Talk:Boeing 747/Archive 1

message: Should the following addition be re-worded from;
"The fact that Boeing had to "bet the farm", and came through with a revolutionary product is often contrasted with Airbus, which some argue receive risk free loans for their developement projects in violation of WTO rules."
-to-
"The fact that Boeing had to "bet the farm", and came through with a revolutionary product is often contrasted with Airbus, which receives risk free loans for their developement projects that some argue is in violation of WTO rules."
?
Pud 02:04, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to have been removed but incase someone tried to add, it is inaccurate. For starters, the Boeing-Airbus situation is much more complex. Boeing in fact is heavily subsidised in one way or another for example by US miltary contracts. They are also helped by US politics, for example with the Japan deal and with the large number of Chinese orders which appear to have been mostly do appease the US government rather then because of technical or price merit (these may have been true but we don't know because the Chinese didn't consider them greatly). Also, calling these loans risk free is just plain dumb. Although they're not normal loans, you can be sure as hell if Airbus blows a lot of money for nothing, the people and the European governments are NOT going to be happy. Furthermore, Boeing had no choice but to "bet the farm" these many many years ago since they likely would have died otherwise. They did it and were lucky. However Boeing might not have even gotten to the 747 without the 707 and if you'll read the 707 and other related articles, you'll realise the 707 developed was basically subsidied by the US as it was largely based on a project virtually guaranteed to be a miltary succeed. The truth of the matter is neither Boeing or Airbus would be where they are were not for government support which continues to this day... Nil Einne 21:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airbus Contrast 

message: : When pressurised, a 747 fuselage holds over a ton of air.
I think this part may require a rewrite. You're pressurised while you're up above. But the cabin pressure is actually a fraction of the sea level pressure. -- Toytoy 15:25, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
: The FAA requires civilian airlinear's cabin pressure be no less than 0.75 ATM (pressure at about 8000 ft). That means when on the sea level, a 747 fuselage may contain about two tons of air. -- Toytoy 14:54, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
::Er, why would a plane be pressurised when it's at sea level? Nil Einne 21:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need to be pressurized, the atnosphere will hold that air in there, but the atnosphere will also provoide boyancy canceling out its affect. Plugwash 22:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No it doesn't.  The air in the plane is at a controlled temnperature and pressure.  Therefore the density is steady. -Fnlayson 21:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yea.  Like I said fair enough...  Also, you really should use edit summary box. -Fnlayson 22:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: I want to check that a change I've made to the image presentation in this article meets with approval (or not). If it's acceptable I can do the same thing with some of the other image-heavy airliner pages.
Previously the page had a List of Images which was a just a list of clickable airline article names (it was not a list of images at all). It was a long job to click on each airline name, open the article, search down the article for the pic then open it. Now it's just a click on the Image Gallery at the bottom of this article. I like the gallery, what do you think? - Adrian Pingstone 21:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea - well done (well, no one else has answered!) - Adrian Pingstone 19:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Gallery

message: I disagree with this.  For one, the 747A program has **not** been officially launched yet.  Secondly, the 747A is signifigant enough to warrant its own article for the time being, for the sole reason that it is dealing with a specific program that is relevant to ongoing events, while the 747 article is a more general overview of the entire family.  References to the 747A program are fine, but, unless the 747A program passes into oblivion, or until it becomes an official part of the 747 family (entry into service or perhaps before), it should be kept in its own "pen".
--IRelayer 00:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also disagree with the proposed merger. I feel the 747A deserves its own article, particularly if gets the go-ahead. The technological advances over the -400 and the effect on competition with Airbus should be explored in depth at Boeing 747 Advanced. Other issues include the ability to add an orders table (as in 787 and A380 articles) to the 747A article, which would not be easily accomodated on the main 747 page.Mark83 13:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't merge this.  Delete it.  Even if it gets a go-ahead from Boeing.  We don't divide 737 into first generation and second generation...heck, the DC-9 article encompasses everything from DC9 to MD-90.  This plane is purely speculation and is NOT worthy of a second article--24.255.83.59 04:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Merging 747A/747 articles 

message: For some reason, I feel that the maximum speed figures given are inaccurate. For example, while tracking flights on-line, I noticed that B744 speeds often exceed 540 knots (1000 km/h) - on one occasion, an Air China B744 that I tracked was flying at 623 knots - that's about 1154 km/h! I wonder how the maximum speeds specified on this page were derived - and I also feel odd that the maximum speed specified for the B744 is slower than that specified for the B741. --Metric1031 04:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Chances are the online flight trackers are showing you ground speed, rather than airspeed. -ericg ✈ 04:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximum Speeds 

message: Could this be written better and placed into the article?
The main reason passenger airlines have been dropping the 747 is the length of time it takes to prep and load the 747. Passengers often complain of 3 hour waits from first being seated till they leave the gate. I'm not sure the average time the 747 ties up a gate from arrival to departure. This is costly for the airline and over the years passengers have wised up in favor of booking a smaller plane. --67.3.209.74 08:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the sole reason, and it's not entirely accurate, either. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 11:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If that was the case, then the A380 would be a much harder sell. ericg ✈ 13:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It's most definetely not accurate. I don't know about in the US, but I have never waited in a 747 for 3 hours for it to take off. Heck not even 1 hours AFAIK. It's also most definetely not the main reason since I suspect the number of people who actually worry that much about the type of airplane (well unless we're talking about some poorly maintaned Russian thing used by the cheap African airlines) they're going to be in is small (mainly business class and the like if anything and they wait the least anyway). The truth of the matter is too that for longhaul international flights, the check in time spent waiting due to security etc is probably longer then you'll wait for the plane to take off after being seated and giving the length of the flight (say 5 h at least) for most people the extra 30 minutes or whatever (if this figure is even accurate) it takes for the 747 is insignificant... Nil Einne 21:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  747's Decline 

message: Removed:
:"In the light of Hurricane Katrina, it is also in the plans to use 747s as super tankers to drop water-absorbing powder onto hurricanes."
There are many references  to this, but all appear to be attempts by the manufacturer of the powder to promote the product. A NOAA FAQ  on the subject provides convincing evidence that such plans are impractical. Exia Exia 02:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, limited experiments by NASA, USAF, and NOAA tried seeding hurricane clouds with silver iodide -- with inconclusive impact. 147.145.40.43 23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Absorbing Powder

message: The discussion above was 4 to 5 in favour of keeping 747 Advanced/747-8 as a separate article. It has since been merged into this article. I propose having Boeing 747-8 as a heading within Boeing 747 which gives a brief description of the plane with a link to Boeing 747-8 article where a full description and analysis can be written. Will also help reduce the page size, which at present is over ideal size.
#Split. For reasons above.
#Split. I concur. ericg ✈ 22:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 747-8 split proposal

message: The result as of Dec 15 2005 is 6:1 in favour of a separate article. Mark83 11:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: I've removed the line:
:(in 2004, Disney decided to use that name for four superheroes in their movie, The Incredibles)
as I don't see a clear connection between the two, other than the name. If you can support that the Pixar movie took from their nickname, please re-add. 01:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incredibles 

message: This article has some information about Boeing 747's that I think would go quite nicely in this article:
Delivered to date: 1,364
Unfilled orders: 42
747-400 list price: $205 million to $236 million
Most recent passenger jet order: Air China in November 2002 ordered four passenger versions of the 747-400
Orders in 2005: 26 airplanes, all freighter versions, including eight for UPS
Deliveries in 2005: 11 airplanes, including just two passenger jets
The list price could probably be incorporated by just editing the Technical data tables towards the bottom of the article, but what about the rest?  It seems to me to be worthy of addition as it kinda gives an impression of how long it takes to build a Boeing 747, how many are produced each year, etc, but I'm not really sure how best to do it... TerraFrost 06:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, the most recent passenger jet order is China Airlines. Air China is based in China and China Airlines is based in Taiwan. --Starcity ai 00:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List price of 747s and other information 

message: Hi all. 747SP is an orphaned article, unwikified and needing cleanup. It's been tagged for potential merging with this page, but no notice here. Could someone well-versed in the subject have a look at it and determine if there's anything useful, or if it can be just turned into a redirect? Thanks. Shimgray | talk | 17:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  747SP 

message: Can someone please tell me what the hell a CBM is? If it's cubic meter, it ought to be m³. ericg ✈ 06:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CBM 

message: In line with recent changes at the A380 article, I've made one of the lead pix of the jumbo bigger. I've got to say that "Tinker Belle" is very nicely photographed, and deserves to have a bit of prominence - that's one lovely bird! --Jumbo 12:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bigger pic 

message: What is the largest number of seats actually crammed into a 747?  JAL seems to fly 747-400Ds with 568 seats. Jpatokal 08:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximum number of seats in commercial use? 

message: I just choosed this article to test automatic conversion of numbers. If something is wrong, please say so :) →AzaToth 17:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the new templates 

message: I just noticed this on El Al: On 24 May 1991 an El Al Boeing 747 airlifted a record-breaking 1,087 passengers - Ethiopian Jews flying from Addis Ababa to Israel as part of Operation Solomon.
Is there a place in the article for this? They must have been riding in the baggage deck to cram 'em in like that! --Jumbo 07:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Max cap 

message: The cruising speeds that are listed are not accurate in that the speed of sound varies with altitude and the speeds listed in kph correspond to the given Mach number at sea level.  For example, Mach 0.84 at 35000 ft is ~896 kph not 1029 kph.  The other aircraft pages I looked at give the speed at altitude, so it should probably be made consistent.  I would change them, but dealing with tables is not my forté.  There is a nice utility here if someone needs the conversion--66.253.174.65 10:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cruising speed 

message: I have toned down the language used in the brief mention of the Concorde. The referenced article actually begins, "The Concorde supersonic airliner, built jointly by France and Great Britain, to this day remains the only such supersonic plane to operate successfully in commercial service..." which is hardly the failure implied in the previous wording. However, it needs to be noted that SSTs were never widely adopted, effectively making the 747 the flagship of commercial aviation. --Jumbo 02:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concorde criticism 

message: This page has been processed by N-Bot, which, for browsing convenience, changes links to redirects to lists to links to the relevant list sections: e.g. Boeing 747-200 is changed to Boeing 747-200.
As a result, anyone who intends to split a section out of this page should be aware that, as of 14 August 2006, the following sections were linked to from the following pages:
* 747-200: Mohamed Atta al-Sayed, Air France, Virgin Atlantic Airways, El Al, Saudi Arabian Airlines, Polar Air Cargo, Air New Zealand, Nippon Cargo Airlines, Atlas Air, Malaysia Airlines, Antonio B. Won Pat International Airport, Canadian Pacific Airlines, Oplan Bojinka, JALways, Japan Asia Airways, Orient Thai Airlines, Transaero, Herpa Wings, Olympic Airlines, Saha Airlines, Lufthansa Cargo, Phuket Air, Kabo Air, Air Atlanta Europe, Air Universal, Global Spirit Airlines, Malaysia Airlines Kargo, Nigeria Airways, Hindawi Affair, Herpa, British Caledonian, Trans Mediterranean Airways, Cargo 360
* 747-300: Qantas, Air France, Air India, Saudi Arabian Airlines, Malaysia Airlines, Pakistan International Airlines, Thai Airways International, JALways, Japan Asia Airways, Orient Thai Airlines, Excel Airways, Phuket Air, Air Atlanta Europe, Pakistan International Airlines destinations, Cargo 360
* 747-100: Saudi Arabian Airlines, Sabena, Orient Thai Airlines, Olympic Airlines, Saha Airlines, Kabo Air
* 747SP: Braniff International Airways, Qantas, Saudi Arabian Airlines, Syrian Arab Airlines, Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy, Ernest Angley, Australia Asia Airlines
~~ N-Bot (t/c) 11:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to anyone intending on splitting off a section 

message: I'm surprised this article has links to seat charts.  The airplane seat layouts are decided by the operators, not the aircraft designer. (Of course the designer provides the operators options.)  So this article is about the aircraft, not the operators, so seating charts shouldn't be here..  I think this is one of the only airplane articles that I've seen all the links to seat charts..  I'm in favor of removing them, or at least moving them to the external links section, instead of scattering them throughout the article.  Comments? —Cliffb 04:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seat Chart Links?!? 

message: I was working on reference, updating them. Several edits worked fine, but then the references were doubled up, i.e. two of everything. I started reverting to earlier edits to see if it was my mistake, but I've now reverted to a version earlier than my edit and it's not fixed. A problem with the reference templates? Mark83 13:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Was lockerbie really against the US or just against the US as is inferred in this article? Why is that even in there except as hyperbole? Why not just make reference to Lockerbie with a link in there? Just seems trung out to include a reference to 11/9/2001. Narson 14:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lockerbie

message: Wasn't the Pan Am B747-100 that made the first commercial flight between JFK and LHR the same one that was destroyed in the Tenerife disaster? If this is true, shouldn't it be included in the trivia section?--Palm90 03:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First 747 Used in Commercial Operations

message: Through August 2006, Boeing's site ref 3 lists 1375 planes delievered, (i.e. built) and 1441 orders.  I corrected this last night and it got reverted with no reason given.  Is there a problem with these numbers?  -Fnlayson 22:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orders and planes built  

message: I read this book and recommend it to readers here, particularly engineers and technical managers.
747: Creating the World's First Jumbo Jet and Other Adventures from a Life in Aviation by Joe Sutter and Jay Spenser
MWS 17:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  747 engineering memoir 

message: Under the 747-200, phase out is mentioned as a result of September 11.  Why was this?  This is too ambiguous.  Either delete or explain.  For now I will delete.  Please add it back upon explaining.
* The airline market had a downturn after the 9/11 attacks.  That just made the -200s age and likely higher operating costs more critial.  The statement there now is fine.  -Fnlayson 04:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  747-200 Phaseout 

message: I added the 747-8I to the specification chart based on information from the 747-8 page. (It needs to be completed.) I also made some changes to so the chart fits properly. This is appropriate since the 747 page is about ALL the versions of the 747 and the difference between the current 747 and the new 747-8 are quite impressive. I suggest that the specs from the new 747-8F should also be included. user:mnw2000 18:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated Specification Chart 

message: Kind of trivial, isn't the new A380 assembly plant now the largest building by volume?72.83.117.107 03:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Largest Building

message: Does anyone agree that the Y3 is the combination of 777 and 747 will look like a stretched 777 with the 747 upper deck (cockpit only)?
Eclaw 16:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new Y3 

message: Does the 19-Feb-2005 incident of a British Airways 747 taking off from LAX to LHR, having an engine go out seconds into flight (a shower of sparks coming out of the engine was reported to the aircraft by ground controllers), and then continuing on with an 11 hour flight with only three engines, and then running out of fuel prior to arrival at LHR, qualify as being reported in the incidents section on the main page?
http://www.atca.org/singlenews.asp?item_ID=2420&comm=0
RainOfSteel 00:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BA 747 Incident 

message: Someone told me that while European 747s use RR engines, the American planes do not. They use some other manufacturer. IS this true? I can't find anything anywhere to substanciate this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cape Fox (talk • contribs) 21:36 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:What makes a 747 "European" or "American"? What about "Asian" 747s? Who are they supposed to get their engines from, Toyota? And why do Air France-KLM and Lufthansa 747s have General Electric engines? While it's true that no U.S. customer has ordered a new 747 with Rolls-Royce engines, that is mostly because the Rolls engines weren't available for the earlier 747s, and after that point, 747s fell out of favor of many U.S. carriers. I suggest looking at Boeing's orders page. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  747 engines 

message: Rather than having the 747-400 price in 2006 dollars, we should have the price at either the time of launch or at EIS. The 747-8 price in 2006 dollars should then be added. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit cost in the infobox 

message: Why is Boeing Commerical Airplanes listed as the Manufacturer in this article (and others) and not Boeing?  There is a link to BCA in the text if someone is looking for it.  According the link in the Infobox, the Manufacturer is a company or individual involved building, etc. the hardware.  The company, Boeing is the manufacturer.  Boeing Commerical Airplanes and Integrated Defense Systems are not companies.  They are business units within Boeing.  -Fnlayson 22:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than fragmenting the discussion, let's keep it over at its origin: Talk:P-8 Poseidon#Manufacturer. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manufacturer 

message: I've temporarily commented this picture out of the article as it was overlaying the able beneath
Can be re-added when someone finds it a new home =)
Reedy Boy 20:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who placed it there today, and it shows fine on my browser. Obvioulsy it is overlaying on some systems, I'm not sure which ones or why. The US AF1 has its own article (with this pic!), so I am going to switch the pics for now. - BillCJ 21:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I usually tend to use firefox for WP edits. I just checked the old revision in IE and its fine.... lol Reedy Boy 21:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image: Japanese_Airforce_One.jpg 

message: I made the edit to the 747-300 with regards to the introduction of an FMC and IRS over the INS. I can see why it was reverted but  it was a notable change as it allowed the pilot to select from a series of routes saved in the aircraft and computer and make modifications to them by deleting/adding navigation points. Also, the pilots no longer had to compensate for drift problems and they could enter more than nine waypoints into the flight management computer whereas older Inertial Navigation System could only store 9 (later 99) waypoints. The Triple-IRS stack also allowed for full CAT-III autolandings vs the older models which could not autoland in situations like crosswinds.
look just above the throttle controls for the two cockpits
747-200: http://us.airliners.net/photos/photos/5/9/1/0671195.jpg
747-300: http://us.airliners.net/photos/photos/2/8/6/0827682.jpg
74.112.123.80 22:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 747-300

message: Is it commercially possible to replace a B-747's 4x220kN engines with huge 2x510kN jets (such as used on the largest B-777 variants)? It could save a lot of fuel due to less drag and save huge dollar on lessened maintenance costs. Why the new A380-beating B747 version won't follow this route? There are no longer twin-engine ETOPS limitations any more, it could fly anywhere in the wrld, excepting the Antarctica, which is not yet a lucrative market! 193.226.227.153 20:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect you couldnt fit two GE90s on a 747 because they would not fit! Because of the large size of a GE90 you would have to re-design the undercarriage and everything that goes with being taller aircraft. It is still nice to have four engines, if one fails you have a few spare before you are in serious trouble. MilborneOne 20:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at the height of the 777 landing gear (http://www.goodrich.com/Feature/SingleStory/0,1285,23,00.html) 84.173.231.124 19:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yet, GE is able to get their GE90 engine on the inboard pylon of their 747 test aircraft.  Maybe it's a poor fit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.156.150.146 (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but barely...it has about 9 inches of ground clearance (image at the Mojave Virtual Museum), and I believe they've scraped it at least once in crosswinds. Akradecki 16:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true, no GE90 has ever scraped the ground while installed on N747GE.N747ge 21:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 13 inches according to this source (http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/M96SC03.pdf) 84.173.231.124 19:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  When Airbus Industrie made a similarly reasoned four-engines-good advertisement for their A340, airliners started sending Airbus executives severed horse heads, because the ad campaign scared a lot of people away from crossing the oceans on twinjets. There is no data to support that tri-engines and four engined planes are safer than twinjets. 82.131.210.162 16:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "...started sending Airbus executives severed horse heads,..." Heh! I liked that.--PremKudvaTalk 04:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * Redundancy is still there with more engines, even if may not show much improvement with high relibility engines. -Fnlayson 17:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four engines bad, two engines good! 

message: What's the source(s) for the max speeds?  Boeing's web pages ,  only list cruise speed.  Thanks. -Fnlayson 05:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Max speed and other specs 

message: While working on specs for the 747-400 page, I checked all values against the sources given (Boeing web site). I found and corrected several errors here.
Boeing lists the seating capacity of the 747-400ER as 416(3-class), so I have replaced the "N/A" spec with this.
The tail height of the 747-400 and 747-400ER is three inches more than the previous -100, -200, and -300 models (does anyone know why?).
The MTOW of the 747-400ER is 412,775 kg, not 413,636 kg. The pounds value (910,000 lb) appears to have been converted from lb to kg using the "rule of thumb" conversion factor of 2.2 lb/kg rather than the exact factor of 2.2046 lb/kg.
Boeing lists the maximum fuel capacity of the 747-400ER as 63,705 U.S. gallons (241,140 L) with a footnote "With two auxiliary body fuel tanks in the forward lower cargo hold". It seems a safe assumption that the planes delivered to Qantas have the extra tanks, as their reason for ordering the ER was to fly extended range (Melbourne to Los Angeles), not extra cargo. I have accordingly changed the "Max. fuel capacity", "Range fully loaded", and "Fuel cap./range fully loaded" specs to correspond to those given on the Boeing specs page.
Piperh 22:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various corrections to specs 

message: The second paragraph of the article refers to the 747 as a five-engine plane? In what sense is that correct, if any?
Thanks.
* That's not correct.  Must have been vandalism or something that got by us.  I fixed it.  Early 747s did have the capability to carry a 5th engine but it just along for the ride.  This mentined in the Facts and figures section near the bottom, btw.  Thanks for pointing that out. -Fnlayson 22:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Early 747s? I was under the impression all 747s could do this. I've seen pictures of 747-400s with the 5th pod, such as this one: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0289429/L/ Nick Moss 07:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * The article mentions the 5th pod for early 747s, I beleive.  Please change it if you can find a reference for that. -Fnlayson 15:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naive question 

message: The lead pic is the most important pic in the article, as it is the first one seen when the page loads. The JAL pic is a dramatic aerial view. We do not need a pic of a Qantas jet on the ground, especially when there is an airborne Quantas pic further down in the article. Please do not change the pic again, unless you can convince enough editors to go along with the change (build a consensus). Thanks for your co-operation in this matter. - BillCJ 04:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead pic changes

message: I've removed the tag as being non-specific, as I have no idea what the problem is here. Please be specific when adding such tags, using the talk page if you need to more space to explain yourself. I'm assuming you mean that there may be some incidents that are not listed. Note that the section is for notable incidents only, not every time a 747 blows a tire while landing. If you have some specific incidents in mind, then add them, or at least discuss them here so others can discuss if they are notable, and try to add info on them. Thanks. - BillCJ 03:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incidents update tag

message: Hi. Although I don't know a lot about planes, I'm interested in them, and thought I might just say something about this article. I like it, but I think that for the reader's sake, a photo of arguably the most famous 747 in the world, the USA's Air Force One should be included somewhere. I'm willing to do it, but I wanted to know what people thought of it, because I know that a pic of AFO would be something I would like to see on this page. Best, Happyme22 23:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, one has been there all this time! It's in the Gov and Military section right under the Japanese Gov't plane, but it was overlaying the specs table on some browsers, so it was commented out. I've uncommented it for now, and will see if the problems are solved. (It works fine on my browser.) - BillCJ 23:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Force One 

message: Does anyone else feel that this article's Introduction section is not quite right? It consists of one or two pieces of information that would sit well in the lead, and the rest is really facts and figures that would look better in that section. Incidentally, unless I'm reading it wrong the guide to layout seems to suggest that the lead is the intro, and that there shouldn't be an Introduction section as well. What do other people think? --JCG33 21:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. A lot of these articles were in existence before the guidelines were written, or have been edited by those not familar withthe guidelines. Remember, these are just guidelines, but in this case, it would work better to follow the guidelines, as you point out. However, some articles will be unique, where the guidelines won't be the best format, for whatever reason, though these exceptions are rare. - BillCJ 21:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks alot better now - thanks --JCG33 20:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: There has been a bit of confusion in the users section, so I thought I would check on Airlinerlist.com to see what they said, since it has proven to be a very reliable source. This is their top 4:
58 - Japan Airlines
57 - British Airways
47 - Korean Airlines
42 - Cathay Pacific
If you were to account for Air France and KLM together, then it would be:
58 - Japan Airlines
57 - British Airways
55 - Air France-KLM
47 - Korean Airlines
The question is, should we be counting Air France-KLM as one operator, or two? To my knowledge, their fleets are not integrated, so I think it is a bit of a stretch to group them together for this purpose. For the sake of getting correct numbers in, I have edited the list and made it JAL, BA, KAL, CP. If there is a good reason to include AF-KLM, then I have no problem with that... --Nick Moss 07:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. -BillCJ 17:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They Are 2 Seperate Operaters and don' generally share fleet. Djmckee1 - Talk 19:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are two seperate carriers.  Djminisite -  Talk |  Sign 17:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Users 

message: I have a question as to the designation of the 747. This page never uses the phrase B-747 to describe the jumbo, but it's used on other wikipedia pages, and I've seen it in aviation parlance. B-747 is simply shorthand for "Boeing 747", correct? On other articles, I've seen the phrase Boeing B-747-236B or similar. Is that an incorrect usage, and should I change such references to either Boeing 747-236B or B-747-236B? Thanks. Sacxpert 20:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WOuld those other articles happen to be Airbus airliner or European airline pages? It does seem to be common practice in Europe to write it as B-747. If those are the Airbuse pages (or other European-related pages), it might be best to just leave them alone, if changing them will cause controversy there. Conversely, European editors usually don't hesitate to correct designations of European aircraft. Personally, I'd change the Boeing designations to links where possible (Boeing 747-236B) when first mentioned in each article, and then follow that pattern for consistency, tho without the links. - BillCJ 23:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * True.  The Boeing B-7X7 one would be the one I'd fix first.  -Fnlayson 01:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature question B-747 

message: I corrected a factual error.  KLM was not the only customer to have converted a -200 into a -200SUD.  UTA and JAL did so two (2 each).  I am looking for a reference.  I did see some photos on jetcensus.net or something like that.  I think UTA's were F-BTDG and F-BTGH with photos showing the smaller upper deck and later SUD.  Don't quote me on the registration numbers as my memory is not that good. Archtrain 15:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 747-200 SUD fact correction

message: In the B744 section, a seatmap chart comparing the A380 and 747 is given, it is supposedly free but it looks taken from the EVA Air site. . Enigma3542002 03:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Seatmap photo

message: Substituted at 20:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment