Jump to content

Talk:Boeing 777X

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 196.8.123.36 (talk) at 15:10, 10 December 2018 (→Seating Capacity: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAviation: Aircraft B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Start

Feel Free to post comments or concerns. We would prefer no one being rude to anyone. Please obey by Wikipedia Rules. Thanks --Ncchild (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the page

Because This page is part of the 777 family I would like to make this clear to me. There should be a cumulative page for planes but also one for each model. It would increase learning capabilities on the aircraft because each would be specific. But still have a general overview on the cumulative page. I'm not trying to tell you how to run your site I'm just making a suggestion. --Ncchild (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 737 Classic has its own article, the same goes for the 737NG and 737MAX. A320NEO followed the same path. At this moment it might not have too much information but, this will increment as time goes by. Alainmoscoso (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the One Source

Found another source. --Ncchild (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

For a new article it appears to be a bit over the top on references - do we need three references each for stuff that is not really contentious? MilborneOne (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the section whole from the main 777 article. (Attribution is in the edit summaries.) The refs were already there. Trim a few if needed, and some may already be dead, as often happens. - BilCat (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

I don't think the 777X and A350 are competitors to each other. There is a great difference in number of seats and there is no source to the claim. Rihaz (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A statement like that should at least be sourced. In my view the 777X and A350 XWB are competitors but only partially (777-8X vs. A350-1000) so a statement that they are competing should come with a qualification otherwise it is too absolute and simplistic. At the moment the different wide-body models in the product lineups of Airbus and Boeing overlap so that often there is not a 1:1 competition between the models. The lede should better reflect that reality.--Wolbo (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is already cited later in the article, specifically the 777-8X section. It does not have to be cited again in the Lead per WP:LEADCITE. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source only says the 777-8X will compete with A350-1000. That's one of two members of the 777X family and one of three members of the A350. The 777-9X is said to be in a market segment without competition and the other two members of the A350 family are in competition with the 787-9 and 777-200ER. In other words, the whole 777X family isn't competing with the entire A350 family. Rihaz (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The cited article only says "777-9X more weight efficient than A350-1000 & has better seat-mile costs". This is not sufficient to say that it competes because users will often pay for luxury and the planes could even compliment each other. And the page itself says the A350-1000 competes with the -8X, not the -9X. I think the best thing is to simply not say that it competes. Anonymous 20:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.89.144 (talk) [reply]
Boeing itself claims the -8 is 4% more efficient than the A350-1000 and the -9 by 11% (see #Design) while Airbus claims its A350-1000 is 7% more efficient than the -9. Reality should be in between, as shown by the respective orderbooks. If their manufacturers compares each others, it should be more appropriate than your estimable anonymous opinion.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a Picture of the Boeing 777X

This has been on my mind for a while, but never got the time to express my thoughts. Now that I got time, I am looking to add a computer rendered image of the Boeing 777X at the beginning of this page. Similar pages of aircrafts in development like the Boeing 737 MAX, Embraer E-Jet E2 family, and Airbus A330neo all have rendered images of what the new airplane is going to look like. The only problem is that I am having trouble uploading a picture. I was wondering if there was someone who is familiar with uploading pictures, or a long time member who knows the ins and outs of Wikipedia would be willing to help me with this. This picture I was thinking of using is provided by the link below.

http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2013/11/17/boeing-777x.jpg?itok=IMyZidwD

Would really appreciate if someone would add the picture. Thanks! --PilotJaguar1996 (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your link is to the International Business Times website. It could be under copyright restrictions if they made the picture. More likely, they got it from Boeing. Can you find this, or a similar image, on Boeing's site? That, we can likely use, as like File:Boeing 737 MAX computer-generated image.jpg, Boeing has released the photo "for editorial use by news media". Wbm1058 (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Search Boeing's media room. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The image gallery – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Found it here, and there are several to choose from. Do you want to go with the one you linked above, or one of the others here? Wbm1058 (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I didn't find it at commons:Boeing 777, so I'll upload it. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found it at Boeing's flickr site, which allows me to download it without needing to register. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Wbm1058 (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058: , Thank you so much for the help! I really appreciate it. The page looks better now!--PilotJaguar1996 (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing Press Release in the Lead?

Really?

'Boeing states that the aircraft will be "the largest and most-efficient twin engine jet in the world".'

Can we not violate Wikipedia:Third-party_sources#Press_releases in the lead.

107.77.75.125 (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we say the statement came from Boeing and not a statement of fact it is OK. MilborneOne (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for Flag Icon, or Country Name

{{admin help}} Looking through the edit history for the Boeing 777X page, I have been seeing that the country column section in the Firm Orders table has always been a problem. By problem, I mean some editors would edit the column to have it read the country’s name (Ex. United States). And some would change it to the country’s flag (Ex. United States). The last person who edited that column was SideshowBob7. He removed the column and in the edit summary stated, “there has been a consensus to not add flags to aircraft order lists!” I personally do not remember coming to a consensus of not adding flags, or having the country’s name. I would like to challenge that edit, and see if there has been a consensus met about not adding the flag icon, or country name. I am not trying to start a war or anything, but as for now, I readded the column with the country’s name instead of flag icon. If there has been a consensus met, I will gladly remove it. I need an Admin to help. Thank you! --PilotJaguar1996 (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably ask at WT:Air, since this really involves airliner aircraft in general. I think the main argument is that airlines are not officially connected to the nation's government where they are based/HQed (except for some nationally owned airlines). At least the flags do not belong, imo. (non Admin comment) -Fnlayson (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with user:Fnlayson - the wikiproject is the place to go. You could also ask User:SideshowBob7 where the original discussion is located. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The country names are unnecessary (imo) but acceptable, flags are not for the reasons pointed out by Fnlayson. The discussion I was referring to can be found here: [[1]]SideshowBob7 (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lufthansa orders

in the actual lufthansa financial report ( http://investor-relations.lufthansagroup.com/fileadmin/downloads/en/financial-reports/annual-reports/LH-AR-2014-e.pdf#page=61; published last week) are 34 b779 orders listed, but on the boeing site just 20 (there where never more orders). so: which number is right? both confirmed 34 orders, lh keeps showing 34 in their books, boeing just shows 20 orders, and they never reduced them on their website.... --duboka (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing only lists firm orders, not commitments or letters of intent, etc on its orders and delivery pages. These pages are updated once a month with the next update in early April. Either of those is probably the reason for the current difference, but I think they don;t have 34 on firm order yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but both declared them as orders, in their press releases at the start of the program. So this can't be a commitment or a letter of intent... And if Lufthansa changed their minds, they have to tell it the public because of the German share right... --duboka (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
interesting... lufthansa talks about orders 34 orders on their press release (http://www.lufthansagroup.com/en/press/news-releases/singleview/archive/2013/september/19/article/2599.html) and their financial reports and boeing doesn't give a number in the press release (http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2013-09-19-Boeing-Statement-on-Lufthansa-Selection-of-Boeing-777X-for-Future-Long-Haul-Fleet) at the order date... --duboka (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
was wondering the same thing; here's another source that mentions 34 orders and 9 options for the 779 Yny501 (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing's 777 Orders and Deliveries page lists 20 firm orders for 777Xs from Lufthansa as of April 2017. This only lists firm orders, not orders and commitments or preliminary agreements. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boeing 777X. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreements, not orders so far

Iran Air signed an agreement with Boeing for 80 airplanes including 15 Boeing 777-9s on December 11, 2016. According to Boeing's press release, this was an agreement and that "The order will be posted on Boeing's Orders & Deliveries website as contingencies are cleared." Boeing's 777 Orders and Deliveries page does not list an Iran Air order as of the end of December 2016. So this is not a firm order yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This also applies to Singapore Airlines, which signed a latter of intent for 20 777-9s, according to Boeing release on February 9, 2017. Boeing does not list the Iran Air or Singapore Airlines agreements as a firm order in February 2017 here. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boeing 777X. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seating Capacity

In the Boeing 777 page, seating in a 3-class configuration for the Boeing 777-300ER is listed as 365 (8F + 70J + 273Y) and in the Boeing 777X page, the Boeing 777-9 is listed as 349 (8F + 49J + 292Y). Considering that the Boeing 777-9 is 2.84m longer than the Boeing 777-300ER with the same cabin width across the two, the Boeing 777-9's seating capacity should be larger than the Boeing 777-300ER and not the other way around.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_777X&oldid=872996545"