add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
| advertise add site services publishers database health videos
| | about toolbar stats live show health store more stuff JOIN/LOGIN |
Talking Watch, Talking Watches, Talking Clock, Talking Bible, Talking... independentliving.com | To talk or not to talk, that is the question issuesinmedicalethics.org |
[edit] "Boeing" or "The Boeing Company"?I'm just a newbie but is it common practice to have the main article listed under the short name of the subject entity? I would expect the article to be titled "The Boeing Company" with the "Boeing" entry redirected to "The Boeing Company". Of course, the opposite is the case. Is this typical or exceptional? Am I being too fussy? Or is it difficult to make the change? Does anybody object if I make the change? I won't do anything until someone more experienced weighs in, but I'd like to see the title changed to "The Boeing Company". andersonpd 02:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Corporate BloggingWill someone introduce Randy's Boeing Blog considering the attention its been getting in the corporate world. [1] just a thought. --ConradKilroy 06:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC) [edit] List (or category) of Boeing aircraft?Is there some reason why there is no comprehensive list of Boeing-made aircraft, or am I just not finding it? Stan 15:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Airbus anonymous editorAn editor made a series of anonymous edits at Airbus and Boeing just a few minutes ago. Their IP address was 195.6.25.118, which belongs to Airbus SAS. I don't know if this is the first occurrence, but it strikes me as an enormous conflict of interest. Perhaps Boeing employees have done the same thing, but they haven't yet been caught at it. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Last Douglas A/CGah, I made an edit to the statement about the 717's end of production, under the impression that it was referring to the 717 production end signifying the end of the Douglas-designed era, with the C-17 really being the last. Giving it a bit more thought, that's not true on either count though - in hindsight, it appears that the original intent was to point out that the 717 was simply the most recent design by the company, and there are other Douglas designs still in production (Export F-15's come to mind). Mea culpa -- kcm
it does redirect back to Airbus Idustries and i found this website of Airbus personnel right here... [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kell65 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC) [edit] Boeing 777 imageI apologise for any confusion -- I typically hear more complaints when I am not replacing the image when doing cleanup. Here is a bunch of free, reusable images of the Boeing 777. Jkelly 21:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC) [edit] Reference neededThe very first sentence -- 'Boeing is the world's largest aircraft manufacturer' -- needs referencing, this position being contested (and taken, I thought) by Airbus.--DragonFly31 13:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Aircraft Matrix - Boeing vs. Airbus vs. OthersI have created a aircraft matrix that lists airlines, sorted by the size of thier fleet, which aircraft from Airbus, which aircraft from Boeing, and other aircraft in thier fleet. It can be found at user:Mnw2000/Airlines-Aircraft Matrix. I think it should be link at Airbus, Boeing, Embarer, etc. as well as all alines pages. Can some assist me in that effort? Here is a sample:
--marc 18:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)--[user:mnw2000] I would be glad to help! [User:Kell65|Kell65] 8:40, 24 February 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kell65 (talk • contribs) [edit] Focus on commerical airplanes
[edit] LawsuitsWasn't Boeing sued for breach of contract, by refusing to sell McDonnell Douglas airplanes to those airlines that had options by contract to buy more aircraft?--Vercalos 22:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] QuestionWhat does B&W in "Before 1950s" means? Is this the name of plane (possibly named after cofounders boeing & Westervelt), or name of type of planes (like jet)? Read article isn't enough here. I had to search google to find out answer. [edit] Biased?An initial read of this article seems to indicate surprising amount of bias towards Airbus. Just saying tongue and cheek, but this article seems to suggest Boeing as a large evil corporation and Airbus as fighting the good fight. Is this because Boeing is an American company as opposed to a European one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.80.6.3 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC) [edit] Washington addressDoes anyone have the corporate address in Seattle? Chris 01:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] TimeIn May 2005, Boeing announced its intent to form a new company, United Launch Alliance with its competitor Lockheed Martin. The new company will be the sole provider of rocket launch services to the US government. The joint venture is expected to gain regulatory approval and be complete near the end of 2005. ??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.139.0.62 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Boeing Subsidies?Does anybody know of a possible citation that could be used for these Boeing subsidies? Tax breaks are subsidies? I'm not aware of *any* tax breaks that Boeing gets which Airbus would not also receive for any manufacturing it would do in the states. IMHO these spurious accusations of subsidies for Boeing only appeared after Airbus began to feel the heat in the WTO for it's huge loan guarentees that insulate it from ever needing to accept risk for product development cost. Now THATS a subsidy! Zebulin 17:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC) I found a good source for subsidies that aren't tax breaks or military contracts or other inappropriate concepts of 'subsidies' and placed the citation in the article. Zebulin 17:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC) [edit] 1970's sectionI was reading the section and came across this sentence: "Boeing did not receive one single order during more than one year" Someone want to explain what that means? Did Boeing not receive a single order for a period of more than one year? Either way, perhaps it should be rephrased.
[edit] EmploymentI am wondering if it'd be worth mentioning the employment dynamics in the article, for example that in the early 2000-s, Boeing laid off tens of thousands of people (some 20,000? or more?) in Seattle area alone ([3] in 2001 and more over the following years), which must've had quite an impact on the economy of the region with them being one of the major employers. I am afraid I don't have reliable sources to cite for accurate numbers and the sequence of events, but if someone interested in economics could write about this, I think that'd be appreciated by many. - Introvert • ~ 05:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Headquarters pictureCan the Boeing headquarters picture caption specify which building it is? From the picture, I can't tell if if it's the front building or the taller building behind it. enderminh 21:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reasons for removing timeline graph
[edit] NameThe article is a bit unclear on the name. It says "In August of the next year, Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas in a US$13 billion stock swap under the name The Boeing Company. However this name had actually been Boeing's official name previously adapted on 21 May 1961". Does this mean that the company has been The Boeing Company since 21 May 1961 and as a result of the merger, the new company took the name, without modification, of what had been Boeing? If so, the wording is confusing. The wording used at, e.g. AMD would be better. Nil Einne (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC) [edit] Boeing Red BarnI was recently on a tour at the Museum of Flight near seattle WA. I got a picture of a red barn they said was the first boeing factory. Is there a reason this is not mentioned in the article? Does anybody who maintains this article think a picture of this barn would be useful? Thanks. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 22:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC) [edit] Boeing Boat Works25 years or so ago I went to a remote cottage in British Columbia and in one of the old boathouses on the property was one of those classic old 1920 or 1930's wooden cruisers with "Boeing Boat Works" on a metal plate on it. Does anyone know anything about this part of Boeing's history? AlbertaSunwapta (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC) [edit] Furniture, anyone?Re Boeing history, NOBODY seems to have mentioned FURNITURE! I went to the Boeing museum at or near Seattle in 1988 and saw at least one specimen of Boeing furniture dating from the years after WW1. The item was a pastel blue dressing table. The museum notes said that with the end of hostilities, the world demand for aircraft had been expected to collapse. Aircraft builders of the early 20th century had the woodworking skills to produce fine furniture, so they went back to their former trade (perhaps only as a sideline, in parallel with aircraft-building?). (As this is my first ever Wikipedia 'talk', please forgive any technical goofs...) Rogerathauxton (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC) [edit] Missing Criticisms section?Just curious, why do european companies/products often have a criticisms section (see EADS for example), and american companies and products don't need one? Where is the NPOV? Supersymetrie (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Environmental RecordIs it just me, or does it also appear to others that an effort has been made within the Boeing and Airbus articles to present Airbus in a more favorable light? There would appear to be several examples of this, but the most glaring are the Environmental Record sections. This section of the Boeing article is almost exclusively devoted to what a huge polluter Boeing is, while the equivalent section of the Airbus article is exclusively devoted to efforts Airbus is making to save the environment. Since we now know how Boeing ranks as a polluter in the U.S. and how many superfund sites it is responsible for, would it not be appropriate to see equivalent information for Airbus instead of just reading about how aggressive Airbus is in developing alternative fuels? Full disclosure: I am a Boeing employee (non-management), which is why I am bringing this to the discussion page rather than attempting to revise the articles, which should be done by someone without my conflict of interest.Doobie61 (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] See alsoI think a link to Boeing Commercial Airplanes is needed here. Who would like to paste this: Boeing_Commercial_Airplanes? Big thanks.--83.135.26.175 (talk) 10:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] References to Airplane Models and Production TotalsThe 757 total is incorrect. 1050 were produced, not 1055. There is a tendency to mix Boeing engineering model numbers, with marketing model numbers, with military customer model numbers. This does track with popular nomenclature, but can be quite confusing, even to people who have worked for Boeing for a long time. Boeing model 299 was the U.S. Army B-17. Noting that the 299 came before the 307 isw significant, since the 307 was developed using the 299's wing and major systems. This relationship is correctly noted for the 345 (B-29) and the 377 Stratocruiser. It was the 707 that led to a commercial airplane marketing notion of mdoel numbers as something other than just the sequention number assigned by engineering. Engineering used many variations on the model designations, most of which were ignored by marketing. This led to considerable embarrassment with the MD-95 (really as DC-9 Model 95) was renamed the supposedly skipped 717. The 717 had actually been the engineering model designation for the KC-135 series of tankers and related "EC" planes. When this was pointed out to marketing, they quickly dubbed the MD-95 the 717-200, but I'm pretty sure that this was the first model designation totally invented by markeing. Boeing's practice since the 1930's has been to use a 3+3 model number. The first three digits are the master drawing number, including the feature variations. The first digit of the second three designates the major derivative series, and the second and third digits indicate the intial operator or customer (lots of variation here with leased planes, and planes that are subleased or resold before delivery). So from an engineering model designation point of view, the numbering system has not changed with the 747-800 and the 787-300, -800 and -900. Internal drawing references use the same 3+3 system that has been in place for over 60 years. However, marketing decided to drop the second two digits and adopt the Douglas one and two digit sub-model designation, which is they way Boeing did it during the 1920's and 1930's. In fact, the 707 was developed using the deliberately misleading 367-80 designation to suggest that it was a multi-engined turbo-prop, which is what the 300 series models were. There have been some notable departures. For example, the subsidized Boeing SST was designated model 2707-100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkidofriend (talk • contribs) 04:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC) [edit] Link to founder's articleThere should be a link from the name "William E. Boeing" in the history section to the respective article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.243.128 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Categories: B-Class WikiProject Illinois articles | Low-importance WikiProject Illinois articles | B-Class Chicago articles | Mid-importance Chicago articles | WikiProject Chicago articles | B-Class Washington articles | Mid-importance Washington articles | WikiProject Washington | B-Class Seattle articles | Unknown-importance Seattle articles | WikiProject Seattle | B-Class Companies articles | Top-importance Companies articles | B-Class WikiProject Business articles | High-priority WikiProject Business articles | B-Class aviation articles | B-Class aircraft articles | WikiProject Aircraft articles | WikiProject Aviation articles | Unassessed energy articles | Unknown-importance energy articles | Selected anniversaries (July 2004) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ↑ top of page ↑ | about thumbshots |
