Talk:Boeing 737 Next Generation/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Accident section

I have mixed feelings about the accidents section with the 3 pictures of smashed-up aircraft. We don't maintain a section like that about, say, the Ford Explorer auto, or Toyota Prius accidents. Tempshill (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It is redundant at the very least. All those accidents have their own article with those same images in them. I can't think of another airliner article more 1-2 accident images and that's for a longer list. Remove all of them or all but one maybe... -Fnlayson (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the images are justified, as they are in a section about 737 incidents and accidents. Why not illustrate it when images are available. Images make the article more interesting, and these are dramatic pictures. It can't be compared to the Ford Explorer (as stated above), as car accidents aren't of the same calibre as aircraft accidents. Every major airliner accident is of enormous public interest (unlike a car accident), as are the images. Thanks.--Lester 23:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

This should be broken down into certified, or recognized minor models. Variants are not 'official'. ie 737-800C, no such thing exists in the eyes of EASA, FAA, or NAVAIR. Its simply an internal Boeing thing. The 900ER is a type certified minor model, but the 737-800ERX is not. Its just the 737-800 w/gear and aux tanks.

Suggest we distinguish from actual type certed minor models and variants of minor models

I see a tree like this making the most sense

model minor model variant

for example

  • 737
    • 737-700
        • C-40
  • 737
    • 737-800
      • 737-800C
      • 737-800ERX
        • P-8
          • P-8I
          • P-8A

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.132.115 (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, that just needelessly complicates things. Companies can call their products whatever they want, and that is what is reported by the companies, and in most reliable sources. I'm not against noting the type certificate designations, but for a general encyclopedia, any more than that is too much info. If Boeing calls a certain type of 737-800 a -800C or -800ERX, then that is what we should use and report. - BilCat (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Seating density

I just stumbled upon this article. I hadn't noticed that it is separate from the 737 article, so that is good. Maybe that article needs a few more links here, since this is a quite detailed article. In the graph at the end, the pax figures are all for 1-class layouts, but represent three different densities. What defines the difference between 'dense' and 'high density' vs normal. Do any carriers really operate 1-class normal/low-density config a/c (aka 32-34" pitch)? Either way, this section would be better off listing 2-class pax #s as well. I assume the 739ER lists 215 just because that is the max possible on any 737 and Lion Air did have a few configured like that at one point, but I'd rather see the most relevant numbers that reflect the most common setups for the plane. (for example, the A340-500 graph could tell you how many pax it fits in an all-business class config, but what is the point when only one airline has a handful of a/c set up like that) Bonus Onus (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Safe to fly?

Anyone feel this deserves some attention?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaWdEtANi-0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.195.247.91 (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Orders and deliveries page

Would it be appropriate for the Orders and Deliveries section to have more detail on aircraft orders? The Airbus A320 family has a separate page detailing the latest aircraft orders and full order history which I think is useful and interesting information. I would be willing to create the page if I have support for it and other people believe it is worthwhile. The information is very freely available and easy to keep track of.

I originally suggested this for the main 737 page but it was mentioned that it is already cluttered, so it would break it up a bit and be more refined having it here, for these specific models.

Bthebest (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

New Infobox Picture (update to SWA B737)

Considering Southwest is the first and primary operator of the B737NG, is seems like an SWA B737NG should be the infobox picture. I mean, Air Berlin, is not even one of the 4 primary users of the B737. User:DONALDderosa 13:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Primary user is not a consideration in picking an image for the infobox, it just needs ideally to be airborne and shows the aircraft configuration, the aircraft markings dont really matter. Sometimes it is nice if it points left into the page but not really important. MilborneOne (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I really like the Air Berlin photo, especially because it has the Dreamliner livery. But if we absolutely wanted a SWA photo, this could be a good one:
Thoughts? —Compdude123 19:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's the photo I wanted to change it to in the first plane. I love the picture. Thumbs up. User:DONALDderosa (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
So, thoughts anyone? User:DONALDderosa (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

737-800A?

Hi, In the orders table it shows orders for a 737-800A. I cannot find anything in the article to explain what the 737-800A is. Can anyone please put some light onto this? Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably the base airplane for the Boeing P-8 Poseidon. The P-8 is a -800 with -900 wings and other mods, along with military equipment. Similarly, Boeing lists a 767-2C version that is the base for the KC-46 tanker. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, i have linked it now so readers now can find out what it is. --JetBlast (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. I added a mention of this in the P-8 entry in the Military models section a week or so ago. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/boeing737_NG/
    Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 21:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Train crash

On 4 July, a train derailed in Montana. It was carrying six new B737-800 fuselages, at least two (maybe three) of which will probably have to be written off. Is this notable enough to mention in the Accidents and incidents section. I appreciate that it's not an "aviation incident2 as such, but it is an "incident involving aviation". Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Boeing 737 Next Generation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

737-800BCF

Information about the 737-800BCF is missing.--AVIA BavARia (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, you could have added the information yourself but I have added something for you. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing 737 Next Generation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boeing 737 Next Generation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Operators

The operators page for the 737 NG is outdated in terms of chart layout. Cam someone make the layout somewhat similar to the a320 operators page? LinK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A320_family_operators — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:44:4203:3A30:8085:616:FF71:1BA1 (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Or perhaps change the A320 to match the B737! the A320 is missing loads of former operators because of the format used. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_737_Next_Generation/Archive_1&oldid=1136572158"