What's Boeing going to do after the 797?  would they go on into the 800's?

I don't think they're too worried. The 797 may be a little time yet...

pepper_airborne wrote on Jun 17^th, 2007 at 3:49am:



Why don't I expect to see a "Boeing GTO" or "Boeing SLK" anytime soon?

Then again, they may re-use numbers, like the Boeing 717 .. 

797 hasn't been launched yet though...

Once upon a time, there were Boeing 1, and 40, and 247, and 377... After 377, they decided to continue with 7x7 for civil planes, and reserved 4xx, 5xx and 6xx for various military products. There are a plenty of Boeing 464-s flying.

Was Boeing 8xx also reserved and in use, or is it free to be assigned when Boeing runs out of 7x7?

bok269 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2007 at 4:01pm:


I know this is widely accepted throughout aviation but I find it rather bemusing.. Would an Asian carrier honestly choose one aircraft over another purely based on a number 8 being included in its name?

If Boeing make a flying brick that burns 1 tonne of fuel every Minute and carries 4 passengers, and is named the Boeing 888 are they going to choose that over something with better fuel burn, simply because of the number 8?

I'm sorry but I think that this number 8 business is bullcrap quite rather.

If there were 2 identical aircraft, with exactly the same specs, it would seem marginally more believable but other than that I'm not buying it...

Alex

747-8 has the 8 to signify its simularity to the 787. As with A350.

Quote:



I think if you are using the number 8 (or any other naming scheme) as the sole reason why an aircraft is purchased, then I would agree that that seems highly improbable (I think you used the technical term 'bullcrap').

However, that is not to say that naming conventions that weigh cultural considerations (among other things) have no place in marketing strategy.  Without a doubt, names for new products are carefully considered, and woe to the company that does not consider the impact their name will have on sales in their international markets (an anecdotal example would be the Chevy Nova and Mexico).  It is probably a fair assumption that Boeing did not pick the name 'Dreamliner' out of a hat filled with other options such as 'Baconliner', 'Flying Death Tube', or 'Bullcrapliner'.  One hopes that whoever within Boeing is responsible for such decisions did not tempt fate in such a manner (though '787 Flying Death Tube' could have been marketable to various amusement ride theme parks, but '787 Baconliner' would probably be a no-sell for many Middle East markets, not to mention rich cardio-vascular surgeons).

As an anthropologist, I can say that cultural considerations are given to international marketing.  Unfortunately, as Boeing, Airbus, and other industry participants don't include me in their planning sessions, I cannot tell you if Asian cultural norms regarding the number 8 and future naming conventions are part of their future marketing strategy.  All I can say is many such cultural considerations are possible and probable as part of a larger composite strategy (which would include pricing, technology, and other considerations) for selling anything on an international level, including aircraft.

I hope some part of that was useful or interesting.

Quote:


True..... however, if the 8_8 naming scheme is open to boeing to use, why not? If it signify's luck in Asian culture, it's a kind of 'bonus' to go along with the quality of the actual aircraft...

I mean, it's not as if it costs them extra to use an 8 or two in an aircraft's name....

bok269 wrote on Aug 29^th, 2007 at 11:24pm:


Boeing 807.... yeah, you're right - try going through the range of 8_7's - sounds good to me...

Ivan wrote on Aug 30^th, 2007 at 4:55pm:


okay, boeing 817 through 897... still good.

I still think that 807 would sound better when attributed to a boeing than to a... *gulp*... peugeot...

Ashar wrote on Sep 11^th, 2007 at 6:58pm:


The 720 was actually a derivitive of the 707.  I don't see them using the letter system.  ITs a good idea but I dont see it happening.