Is Boeing Quietly Rebranding The 737 MAX?

It goes without saying that Boeing is in quite a pickle with the 737 MAX. The plane is grounded globally following two accidents. Boeing and regulators are now working on getting the plane back in the sky.

Boeing claims the necessary software updates are complete, but there’s a lot more work to be done.

Trust in the 737 MAX is low

Part of Boeing’s work is convincing everyone — passengers, pilots, global regulators, etc. — that the plane is safe to fly again. Even if the FAA deems the plane airworthy, that doesn’t mean other aviation authorities will. Given that many airlines fly the 737 MAX on international routes, this could present a challenging situation unless all other aviation authorities quickly follow.

IAG’s 737 MAX letter of intent

Yesterday IAG (the parent company of British Airways, Iberia, Aer Lingus, Vueling, and LEVEL) signed a letter of intent to acquire 200 Boeing 737 MAXs. I imagine the way Boeing and IAG viewed this:

  • Boeing appreciated the public support from IAG, which they so desperately need at this point
  • IAG likely got a very good deal on these planes, should they actually choose to follow through on the order (this is just a letter of intent at this point, and it can’t even be ruled out that this was on some level a publicity stunt)

But there’s something very interesting regarding how the announcement was made, and I don’t think it’s a coincidence. If you look at IAG’s press release about this deal, you’ll see that nowhere do they use the term “MAX.”

Instead they simply refer to the planes they want to order as the 737-8 and 737-10. While those are technically the names of the planes, that’s the first time I’ve ever seen an airline not use the word “MAX” In a press release when referring to this type of plane.

I suspect this was a coordinated effort between Boeing and IAG, given the nature of the deal.

Is Boeing rebranding the 737 MAX?

Jon Ostrower points out that the IAG deal almost certainly marks the rebranding of the 737 MAX. Understandably Boeing won’t make a big fuss of this, because their goal is to minimize publicity around the plane as much as possible for the time being. Furthermore, I would expect Boeing to only change how they refer to the plane after it’s flying again, or else it may backfire. But I think he’s almost certainly right here.

This is even something that President Trump had suggested a while ago on Twitter (therefore it must be a great idea!):

Previous models of the 737 had three digit designators (737-700, 737-800, 737-900, etc.), while the MAX only has one digit behind the plane type (737 MAX 8, 737 MAX 9, and 737 MAX 10). That means the planes will now likely be referred to as the 737-8, 737-9, and 737-10.

In the meantime Ryanair has done something similar — they’ve rebranded the 737 MAX 200 as the 737-8200.

Bottom line

Boeing and airlines have a big challenge ahead of them in convincing the public that they should fly the 737 MAX once it’s certified again. Franky I can’t say that rebranding is a bad idea, and this is a subtle way to do it without being completely shady, in my opinion.

In reality the 737 MAX 8 is the 737-8. The “MAX” term was always used for marketing. But when that marketing term starts to consistently have a negative connotation among passengers, it’s logical enough that they’d want to drop it.

While I don’t expect we’ll see the “MAX” name dropped across the board overnight, I strongly believe that this is the first step in a subtle but deliberate rebranding of the plane. I imagine this will become more apparent once the plane is back in the air.

Do you think this is Boeing quietly rebranding the 737 MAX, and if so, what do you make of it?

Conversations (51)
The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.
Comment as a member

Membership is free and takes no more information than commenting as a guest. Earn status points for good contributions, and see fewer ads as your status grows.

Type your response here.

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Anyone can comment, and your email address will not be published. Register to save your unique username and earn special OMAAT reputation perks!

  1. Loading comments…
Recent Comments
The latest from the OMAAT community.

The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.

TLT Guest

The only "damaged brand" that is relevant to a re-branding do or don't is Tylenol. Johnson and Johnson had this same dilemma, and it was the same emotional reason that Boeing would be very ill-advised to change the name. It's about trust. Boeing needs to restore the public's trust in their company again, changing the name in some stupid attempt to distract, deceive, obfuscate....you get the idea, these are NOT words you use when you are trying to get someone to trust you again. Any attempt by Boeing to rename the MAX will be blasted by the media, and rightfully so, it's a dirty trick, and that's exactly how the public will see it.

0
‼ 0
TLT Guest

The only "damaged brand" that is relevant to a re-branding do or don't is Tylenol. Johnson and Johnson had this same dilemma, and it was the same emotional reason that Boeing would be very ill-advised to change the name. It's about trust. Boeing needs to restore the public's trust in their company, changing the name in some stupid attempt to distract, deceive, obfuscate....you get the idea, these are NOT words you use when you are trying to get someone to trust you again. Any attempt my Boeing to rename the MAX will be blasted by the media, and rightfully so, it's a dirty trick, and that's exactly how the public will see it.

0
‼ 0
EmiratesPlat Guest

I will never fly this aircraft again. In fact I will actively strive to determine if my selected route / airline is flying this aircraft, whether it's been rebranded or not. Despite Boeing's posturing to the contrary, I think it's despicable that they prioritised profits over safety; reducing the required training to a two-hour iPad tutorial as a way to get their model to market faster just to compete with Airbus; outsourcing elements of the MCAS design to suppliers who paid their engineers $7 an hour; the list goes on... Even now they're desperate to get back to market, and I am inclined to agree that the IAG letter of intent was a publicity stunt. That's sickening, as is any form of rebranding, whether by Boeing or the private airlines. To me, rebranding is a clear intent to CONTINUE prioritising profits over passengers concerns and the airlines are just as guilty as Boeing themselves. It's akin to saying "we don't want our passengers to know that they're flying in an aircraft that has killed nearly 400 people, so let's trick them into thinking they're not, so we don't lose any more money". Disgusting. The industry needs more regulation, more competition and less "cronyism" e.g. FAA shouldn't be allowed to delegate regulatory checks to the companies they are supposed to be regulating!!!!! The A380 has a 100% safety record. I think I'll continue flying this. I'll NEVER fly this aircraft again and I'll avoid Boeing planes in general like the plague.

0
‼ 0
panda Gold

Not safer... another problem Boeing missed https://www.npr.org/2019/06/26/736430419/faa-finds-new-problem-with-737-max-jets-delaying-their-return-to-flight

0
‼ 0
Dave Guest

I would say dropping a name or changing one would be normal in the circumstances, one thing is certain it will be a very much saver now than it was before.

0
‼ 0

Save posts to read later

Saving posts is a member feature. Become an OMAAT member to build a reading list you can come back to from any device.

Become a member
Meet Ben Schlappig, OMAAT Founder
5,883,136 Miles Traveled

43,914,800 Words Written

47,187 Posts Published