Talk:Boeing 737 MAX/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Close as no consensus to merge. See Talk:Boeing Yellowstone Project about merging Y1 there instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Given that the 737 MAX was the outcome of/replacement for the Boeing Y1 project (i.e. the "737 Replacement" project), it seems to me that the Y1 page should become part of the "design and development" section of the 737 MAX page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is another plan to replaced the entire 737 line, then this merger makes sense. Is there any plan at Boeing to eventually replace the 737 line? Is the 737 MAX simply a interim response to the Airbus 320neo? user:mnw2000 11:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Boeing still plans on a new narrow body to replace the 737. Going with 737 MAX in the short term pushed that into the 2020s. There are several articles on Flight International and Aviation Week that mention this. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Boeing will still build an all-new narrowbody replacement, but that won't happen for another ten years. But that's no reason to merge these two articles. —Compdude123 (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose merging to 737 MAX, as they are not the same thing, but it would probably make sense to merge Y1 back to the Boeing Yellowstone Project article, and trim the excess in Y1 during that merge. - BilCat (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Strongly oppose - Boeing has never declared 737 MAX was actually the Y1. They have never declared otherwise, either, but logically 737 cannot be Y1 - it's just an upgrade of an existing airliner. Just like B747-8 is not Y3. 737 MAX is a response to A320neo. Boeing, just like Airbus, don't see the reason to replace a hugely salable aircraft with a new project, for which they have neither funds, nor spare brainpower, NOR the real need - they have over 2000 orders, enough to keep them busy for at least 5-6 years. And the orders don't seem to be slowing down. Leo (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Agree with BilCat. A merge of Y1 into the Yellowstone Project would make sense here. The Bushranger, the 737 MAX was not the outcome of/replacement for the Y1. The 737 MAX was a response to the immense market demand for a more fuel efficient 737-type airplane (as demonstrated by the success of the neo) Katanada (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orders Table

Are there currently any plans for an orders table/page? I would be willing to create one if people feel it is worthwhile. I have been working on a similar one for the A320neo and so would follow this structure. Bthebest (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Deliveries

Maby it would be wise to erase the delivery section as there will be no single one delivery till at least 2017. I edited the section, but my edit got reverted. Table would look like this:

	Orders		Deliveries
Type	Total	Backlog	Total	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017
737 MAX (All variants)	150	150	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	20
Total	150	150	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	20

Njirk (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the need in listing near term years as deliveries are not to start until 2017 anyway. I suggest starting the delivery years with 2017 or leave the off for now. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Norwegian order

The Norwegian Air co. have just put out an order for 100 boeing 737Max8, 22 737-800, and 100 Airbus 320Neo. This is the singel largest order any Norwegian company has orderd ever... 122 bill. NOK Ref: http://e24.no/boers-og-finans/norwegian-kjoeper-222-nye-fly/20145723 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.8.208.62 (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The link you posted is in Norwegian, last time I checked this is the English wikipedia. It would be best to use a reliable source like this on Flightglobal or a Boeing press release. BTW the A320neo order is just an MoU not a firm order, so don't go adding it to the A320neo page. And it's not as big an order as the Southwest order of 150 737MAX aircraft; Norwegian ordered only 100 737MAX aircraft. —Compdude123 (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

See Boeing press release --Denniss (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era

This section contains Bombardier C-series, which is wrong in three out of three factors. It's role is a regional jet, while 737 is a short-to-medium range narrow-body. Configuration? Well... yes, it's a three-wheeler with two wings and two engines. But C-series' maximum MTOW doesn't even reach 737's minimal one. C-series stops at 63 tons, while 737 just starts 66. Era? I'm sorry to upset the Boeing fans, but 737 was designed when Methusalah was a lad and has been only slightly updated since then, while the C-series is a much newer design. Nomad (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You can remove it. In fact there has been some recent criticism of the use of see-also sections within the Aircraft WikiProject. —Compdude¹²³ 02:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a new 737 version, which this article covers so the era does not go back to the original 737. Removing all the comparable aircraft needs to be discussed first. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Boeing 737 Max or Boeing 737 MAX?

It seems that we're in a "move war" over whether the "MAX" should be in all caps. In my opinion I think it should be, per WP:COMMONNAME. Having it be in not all caps just looks weird, considering that it really ought to be all caps. I encourage ProhibitOnions (talk · contribs) to explain his opinion here. —Compdude¹²³ 16:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the change but it was changed again by ProhibitOnions, as far as I can see we have no evidence that MAX is the same as the word Max and is clearly the common name. MilborneOne (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It's quite simple. It's not an acronym, and Wikipedia does not indulge all-caps trademarks, no matter whether "official". There are literally thousands of precedents for this (Kiss (band), Mini (marque), Time (magazine), etc.), and it's explained in WP:COMMONNAME, MOS:TM, and WP:CAPS. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME states that "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." (my emphasis) All reliable sources for aviation capitalize the MAX and so should we. —Compdude¹²³ 00:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"737 MAX" is an aircraft designation, not a name as such, therefore it should be exempt from such guidelines as enforced by ProhibitOnions. Otherwise, there are probably many other aircraft and military articles that would have to be retitled, including the Airbus A320neo page (to Airbus A320 Neo). (Note that Airbus A320 NEO would be allowed, as it is an acronym, if these guidelines applied to designations, had Airbus chosen that style.) - BilCat (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC) - BilCat (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

People seem to abide by the MOS way too much. The MOS is only a guideline, and it should be used with common sense. Common sense, which overrules the MOS 154% of the time, states that the "MAX" should be capitalized. And oh by the way the only rock-solid rules on Wikipedia are the five pillars, and a rule that "all articles should conform to the MOS" is not part of the Five Pillars. —Compdude¹²³ 15:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus to have the "MAX" be all-caps, but I would like to see ProhibitOnions' response to the above comments. Thanks, Compdude¹²³ 02:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) should probably provide primary guidance, but doesn't seem to directly address the issue. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks therefore seems applicable here. The Wall Street Journal follows this convention: Boeing Tweaks Engine for New 737 Max, as does Puget Sound Business Journal: Expect more debate between A320neo and 737 Max as Boeing tries to catch up to Airbus in orders. Chicago Tribune did all caps in at least one article however, and this site does it both ways: http://www.737max.com/ – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The manufacturer website refers to the airplane as the capitalized form. I would assume that Boeing marketing would take care of having it written correctly on their public website: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/737max.html --- I don't know whats the right thing to do here. I'm just sayin'... Katanada (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I emailed Jon at FlightBlogger before he left. He told me the Boeing official name is MAX, not Max. Flight International's editors felt it should have been Max, and the writers all seem to disagree and wanted MAX. However many different sites waffle between the two. It is NOT an acroynm but I much prefer MAX to Max. It's Boeing aircraft and as such I feel Wikipedia should follow the true naming convention. JhanJensen (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think most people would refer to it as the MAX not the Max. Certain news articles use both styles, but the all-caps MAX is the correct way to do it. —Compdude¹²³ 03:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the consensus is that the MAX should be in all-caps, since it is an aircraft designation and not a trademark. The MOS is only a guideline and not a hard, fast rule. It's not like the article is going up for GA/FA review so the article does not need to conform to the MOS. It's common sense that the MAX should be capitalized because that's how most people refer to it. As stated at the top of every MOS article, common sense always trumps the MOS. And MOS compliance is not part of the five pillars, instead one of the pillars is that WP doesn't have firm rules. We all know that, so there's no need to be a real MOS stickler if an article isn't being review for GA/FA status. I think an admin should go ahead and change the article name back to "Boeing 737 MAX." —Compdude¹²³ 03:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur and support the use of "Boeing 737 MAX" as the title. Ng.j (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

While other websites may list the 737 MAX as Max, even most words in the article in Wikipedia uses MAX not Max, along with airline fleet charts that have ordered the 737 MAX. I believe that should you want to use Max, that Max is used throughout Wikipedia, not just the title of this page. ABXInferno (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Page title has now been changed back to "Boeing 737 MAX" by BilCat (talk · contribs). —Compdude¹²³ 20:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

And it was reverted again, as I though it would be, but I had hoped the "user" would show better judgement than to move revert-war against consensus. Again, there are many aircraft designations that use formats contrary to a literal reading of the MOS. I've moved it back. - BilCat (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I would think an admin would know better than to unilaterally enforce his/her interpretation of a guideline agaisnt consesnus. If you genuinely feel we are in error in our interpreation, then address the issus at the proper venue, but please stop reverting against consensus here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Every MOS page says the following at the top: "This guideline [remember it's a guideline, not a rule] is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." These words speak for themselves. Additionally there is clear consensus that the MAX should be capitalized. Furthermore, another user mentioned that every other Wikipedia article refers to this plane as the 737 MAX, not 737 Max. All these reasons justify having the MAX capitalized. I shouldn't be seeing an admin doing things like edit-warring and going against consensus. —Compdude¹²³ 22:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note that MOS:TM and WP:CAPS are guidelines, not policies, as the user incorrectly claimed in his/her edits summary. - BilCat (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

ProhibitOnions replied to my post on his talk page and somehow thought that there was not clear consensus based on some of the statements here. —Compdude¹²³ 18:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Updated info box picture proposal

Can someone update the image. The current one lacks the new sharklets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviator44 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it could be updated, but the only way to do this is to "Photoshop" the winglet from the other picture into the infobox picture. And since I don't own Photoshop, I can't really do this. —Compdude¹²³ 02:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Specifications

I noted that the 737 Max 7 has both a length and a wingspan of 110 ft 4 in. However, the conversion to meters is different. ABXInferno (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Orders

A320neo family firm orders 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total A319neo 0 26 0 0 26 A320neo + undisclosed 30 1120 416 148 1714 A321neo 0 80 62 297 439 Total 30 1226 478 445 2179

Probably best to use a template like that. Tistscien (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Why what is wrong with the current table. Just to note I removed the order verbage as it didnt actually say anything that was not in the table, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You should respect the work of other editors and remove your wrongly reasoned deletion proposal for the List of Boeing 737 MAX orders.

The table and article will quickly grow. Tistscien (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It is only wrongly reasoned in your opinion - if you oppose deletion then you are allowed to removed the "proposed deletion" message. MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

For information order section raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Boeing 737 MAX for other opinions. MilborneOne (talk)

I removed it for now and listed the contributors. If you have another reason let me know. Tistscien (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Why was there no discussion on splitting off the orders info beforehand? This seems like a waste of an article. Text could have been summarized here instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is wasted. Tistscien (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Advert

Sorry fans, thats too much, violating Wikipedia guidelines. Partly even wrong statements from Boeing presented as truth without thinking/knowledge, for example compare the ranges.

Remember: Wikipedia is NO newspaper: that includes just presenting news, and here even only SELECTED, POV, UNBALANCED, Primary sources. 77.185.24.156 (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you checked the sources? Most of the sources are aviation media. Boeing sources are mainly used for orders. Compare its range to what? Vague/non-specific complaints do not help much. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"Boeing predicted that the 737 MAX will provide a 16% lower fuel burn than the current Airbus A320, and 4% lower than the Airbus A320neo.[9] Boeing expects the 737 MAX to meet or exceed the range of the Airbus A320neo.[10]"

Partly wrong, unbalanced, advert. Even if you are unable to see. Period.

You lowered the fuel improvements for the comparison with 737NG by 6%. Seeing that the comparison fuel/ranges to the A320neo is also wrong? 77.186.16.129 (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• That's wrong based on your opinion or [on] what source(s)? Besides the text says that is only Boeing's expectation, not fact. -Fnlayson (talk) 08:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Why must Boeing articles always talk about positive compliments for Airbus Aircraft?

I noticed once again that a Boeing article makes unnecessary and irrelevant references and has cross links to the Airbus competitor. I went to the Airbus aircraft in the similar category (A320neo) and noticed that in addtion to being twice as long and much more detailed, it contains no refernece anywhere in the body of the text to any of its competitors. Structure and even sentences describing the Airbus seem to have been cut and pasted from the Boeing article which seems to point to someone with a connection to Airbus has taken to rewriting the Boeing entries. If the Boeing article has to claim that the reason Boeing is building the MAX is pressure from airlines over the Airbus neo, then the Airbus article needs to state the whole reason for the need for a new A320 was that Airbus is still trying to come up with a challenge to the 737's decades long dominance!

Just sayin'. 58.141.84.124 (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

As seen in the above section, some people consider any Boeing aircraft article to be clearly non-neutral and biased if it does not recognize the inherent superiority of Airbus aircraft, and proclaim the Boeing aircraft to be undeniably inferior. ;) As to your claim of editors with an Airbus connection rewriting Boeing articles, be careful of bandying about such claims without clear evidence. More likely, it's just those sections of both articles were written by some of the same editors using the same sources. I don't deny that biased editors from both camps do edit these articles, but for the most part they balance each other out. Do try to assume good faith though, as the majority of the regular editors of the airliner articles really do try to be as neutral as possible. That said, you can address specific biases on the talk pages of offending articles, and try to work them out there. - BilCat (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Lease is not an order

An IP user has added Myanma Airways' lease for 4 737 MAXs from GE Capital Aviation Services (GECAS) as an order to this article and the MAX list page. I don't think a lease from a 3rd party counts as an order. Also, the aircraft are from GECAS's order(s). So listing the Leased aircraft and GECAS's order actually lists them twice. Does this make sense and seem reasonable or not? -Fnlayson (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Split Seminar Winglets

Fnlayson, I noticed that you removed the "Split Seminar Winglets," could you explain why?--Airplane Maniac (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I explained that in my edit summary, but I'll restate it here for clarity. Boeing's name for the MAX's winglet is "Advanced Technology" winglet. APB's version is named "Blended Split-Tip Scimitar Winglet" on the company's web page. The APB winglets are for 737NGs. Here are the sources in the article on this: [1] [2] [3] which support this. The Boeing winglet is split and flat, while the APB winglet is split and curved. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I read this and I understand what you did. Thanks for explaining, I understand now.--AM (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• I added a sentence in the article about Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) is offering a similar winglet for 737NG to help clarify there. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yea, I saw that. Thanks! :)--AM (I would LOVE to talk!) 19:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

737 MAX Launch

Hi, I think you have misinterpreted the flightglobal source that was provided. The heading reads "Malaysian carrier Malindo Air will be the first carrier to put the Boeing 737 Max 8 into commercial service" meaning Norwegian would be the second "from late June." The source does not state Malindo debuting the jet in October but the source says " Southwest Airlines is scheduled to take delivery of its first 737 Max 8 in May, but will not debut the new jets on commercial services until October." Also the ATW source is outdated which would make Malindo the launch operator "with the re-engined jet to first start on the Kuala Lumpur-Sinagpore route during the second quarter, and later to Bangkok Don Mueang and Guangzhou." -- User:33ryantan 12:00, 21 March 2017‎

When I read the article first, it was "Launch customer Malindo Air is scheduled to take delivery of its first 737 Max 8 in May, but will not debut the new jets on commercial services until October" (emphasis is mine). I though the title was incoherent too. It was certainly a mistake, corrected since.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Seating vs A321

Some comments:

rv: No calculation of 193 seats referenced. And seats are NOT typically, range details without relations make less sense. and vague details in the intro?

Again: no ref accessible. According to Wikipedia rules please post the non free ref, best with details of calculation.)

Lacoste:the ref given is http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/boeing-defines-final-737-max-stretch-offering and states "compared to 193 for a similarly configured A321neo") (undo)

rv: Much too vague. And additionally related text is not written as unproven, undetailed opinion of journalists. Delta has 197 seats in 3 classes in PRACTICE.

And link not accessible.

Unclear if the new Airbus cabin is used, which Max10 competes with. I am tired of "Buy American" patriots, also a few journalists. 87.150.114.89 (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation. The typical seating and ranges are those advertised by Boeing, as referenced in the #specifications section, the WP:LEAD doesn't have to be referenced for data sourced in the body. Aviation Week is perfectly reputable, and while American, certainly not pro Boeing. Access is open after free subscription for this article and anyway wikipedia is OK with offline/WP:paywall refs. Please stay WP:CIVIL and don't assume anything too fast about editors: I am myself French, live in Nantes and studied in Toulouse, both Airbus cities (but I don't have a preference and I hope that shows). The Wikipedia way of solving disagreements is to provide refs, and you don't. Please learn without disrupting articles, thanks! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Its not about aviationweek as news presenter, but there is no scientific analysis at all. You did not read carefully and understood that details are missing. Answer before reverting. Ref added, with details which you don't have and related to the new cabin which competes with Max10. Please learn without disrupting articles, thanks! 87.150.114.89 (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead: Since when is the max. seating / exit limit typical? 87.150.114.89 (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Given this back-and-forth edit war, I have protected the page for three days, and reverted to the version of the article that was in place before the edit war began. Please discuss and come to a consensus here on the talk page. Editors are reminded that Wikipedia is not a place to conduct "scientific analysis" on content, per the WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. WP:CIVIL, WP:LEAD, and WP:RS are also relevant links that should be perused before stating your positions. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Trivial text in lead image caption

No other page for an airliner has trivial information in the lead image caption. With scimitars introduced for the NG, it makes the split winglets of the MAX even more insignificant. It's hardly worth a mention in the lead caption... who cares what is a noticeable difference from the NG? Why does it matter? That's not what the lead caption is for. See WP:CAP which specifically addresses infoboxes: "An infobox image and, in the absence of an infobox, a photograph or other image in the article's lead section, serves to illustrate the topic of the article, as such, the caption should work singularly towards that purpose."

Identify what it is, period. It says nothing of trivia. -- Acefitt 19:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Two editors have disagreed with your claim of it being trivia. Please stop edit warring over this and try to build a consensus to support your edits here first. - BilCat (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I am not the original editor who reverted it, so that's 2 editors (and the MOS) in opposition. Given that no other aircraft lead caption has trivial information, the question then becomes, "what about the 737 winglet is so significant that it deserves mentioning?" It is not even the most significant visual difference to the NG, so why not mentioned the revised lighting? The revised engine? The revised tail? It's entirely your opinion, which is why it's trivial. -- Acefitt 23:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• The split tip winglets are the most distinct change visually in the 2-3 images presented; the engines and nacelles do not show up as well in these images. The caption did list something more important than the aircraft being "on final approach", imo. WP:CAPWORD does say to "extending it[caption] so that it adds value". -Fnlayson (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

What has yet to be addressed is a matter of consistency within the project, where every other aircraft caption concisely states the type, and perhaps if the photographed aircraft belongs to a large operator of the type. I'll call the winglet bit "extraneous" from now on because people are offended by it being termed trivial, so the question remains why the MAX article has to be the only one in the project that deviates with extraneous text? If we want to add a piece of random information to the caption for every type knock yourselves out, but I have a feeling if I change the A330 caption to "a noticeable difference from the A300 is a more conventional wingtip instead of a wingtip fence" I will be reverted and you won't jump to my defence. -- Acefitt 04:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

"The A330 is a longer A300, with a larger wing, belly fairing and canted winglets" is a relevant description, stating from where its design come from and what are its external design changes, aiding visual ID.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Marc Lacoste: Okay, so go add that and edit war with them when they revert you for adding trivia to the caption. I won't be involved. -- Acefitt 10:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I also agree that the information about the split wingtips is trivial. The 737NG had no such thing for its winglets, which were also a big change. The infobox caption should be simple and clear Elshadk (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I am responsible for the caption change when I changed the picture. I asked myself what is visually important for this 737 variant: the elements that distinguishes from other 737 variants, so: split winglets, engine chevrons and round tailcone. The most obvious are the split winglets but aviation partners offers some for retrofit, so a secondary id element was needed and the engine chevrons are more visible than the tailcone. Per WP:CAPWORD, this is more valuable than a specific flight phase (final approach) or worse, an airport that you can't see when there is only sky. I reverted to the consensus state before the edits and reverts, please gain another consensus before changing it, thanks. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

There was no consensus reached on anything, nowhere do I see anybody praising your trivial addition to the extent that it could be deemed consensus. It is interesting that you "asked yourself" a question that doesn't need to be asked and is irrelevant, and are then deeming your opinion (an opinion that conflicts with every other page on the project) to be consensus. As such, given that the caption before you changed it had no trivial addendum, that is what will be reverted to until a consensus is reached. Likewise with the image. -- Acefitt 22:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

It was defended by others than me (Fnlayson, BilCat). The process used is called introspection. Please remain WP:CIVIL, thank you.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay so 3 to 2 is the consensus state? There's still a fundamental problem where you're deeming your opinion to be consensus, when said opinion is contrary to the method used on every other aircraft page. You have conveniently ignored this key point in each of your responses. -- Acefitt 22:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus yet.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. So until one is reached the previous state will remain, which is the flight display image, not the poor quality image with your caption. -- Acefitt 16:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Main pic

As Randy Tinseth points out, the 737max is in service since one year. Perhaps the main pic could reflect that, showing a plane in a carrier livery instead of a subconsciously in-development airframer livery. I went through the 133 pics in the category to select a few, and right now the best, front side over a blue sky are from China Eastern or China southern.

• 
  current, unpleasant due to a skewed sky
• 
  China Eastern, front side, blue sky
• 
  China southern, front side, low sunlight

• 
  Acefitt 1
• 
  Acefitt 2
• 
  Liam Allport via FOX 52

• 
  Acefitt 3

Both show pretty well the most obvious external difference with the NG, the split winglets, and the nacelle chevrons when zoomed in. What is your preference?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, both of them are in poor light, blurry, underexposed, and noisy. I'm going to be bold and go ahead and replace it with one of my images, from a very similar angle. -- Acefitt 03:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Light on both is contrasty and the exposure is OK, the low sunlight is pleasant but a bit unusual for a main pic so I picked the usual one. While taken with a compact and not a DSLR, they are technically sufficient for a thumbnail or a 1Mpx preview, they are noisy at 100% only. While yours is sharper at 100% (but downrezed), it is too much from below so I reverted it. Perhaps you have another one more level, with a tighter crop and a 3:2 AR? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

They are noisy and very poor quality pictures by any measure, but yes I have one that meets those criteria. Note that twice in WP:ACI it states that higher quality images are preferred. -- Acefitt 10:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not think the current Air Canada picture is ideal, as its unusual livery with the black frame around the cockpit windows is not representative of most 737s. Elshadk (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll agree not distinguishing the windshield isn't great, good for Air Canada branding but not for airliner descriptions. The attitude is too pitched up and the angle is too much from the front, showing not enough the fuselage and toot much the wing. @Acefitt:, please gain a consensus on your picture here before changing it again, thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Marc Lacoste: Where does it say in the documentation that your interpretation is correct? Point me to the page please, because I don't see it on WP:ACI. All I see is notes about quality pictures trumping the other criteria. It's almost as if I'm standing on WP:ACI, and you're standing on nothing. -- Acefitt 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The infobox image should show the aircraft general configuration, for which the China Eastern/China southern are well suited: the wing and fuselage are similarly sized, the windshield is clear. Furthermore, any changes should be discussed before, and you avoided that. You are perhaps confusing image quality (composition, light, clarity...) with technical image quality (pixel count, noise, coding...), but the standard image view, not 100% view, are similar anyway.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Marc Lacoste: Just to provide a third opinion here, I'm pleased to see that the original photo is back. Both of the Chinese airliner photos you suggested are of such low technical image quality as to be distracting. The gray underbelly of the China Eastern blends in with the poorly exposed sky. I also, IMHO, would prefer to see a jet in Boeing's "house colors" or in the livery of the largest operator (Southwest Airlines) as opposed to the livery of just a random operator. To reference the discussion below, a jet in those liveries also gives something to talk about in the caption that isn't the airport or plane features. --RickyCourtney (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

They are noisy but technically OK. As explained on top, the MAX is in service since a year and the Boeing livery suggests "prototype". There is no good pictures of Southwest MAXs yet in commons. Note that any operator is OK since the article is about the plane not the airline, and is less interesting than aircraft features.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Marc Lacoste: I'm not sure what "technically OK" means, the point remains that better quality images are available, and should be used per WP:ACI. At least somebody else told you so maybe now you'll believe it? -- Acefitt 22:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

"technically OK" means that they depict well the aircraft in normal sizes. High resolution don't mean high quality. There is no minimum size in WP:FILESIZE neither in WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES. You are confusing high resolution and high quality. Composition and light are more important.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Composition is an incredibly subjective criteria. While I believe that the slightly better on the Chinese aircraft, the composition of the other photos is perfectly acceptable. But because this is a subjective criteria, different editors may have different opinions and there’s really no “right” answer. As to the lighting criteria, which is also somewhat subjective, I believe that the lighting on the Chinese aircraft is terrible. The skies look drab and muddy and provide very little contrast that allows you to see the plane. By comparison, Acefitt‘s photo has very vivid lighting which I believe is superior. Either way, I think we can find an even better image than the four suggested. Has anyone looked on Flickr for images with proper permissions? —RickyCourtney (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

For the lighting, I adjusted the levels on the 1st one, maybe you have to clean your browser cache (ctrl+shift+R). There is not many free pictures yet as it only entered service a year ago. I found this one in flickr but the split winglet isn't clearly showing.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

There are more than enough free pictures and this doesn't even need to be a discussion because, for the purpose of the lead image on this or any other airliner article, I am willing to provide any of my high quality images. You state that composition and light are more important but don't understand what that means, because the images are badly underexposed by at least a full stop and mine have far superior bright and vivid midday lighting. For the maybe fourth time, you are ignoring the statement in WP:ACI that states higher quality images are preferred, and have made it clear that you don't understand what constitutes high quality. At this point the decision should obviously be out of your hands and an objective third party can decide. -- Acefitt 16:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Your second picture has a more balanced composition, but it would be better for the infobox picture if the airplane was flipped, going left, and the problem of the Air Canada Livery masking the windshield is still here.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The flip doesn't matter as WP:ACI, which you have still chosen to ignore, states that quality trumps that rule. The windshield being a problem is only your opinion, given that it doesn't "obscure" the windshield it simply surrounds it. I see nothing in WP:ACI (you know, that thing you refuse to acknowledge exists) prohibiting Air Canada's livery, or any specific paint for that matter. I could switch it to a WestJet, but you'll still find some reason to somehow claim the 2 underexposed cellphone shots are better. Maybe you should read WP:ACI? How these discussions generally work is it that an argument has very little merit if contradicted by the documentation. I have cited the documentation this entire time. You have cited your flawed notion of what constitutes photographic quality. Might I direct you to WP:ACI? -- Acefitt 09:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:ACI: "the aircraft in images should preferably face the text" and Elshadk above: "I do not think the current Air Canada picture is ideal, as its unusual livery with the black frame around the cockpit windows is not representative of most 737s."--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

If you have many other picture, share them so we could pick the most relevant.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

First of all, good job for finally reading the documentation so you at least have some credibility, but bad job by cherry picking from the text and conveniently ignoring the "However, image quality is more important than this rule." -- Acefitt 16:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• @FOX 52: We are currently engaged in a group discussion trying to determine the best lead image; the one you just put in is basically the same as "Acefitt 2" above but of much lower quality, so there's no reason to consider it. Further, at this point we are seeking a photo that is not Air Canada due to "concerns" above about AC's livery misrepresenting the windshield. I've added Acefitt 3, which a) points left, b) is relatively high quality in good light, and c) is not Air Canada. Seems to tick all boxes. -- Acefitt 22:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Then of the current contenders "Acefitt 1" seems to the best one, and I disagree that the Air Canada livery somehow is “fooling” the reader, that it’s windscreen is in a different shape. The only important structural change to be focused on should be the split winglets - FOX 52 (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it's a ridiculous complaint that holds no water and the windshield is of very little consequence, but appeasing people with opinions you deem to be invalid is a fundamental principle of this project, so I guess we're going with a WestJet. They're the only 2 MAX operators in my neck of the woods at the moment so it'd have to be one of the 2. -- Acefitt 03:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Your Westjet picture indeed avoids this. It's still a little pitched up but and show more wing than fuselage, but less so than your Air Canada one. Maybe your POV for leftward aircraft is not as good as for rightward ones. I agree the light is better on your AC pic. Also, white engines better shows the chevrons. I still prefer the Chinese airliners composition, but we should pick the westjet pic and move on.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Primary users

@Fnlayson: Air Canada and Southwest each have 15 frames, and there are reliable sources stating as such. The question is whether we are deeming the only reliable source to be the Boeing order sheet which is now outdated given the rapid delivery of frames. -- Acefitt 00:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Aggregating different sources is close to WP:OR: different dates, different methodologies, etc. Other reliable sources for the number of craft may be used but they have to state both (eg flights' annual airliner census) and there is no need to be on the edge : WP:NOTNEWS.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

There was No source cited or mentioned in the edit. So I used Boeing's order & delivery page to check and make a consistent comparison of deliveries to the top users. As mentioned by Marc, Flight Interntational's annual listing to cite the top operators is what's often done on airliner pages. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

MAX 200 name

I believe Boeing has recently dropped the use of the name "MAX 200" to describe the variant of the MAX 8 with the additional emergency exit, and is instead calling it the "High-Capacity MAX 8" as per various sources including prnewswire and heraldnet

I won't edit the article just yet until I find a few more reliable sources but it's something which should be looked at

Update: found a source from Boeing themselves: boeing.mediaroom.com

ElshadK (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• The main Boeing 737 MAX webpage still uses "737-8-200". MilborneOne (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Further evidence. This one mentions the specific change from MAX 200 to high-capacity MAX 8 pilootenvliegtuig.nl ElshadK (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

prnewswire and boeing.mediaroom are the same press release, prnewswire is just a reprint. The max 200 is a max 8 subvariant (1 more exit pair) and is presented as such in the article, not as a main variant, and the 737-8-200 is still used by Boeing, with "High-Capacity 737 MAX 8" used as a synonym. Perhaps one day Boeing will change its name, so the article subtitle would be changed too. Renaming happens. Till then, nothing special.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

MCAS

Nothing about MCAS och the European or Brazilian FAA-counterparts not agreeing on whether pilots should be informed or not? Maybe at least tell why the "hidden" MCAS is no issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.181.169 (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Another crash

Like with Lion Air last year, a Boeing 737 800 MAX used by Ethiopian Airlines has crashed, killing over 150 people. Leo1pard (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Did you read the article? it is already mentioned. MilborneOne (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Why are there so many problems with this aircraft model's airspeed indicators? 173.88.241.33 (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Not really relevant to this talk page as this page is for article improvement, you could try a forum like pprune or similar as this is an encyclopedia not a forum. MilborneOne (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Strikethrough for operators that have suspended flights

I don't remember having seen this usage before, and it seems unnecessary here. Suspension of operations is no doubt temporary; it is briefly described in the Accidents and incidents section, and the full list of airlines that have suspended operations is given on the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in any case. Thoughts, anyone? Rosbif73 (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't either. Some editors seem to be going to extremes here. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I have recently removed a large table of "grounded" airlines from the accident article, it has been reverted. MilborneOne (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the operators section, it has just been added to make a point, a sub-article for orders and delivieries was sufficient last week. MilborneOne (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Total 737 Max's Delivered

The article currently says "350" delivered but adding up the past several years deliveries in the chart equals 320. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpasmore (talk • contribs) 15:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Grounding

While editors are edit warring over giving Trump credit for everything we can add the FAA announcement actually grounds all the MAXs in the whole world not just US. MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The article now says that Trump announced the FCC ..., where my understanding (from radio news) is that Trump ordered the grounding. That may or may not be important. Gah4 (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Lede

"Following these crashes, Boeing and the FAA recommended the plane be grounded worldwide."

What kind of bootlicker thought it would be a good idea to put the FAA prominently in this sentence, the one agency who was last behind the grounding? 91.10.14.249 (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes we should get this right, and it sounds like it might need fixing. Though we won't know who is right, until more details come out. Gah4 (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The FAA was the original certifying authority for the 737 MAX. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Max 9 and 10 confirm 757 cancellation blunder

The 737-900 and now max10 announcement confirm the blunder of cancelling the 757, which was more capable, and rode better in turbulence. Dmp717200 (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk pages are not forums for discussing the topic, or your opinions on the topic. - BilCat (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

They could be for proposing an addition ... so one addition could be 737max vs 757 as implied by Dmp717200 202.87.170.66 (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I try to be flexible, and assume that discussion could lead toward article improvements, unless it is especially obvious that it won't. Comparisons with the 757 and 737-900, with WP:RS, would seem applicable. Gah4 (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

737-9 incident in Houston 3/10/19

I was on this flight - UA1168 left engine caught fire in flight - airplane made emergency landing at Houston (original destination). Everyone evacuated safely to the tarmac. Kmajmudar (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a minor incident and therefore not notable; "I was on this flight" is WP:OR; there does seem to be a report at [4] but I can't access it (probably due to poor GDPR compliance by small US news sites) to read the details. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

That plane was a 737-900, not a 737 MAX 9. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at FlightAware, news reports, and FlightRadar24, it appears that Ahecht is correct and that flight was a 737-900ER, not a 737 MAX 9. Specifically, according to FlightRadar24, it was N38443, which AirFleets.net confirms is a 737-900ER, not a MAX 9. At any rate, Rosbif73 is also correct that that incident doesn't meet Wiki's notability standards. Vbscript2 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in lede to describe what role the plane is designed for and markets it is designed to serve

I've just come to the article and read the lede expecting to learn what role the plane was designed for (short range, medium range, long range; budget airlines, full service airlines; high efficiency etc) but did not find it. Nor did I find it when I scanned the rest of the article. I'd suggest this information should figure fairly prominently in the article. Oska (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It’s designed to make potential air passengers fearful of flying. Boscaswell talk 04:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Template added by 173.129.78.7 (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD is a summary of the article sections. I t states [it] is a narrow-body aircraft (the narrwobody already define it as a single aisle airliner, as opposed to widebody, long range aircraft or short-range commuters) and [...] four variants, typically offering 138 to 230 seats and a 3,215 to 3,825 nmi (5,954 to 7,084 km) range for performance details. Airline usage is linked to the airline business model, not to the aircraft type; low-cost carriers or traditional airlines use 737s or A320s with no obvious bias.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Worldwide grounding section factual error

The FAA were not the last regulatory authority to ground it. According to the BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47567039 "On Thursday, Russia, Japan and Tunisia banned the jet from their airspace. Late on Wednesday, the FAA told the country's airlines to ground their fleets, but was criticised for not doing it sooner." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.27.5 (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Technically once the FAA "ground" the aircraft then they are all grounded worldwide as they approve the master type certificate. For the pedantic around MAXs are still flying today but without passengers. MilborneOne (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

User:MilborneOne do you have a source supporting that claim? Bohbye (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Bohbye sorry about that I misread something so I withdraw the remark. MilborneOne (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

User:MilborneOne I was not questioning the rationale of what you said, it actually makes perfect sense, but I’m looking for a source and not just original research. Bohbye (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Understood, original research indicates that the type certificate has not been touched as some MAXs are still allowed to fly (without passengers). Some aircraft in Europe have also been ferrying about to return to home bases since the "grounding". MilborneOne (talk) 08:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi~ The 2019 Boeing 737 MAX groundings article is here to stay (voted against deletion) and has sufficiently expanded with details. Let's shorten the summary section under the link to the article. Shencypeter (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 11 March 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Fuzheado | Talk 18:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

---

Boeing 737 MAX → Boeing 737 Max – MOS:TM / MOS:ALLCAPS. I count about 35 sources that are cited in the article that have "Max" in their titles (with mixed case). That is a large number. I see no indication that the all-caps "MAX" is anything other than a promotional styling. The company's self-published material follows the all-caps, but we should pay more attention to independent sources. Wikipedia guidelines say to use ordinary English styling in such a situation where the sources are mixed. (I note that there was some prior discussion of this issue in 2012, although not a formal RM discussion, which is archived in Talk:Boeing 737 MAX/Archive 1#Boeing 737 Max or Boeing 737 MAX?.) —BarrelProof (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - "737 MAX" is the company's aircraft designation, not a name as such, therefore it is exempt from the guidelines. The company has every right to call an aircraft what it choses, and that is "737 MAX". - BilCat (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@BilCat: according to the United States Patent and Trademark Office,[5] it is a trademark registered by Boeing for use on aircraft, so we need to comply with Wikipedia policy for article names containing trademarks for this. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) states "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name". 737 MAX with "MAX" being all caps is the proper name as that's how Boeing named it. We should keep with the proper name. funplussmart (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Both of the above comments seem like some variation of just saying "it's official!" Is there something more to it than that? Also, the WP:NCCAPS remark about capitalizing proper names is only about capitalizing the first letter of a word, not about using all-caps, and also I believe this isn't strictly a proper name since there are hundreds of these airplanes – please see the "Corvette" example in the Proper noun article. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

There are also hundreds of thousands of Corvettes. Also, if "Boeing 737 MAX" is substituted for "Chevrolet Corvette", that paragraph would read the same. So I'm not sure what your point is in mentioning that. Also, if this article is retitled, then there are several other aircraft and military articles that would have to be retitled, including the Airbus A320neo page (to Airbus A320 Neo). (Note that Airbus A320 NEO would be allowed, as it is an acronym, if these guidelines applied to designations, had Airbus chosen that style.) Oddly, no one has ever proposed changing the A320neo article's title. Curious. - BilCat (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

See also Airbus A330neo. - BilCat (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You asked what is my point in mentioning the Corvette example. It is that that the proper noun article notes that "Corvette (referring to a car produced by the company Chevrolet) is not a proper name" and "Similarly, Chevrolet Corvette is not a proper name." And "Boeing 737 MAX" is also not a proper name. So the boldfaced guidance above about what to do with a proper name is irrelevant to this discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I figured out why. :) - BilCat (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This is referring to capitalising the first letter. There would be no other reason for it to start from the "second word". It is not referring to all caps. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support per the nomination and further supported by WP:TITLETM and MOS:TMSTYLE, and exemplified in Mini (marque), an article about the car that BMW call "MINI". "MAX" may be the way Boeing choose to stylise the name, but normal English, as evidenced in a multitude of secondary references, is to write "Max". -- DeFacto (talk). 22:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support Advertising copywriters write "MAX"; journalists write "Max". We're writing an encyclopedia here, not trying to sell airplanes. TypoBoy (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Not necessarily, a google search will show news sources do not unanimously use "Max", many do capitalize all the letters. funplussmart (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You're right that some sources write "Max" and others write "MAX". The relevant Wikipedia policy here is WP:TITLETM, and it says we should follow standard practice (that is, "Max") "unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark". Your observation therefore supports the move. TypoBoy (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support (agreed): Reputable aviation press such as Flight Global use "Max" and "Max 8", a recent example is here. zmm (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Per WP:TITLETM, stylized titles are typically noted in the lede, whilst the title of the article remains as it is expected by the convention. Thus, there should be a sentence that goes something like Boeing 737 Max, often styled as Boeing 737 MAX, ... etc.BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 06:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose That some journalists don't get the name correct isn't a good argument for making it incorrect here, too, in my opinion. Mainstream news coverage of aviation is of notoriously poor quality. The correct name, per Boeing, is Boeing 737 MAX. News sources that are more reputable in aviation matters typically use the correct name with the capitalization. For example, Aviation Week's tag page for the Boeing 737 MAX uses the capitalization, as do most of their article titles that you can see listed there. Even well-known frequent flyer blogs like View from the Wing, One Mile at a Time, and The Points Guy correctly use the all-caps. While I apparently can't link those here, you can do a Google site search on their domains to confirm. Vbscript2 (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vbscript2: but Wiki policy for article titles at WP:TITLETM explicitly says Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim); however, if the name is ambiguous, and one meaning is usually capitalized, this is one possible method of disambiguation. We are bound by that. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems that it is demonstrably the most common usage among sources that actually know what they're talking about. The usage of all upper-case seems relatively consistent among sources that are reputable in aviation-related matters. AvHerald is another example. Like I said before, some reporters who aren't very knowledgeable of aviation getting it wrong seems like a rather poor justification for making it incorrect here, too. I would also disagree about being 'bound' by WP:TITLETM. There's also WP:IGNORE to consider. Though, in this case, I think keeping the all caps does follow at least the spirit of the "demonstrably the most common usage" language in WP:TITLETM. Vbscript2 (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Also of note, the US Federal Aviation Administration, the UK Civil Aviation Authority, the Air Line Pilots Association, and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association all use "MAX", not "Max." The usage seems mostly consistent among sources that are actually reputable in aviation matters. Vbscript2 (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The manufacturer refers to this model as 737 MAX.[6] We are required to use WP:COMMONNAME. WWGB (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@WWGB: there are no plans to change the name, so it will still comply with WP:COMMONNAME. The change proposed is to write it using standard English capitalisation per WP:TITLETM, another part of the naming policy which we are required to use. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Uppercase MAX definitely is common usage, though admittedly not universal among reliable sources. In any case WP:TITLETM is inconsistently applied (e.g. we let easyJet get away with their camelcase styling despite relatively common usage to the contrary), and WP:IGNORE tells us that improving Wikipedia should take priority over individual rules. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Multiple reliable independent sources, like Reuters, Time magazine and the Wall Street Journal use the all-caps MAX form. Eilidhmax (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia guidelines, the question isn't whether you can find some independent sources that use the all-caps styling. It is whether there are independent sources that don't. Actually, the article in The Wall Street Journal that is cited in this article uses "Max". So do the cited articles of BBC and The Guardian (plus the 35 that have it in their headlines). —BarrelProof (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The question is not whether there are some that do or some that don't, it is whether the trademarked usage is demonstrably the most common (per WP:TITLETM, though that is not the only applicable guideline). Rosbif73 (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose I was focusing on MOS:TM, which is phrased a bit differently: "examine styles already in use by independent reliable sources. From among those, choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner. Do not invent new styles that are not used by independent reliable sources. ... Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one". I think the 35+ identified sources are sufficient to demonstrate widespread use. (The degree of independence of the sources is also important, of course.) —BarrelProof (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support WP:TITLETM is clear we use standard formatting unless a majority of reliable sources do not do so. Here are some sources that do use standard formatting (aka the proposed title): Washington Post NY Times The Guardian BBC The Associated Press. Calidum 15:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This is Boeing's designation. Using this same logic, we would rename the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II article to A-10 Warthog, since that seems to be the popular name. --rogerd (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

That specific analogy would be relevant only if this article would refer to the frequent spelling as Max somewhere in the first few lines (like the A-10 article does). Since it does not, the analogy is at best flawed. Arnoutf (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rogerd: the proposal isn't to change the designation though, the only change proposed is to write it in standard English - to conform with the Wikipedia article naming policy at WP:TITLETM. There is nothing though to stop us qualifying it at the top of the article, to explain how Boeing stylise it per MOS:TMSTYLE. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I stand by my original argument, that the manufacturer's designation should be used. --rogerd (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rogerd: given that, according to move request closing instructions: Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions, Which of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines or naming conventions are you relying on to support your "original argument"? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The all uppercase usage is the common usage on many sites as demonstrated by others here. --rogerd (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as per the last discussion we had on this earlier when it was confirmed from sources close to Boeing that MAX is not an acronym or a captialisation of Max just a Boeing marketing name. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you supply a link to that previous discussion please. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Look on this talk page's archive page. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This item from 2012 then, I guess. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

MilborneOne the argument there in 2012 assumes that the requirement to use standard English is only a MOS guideline, and so can be ignored. Now, in 2019, WP:TITLETM is official Wikipedia policy, and trumps MOS guidelines and project conventions, so really needs to be complied with I think, regardless of how we characterise the nature of Boeing's use of the word. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Clearly a stylisation. Move to standardised form per MOSTM - Estoy Aquí (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Unless MAX is an initialism for something, regular mixed case should be used. Trivialist (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think that it the way Boeing using it as a trademark. It just how we know it as. However, I agree with some of the "support" comments. But I want to oppose it for now. GCunknown (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is the registered trademarked name. It is the name also on all regulatory certifications, licenses etc. --Bohbye (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:NCCAPS, proper names are exceptions for non-capitalizing in article titles. MAX is a proper name here, so correctly capitalized, even if other sources use inconsistent capitalization. Brandmeister^talk 15:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: I think you've misunderstood WP:NCCAPS. It means just the first letter of words that are proper names, not all the letters. Like Supermarine Spitfire is not Supermarine SPITFIRE. That means, as it's the proper name of an aeroplane model, we can call this article Boeing 737 Max (but not Boeing 737 MAX) and we don't have to follow the normal rule of no caps - as with Airbus A320 family where "family" isn't part of the proper name, for example. Please reconsider your declaration. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

My bad, but as per others. Multiple official documents follow Boeing's own capitalization, like FAA's Airworthiness Notification, EASA's type-certificate data sheet, ICAO's Boeing Product Update etc. Brandmeister^talk 16:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment, just to save repeating it several more times, for those who are opposing the move based on it being Boeing's trademark, or because it's the way Boeing write it (including, I think, GCunknown and Bohbye) that is exactly the case that the Wikipedia policy for article names containing trademarks covers and states cannot be capitalised this way. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Then why don't we rename COBOL to Cobol or AstroTurf to Astro Turf or Astro turf? --rogerd (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

We use the common capitalizations of those because they're the common ones. For terms that are sometimes, but not always, capitalized funny, we use standard capitalization, even if the vendor has a non-standard one. @DeFacto is pointing out (correctly) that a lot of the people who weighed in above seem to think that the rule is "spell it however the vendor does" That's not the rule. TypoBoy (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rogerd: COBOL is an acronym, so is correctly written in all capitals, and isn't a trademark anyway, so WP:TITLETM policy doesn't apply. AstroTurf is correct per WP:TITLETM, as neither word is written fully capitalised (AstroTURF or ASTROTurf would be wrong). -- DeFacto (talk). 20:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Even though some writers in journalism are writing it as Max, Boeing officially writes it as MAX. --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• The default according to WP:TITLETM is “Max”. Boeing’s trademark is “MAX”. Unless the trademark “MAX” is the most common in sources other than Boeing, the default “Max” should be used. I reviewed recent news stories that involve this airplane, and about 2/3 of sources called it “Max”. “MAX” isn’t demonstrated to be the most common usage, so the article should be titled with “Max”. I support the move. — Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support A number of press outlets use "Max", WP:TITLETM is pretty clear on this. Boeing has said the spelling is a marketing style not an acronym. The only real reason to keep is because that's what Boeing wants it to be called and that's not a very strong one. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 23:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose On Boeing's actual site it says Boeing 737 MAX SchoolBusesC2 (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support I agree with that DeFacto. May as well Support the merger and renaming of the page. GCunknown (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@GCunknown: I guess you need to strike out your oppose entry above - made at 03:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC) - then, if you have changed your mind. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral. Per WP:TITLETM: "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark". This, or the lack thereof must be demonstrated by those arguing for one choice or the other. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 02:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Optakeover: you are misunderstanding the policy. There is no spelling change in the proposal - that will remain exactly as it is now - the only change proposed is to the way the word "max" is capitalised per the requirement "Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim)" of the stated policy. That in this case means changing "Boeing 737 MAX" to "Boeing 737 Max" - no spelling change. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: You're misunderstanding me. I didn't even think or suggested there was a spelling change. We are talking about capitalization? Yes. My point of my !vote is the community must demonstrate which form is most predominantly-used by the media, either mixed-case or upper-case. It is in the exact quote of the policy I mentioned. After doing my research there is no media consensus on what form of case to use, hence my !neutral. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 02:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose 737 MAX is the official name of the product, given to the product by its manufacturer. We should stick to that official name. Kestreltail (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support WP:OFFICIALNAME we do not use official names just because they are official. WP:MOSCAPS/WP:MOSTM uses sentence case when a word is artistically capitalized, when it is not an acronym/initialism/abbreviation. WP:AT use sentence case for naming articles, not title case. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose 737 MAX is the official name, the trademarked name, the name used by a decent number of reliable sources (no hard numbers, just an observation from a scan of the first few page of Google News on the topic), and the name used by official aviation regulation agencies (i.e. the FAA). --HunterM267 ^talk 07:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose 737 MAX is the official name and is used in all official statements I've seen. Omega13a (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose as per OFFICIAL and COMMONNAME, 737 MAX is the official name. –Davey2010^Talk 13:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe the time has come to consider WP:TITLECHANGES: "Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." I do not see consensus forming. 72.94.18.179 (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment with respect to the comments made by Kestreltail, HunterM267, Omega13a and Davey2010 about the current name being the "official name", "trademark" or "common name". That is true, but there is nothing in the proposal that will change that, so those points are moot. The only change being proposed is to change the capitalisation of the word "max" from "MAX" to "Max", to comply with the the WP:TITLETM policy, and there nothing in WP:COMMONNAME or WP:Official name insisting that capitalisation is copied. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Hunterm267: a courtesy ping for you as I got your capitalisation wrong above and the ping failed! -- DeFacto (talk). 16:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Problem is that MAX is a trade name and not a capitalisation of Max so to present it as "Max" is clearly wrong. Probably a case of common sense overrides the alphabet soup. MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

^This, MAX is the offical and commonname, Max isn't - It may seem pedantic that I'm choosing MAX over Max however they use the former as does sources. –Davey2010^Talk 16:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:TITLETM doesn't apply here since plenty of official independent sources (FAA, CAA, ALPA, AOPA) and journalistic sources (AP, WSJ, etc.) use all caps, as pointed out by Vbscript2 and Eilidhmax. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 17:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ahecht: WP:TITLETM doesn't give any exceptions that allow for all caps to be used, other than as a possible means of disambiguation, so as it's a Wikipedia policy (not simply a MOS guideline) then it's reasonable to expect it to be enforced here. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:TITLETM allows for non-standard capitalization when it is used by independent reliable sources. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ahecht: there's nothing in WP:TITLETM sanctioning the use of all caps, even if it is used by all independent reliable sources. That exception only applies to spellings. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose and a comment. It seems like the height of collective Wikipedia hubris to ignore the proper naming of a product because of an arbitrary policy. 170.249.172.210 (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support MAX and Max are used in the media, so I would go with Wikipedia policy and go with 'Max' for consistency. MAX is clearly marketing-speak, even if Boeing uses it officially. Alaney2k (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support by above. Ythlev (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per others. GEORGIAN^{Go Dogs} 04:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:TITLETM. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIAL do not apply as this is not about what we are calling it (i.e. the name) but about how said name is styled, i.e. do we ape marketing and render "Max" in all caps? Which we do not... unless a preponderance of independent sources do. Which they do not. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Disagree in regards to a preponderance of independent sources not using it. The FAA, UK CAA, AOPA, ALPA, Aviation Week, AvHerald, major travel blogs like TPG, OMAAT, VFTW, major airlines that operate the type, such as Southwest, United, Norwegian, Air Canada, and American, and several major news organizations all use the correct "MAX" capitalization. Vbscript2 (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick and Vbscript2: there's nothing in WP:TITLETM sanctioning the use of all caps, even if the preponderance of RSs do do it. That exception only applies to spellings. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support because it looks better and major newspapers such as the New York Times and Los Angeles Times use Boeing 737 Max — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.100.131.96 (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

References

"Looks better" is not a particularly encyclopedic reason, just because journos cant get it right is not a reason to repeat it. MilborneOne (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Same reason as many others, 737 MAX is the official name and is used in all official statements. It's their name they can capitalize it however they want. We can't arbitraily change it.Tgalos90 (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: the move appears contrary to the article naming policy that applies, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). At the time of writing there have been some 38 votes and umpteen references to assorted general policies but even though it's clearly linked from the article naming overview policy it seems to have been missed and this seems to be the first mention. Unfortunate, particularly for closing counting. The naming policy and examples seem clear as to designation being the actual designation and "Name: This should be the official name either given by the manufacturer or the military". while many seem to dislike the name, there seems to be agreement that the official name is MAX, not Max. Per the relevant article naming policy, MAX appears to be the correct form to use. Hence I vote against this proposal to move this article away from the current name, noting that almost all support for the move has been from people apparently believing they were advocating following naming policy. I've also raised the matter over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft with a request for comments on this and additional naming examples on the policy page. Deferring until they have had time to act then following any clarifications which emerge may be best. Jamesday (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose name is whatever Boeing has registered it as. That may be ungrammatical, undesirable, or even inconsistently unused, but that's what, for better or worse, they have stuck us with. See OFFICIAL and COMMONNAME. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose see www.boeing.com. The manufacturer uses ‘MAX’ therefore the official name of the product uses ‘MAX’. East Anglian Regional (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let me quote Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft): "Name: This should be the official name either given by the manufacturer or the military." The "official name given by the manufacturer" is "Boeing 737 MAX". Ergo, the correct title of this article is, and cannot legitimately be anything other than, "Boeing 737 MAX". Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 03:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Exceptions to Wikipedia:Article titles exist when the name of the aircraft has all caps. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 17:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose MAX is the official designation from Boeing, this is just how their product is called. This is not a case of style for promotion but a set name and following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) is the correct way to do it. Just because some journalist (of reliable sources) make the mistake of writing it as "max" or "Max" doesn't mean that is the correct way. Redalert2fan (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly, WP:NCAIR says to use the designation from the Type Certificate Data Sheet, and the TCDS for the 737 just calls it the 737-8 and the 737-9, leaving out either "MAX" or "Max". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose MAX is the official designation not only by Boeing, but by the aviation authorities who govern the aircraft's operations, thus I agree with the above opposing editors. The official sources on the subject are not the media, but the aforementioned aviation authorities including the CAA, CAAC, EASA, FAA, and KOCA etc., who issue operating certifications (using the MAX designation) and certify/control the aircraft's operations. Many of the authors of the "reliable sources" covering the 737 MAX are breaking/trending news producers, columnists, senior writers, associate editors, etc., which means they are journalists, not aviation experts. According to All caps, "Studies have been conducted on the readability and legibility of all caps text. Scientific testing from the 20th century onwards has generally indicated that all caps text is less legible and readable than lower-case text." This may be why journalists incorrectly write "Max" instead of using the officially designated name, "MAX." Because the aircraft is certified as the Boeing 737 MAX it would be improper for a Wikipedia page to use another name, therefore I oppose an article name change. Thanks. Aeroplanepics0112 (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral I've read enough of this to realize that it doesn't matter that much.Technophant (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Summary (intermediate?)

Congratulations Wikipedia editors! In less than a week, enough electronic symbols were exchanged on this important matter (should ax be capitalised in AX?) to make the bitcoin farms in China pale with envy! Right now there are two camps :

• seasoned aviation editors, supporting a MAX like Boeing, regulators and aviation media write;
• new to the subject editors, supporting a Max like general media write.

Right now I count similar forces in both camps. (52 oppose, 40 support)

Honestly it does not matter so much. Both are OK. The Boeing stylisation is a bit ugly, but it's its plane. The general media writing may replace it as the most common name but it will never be the certification name.

What is ugly, is the banner on top of the article and this too long, sterile discussion.

Aviation editors: let it be. Maybe we'll redo this discussion when things will be tamed.

New editors: let it be. Aviation editors will stay after you anyway.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

As an outside editor I support this summary. There's clearly no consensus right now for a move, it might be better to revisit the topic when the 737 world has calmed down a bit... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 16:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please explain lead edit

Fnlayson, please explain your lead edit to disregard flight system under scrutiny for both crashes:

The MAX 8 has been involved in two crashes in which there were no survivors. In both incidents, the MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) of the aircraft is particularly under scrutiny for faultiness. The Federal Aviation Administration of the United States issued an emergency order concerning the system, which details a scenario in which erroneous flight data from the angle of attack sensors could cause the nose to pitch down and initiate an unrecoverable stall, especially at lower altitudes. The emergency operation directive included giving the flight crew horizontal stabilizer trim procedures to neutralize any similar scenario.

Note: The aforementioned pitch down does not initiate an unrecoverable stall, but an unrecoverable dive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Manuel Lopes Monteiro (talk • contribs) 13:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

You said it lacked sourcing and it is out of place, but yet if you view pages for the DC10, or 787, for example, you will see information such as this in the lead. Also, sourcing is there for the claims and no certainty of the MCAS was stated. Thank you.

Reverted edit until further discussion is had by users. I contest the MCAS should be mentioned in the lead paragraphs. I would also attest to the fact that the two crashes should be detailed further in the lead as in the 787 battery troubles and DC10 cargo door problems in their respective Wikipedia pages (as an example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curivity (talk • contribs) 23:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Edits are being reverted. What does the community think? Should we put MCAS issues in the lead paragraphs?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Curivity (talk • contribs) 23:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

References

What you added in the lead is too detailed for a summary. The Lead is supposed to summarize the body of the article and not introduce new information (see MOS:LEAD for more). Also, the text starting at "concerning the system" is not clearly cited since it follows the references. I moved this text and refs to Accidents section and shortened/reworded. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Fnlayson Yes, I understand. I wasn't presenting new information in the lead as the MCAS issues have already been introduced and described in the body. I maintain we should describe the specific faults in the lead as we learn more information.

Cancellation of 737 MAX order by Garuda

Should probably be noted in the article: [7][8] Zazpot (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

That's still negotiating terms, like the NBC article says. We can wait until Boeing removes it from their order book and we update the Orders table in this article. This is not a big deal now. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

The fourth paragraph of the lead currently begins Following two fatal crashes of MAX 8 aircraft in October 2018 and March 2019, regulatory authorities around the world grounded the aircraft series for an indefinite time period, as of March 13, 2019. Could we please lose either time or period, as having both makes us sound faintly ridiculous? I think I'd rather lose time so we are left with grounded the aircraft series for an indefinite period, as of ... but I don't think it matters too much as long as we lose the uncomfortable tautology. Or maybe someone can cleverly restructure to avoid the issue? But the version current right now is not a good read. Thanks and best to all 82.39.96.55 (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done WikiHannibal (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks WikiHannibal, that"s great. Best wishes 82.39.96.55 (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

In the Accidents and incidents section, is this event reported by Bloomberg is significant enough to be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivier rt (talk • contribs) 12:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

 Already done: That event (and that exact cite) is already included in the description of the Lion Air crash in the Accidents and incidents section. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Certification

Added some text about Boeing "self-certifying", which has been widely discussed in the press around the two accidents. It is the subject of investigations and may conceivably be a root cause of the accidents. As such I think that it is of interest. I realize that it may be seen as important not to have this on the page as it does not promote U.S. industry. However, wikipedia needs also to maintain credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.188.60 (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

No one here is going to see something as not important because it does not promote U.S. industry (see WP:NPOV and WP:AGF), and the investigation should certainly be mentioned in the article, but I'm not sure that it should go in the lead section. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

There are several sources, at this point mostly reputable news outlets, CNN, WSJ, etc., that report acceleration of the certification for commercial reasons in relation to competition from Airbus. I think that this should be mentioned. We are not here to serve Boeing, although many of us are aviation enthusiasts, who recognize Boeing's importance. In the long run, if confirmed, a flawed certification process is an important subject in relation to this aircraft type. It may reasonably suggest other safety problems. I think it is of interest to readers. However, this has been removed from the current page. Would someone please add it back in wikipedia style? I am not enough of an expert on wikipedia to know how to do it in a way that does not get it immediately removed by an editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.188.59 (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

That information is already in the article in the Flight testing section: During the certification process, the FAA delegated many evaluations to Boeing, allowing the manufacturer to review their own product. As of March 17, 2019, the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Inspector General and federal prosecutors at the Justice Department were investigating the FAA's safety review process for the Boeing 737 MAX series. It is also in the top section of 2019 Boeing 737 MAX groundings. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear Ahecht, Thank you. However, what is still missing is the context in several of the sources, i.e. that this accelerated certification process was driven at least in part by a desire to compete with Airbus, especially in relation to the 320neo. For example the source http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/report-the-regulatory-failures-of-the-boeing-737-max.html states "In 2015, Boeing reportedly pushed to expedite the 737 MAX’s approval in order to compete with the comparable Airbus A320neo, which had hit the market nine months ahead of Boeing’s newest 737 model. Several FAA employees told the Seattle Times that their managers asked them to hurry up the process, and hand over more work to Boeing. “There was constant pressure to reevaluate our initial decisions,” said one former FAA safety engineer. “Review was rushed to reach certain certification dates.”" with similar information in many other sources. Is there a way to include a sentence to this effect somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.188.93 (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I hope for Boeing's and the FAA's sake rumours of 'self-certification' are false because if they are found to be true it is likely to result in other countries aviation authorities declaring the aircraft Type certificates invalid, which will ground the affected aircraft permanently outside of the US until a valid certification process recognised by other countries is carried out.

Tried to add a sentence about competition with Airbus as a driver for expedited certification. Was removed. Tried again now. I know that people want to support Boeing. However, the certification and the reported cooperation with FAA to get this done fast to compete with airbus are important to the topic and are widely reported. One implication is that there may be other hidden safety problems with this aircraft which were not revealed in the expedited certification and might only become evident in investigations of future crashes. I am a novice a wikipedia so I suppose the experts who support Boeing can find a way to remove whatever I write. I hope someone more expert can figure out how to include something that is acceptable to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.188.102 (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you just be patient as I suspect that more information will be made public within the next week or so.

Since you are a novice, may I welcome you to Wikipedia and also offer you some advice from an old hand. You will as yet be largely unaware of our house rules, generally referred to as our "policies and guidelines". Almost all novices who make significant edits will find them removed because they breach some rule or other. Please do consider the obvious before embarking on conspiracy theories - and take care in any event, as falsely accusing other editors of bias is also against our house rules. If you can bring yourself to "assume good faith" among the more experienced editors, I am confident that your experience will improve immeasurably. As for the present article, it is great that it seems to have brought so many new editors to Wikipedia, but the downside is that the quality of their edits is right at the bottom of a long learning curve. I am no friend of Boeing, but nor am I a friend of bad editing. Begin with minor tidying-up and slowly expand the scope of your edits as you gain experience. Wait until you too are an expert before bogging yourself down in the conspiracies that do indeed erupt from time to time. I really hope you will stick with us and enjoy the climb. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Also potentially relevant: limited FAA scrutiny of 737 Max software: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/business/boeing-elaine-chao.html . If the FAA did not adequately scrutinise the software, then they were effectively leaving that responsibility to Boeing. Zazpot (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

There are a number of US news reports on YouTube stating that a subpoena has been issued by the DOJ for documents and e-mails concerning the certification process, which doesn't look good. [9]

If the FAA's certification process is brought into doubt then that will effectively invalidate their certification of the aircraft, and the aircraft's Certificate of Airworthiness, worldwide, and the aircraft will not be allowed to fly again outside of the US until a full and impartial re-certification process is carried out, the whole point of certification being that in the interests of public and pilot safety it is not carried out by a manufacturer without outside impartial and suitably-qualified supervision.

This could take six to nine months, if not longer, depending on the damage to the reputations done to the parties concerned and the time it takes to sort out a re-certification process agreeable to the other aviation authorities around the world. In other words, 'self certifying' isn't a good idea no matter how much of a hurry to get an aircraft into service you might be.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Please folks, remember that Talk pages should not be used as a forum for discussions about the topic in general, merely for discussions about how to improve the article. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I try to give some leeway that discussion can lead to article improvements, unless it is too far off topic. I think even more in this case, where things change fast, and what should be in the article also changes fast. Or, as I believe is actually written, assume good faith. Gah4 (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, it was just a FYI.

In the lead section, paragraph four it says "On March 19, 2019, the U.S. Department of Transportation requested an audit of the regulatory process that led to the aircraft's certification in 2017,[12][13] amid concerns that current U.S. rules allow manufacturers to largely "self-certify" aircraft [14]." However, this is not supported by the given reference. The reference says that Boeing can largely self-certify. Importantly, it does not say that this extends to other manufacturers, e.g. airbus or embraer. I cannot correct this because the page is locked, but I suggest that someone change "allow manufacturers" to "allow Boeing" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.188.10 (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The reference talks of a system that allows manufactures like Boeing to largely self-certify aircraft (my emphasis). US rules apply to US manufacturers only (and hence not to Airbus and Embraer). Rosbif73 (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

News reports from CBS News here [10] and here [11] that states that some 'self certification' was allowed by the US Congress after 9/11.

If so, if the other national aviation authorities were not informed of this and have not agreed to it, this might call into question the international certification of every Boeing commercial aircraft certified after that time, i.e., since 2001. This could result in them also being grounded outside the US too, not just the 737 Max 8 & 9 series.

On top of this, it is also possible that there may be calls to re-open some previous accident investigations in light of any possible new information that was not available at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

News item on American Airlines stating it won't fly the aircraft again until at least the 24th April, here: [12], presumably that is when the Boeing software 'fix' is scheduled to be deployed and effectively means AA won't fly them even if the FAA rescinds the US grounding order before then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Acting Chairman of the FAA Daniel Elwell in a senate hearing on the certification of the aircraft here: [13], neither he nor his interrogator seeming to understand that no airline is going to order an additional safety feature if the airline isn't told what it is for, or what potential problem it is meant to avoid, the airline having justifiable reason for thinking after the FAA's Certification of the aircraft that it is otherwise 100% safe without it.

Former NTSB Chairman Jim Hall speaking before the aircraft was grounded in the US here: [14] and a CBC News report on the lack of any mention of MCAS in the Boeing flight crew manual for the aircraft other than a short four-word entry in the manual's glossary, here; [15]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Edited the text to just say that FAA rules allowed Boeing and remove implications about whether or not this was allowed for others, since that is in dispute -- Boeing has few competitors, apparently Airbus would have also had the same rules if it was based in the U.S., which it is not, and the back and forth around this line needed resolution. Whether the rules would have allowed Airbus .. is not clear so not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.116.99.163 (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Whilst it is possible the same 'self certifying' rules apply to Airbus Industrie within France it is very unlikely as to do this would require the informing-of and agreement-of just about every national certifying authority around the world.

A national certifying authority that changes the way it performs certification without the agreement of the other national aviation authorities risks these other aviation authorities declaring the aircraft's certification invalid and them banning it from their airspace.

CNBC News report that states preliminary findings of the Ethiopian Airlines accident investigation reveal that the anti-stall system was activated at the time of the crash, here: [16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

CNN News report that the Ethiopian Airlines pilot followed Boeing's recommended procedure for dealing with MCAS problems prior to crash, here: [17], similar CBS News report here: [18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.15 (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Later CNN News report that has more details, crew followed recommended procedure but after disabling stabiliser trim could not get stabiliser to return from extreme nose-down trim as commanded by MCAS before disabling, here: [19]

The only way to get the stabiliser back to normal neutral trim is to turn back on the stabiliser trim but that was immediately being countermanded by the MCAS system. The pilots who managed to recover control by turning off the stabiliser trim were very lucky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.75 (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Please, WP:NOTAFORUM. User 95.149.173.15, this has already been explained to you above. Also this section is on certification and a lot of your responses are to yourself. WikiHannibal (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think we can all safely conclude that 'self certifying' wasn't A Great Idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.216 (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Fnlayson - nacelle aero

Hi. You revoked my edit. Comment was "remove possibly copied text and over detailed, not clearly not covered by source provided".

The material was not copied. I wrote it having read the PDF, which covered the problems with the MAX/MCAS, which is linked to in the ref. The link is to a Google Drive document, which is in part why I linked to the parent article in the RISKS digest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.58.238.150 (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

References should be linked directly in citations so others can readily verify content. The text was much too long there for an section about engines. I left a sentence summarizing the nacelles contributing to the pitching issue. You are welcome to cite that if want. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It was a one paragraph ref which explained what the link was. It was not hard to find. The reference document has now led to a Slashdot post, which can also be used as a reference. The sentence left in is "The new nacelles being larger and more forward possess aerodynamic properties which act to further increase the pitch rate". This is almost not grammatic - "further increases" - further than what? and when? it is contextless and by that confusing. I may be wrong, but I don't think you've read the referenced document and so you don't know the information necessary to work with the edit. The document explains the background of the MCAS fault. The key issues are the airframe design, the addition of larger engines leading to dynamically unstable pitch and the use of a software solution - which was flawed - to address this issue, and that Boeing argued that solution mean pilots did not need retraining and did not need to know about that system. The article is incomplete without this - the added text, which you removed, went part-way to getting that information into the article. Rather than remove, please read the referenced document and edit. The Slashdor article is here [20] 176.58.238.150 (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Slashdot looks like a blog or message board so doesnt count as reliable. MilborneOne (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Engine Issues

Adding engine issue under incidents, which occured within weeks of the two recent 737 max 8 crashes as there is important precedence on engine failures on the 737 max, namely:

-->Deliveries (including to Norwegian air) and flights were suspended by Boeing due to engine failures, which required dozens of engines to be removed from 737 max 8 aircraft and shipped to an inspection facility in Indiana:

-->There have been other engine failures prior to the December incident which are all recent occurrences for the 737 max.

-->There were at least 2 engine failures on the 737 max, through January 2019, within less than 1 month of each other and both within weeks of the 2 737 max crashes. Both are still under investigation.Xoltron (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The first failures mentioned (causing the delay in deliveries) might be worth mentioning in the section on Orders and deliveries but given the length of the section (=short), I doubt that. The other failures are clearly not notable. The fact they occured "within weeks of the two recent 737 max 8 crashes" is probably why they are reported by the media but such things happen with many aircraft all the time and do not get reported = WP:UNDUE as summarized in WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION. I will not revert your edit but please amend it yourself. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Equally, once your insertions have been reverted (in this case at least twice by two different editors), the next step in the WP:BRD cycle is to discuss the concerns that led to reversion BEFORE attempting to insert what is essentially the same material yet again. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Xoltron, I also see that you attempted[21] to include the same content in List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737, where it was reverted by another editor. WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION explains why you should remove it here. If you really think this is notable, you could always try making it into a short note under Orders and deliveries as suggested by WikiHannibal, or under Development, and see whether other editors agree. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

In the absence of a response from Xoltron I have now removed the section. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

A Southwest aircraft on a ferry flight makes an emergency landing due to engine problems, CBS News report here; [22] and Fox Business News report here; [23] The latter includes information on the certification of the aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

This incident isn't notable either. To quote from WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION again, incidents should only be included if they resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosbif73 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is a reference from April 18 that says that as a result of the incident, the engine manufacturer to say that the fuel nozzles must be swapped out more frequently than the original maintenance schedule recommended.
Seems to pass the threshold of WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION. Banana Republic (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It is still not notable since it is relatively common for carbon to build up in any engine. And the change was a very minor change. Afootpluto (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems fairly minor for an aviation incident. Maybe a sentence in the engine section about replacing the engine nozzles more frequently instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Not Notable, an inspection order was sent out ordereing checks and nothing was found save in the engine that failed on a Southwestern plane, we cannot put in every little engine issue unless someone with no life wants to start and maintain an article on that issue only. Wikimucker (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to support your statement vis a vis nothing was found save in the engine that failed on a Southwestern plane? I can't image that they would issue a change in maintenance procedure if that was the case.

Since the change in maintenance impacts both this plane as well as the A320neo, I cannot see how this incident could be classified as non-notable. Banana Republic (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Dont think that it relates to the A320 maintenance and it is just some early production engines that have the problem I believe not the whole fleet. MilborneOne (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid what you wrote is not in line with this reference. Banana Republic (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Should be moved to the more relevant CFM LEAP article.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Very good suggestion. Thank you. I have performed the edit per your suggestion. Banana Republic (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Preliminary report on Ethiopian airline crash (ET302)

There is a section in the Boeing 737 MAX page which relates to the crash of ET302. this states the procedures carried out by the crew as following Boeing's guidelines. The preliminary report showing what the crew did demonstrates that the checks for runaway stabiliser were not followed. This section should be edited to show this. Tom gradwell (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

References

"At 05:40:35, the First-Officer called out “stab trim cut-out” two times. Captain agreed and First-Officer confirmed stab trim cut-out."

"From 05:40:42 to 05:43:11 (about two and a half minutes), the stabilizer position gradually moved in the AND [Aircraft Nose-Down] direction from 2.3 units to 2.1 units. During this time, aft force was applied to the control columns which remained aft of neutral position. The left indicated airspeed increased from approximately 305 kt to approximately 340 kt (VMO). The right indicated airspeed was approximately 20-25 kt higher than the left."

This occurred while the aircraft was in a dive as indicated by the increasing airspeed and after they had disabled the stabilizer trim via the 'cutout' switches as-per the Boeing recommended procedure for 'runaway stabiizer'. They then attempted to use the manual trim wheels to recover.

"At 05:41:46, the Captain asked the First-Officer if the trim is functional. The First-Officer has replied that the trim was not working and asked if he could try it manually. The Captain told him to try."

"At 05:41:54, the First-Officer replied that it is not working."

"At 05:43:11, about 32 seconds before the end of the recording, at approximately 13,4002 ft, two momentary manual electric trim inputs are recorded in the ANU [Aircraft Nose-Up] direction. The stabilizer moved in the ANU direction from 2.1 units to 2.3 units."

"At 05:43:20, approximately five seconds after the last manual electric trim input, an AND automatic trim command occurred and the stabilizer moved in the AND direction from 2.3 to 1.0 unit in approximately 5 seconds. The aircraft began pitching nose down. Additional simultaneous aft column force was applied, but the nose down pitch continues, eventually reaching 40° nose down. The stabilizer position varied between 1.1 and 0.8 units for the remainder of the recording."

During all this they were also receiving intermittent 'overspeed' and GPWS alerts.

The crew didn't have time to try anything else as shortly thereafter the aircraft impacted the ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.216 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• I dont see anything wrong with the summary here, this level of detail should be in the accident article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The OP didn't write the quote from the accident report. That was added in reply to his statement that the crew didn't follow the correct procedure. For some reason the system didn't sign the reply with a time stamp.

Whilst a failure in the anti-stall system might be recoverable if the aircraft is already at cruise altitude, it may not be possible in the time available if the aircraft has just taken-off, the reason being that a failure in the system immediately puts the aircraft into a steep dive towards the ground and the manual stabilizer trim wheels take longer to move the tailplane jackscrew than the electric trim does, which must be disabled when following the recommended procedure. In addition, in a high speed dive the wheels become considerably more difficult to move, due to the air loads on the stablizer. It also doesn't help in diagnosis in the limited time available if the cause of the problem is a system that neither the crew nor the airlines know anything about. Such situations are what the Certification process is supposed to prevent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.216 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you please sign your posts, thanks - Perhaps we can just wait for the final report rather then speculating. MilborneOne (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

OK. For some reason my posts aren't being signed by the system. News report from CNBC here; [24] that states that the manufacturer's own test pilots were not informed of the system either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.216 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Sign your posts by typing 4 tildas ~~~~. It's pretty easy. Banana Republic (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Useful secondary-tertiary source for the MCAS affair

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/boeing_two_deadly_crashes

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Since when do I have to justify proper English usage in an article?

Phrasal adjectives (also called compound adjectives) are hyphenated. When a number of words together modify or describe a noun [in this case "fuel"], the phrase is ordinarily hyphenated. If two or more consecutive words make sense only when understood together as an adjective modifying a noun, hyphenate those words.

Therefor, hyphenate two or more words when they come before a noun they modify and act as a single idea, as in these phrases (in boldface): "The 41:1 overall pressure ratio, increased from 28:1 and advanced hot-section materials enabling higher operating temperatures permit a 15% reduction in thrust-specific fuel consumption (TSFC) along 20% lower carbon emissions, 50% lower nitrogen-oxide emissions, but each weighs 849 lb (385 kg) more at 6,129 lb (2,780 kg).[22]"; and in, "The smaller Leap-1B engine will weigh less and have a lower frontal area but a lower bypass ratio leading to a higher thrust-specific fuel consumption than the 78 in (200 cm) Leap-1A of the A320neo.[citation needed]"

I think this settles the matter; please revert your reversion!

Someone else can fix the link, preferably the author of the article. Autodidact1 (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Industry terms don't always follow grammar rules. Please provide reliable published sources showing the usage of the term "thrust specific fuel consumption" with a hyphen. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I think Autodidact1's point is that the default should be normal grammar. It's the industry-specific deviation that should require a source. 204.194.77.3 (talk)

• No, the industry wording is used in the published sources such as from Flight, Aviation Week and the like. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

BUT the problem is that without hyphenation, there is no clue as to what "specific" applies to. But there doesn't seem to be a reason to use jargon .. its strongly implied that the fuel flow rate is what determines thrust.. (which is fuel per unit time, not mileage which is fuel per unit distance.) 202.87.170.66 (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The word specific has an unusual use in science and engineering, so yes, it might take a hyphen to get it right. Consider specific gravity and specific impulse, which don't have much to do with the usual meaning of specific. Gah4 (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)