from the row, and was successful.

All the othe -8 or -800 have limited success.

The A350-800 is dead
The A340-8000 one built
The A330-800 will have less sales than the -900
The A380-800 - no such a stellar success

The 787-8 - after a hard start many orders already changed to -900, which will be the big success
The 777-8 will be a niche aircraft, the success will be the -9
The 747-8 - judge yourself.

Devilfish · Mon Dec 28, 2015 9:47 pm

Quoting Spiderguy252 (Reply 11):
What are your opinions on the A340-8000?

Considering it's now part of the Saudi Royal Flight and possibly given a bespoke interior with all the bling.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Charles Cunliffe

.....it's probably leading a pampered life and the extension number must have worked its charms.....

Have The -8/-800s Lived Up To Their Superstitions?

Have The -8/-800s Lived Up To Their Superstitions?

RE: Have The -8/-800s Lived Up To Their Superstitions?

RE: Have The -8/-800s Lived Up To Their Superstitions?

RE: Have The -8/-800s Lived Up To Their Superstitions?

RE: Have The -8/-800s Lived Up To Their Superstitions?

RE: Have The -8/-800s Lived Up To Their Superstitions?

RE: Have The -8/-800s Lived Up To Their Superstitions?

RE: Have The -8/-800s Lived Up To Their Superstitions?

RE: Have The -8/-800s Lived Up To Their Superstitions?

RE: Have The -8/-800s Lived Up To Their Superstitions?

RE: Have The -8/-800s Lived Up To Their Superstitions?

RE: Have The -8/-800s Lived Up To Their Superstitions?

RE: Have The -8/-800s Lived Up To Their Superstitions?

RE: Have The -8/-800s Lived Up To Their Superstitions?

RE: Have The -8/-800s Lived Up To Their Superstitions?

RE: Have The -8/-800s Lived Up To Their Superstitions?

RE: Have The -8/-800s Lived Up To Their Superstitions?

RE: Have The -8/-800s Lived Up To Their Superstitions?

RE: Have The -8/-800s Lived Up To Their Superstitions?

RE: Have The -8/-800s Lived Up To Their Superstitions?

RE: Have The -8/-800s Lived Up To Their Superstitions?

RE: Have The -8/-800s Lived Up To Their Superstitions?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net