why do aircraft variants start with -800 or -8 now?

[-]

SerDuckOfPNW@reddit

There is no 777-8

There is a 777-8F and 777-9

[-]

dead_toyou@reddit (OP)

the 777-8F is the 777-8 like how you wouldn't say there's no a330-700, only -800 and -900

[-]

SerDuckOfPNW@reddit

It is not.

If you understand how model series work on the TCDS, you’d know that. The -8F ATC is currently in work. 777-8 ATC is not.

777F is a derivative of the 777-200, but it is not a -200F.

Source - I am an engineer working 777-9 and 777-8F ATC projects

[-]

dead_toyou@reddit (OP)

it appears there actually is a passenger b777-8

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/777x

[-]

crewsctrl@reddit

Why is Windows 11 the 17th generation of Windows? Why is iPhone 17 the 19th generation of iPhone? The answer to all of these questions is the same: marketing.

[-]

Well, Windows 11 came after Windows 10, which was after 8, which was after 7. There's also a really good reason why there was no Windows 9 and that reason is lazy programmers. Back in the day, when checking OS version compatibility, if a dev wanted to rule out Windows 95 and 98, they would search for version 9*. This would cause huge backwards compatibility issues with old software if there was a Windows 9.

[-]

dead_toyou@reddit (OP)

there was a windows 8.1 which was different enough from windows 8

[-]

Kreeos@reddit

While it was marketed as a new version, it's the same as the old service packs. Following older nomenclature, Windows 8.1 should have been Windows 8, Service Pack 1.

[-]

upbeatelk2622@reddit

In 2001 I met someone who claimed he consulted for UA. He leaked to me before the official release that the default A380 variant would be called the -800, and gave the Chinese excuse.

Being of Chinese heritage, I can tell you most of us are not losers like that lol. We are not THAT superstitious, that's a Cantonese/HKG thing that they like to super duper over-emphasize and they like to think they represent ALL Chinese diaspora. Which would be like saying Southerners represent every American in culture convention.

The fact that 4 sounds like "die" in Chinese has never prevented Chinese-world carriers (Chinese airlines, plus CX, plus CI/BR) from buying the A340 variants, the 737-400 or 747-400, not even HKG-based Cathay and not even CAN-based China Southern. So they need to give this excuse a rest. Okay that's enough point-and-shaming.

Now here's my opinion as a long-time fan of many different industries that create naming conventions - they do whatever the F they like.

You think you're seeing 8/800 a lot, but there's really no hard and fast rule.

The 737NG generation was centered around -800 because they knew they had the -700 and -600 and the last generation used -300, -400 and -500.

Beginning with the 787, Boeing then decided that instead of 3 digits, to retire the individual airline designators so the -800 is just -8 now. The 737MAX and 777X adopted this convention.

Meanwhile, Airbus chose to center the A350 and A330neo's default model as the -900, with -800 being short and -1000 being the lengthened model. I'm sure we had a prior discussion here that the -800 was allegedly also the "short" variant of the A380 didn't we...

This is like when you become a car guy, and in the 80s Honda's hierarchy within Civic or Accord was they had DX, LX and EX. Later they changed this to keep things fresh and unexpected, so that you'd constantly have to relearn what the top trim is called. Toyota's top spec was the LE for a while... Boeing and Airbus are merely doing the same, although they do have a level of logic where, the -800 and -900 are often a newer generation than the -200 and -300s.

[-]

Fluid_Maximum_5643@reddit

sorry man but my wife is from Taiwan and is that superstitious about numbers etc

[-]

seeasea@reddit

While most every day people in the US are not superstitious, the majority of buildings skip the 13th floor

[-]

Vessbot@reddit

Thanks for the detailed reply. I (normie American) have heard the stock explanations you address, and have always interpreted them not as straight up superstitious effects (that you blow off as silly, at full face value) but rather as more subtle cultural associations that work on a subconscious level. Where somebody's Cantonese grandmother from the village might have overtly jumped at the number 8, her modern college grandchild might be subtly attracted to it, maybe without even realizing. Kind of like how I might think I'm evaluating a tech product purely on logical grounds, but a good looking blonde in the ad will still probably sway me. Do you think the Chinese marketing thing might be legit on this level?

(This all being on top of "bigger number better" and nobody wanting to restart at 100 which is associated with previous decades' jets.)

[-]

bbcgn@reddit

Yes, initially Aurbus planned to also introduce the -900 variant of the A380. Both variants were supposed to share the wing (and the landing gear iirc), so the fact that these component are designed with the even bigger variant in mind actually hurts the A380s efficiency since it has to carry the additional weight for components that are performing better than necessary.

[-]

sargentmyself@reddit

The 737 has gone through all the hundreds from 100 to 900, the -800 NG and the -8 max are effectively the same fuselage, as are the 700 and -7, 900 and -9. I think it was easier to articulate the similarity while also being easily identified different by just dropping the 00, instead of starting at 1100 again.

Previous generations, the -700 was the direct replacement of the -300, the -800 replaced the -400 and the -600 replaced the -500. You couldn't really understand that from just the name, but with the MAX -8 and -800 you can.

[-]

ForsakenRacism@reddit

Cus Asians

[-]

dead_toyou@reddit (OP)

username checks out (but i agree)

[-]

ForsakenRacism@reddit

What’s that mesh

[-]

dead_toyou@reddit (OP)

it's unfortunate and admittedly (sorry for saying this) dumb that the a340 and -400 aircraft variants failed in china because of dumb superstitions (no offense).

and it's crazy how such a big naming decision was made just to cater to one market. it would make more sense if it started at 787-1, you wouldn't really know that the -8 is the first variant.

then... you have the 737 max 200. it's not a -200, it's a -8-200. why not make this the -7 because it doesn't line up with the -700?

i guess to some it would seem that the higher the number the newer/better it is.

[-]

Cagliari77@reddit

Well then where are all the model numbers coming from anyway? Why was it 737 and not 939 in the first place?

I think it's just marketing.

[-]

dead_toyou@reddit (OP)

with the 737-800 you would've known that was the eight variant (well kind of). with 737-8 it could be confused with the -800, and it's unclear that it's the eleventh variant. not only that, for the -8 to exist you'd think there'd be a -1 through -7. like how the 747-8 isn't the eight variant but the fifth (sixth counting the SP). i guess the higher the better? and they were going to start the 787 with a -3 before jumping to -8.

[-]

Plutois9@reddit

You have to consider the very long history of the 737 family. There are 4 generations of 737: Jurrasic 737-100, -200, -200C Classic: 737-300, -400, -500 NG: 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, -900ER MAX: 737-7, 737-8, 737-8200, 737-9, 737-10 So there is a -1, well a -100... The -8 is the same length as a -800 so they kept the "8", same for the -9 and -900. The -7 is actually a bit longer than a -700 but made sense in relation to the other MAX models to call it a -7. -10 is longer than -9 so that makes sense too. I'm sure 8 being considered fortunate in China didn't hurt maintaining the 8 for what was assumed to be the most popular variant.

[-]

dead_toyou@reddit (OP)

i'm talking about the newer models which skip 1-7 or 8.

[-]

nalc@reddit

I think OP is asking more about the A330, A350, A380 787, 777X, and 747 all of which skipped numbers to get to 8 or 800

Just off the top of my head, 747 went from -400 to -8, 777 went from -300 to -9, 787 launched as a -8, A330 I think went from -300 to -900 for the NEO, A380 is only a -800, and I think A350 launched as a -900 then did a -1000

The 737 is the exception in that there really were variants from -100 to -900 without skipping numbers

[-]

omalley4n@reddit

I was told that the 747-8 used the "-8" designator to signify that it was using a cockpit based upon the 787-8, as opposed to just being reiterative of the -400 prior.

I've always seen the -8/-800 as an indicator of which "Boeing Generation" the aircraft falls under, as opposed to just "this is the 8th version of 7x7". However that's my own opinion.

Also, back when each customer could select their own cockpit layout Boeing used the last two digits for customer variants. (ex. 737-223 would have been ordered by customer 23, American Airlines. This practice stopped in 2016, and Boeing aircraft are a lot more standardized. I imagine they dropped the variant down to one digit because they no longer needed the "-8xx" placeholders.

[-]

SladeyMcNuggets@reddit

With the 747, there were proposed variants for the 747-500X, 747-600X, 747-700X in the 90s. With the "747-800" actually being developed, I imagine they decided to shorten it to be 747-8 to match the modern naming schemes which they started with the 787-8.

It's a bit of a stretch to say that the 747-8 cockpit is based upon the 787-8. There are a few avionics improvements based upon the 787, e.g VSD, but overall it's very much a 747-400 cockpit

[-]

kanakalis@reddit

the 737 max 8 was supposed to be rebranded as 737-8 so people stop associating MAX as the plane that crashed twice

[-]

BoringBob84@reddit

I never heard that. Boeing still calls it the "Max." This refers to its capabilities - range, speed, efficiency, etc.

Regarding crashing, changing the name doesn't make people forget. Fixing the problem so that crashes do not repeat and then having a good record for safety in subsequent service does.

[-]

kanakalis@reddit

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/20/boeing-737-max-plane-new-name-poland-enter-air

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-737-max-name-change-rebrand-2020-8

it never went through. hence i said supposed to be rebranded.

[-]

BoringBob84@reddit

Fair enough. That may have been intentional. I have dealt with Boeing enough to know that it is a huge company and the proverbial left hand often doesn't know what the right hand is doing. This may have been a coincidence, since the "family" is the "Max" and the specific variant is the 737-8.

[-]

blueb0g@reddit

It comes from the 707, Boeing's first jetliner. The previous century series numbers (at least 300-600) were already taken by precious products so Boeing decided to use the 700 series for jet aircraft. The choice to use 707 rather than 700 was purely marketing which then set the stage for later jets to use the 7x7 designation (717 initially being held back for a design that didn't materialise, and then retrospectively applied to the MD90 when Boeing took over McD).

[-]

bp4850@reddit

717 was the company model designation for the KC-135 family of aircraft, it was reused for the MD-95.

[-]

CBRChimpy@reddit

In the case of the 737 Max the -7, 8 and 9 variants are direct replacements for the -700, 800 and 900 variants of the 737 NG. Every hundred from -100 to -900 was used by previous versions of 737 and I'm guessing they didn't want to go to -1000, -1100 etc.

[-]

ReasonableAd6120@reddit

For Boeing the stated reason was that their new aircraft derived lots of new tech from the 787. Boeing marketing really sought to make the Dreamliner a public spectacle to create consumer demand for flying on the Dreamliner, and therefore boost sales to the airlines. To keep with this theme they utilized the number 8 wherever they could. The first example of this was the 747-8, which utilized the same engines and similar construction of the wing. As the 737 MAX was being designed, it was very easy to carry that same naming convention over to the new variants replacing the -700, -800, and -900. Same thing for the 777X. Also notice the use of “naming” aircraft and inserting letters in the official aircraft type, also a new marketing strategy of the 787 era.

For Airbus, it’s less clear. They obviously got into similar marketing themes seeing as Boeing was doing it. The A380 didn’t initially utilize the -800, that was decided later, not sure if it was done after Boeing announced the namin convention for the 787. But the later A350 XWB and A320/30 NEOS introduced the adding letters theme, and kept up with Airbus using the -800 convention to designating their new models. I have also heard the Chinese superstition angle but never took it too seriously

[-]

BoringBob84@reddit

The "Max" is a family of aircraft, like the "NG - Next Generation" and the "Classic" were. Within that family are variants - 737-8, -9, -10, etc.

[-]

NeedleGunMonkey@reddit

Because marketing are the dumbest ppl in aviation companies

[-]

Kreeos@reddit

In any company.

[-]

KG_advantage@reddit

I think it’s all marketing strategies

[-]

keyboard_pilot@reddit

One word...and if you're less culturally sensitive for the sake of humor...you can read it with an accent in your head: "China"

[-]

DocFail@reddit

Because -6 / -7 was used to much.

[-]

Azurehue22@reddit

8s a nice curvy number. :3

[-]

fedeger@reddit

Higher number more better. More better, more sales. More sales, more big bonuses for CEO and Shareholders.

[-]

ABoutDeSouffle@reddit

We are kinda, sorta in the 3^rd major generation of jets.

-100 - -300 were the first gen till the 80's, then they rejuvenated with -400, -500, -600, now they are at -700, -800, -900 or -7, -8-, 9 and others like the A350-1000.

[-]

SladeyMcNuggets@reddit

So for the A330, there were proposed variants of the -400, -500 and -600. Of course, they weren't developed, but the A330 Beluga XL is classified as a A330-700, so the -800 and -900 being the next NEO variants does make sense in some regards.

With the A350 originally intended to be an "upgrade"/based on the A330, I suppose there might have been the carry over for the -800 and -900, but this was then replaced by the A330 NEO.

[-]