Talk:Boeing Yellowstone Project

Merge Y1 back

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Close with a clear consensus to merge Y1 here. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Boeing has gone with 737 MAX and deferred the Y1/737 Replacement for several years. Following the suggestion at Talk:Boeing 737 MAX#Merger proposal, what about merging Y1 back to this article? -Fnlayson (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Based on my reason above and the reasons given on linked page. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support This motion has my support; plans have changed and the Y1 is not currently substancial enough to be worth having an article on its own. The Yellowstone project as a 'potential future' businessplan is noteworthy, but not the minute and vague components, which they are at this point. For all we know, Y1 might sink without a trace and the eventual 737 replacement (if it gets replaced at all in my lifetime!) might have nothing to do with it more than a two-line footnote in the origins of the aircraft. It doesn't strike me as substancial, or justiable/necessary break up at this point. Kyteto (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I copied some text from the Y1 article here. I believe that is the main info that should be moved. Others are welcome to check this. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support The Y1 is onlya project as part of Yellowstone, Why did it get it's own article in the first place? Bring on the merge, it will clarify things and only improve coverage of the battle.Petebutt (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, since there's been no disagreement on merging I will close this discussion out and finish the process. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Review needed?

It sure seems to me that it needs some heavy editing. I don't think all those suppositions about Y1 and Y3 should be stated so firmly. They are nothing more than rumors. Yes, I've seen the "sources" and yes, I've heard about the so-called Y2, Boeing 787. But still I don't think this can be called verified.

The so-called Y3 project will most likely be B777 with more economical engines, a few aerodynamic touches and maybe a bit more composites percentage. And my "prediction" is it'll be called either 777-8 and -9 or 777NG. Developing a new VLA now is simply TOO LATE. That market is very narrow and Airbus has it covered with the A380. However two-engined large aircraft is a very profitable segment and with the new A350 the 777 faces VERY tough competition, including by it's younger brother, 787.

787 has never been called Y2 by the Boeing so I doubt it has ever been called that.

Y1 is not even on the horizon. Even the launch of 737 Max is planned for 2017, plus at least 10-15 more years of its production. So we're looking at MAYBE 2030-35, if not later. Personally, I don't think Y1 exists even as a "perspective study".

Considering all of the above, I suggest to tone the article down to emphasize that it's only suppositions and, to be honest, rumors, rather than real forecast. I've seen the references to the rules, but I'd like to remind you that this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA and it should be as objective and unbiased as possible. Leo (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Y1 has been called 737RS (replacement study?) recently. So it really has been studied and now deferred until the 2020s. These are proposed new airliner models not derivatives, like the 777-8X/-9X. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing anything like that on the Boeing website or actually on any decent aviation websites, except maybe for some flaming threads on aviation enthusiasts forums. 737RS wasn't called Y1. It was called... 737RS. 2020s is only 8 years away, and if Boeing was working on it, airlines would already be placing orders, left alone some incredible fanfare we'd be observing. It's not some secret airplane, and Boeing would be standing on top of their toy house and screaming their lungs off about it, had they have anything to offer or at least promise.

And I definitely don't remember Boeing offering new models recently. Emirates has been begging for a 777 replacement for years, Southwest has done the same for a new 737 - but Boeing hasn't responded to any of those requests even with a distant maybe.

Again, I'm NOT suggesting this article is not viable (even though I actually think so). All I'm saying is it needs to be toned down as a SUPPOSITION based on speculations not confirmed by the manufacturer. Leo (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Y1 Capacity

The article states that "The Y1 covers the 100-250 passenger market" but the chart only shows it going up to 200 passengers. Should this be changed?

F0rteOC (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing Yellowstone Project. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050515032404/http://www.richardaboulafia.com:80/shownote.asp?id=59 to http://www.richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=59

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Image out of date

The image is out of date. It classifies the 787 as "Y2" and omits the 777X entirely. 2604:2000:DD41:C200:8C4B:12B1:B229:453B (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Is Yellowstone still ongoing?

I can't find any sign that Yellowstone is still an ongoing project. Y2 became 787, Y3 may have become 777X, Y1 became NMA which is now on hold. Unless anyone has evidence to the contrary, I would suggest that most of the article should be changed to the past tense. Comments? Rosbif73 (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)