Talk:Boeing 757

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleBoeing 757 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 18, 2015.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 5, 2011Good article nomineeListed
June 9, 2012WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
July 4, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boeing 757. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2018[edit]

In December 1985, a freighter model, the 757-200PF, was announced following a launch order for 20 aircraft from UPS Airlines,[40] and in February 1986, a freighter-passenger combi model, the 757-200M, was launched with an order for one aircraft from Nepal Airlines (Previously: Royal Nepal Airlines).[50] Tamrakar.bibek (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is necessary to add "(Previously: Royal Nepal Airlines)" since the airline went by Royal Nepal Airlines then and the link is piped to the right article. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. As Fnlayson says, this is not necessary as the link is there for anyone to follow. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Image change?[edit]

Hi all, I was wondering if we should change the main image of the 757? To a better looking image, mainly at a better, similar to the 767's image. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC) As there was a previous discussion back in 2015, this time I feel like we should use an image of a passenger varient of the 757. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current infobox image is of a passenger variant. Could you please link the photo that you are asking about, so we can be sure that we are talking about the same image? Sario528 (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following has been copied from my talk page:

Sure thing I’ll link it for you. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Delta_Air_Lines_B757-351_N586NW_LAX.jpg#mw-jump-to-license This image is so much better, still facing the same way but you can see more of the aircraft. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the photo you have linked is nearly identical to the one already in use, I see no need for a change. Sario528 (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • current Icelandair -200
    current Icelandair -200
  • proposed Delta -300
    proposed Delta -300
It's even worse as it is a much more rare -300, 55 delivered in 1049.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse? Well the colours Icelandair used on their 757 I won't lie is pretty ugly along the fact the colours don't mix. Well how about these two then? Besides the 300 is barley different to the 200 except only less were made and its slightly stretched. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • US Air 757-200
    US Air 757-200
  • American Air 757-200
    American Air 757-200
Not really better. The USair is more sideways and shows less the wing, and is of a disappeared brand, the AA is similar to the Icelandair but not more interesting and it has a dated livery. Icelandair colors are fine and contrasty, higlighting the engines.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The livery for Icelandair is ugly, like ive said before. Why don't you at least help me find a better image. The delta image is fine, the 300 is no different to the 200 apart from the longer fuselage. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OrbitalEnd48401, "I don't like it" is not a good reason to change an article. The -200 version is more representative of the aircraft type and therefore better suited for the leading image. Icelandair's colours are more contrasting, therefore the picture is overall clearer. I see no good reason to change it. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fine this one, it's the final option OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Arkia -300
    Arkia -300
A -300 again.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darn your right, I don’t see the problem with the US Air picture or the American Air picture. Even if the liveries are old the colour scheme fits perfectly on the 757. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to support the original icelandair image, I dont see any reason to change it. MilborneOne (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@OrbitalEnd48401:I would like to thank you for your efforts here. While your reasoning ultimately fell short, you were legitimately trying to make the article better. In addition, by starting the discussion here the community was able be involved in the process so that a consensus could be reached. I would also like to express my appreciation to you for keeping a cool head during the discussion. I hope that the result here does not deter you from wanting to improve Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you in the future. Sario528 (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries but you say that, when the 767 has the 300ER on the infobox not the 200? I find that quite unusal Milborne is saying the 300 is limited when its not the 'orginal' plane??? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is better to show the more common variant in the Infobox. The 757-200 is the most common 757 variant, while the -300ER is the most common variant for the 767. This is not a long vs. short variant thing or original vs. current either. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I'd like to ask if any of you would like to reconsider the image? To either the american air 757 or the US air 757?. Both are the -200 model, and you can see more the US air 757. But the American air 757 has the winglets. From what though, those images could still be used despite the old liveries. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hull loss cases[edit]

Hello,

I'm not an expert on this aircraft, but I have noticed an inconsistency in the Wiki article regarding the number of hull loss incidents. In the introduction, it states 8 hull loss incidents. Further down in section 5 Incidents and Accidents, it states 9 hull loss incidents. Finally, the reference link, #178, lists 11 instances, but it's not clear to me if all of those are hull loss incidents. Someone more knowledgeable than me needs to review this. Rjbergen (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your scrutiny! The (dynamic) ref (ASN) should be right with 11 hull losses. The article have not been updated accordingly, it's done now. Do not hesitate to update it yourself!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

F and Y?[edit]

What is the meaning of the "12Y/188F" in the infobox referring to the seat layouts and passenger capacity? I see that many or all Boeing pages include these letters in the infobox but it doesn't explain what they mean. I could understand F being First, but what is Y and J? The only classes I know of are First, Buiness, Economy and Tourist, or 1st, 2nd, 3rd. Is this an acidental mistranslation from another page? Or do these letters mean something? If they do, we shouldn't assume that the reader understands them, because I certainly don't and I am more knowlegable about aircraft than the average person. BTW I already wrote a message about this a few days ago, but I think it failed to save properly. I saw a notive saying something had failed to save and I'm not sure what it was. If it did save and this is a double post, or if I already said this on a different article, sorry. Idumea47b (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see your Special:Contributions/Idumea47b--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

proposed update to -200SF section[edit]

Just had a look here and felt there were some updates could go on the SF section but thought I'd check for strong feelings on it first. The SF and PCF are the current two approved conversions and have some significant differences in integration with the base aircraft and I think need a bit more disambiguation. In addition Boeing dropped out of the program after the DHL order and left it to the aftermarket so while I'd keep the paragraph I'd change the heading to 757-200SF/PCF. Then in the text add at the end a couple of lines on the PCF along the lines of " ST Aerospace continue to offer 14, 14.5 and 15 pallet versions of the SF. A separate 15 ULD aftermarket conversion by Precision Aircraft Solutions (Precision Conversions) was launched in 2002 and approved in 2004 as the 757-200PCF and continues to be produced in 2020. As of 2020 Xx (will check the numbers if can find them) passenger to cargo conversions were in service." I'll leave it for a day or two for any comment before going ahead with refs etc. Skenu (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Interior 757 retrofit[edit]

Does Boeing really offer a Sky Interior retrofit for the 757? As far as I know Boeing's first-party retrofit is only certified for the 737NG. There are however some third-party retrofits that resemble the Sky Interior that are certified for the 757 family, such as those from Safran (which is installed om most of Delta's 757-200 fleet). ANDROS1337TALK 20:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology suggestion[edit]

In the history of the aircraft it mentions that Japanese sales overtures failed in '82 and the first Asia region customers was Singapore in 1987. As this comes in the late '80s section it might read better to start with the information that Singapore became the first Asian customer in 1987 after initial marketing attempts during the launch in 1982 failed, with sales demonstrations to Japan airways not generating any orders. Fanccr (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_757&oldid=1214186228"