Boeing's Website Redesign Is Horrible!

LAX772LR · Sat Aug 08, 2015 3:23 am

It's truly terrible... takes 5xs longer to find something now, since they've screwed it up a while back.

I mean, is it just me? It's the least user-friendly thing I think I've ever seen... which is particularly frustrating, considering that I used to be able to look up orders/specs in 2 clicks or less.

Ugh, frustrating.

karadion · Sat Aug 08, 2015 4:25 am

The site works just fine.

phxa340 · Sat Aug 08, 2015 5:26 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Thread starter):

Sorry I think it works just fine. As with every redesign there is frustration getting to know the new interface. The day Facebook changed the world almost had a meltdown ...

seabosdca · Sat Aug 08, 2015 5:56 am

Boeing's website has an interface? I just google what I want and always get it.

LAX772LR · Sat Aug 08, 2015 7:40 am

Quoting Karadion (Reply 1):
The site works just fine.

No one's claiming that it doesn't work.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 3):
Boeing's website has an interface? I just google what I want and always get it.

Good call! Gonna have to start doing that... they trashed it.

747classic · Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:06 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Thread starter):
Boeing's Website Redesign Is Horrible

It's truly terrible... takes 5xs longer to find something now, since they've screwed it up a while back

I couldn't agree more, all the detailed aircraft info is gone or hidden.( ACAPS gone ?)

The structure of the site is not clear and why would I have to use " Google" to navigate on the Boeing site.

Also too much "nice gimmicks" and no clear content is displayed.

It's difficult for me (see my user name) to say it, but I now prefer the Airbus site lay-out above this terrible redesigned Boeing site.

(NEW IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER)

[Edited 2015-08-08 01:36:21]

scbriml · Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:16 am

Add one for the 'don't like it' brigade.

The old site was fine, the new one is not fine.

LAX772LR · Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:43 am

Quoting 747classic (Reply 5):
Also too much "nice gimmicks" and no clear content is displayed.

Thank you, that's exactly my point... nice new graphics and all, but the layout is so damn horrible that it takes a million years to find the simple information you came there for.

Someone SERIOUSLY dropped the ball with this ridiculous update.

Oykie · Sat Aug 08, 2015 9:32 am

I was of the opinion that Boeing's website was old and did not represent the high-tech company that Boeing is. It did not work well on iPad/iPhone as it had some Flash components and the rest of the site was old tech. A lot of the information about the products was obsolete, and not up to date. The 787 pages was not updated throughout the development and engineering. That being said, I always enjoyed looking at the order & deliveriy page, and technical information.

I like the design of the new website, but I get the feeling that it is not the R&D department or some engineers that have developed it, but the marketing department. I have yet to find the detailed technical information about each aircraft.

Things that are not consitant is that on the EA-18G Growler I easily find technical specifications. But I do not see range and maximum speed. navigating to the commercial site and the 787 does not show "Technical specifications." The closes option is 787 Design highlights. Here I can find the "Characteristics." i get the feeling that I am getting closer. Then I choose 787-8. I get height, wingspan and length. And I see range and passenger capacity. And to my great suprise it says "Specs" above the aircraft. I click on this and I see the cargo hold and cargo capacity. No information about wing area, enginge option, thrust and so on. it used to so seat map. But why would it be impossible to see both a seat map and cargo hold in the same area? And what happened to the "Specs?" I can easily find this on airbus web page and can easily swap between imperial and metrics. And to navigate the navigation bar collapses if you do not move the mouse cursor in a specific way. That is frustrating.

It is a webpage that is all about presentation, but it gives you few details about the products the company so proudly builds.

Ruscoe · Sat Aug 08, 2015 9:51 am

They must have changed the URL's as well, because some of the old favourites don't work either.

The info is still there but disjointed and hard to find.

Ruscoe

Andy33 · Sat Aug 08, 2015 10:44 am

I've always wondered what the purpose of the public Boeing and Airbus websites actually is?

They obviously aren't there to sell civil or military aircraft, or spare parts for them, or maintenance contracts for them, as just about every airline and government in the world will have frequent contact from the two manufacturers sales teams.

Encourage individual small investors to buy stock in the company? Well, maybe. The big investors wouldn't care what it says on a website, they'll go by past results and by predictions from analysts they trust.

Influence legislators in various countries? Again maybe, there are certainly some legislators about who are stupid enough to trust what they read on a company website.

Provide useful information to employees? That's what the two companies have intranets for.

Keep aviation enthusiasts from asking questions and distracting employees from their real jobs? Not doing a good job, then, judging by this redesign.

Oykie · Sat Aug 08, 2015 11:00 am

Quoting andy33 (Reply 10):

I've always wondered what the purpose of the public Boeing and Airbus websites actually is?

I work in a primary school and we use company websites to find information about them. We are probably not the main target, but the pages exist for marketing and branding purposes.

smokeybandit · Sat Aug 08, 2015 11:42 am

Exactly. The website is all about marketing. It isn't meant for aviation geeks.

karadion · Sat Aug 08, 2015 4:37 pm

Quoting 747classic (Reply 5):

ACAPS has been removed permanently and moved off to a customer password required section.

beeweel15 · Sat Aug 08, 2015 4:46 pm

Is this the section you all looking for it is not in a password area:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/plan_manuals.page

karadion · Sat Aug 08, 2015 4:54 pm

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 14):

That is temporary and will be removed. You cannot find it from the website through the navigation system.

747classic · Sat Aug 08, 2015 5:05 pm

Quoting smokeybandit (Reply 12):
Exactly. The website is all about marketing

So you mean a Marketing site doen't have to be easy to navigate .

Quoting Karadion (Reply 13):
ACAPS has been removed permanently and moved off to a customer password required section

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 14):
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/plan_manuals.page

This exactly what I meant : The site navigation is a total mess, nobody knows where what is hidden or if the content is available or not.

[Edited 2015-08-08 10:06:59]

karadion · Sat Aug 08, 2015 5:13 pm

Quoting 747classic (Reply 16):

i think you missed the point. They believe those information are irrelevant for you and are only needed for their customers. Their customers have all the necessary documents both through their Boeing focal & intranet access and such are trimming down their public website.

bohica · Sat Aug 08, 2015 5:58 pm

We have a winner in the latest round of A vs. B. The winner is.....(drumroll)....Airbus!!!

The Airbus website is much more user friendly than the new Boeing website.

karadion · Sat Aug 08, 2015 6:20 pm

Quoting bohica (Reply 18):

The website works fine for the general public. But when it comes to enthusiasts, it gets a negative in that category. There's no money in working the site to cater to enthusiasts. Sorry to say that. If there's any SPECIFIC issues that can breaks functionality, I can communicate it to the people that works on the website.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 8):

I can try and suggest they include wing span, engines options, thrust, etc into that. It just boils down to where to put it and if it's worth the time and effort to implement the graphics. The engine they might go for and I think they can incorporate the wing span into the wings category.

Tugger · Sat Aug 08, 2015 6:36 pm

Quoting Karadion (Reply 17):
Quoting 747classic (Reply 16):i think you missed the point. They believe those information are irrelevant for you and are only needed for their customers. Their customers have all the necessary documents both through their Boeing focal & intranet access and such are trimming down their public website.

But why trim down such things? Are they harmful to the company?

Quoting Karadion (Reply 19):
There's no money in working the site to cater to enthusiasts.

But there is also no money in moving/removing some of the many things that enthusiasts appreciate and use. So why do it in the first place? It is just data with a link, and has to be maintained wherever it is. In fact I am willing to bet there will be money spent to suppress such things and to track down and lock down items that are found by the enthusiasts as they do their research.

I always find it silly when companies do things that do not actually benefit them and rather focus on changes that are unnecessary. But whatever, I'm not trying to convince you and it does not affect me. It is just silly for a company not to do simple things that help those that are fans of the company, it is the best form of marketing and promotion.

Tugg

karadion · Sat Aug 08, 2015 7:29 pm

Quoting Tugger (Reply 20):

Did you not read the thread? The old website had a lot of flash components and they were removing those code as well as giving the website a complete makeover. Whatever conspiracy you come up with is your own opinion and I'm not going to answer it. Stick to what I asked and I'll pass it on as long it's reasonable. The fact is the customers is not airliners.net. The people who are interested in buying airframes in an RFP will get all the necessary information. Boeing.com is not a store unlike say The Boeing Store which you're free to purchase Boeing merchandise and have it shipped to your home.

Now if there's anything you find that is erroneous or out of place, do let me know. There's been a couple errors here and there that I've found and had them fixed. There's also room for improvement but don't be surprised if they've already decided something is not necessary. I do not represent Boeing so do not get the wrong impression that I'm here to give a statement on behalf of the company.

crimsonchin · Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:34 pm

Well I haven't navigated the website(and have no interests in doing so) enough to be familiar with it, but just looking at it from a purely aesthetic pov, it's a much better improvement on the old one. That looked like something out of the dial-up era, so at least they've made it more modern and sleek.

trex8 · Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:49 pm

Quoting Karadion (Reply 19):
There's no money in working the site to cater to enthusiasts.

So if the acaps data is currently still available to the general public, what "cost" is there to keep it that way as opposed to this plan to need a customer signin. I 'm not an IT person but how difficult can it be to have links to pdf documents????

mjoelnir · Sat Aug 08, 2015 9:41 pm

Quoting Karadion (Reply 19):
The website works fine for the general public. But when it comes to enthusiasts, it gets a negative in that category. There's no money in working the site to cater to enthusiasts. Sorry to say that. If there's any SPECIFIC issues that can breaks functionality, I can communicate it to the people that works on the website.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 8):

I can try and suggest they include wing span, engines options, thrust, etc into that. It just boils down to where to put it and if it's worth the time and effort to implement the graphics. The engine they might go for and I think they can incorporate the wing span into the wings category.

The website is nice looking but information wise a complete flop, totally useless. Who, but aviation enthusiast, are looking at an aircraft producers webpage anyway? Boeing has just uninvited them all.

nikeherc · Sat Aug 08, 2015 10:21 pm

Nobody that can't get more in depth information, needs it. While I am something of a geek and enjoy the minutiae, I don't need it. I have a feeling that Boeing has concerns about cyber security and has divorced the public website from the servers and networks they use to run the company. It does cost more to store and access extra information. Their website is for PR purposes and is not intended to be a hobbyist's home away from home.

karadion · Sat Aug 08, 2015 10:22 pm

Quoting trex8 (Reply 23):

The ACAPS link is using the same link which you can only get it if you google it. If the web designers changed the links to something else and do not link it, then the ACAPS information either becomes lost or just hard to find which one must make a link to the new link and be archived by a web crawler.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 24):

Okay.

Ruscoe · Sat Aug 08, 2015 11:52 pm

Quoting Karadion (Reply 19):

The website works fine for the general public. But when it comes to enthusiasts, it gets a negative in that category.

I think Boeing have got it wrong in this Dept.

As we often hear on A.net, and I agree, the general public don't know or care what company makes the aircraft they fly on, and therefore the Website will not change their perceptions. However the small number of enthusiasts, who do use their website, can be greatly influenced by what they read, and these enthusiasts, have friends and so on, and journalists use Forum sites a lot it would seem, and because they are enthusiasts some of them will end up in the industry and possibly in influential positions, so it seems to me to be in Boeings interests to keep them on side.

Further a Company with the resources of Boeing can easily maintain the site for both enthusiasts and the general public, especially considering that the information the enthusiasts are after does not change rapidly, if at all, and can be tabulated, and will not require a lot of resources to maintain, and does not have to reflect the cutting edge nature of the company that the "general public" site is intended to do.

Ruscoe

Viscount724 · Sun Aug 09, 2015 12:06 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Thread starter):
It's truly terrible... takes 5xs longer to find something now, since they've screwed it up a while back.

I mean, is it just me? It's the least user-friendly thing I think I've ever seen... which is particularly frustrating, considering that I used to be able to look up orders/specs in 2 clicks or less.

It's not just you. I totally agree. For example, some important links (e.g. Orders and Deliveries) are now in the links at the bottom of the page which on most sites are for various administrative or other unimportant items. And when you do click the Orders and Deliveries link it takes you to "Randy's Journal" and you have to scroll down on that page to get to Orders/Deliveries. There should be separate links for such unrelated items.

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 14):
Is this the section you all looking for it is not in a password area:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/plan_manuals.page

Quoting Karadion (Reply 15):
Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 14):

That is temporary and will be removed. You cannot find it from the website through the navigation system.

I think that's a mistake. That's an excellent source of information for the media, apart from others interested in Boeing products. It's also publicly available to anyone in the Airbus site. I can't see any reason for not making such information public.

[Edited 2015-08-08 17:10:53]

karadion · Sun Aug 09, 2015 12:55 am

Okay. So, what are you really asking me to do? I think you all need to understand that I'm not going to do anything to reverse the changes. If there's an error with the website like incorrect ranges, broken links, wrong basic information, etc do let me know and I'll pass it on. I'm not the person to complain to. If you want to fix the website, apply for a job with Boeing specifically associated with the team. I don't know what the job code would be so don't ask me. You still have to deal with managers that have ultimately decided what the content will contain or not contain. That's it, end of story.

Feel free to suggest changes with graphics to indicate how it could work better. If you just say change it back to the old system, that won't fly and that's just a good way to get ignored.

The OD page by the way does not take you to Randy's journal so you're doing something wrong.
1. Go to Commercial
2. Click Orders & Deliveries, not Randy's Journal.
3. Search away, it stays within that web container.
At no point does it go to Randy's Journal. The section above does go to Randy's Journal. I did notice an error with the direct link to Randy's Journal so that's something that needs to be fixed and I'll pass that on to get it remedied.

Viscount724 · Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:11 am

Quoting Karadion (Reply 29):
The OD page by the way does not take you to Randy's journal so you're doing something wrong.
1. Go to Commercial
2. Click Orders & Deliveries, not Randy's Journal.
3. Search away, it stays within that web container.
At no point does it go to Randy's Journal.

It does for me. Just tried again to confirm.

1. I go to Boeing.com
2. I scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on the Orders/Deliveries link.
3. It opens with "Randy's Journal" filling almost all my screen (Windows 8.1, IE 11) on a 15.6" laptop. I have to scroll down a few inches to get to the top of the Orders/Deliveries info. And when I scroll up on that page above Randy's Journal I see a bunch of other unrelated items. All those items would be better on their own pages with their own links, especially Orders/Deliveries.

At least I now know where to find Orders/Deliveries but it seems strange that you have to scroll to reach it after clicking the link.

I have sent several messages using the Feedback tool on the Boeing site but you never get any response to those messages on any site, not just Boeing's.

I always knew where to find everything on the old Boeing site. That's no longer the case.

karadion · Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:19 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 30):

You need to screenshot what you're doing wrong. Use snipping tools and upload it to imgur
Boeing Front Page
You got two routes. Either you can click Commercial or you can click Orders & Deliveries
Boeing Commercial Page
No matter what resolution you're on, you're always going to see that bar. The page automatically resizes to the resolution you have.
Boeing O&D section
If that category is highlighted, then it works fine. If it's highlighted on Randy's Journal, then you're on the wrong section.

Viscount724 · Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:28 am

Quoting Karadion (Reply 31):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 30):

You need to screenshot what you're doing wrong. Use snipping tools and upload it to imgur
Boeing Front Page
You got two routes. Either you can click Commercial or you can click Orders & Deliveries
Boeing Commercial Page
No matter what resolution you're on, you're always going to see that bar. The page automatically resizes to the resolution you have.
Boeing O&D section
If that category is highlighted, then it works fine. If it's highlighted on Randy's Journal, then you're on the wrong section.

As mentioned before, my normal practice is to go to O/D link at the bottom of the Boeing.com hompage. When I click that link, it opens but not at the top of the O/D section but with "Randy's Journay" very large in the middle of the page. Nothing resizes to move O/D to the top of my screen, and my screen size at the bottom is showing 100% so it's not zoomed.

karadion · Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:37 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 32):

Then you're clicking the wrong link.
Boeing O&D link
If you look at the link, it points to the O&D link which is : http://www.boeing.com/commercial/#/orders-deliveries
Boeing Randy's link
That link however takes you to http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/

Viscount724 · Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:46 am

Quoting Karadion (Reply 33):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 32):

Then you're clicking the wrong link.
Boeing O&D link
If you look at the link, it points to the O&D link which is : http://www.boeing.com/commercial/#/orders-deliveries
Boeing Randy's link
That link however takes you to http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/

When I tried again just now, it did open at the topof the O/D section, but 10 minutes ago it did not. Very strange.

Tugger · Sun Aug 09, 2015 4:11 am

Quoting Karadion (Reply 21):
Did you not read the thread? The old website had a lot of flash components and they were removing those code as well as giving the website a complete makeover. Whatever conspiracy you come up with is your own opinion and I'm not going to answer it. Stick to what I asked and I'll pass it on as long it's reasonable. The fact is the customers is not airliners.net. The people who are interested in buying airframes in an RFP will get all the necessary information. Boeing.com is not a store unlike say The Boeing Store which you're free to purchase Boeing merchandise and have it shipped to your home.

Now if there's anything you find that is erroneous or out of place, do let me know. There's been a couple errors here and there that I've found and had them fixed. There's also room for improvement but don't be surprised if they've already decided something is not necessary. I do not represent Boeing so do not get the wrong impression that I'm here to give a statement on behalf of the company.

Wow, that's a lot of exercise from all that jumping you are doing. I am not criticizing you nor taking you to task, I am just making my personal comments and expressing my personal viewpoint. I think I am right of course and that others could find some use from my comments but I don't expect anything. I didn't even really think you had any real ability to pass anything along to anyone. Apparently I was wrong. So OK.

I still think helping/being supportive/whatever toward enthusiasts is smart and ultimately good business. But I do not expect my comment to change anything. Corporations being what corporations are.

And yes I did read the thread.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 29):
Okay. So, what are you really asking me to do?

Nothing?

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 34):
When I tried again just now, it did open at the topof the O/D section, but 10 minutes ago it did not. Very strange.

Likely the guys at Boeing are (as Karadion notes he is sending on info) are following enthusiasts sites like A.net to see what needs tweaking. I mean who else will use the site and then actively comment on it. Best method for doing these kinds of things.

Many new website roll outs will have personnel monitoring online comments and make coding changes. It is not that hard for them to do. (Yet another great use of "enthusiasts".)

Tugg

747classic · Sun Aug 09, 2015 5:55 am

Just after these changes did take place, I received a pop up to give some comments.
I did comment (not positive) but nothing has changed.

Karadion, hopefully you have more influence within Boeing, we are only asking for detailed, tabulated aircraft specifications (for all present and in the past produced aircraft types ) via a clear link.

P.S. I used the old info, present on the" old " site many years ago to write a detailed business case to my employer and as a result they decided to modify two Boeing747 aircraft to full freighters, so the "spin off" can also be profitable

LAX772LR · Sun Aug 09, 2015 6:54 am

Quoting Karadion (Reply 29):
Okay. So, what are you really asking me to do?

To actually LISTEN to users, instead of being reflexively defensive.

Dude, that site is shit. It's horrible. People are telling you that.

Instead of hearing them, you're just telling them how unimportant they are, how it's not directed at them, and how they're just "doing it wrong"

...well, if that's the attitude behind it all (based on the presumption that you have some connection to the site or its builders/operators) then why have it at all?

As has been said: airlines aren't getting anything from it, and investors probably have little concern for the differences between a 735 and a 753.

So if the people who probably use it more than any other (i.e., have nothing to gain or lose from doing so, and thus probably provide your most objective feedback!) are telling you areas where its user-friendliness is seriously lacking... then perhaps it's within that site's best interest to take that into high consideration? One would think so.

[Edited 2015-08-09 00:01:22]

karadion · Sun Aug 09, 2015 7:48 am

Quoting Tugger (Reply 35):
Likely the guys at Boeing are (as Karadion notes he is sending on info) are following enthusiasts sites like A.net to see what needs tweaking.

Actually they get their responses from people internally. This went live a while back and they got all their feedbacks from employees internally.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 37):

And? Your opinion is your own. People are telling me what? Nothing that's relevant. If there's something that can be tweaked a bit better, some issues that needs to be remedied that, etc, I'll suggest it or pass on the information that's obviously broken. That is what I'm telling you people. I am not your go-to person to fix the way you want it nor am I the person that you tell to change the website back to the old system. No, it's not going to happen. Understand? As it is, the website works fine. What is it that you're trying to find that was there before? What particular issues are you having specifically? The only issue that I see you're having is that you want to access O&D quickly from the website? So use Google. http://bfy.tw/1DVG Or just bookmark the O&D page.

[Edited 2015-08-09 00:54:13]

LAX772LR · Sun Aug 09, 2015 7:52 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 37):
Dude, that site is shit. It's horrible. People are telling you that.
Instead of hearing them, you're just telling them how unimportant they are

...(followed by)...

Quoting Karadion (Reply 38):
People are telling me what? Nothing that's relevant.

Case rested folks.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Sad.

[Edited 2015-08-09 01:01:05]

karadion · Sun Aug 09, 2015 7:53 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 39):

So that doesn't answer my question. Do go on ranting.

LAX772LR · Sun Aug 09, 2015 7:58 am

Quoting Karadion (Reply 40):
Do go on ranting.

No rant. Just pointing out a fact: you have several here, with no reason to lie, telling you that they're experiencing a user-interactive issue with that site which wasn't present prior, and your response is essentially: "lalalala can't hear you."

Sorry that you don't like that being pointed out, but as stated, it's sadly apparent.

karadion · Sun Aug 09, 2015 8:07 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 39):

Again, LAX772LR, all I've seen are rants with absolutely no suggestions on where improvements can be made. That's the point I'm making here. I can use QED against you but again there's absolutely no money to be made to cater to enthusiasts. The budget which are carefully allocated in Boeing are being pressured by a number of factors including the KC-46A and 787 program which all departments are in cost-savings mode. So either you make a website that's over the top or you just "keep it simple, stupid" (KISS) and I don't blame them for doing that. There's also the issue of managers that can determine if something is to be proprietary information from a certain point which documents in past were not proprietary. There's nothing I can do to suggest to drop that proprietary restriction. So let's say hypothetically document A version A was publicly available but document A version H has been made proprietary, they will take it offline. So just hope you had that document saved. There's also IT security implications which because of the big news about leaks of confidential information of all kind, I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to maintain that barrier between what's on the intranet and the internet.

Again, I need to re-iterate the point that if you find a functionality problem with the website, find broken links or even perhaps erroneous links, suggestions to add something to content already there, I'll pass it on. The gist of this thread is basically "Change it back to the old website." and that information isn't helpful.

If you're just going to rant about how you dislike the website, you know what is going to happen? They ignore you. If you have a suggestion of where to make an improvement, then they are likely to listen to you. That's some Quality Assurance advice for you.

LAX772LR · Sun Aug 09, 2015 8:57 am

Quoting Karadion (Reply 42):
Again, LAX772LR, all I've seen are rants with absolutely no suggestions on where improvements can be made.

Scroll up, I'm looking at several just in this thread. Not sure how you could miss 'em, other than just not WANTING to see...

Quoting Karadion (Reply 42):
I can use QED against you but again

I suppose you could, though not all that accurately.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 42):
there's absolutely no money to be made to cater to enthusiasts.

So again, back to the question: what's the point of it at all?

I mean, for media... what money does it make from that? Besides, they still manage to screw it up anyway.
So what's the answer?

747classic · Sun Aug 09, 2015 9:24 am

Quoting Karadion (Reply 42):
Again, LAX772LR, all I've seen are rants with absolutely no suggestions on where improvements can be made.

Quoting 747classic (Reply 36):
Karadion, hopefully you have more influence within Boeing, we are only asking for detailed, tabulated aircraft specifications (for all present and in the past produced aircraft types ) via a clear link.

I asked for something............................................

mjoelnir · Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:11 pm

Quoting Karadion (Reply 42):
Again, LAX772LR, all I've seen are rants with absolutely no suggestions on where improvements can be made.

Very simple Karedion, bring information about the Boeing aeroplanes.

If it was the decision by Boeing to remove the possibility to find information about Boeing commercial aeroplanes from the webpage, your IT guys did a fantastic job.
Just do not expect anybody to look at that webpage and expect them to come back for another look. It joins the growing group of beautiful, but absolute useless sites that are in vogue now.

karadion · Sun Aug 09, 2015 5:40 pm

Quoting 747classic (Reply 44):

I'm aware of that one. Was just talking about the overall thread. I've already noted it and will see what they'll say. Can you give a more detailed list of what you'd like to see?

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 45):

Okay. I don't work on the site. So it appears that you're treating me as such? Next time make a detailed list about what you think can be improved and I'll pass it on.

Remember guys, I'm here on my own time which I'm happy to help. But since you're all treating me like your person to gang up on, I can always move on and ignore the thread passing on no suggestions to the responsible people and you can continue your complaining. Now start over again and do what I asked. Make a detailed list of problems you've noticed. I do not want rants to try and decipher what you're asking for. Thank you.

[Edited 2015-08-09 10:54:12]

mjoelnir · Sun Aug 09, 2015 7:48 pm

Quoting Karadion (Reply 46):
Okay. I don't work on the site. So it appears that you're treating me as such? Next time make a detailed list about what you think can be improved and I'll pass it on.

I do not treat you as the guy, who does the web site, but you are the guy defending it. We are having discussion. You asked what is wrong with the site and it is very simple just one point, the detailed information about Boeing airplanes is missing, simple.

Oykie · Sun Aug 09, 2015 8:15 pm

Quoting Karadion (Reply 19):
I can try and suggest they include wing span, engines options, thrust, etc into that. It just boils down to where to put it and if it's worth the time and effort to implement the graphics. The engine they might go for and I think they can incorporate the wing span into the wings category.

Thank you! More specifications about Boeing airplanes would be awsome!

Here is a wishlist. I know some are there already. But if it would be possible to find everything in one click, I will enjoy the new site

Overall Length
Cabin length
Fuselage Width
Max Cabin width
Wing Span
Wing area
Height
Track
Wheelbase
Pax (Typical and Max
Freight
Range
Cruise speed in Nautical miles
Maximum speed
Max Ramp weight
Max Take-off weight
Max landing weight
Max zero fuel weight
Max fuel capacity.

Ane engines thrust as well as manufacturer

That's it

LAX772LR · Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:32 am

Quoting Karadion (Reply 46):
But since you're all treating me like your person to gang up on

...because, quite frankly, you set yourself up wide open for such.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 47):
but you are the guy defending it. We are having discussion. You asked what is wrong with the site and it is very simple

^THIS.

You (Karadion) asked. We told you. Then you (twice!) denied that that even happened, when all you had to do was scroll up to see for yourself. Very strange, to be honest.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 47):
just one point

I'd say it's even simpler than that:
Reply#28 perfectly outlines my point of centention with it -- you click on one thing, and it takes you to something almost totally irrelevant.

You usually have to scroll around from that point, or further click through, to find what you were originally looking for.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net