Another comment on the Boeing orders/deliveries data. When CO/UA merged, Boeing merged all their historic orders/deliveries under the UA entry. So it now looks like UA ordered DC-9s, Boeing 707s and other types that were ordered by and delivered to CO decades ago. And there's now no way to determine how many 727s or other types operated by both airlines over the years were delivered to each airline. It makes no sense to show CO orders/deliveries as UA for the years prior to the merger.

For the NW/DL merger (and dozens of other mergers) they didn't do that. You can still easily see what aircraft were ordered/delivered to NW before they became part of DL. You can't do that for CO before they became part of UA. I hope they don't do the same thing for AA/US.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 48):

A number of those already exist on the characteristics pages of each model. I suppose they could make a new section below the characteristics page. However the thrust information is probably asked to be left out by the OEM both GE and RR. There's also the fact that there's different thrust ratings that customers implement for their fleet. For example BAB uses 1000-J's for their 787-9's and 1000-AE's for their 787-8's on all their jets so far but ANA uses all types of thrust ratings of the Trent 1000 family. The documents however are on both the OEM's websites as far as I know.

Anyways let's take the 787 for example:
Boeing > Commercial > 787 > Design Highlights > Characteristics > 787-8
Overall Length
Cabin Length: Not there
Fuselage Width: Not there
Max Cabin Width: Not there
Wing Span
Wing Area: Not there
Height
Track? Not sure what you're referring to here.
Wheelbase? As in how many bogies it has?
PAX but not max
Freight - three different versions: Cargo 1 Cargo 2 Cargo 3
MTOW

A little while back, some of those points were in there but I suppose some site redesign took those out when they did the cargo information but probably forgot to put it back in.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 49): ...because, quite frankly, you set yourself up wide open for such.

You misunderstand here. I'm happy to try and help you guys. The problem is I'm not your punching bag. Stop acting like it. The simple fact of the matter is I've already noted 747Classic and OyKie. Now back to the point I think you need to understand is what do you want specifically to see and how to integrate it where specifically. Just say "Put it back" doesn't help me. Here's something you can do. Take snipping tools, take the shot, dump it in Paint, Photoshop, etc, and make examples of how it could work. That way I can be able to decipher what you're asking for. If you want to have a debate contest of he said she said, I'll back out of this discussion and bid you good day.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 51): Just say "Put it back" doesn't help me.

I didn't. What part of that mentioned response didn't make sense? I'm asking seriously, and not sarcastically. It outlines it specifically.

If you want, I'll redo those steps and take pics of each step along the way, but will that really help anything? If so, then I'll do it.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 51): I'm not your punching bag. Stop acting like it

Quoting Karadion (Reply 46): Remember guys, I'm here on my own time

Quoting Karadion (Reply 51): I'll back out of this discussion and bid you good day.

What's the point of this?

If you want to stay, then stay. If you want to go, then go. But if you're looking for a pat on the back for gracing us with your presence, then you're probably barking up the wrong tree here.

So can we please just move forward without this manner of self-pity routine?

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 50): For the NW/DL merger (and dozens of other mergers) they didn't do that. You can still easily see what aircraft were ordered/delivered to NW before they became part of DL. You can't do that for CO before they became part of UA. I hope they don't do the same thing for AA/US.

Interesting. Never noticed that.

Think it might be at the request of the carrier though?

[Edited 2015-08-09 22:47:12]

Quoting Karadion (Reply 51): Take snipping tools, take the shot, dump it in Paint, Photoshop, etc, and make examples of how it could work. That way I can be able to decipher what you're asking for.

We (who happen to be an Australian research partner of yours   ) also recently redeveloped our website, dumping a lot of technical and more detailed content in the process. Part of the reason was due to support staff cuts meaning nobody could review content and write updates. There are other reasons too...

Our main website is aimed at a general and business audience. However, we also have a much smaller but very important technical audience. Our solution has been to create small subsites to cater directly to this audience. There is an element of trust in our researchers that they won't abuse these sites and there is still central control of the system, but it allows more freedom of communication without every word having to be parsed by marketing oriented editors.

Perhaps it's a hint of a solution for Boeing. Create a simple small site for aviation enthusiasts, find some support within the company to put the details there. If something is sensitive then leave it out but put a note as to why.

Allow the site to build up with time and be a historical record. But you don't need to worry so much about it integrating with your larger web presence.

Boeing should be the source for information about your aircraft, not Wikipedia.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 52): If you want, I'll redo those steps and take pics of each step along the way, but will that really help anything? If so, then I'll do it.

Yes.

Quoting allrite (Reply 53): Create a simple small site for aviation enthusiasts, find some support within the company to put the details there.

That sounds a bit far fetch what you're asking for. Boeing is operating under "One Boeing" for several years now which they're operating under strict budgets. That's why I've been telling people here on their ideas of where to integrate something and I'll pass it on to see if it's workable within the time restraints they operate under. If they say no, then I move on. Obvious errors and problematic links are easily fixable and don't need much debate on. I don't know what the strategy the web team is working on and what their goal was.

There was a BNN article talking about the makeover where they wanted to elevate the brand among customers, potential employees, key audiences, etc. They did a number of interviews, conducted surveys, used industry best practices to lay out the foundation of the site. They wanted to reduce the amount of pages. Back in 2010, there were 20,000 pages to manage, 2013 - 7000 pages, and now today 1000 pages. The reason behind this was their users were having a hard time finding the information they wanted and the large amount of pages didn't help. As some of you demonstrated here, they're having a hard time finding that information. With the detailed list above, I could say that they need to tweak it a bit better to include those information.

Karadion: I have a very simple complaint (the kind you seemed to be asking for) and suggestion: Don't remove access to ACAP PDF:s from the public Boeing website. For me and many Boeing enthusiasts, these are of enormous interest and frequently accessed.

If you or your managers want a bottom line reason for not doing this, how about the fact that I for one, who have loved aviation in general and Boeing in particular since I was about old enough to talk and walk, will take my "If it aint Boeing, I'm not going" T-shirt, stickers and keychains and throw them right in the trash.

If the attitude from the new Boeing is that aviation fans like me are garbage and simply "not relevant" (as you actually put in in this thread), don't expect any free marketing from me or any good words to industry colleagues about Boeing as a company in my future career in engineering.

[Edited 2015-08-10 09:05:05]

Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 55): Don't remove access to ACAP PDF:s from the public Boeing website.

They're still there, just not linked from the home page. Google will help you find them.

I've read the whole thread and I think it boils down to:

Quoting nikeherc (Reply 25): Their website is for PR purposes and is not intended to be a hobbyist's home away from home.

and:

Quoting Karadion (Reply 42): 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.

In theory a compromise such as suggested here:

Quoting allrite (Reply 53): We (who happen to be an Australian research partner of yours ) also recently redeveloped our website, dumping a lot of technical and more detailed content in the process. Part of the reason was due to support staff cuts meaning nobody could review content and write updates. There are other reasons too...

could happen, but such compromises add a lot more cost than the KISS web site approach.

Keep in mind web sites are code and when the underlying principals of the code change (like Flash is forbidden and all pages need to be able to dynamically resize to support mobile devices) then all the existing pages need to be recoded or discarded. Odds are extremely high that the people who originally wrote the site are no longer around and many of the programs that once had the staff to review the pages as they were created also are no longer around.

A very interesting point is:

Quoting Karadion (Reply 54): Back in 2010, there were 20,000 pages to manage, 2013 - 7000 pages, and now today 1000 pages. The reason behind this was their users were having a hard time finding the information they wanted and the large amount of pages didn't help. As some of you demonstrated here, they're having a hard time finding that information. With the detailed list above, I could say that they need to tweak it a bit better to include those information.

I could see why they'd want 1,000 up-to-date pages rather than 20,000 pages of varying vintage and quality.

Given the goals one can imply by all of this stuff, I think the new page is pretty decent. For a test, I went to the commercial part and looked at the 787 and 737. Was able to learn a lot about both products, even without a table of specifications. Was surprised to see the 737 page used Flash to play the videos though..

[quote=LAX772LR,reply=7]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.


I guess I wouldn't say it's better, but it's not that bad either. You are way overboard on this.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 56): They're still there, just not linked from the home page. Google will help you find them.

Perfectly aware of that. Read the following:

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

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 14): Is this the section you all looking for it is not in a password area: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/air....page

Quoting Karadion (Reply 15): That is temporary and will be removed. You cannot find it from the website through the navigation system.

I suggest you pause for just a minute the next time you want to make a snarky "google is your friend" comment.

Dear Karadion, for an aircraft enthusiast the new Boeing page is a flop, take it like a man.
I can not imagine for whom this new web site is intended, if you exclude the enthusiast, who is left?

Best regards

Mjoelnir

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 60): I can not imagine for whom this new web site is intended, if you exclude the enthusiast, who is left?

You really think the only people the boeing.com web site is intended for is for aviation enthusiasts? Oy vey, I think I've seen it all now...

Quoting Revelation (Reply 57): could happen, but such compromises add a lot more cost than the KISS web site approach. Keep in mind web sites are code and when the underlying principals of the code change (like Flash is forbidden and all pages need to be able to dynamically resize to support mobile devices) then all the existing pages need to be recoded or discarded. Odds are extremely high that the people who originally wrote the site are no longer around and many of the programs that once had the staff to review the pages as they were created also are no longer around.

There are certainly risks (and Boeing has to be especially cognisant of security and reputational risk). Our strategy is to maintain as much central control of the underlying systems whilst giving authors more flexibility with their content. A good content management system means that recoding of pages can hopefully be performed centrally without needing to rewrite content (though it never seems to work out perfectly.   ).

I'm a rare visitor to the Boeing site, but just the other day I wanted to look up range specs for their aircraft, did a Google search, then couldn't find what I wanted on the Boeing site. I love the Airbus aircraft range tool. Of course the real customers don't need it but the airline manufacturers are so large and so important to society in general that outreach is important. You are also providing tools for use by media organisations - in an online world you can't guarantee that they'll ring you to find out the numbers.

Thanks for the great post. Some mostly constructive feedback follows...

Quoting allrite (Reply 62): There are certainly risks (and Boeing has to be especially cognisant of security and reputational risk).

Yes, and such concerns have grown over time. Boeing has been on the internet a very very long time. It's got to be pretty easy for them to justify getting rid of concise tables in favor of "info-graphics", and much more difficult for them to justify concise numbers that are only valid under some pretty specific conditions and bound to get varying degrees of pushback.

Quoting allrite (Reply 62): A good content management system means that recoding of pages can hopefully be performed centrally without needing to rewrite content (though it never seems to work out perfectly. ).

Indeed, and a lot of those 20,000 pages must have been generated long before those content systems were put into place.

Quoting allrite (Reply 62): Of course the real customers don't need it but the airline manufacturers are so large and so important to society in general that outreach is important.

Manager: "Social benefit my ass, show me the money!"  

Quoting allrite (Reply 62): You are also providing tools for use by media organisations - in an online world you can't guarantee that they'll ring you to find out the numbers.

Geez, they can't even figure out what kind of plane it is, never mind deal with MTOW at ISA condiitions....  

Quoting Revelation (Reply 63): Manager: "Social benefit my ass, show me the money!"

I distinctly remember helping my wife research "good will accounting" when she did her commerce degree. I'm sure there were case studies for the MBA types to use.  

Quoting Revelation (Reply 63): Geez, they can't even figure out what kind of plane it is, never mind deal with MTOW at ISA condiitions....

That's why simple graphical tools to show them that, no, that 772 didn't have enough fuel to fly from Malaysia to the Bermuda Triangle, are so important.

I'm a big proponent of sharing as much technical information as possible because there are intelligent people out there who can use the information in new and interesting ways. Can't stand press releases telling me how I can think. I've had a few clashes with our marketing and communications people.  

On to some practical issues with the site:

Just looking at http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787...rodynamics/smooth-wing-technology/

I'm not an accessibility expert (some others on our team are) but it appears that the site is not accessible. For instance, images don't have alt tags. Tabbing seems to work, which is a plus. When you click on the "Read More" tags you can't copy or highlight the text (I suppose that's good from a "stop stealing text for your assignment" perspective). It's very fancy and there are lots of things to do in the 787 section, but it would be nice to have some tabular information for quick reference instead of needing to load up each of the 787 models separately.

I can see that a lot of effort has gone into the site and visually it's impressive. As I'm not a big user of the site it's difficult for me to compare from a historical perspective, but there quite a bit to read and view about each aircraft, so that's a plus. In my opinion what would be good is some summary information, such as is provided for the CH-47 ( http://www.boeing.com/defense/ch-47-chinook/#/technical-specifications ) and methods for expert users to find information without having to wade through all the pretty marketing stuff.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 38): Actually they get their responses from people internally. This went live a while back and they got all their feedbacks from employees internally.

Not the right audience, not the target audience at all in fact.

That is how Microsoft ended up with things like Vista and Win8....
  I say it tongue in cheek but it is true.

Tugg

Quoting allrite (Reply 64): I distinctly remember helping my wife research "good will accounting" when she did her commerce degree. I'm sure there were case studies for the MBA types to use.

Certainly, but then there has to be the will to use such case studies, which is not present in current day corporate USA, as far as I can tell.

Quoting LAX772LR (Thread starter): 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.

Not just you. I was thinking the same thing as I looked at the site last week.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 65):

The comparison of Microsoft to Boeing is very different. Microsoft has a ton of employees that are going in and out which they're hired on a short term basis which the knowledge is technically lost. But what knowledge is lost? Programming is easily available in the form of H-2B workers which is abundant supply for Microsoft. In the case of Windows 8, it had to do with their goals which they were trying to build a cloud / One Windows ecosystem among mobiles and the desktop which is extremely difficult to implement.

Boeing on the other hand has employees that have been there for decades that have intimate knowledge of the product they're selling which aviation enthusiasts MIGHT know something but they are far greatly outweighed by those who engineer, design, assemble the products on the factory floors. The outside public will know absolutely nothing about what Boeing makes because it's still subjected to proprietary review of what can be disclosed and not be disclosed due to commerce laws.

Quoting psa188 (Reply 67):

You still can look up OD in two clicks or less. Bottom of the front page in popular links.

Its obvious, the same people who ran the 787 program into the ground are in charge of the website also!   

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 37):

Boeing's site is for PR purposes and is not designed for enthusiasts.. your comments imply you are entitled, and you're not. also I note the site changed several months ago but it took this long to complain?? Note also that the old site had many errors that were too difficult to find and fix.. the simplest solution was a streamlined redesign.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 60):

still hating Boeing??? and wanting unlimited access to look in their pants? I'm sure all companies (including yours) have aspects that are not for public consumption no matter how the "entitled" desire access.

The reason for putting up technical information has nothing to do with aviation enthusiasts. Boeing doesn't need us, as much as it may be painful to admit it. It's for investor relations purposes. Investors and analysts need ACAP-type data to make a sensible judgment about whether a particular airplane will work for a particular customer or type of customer, which is important information for evaluating the value and predicting the future performance of Boeing securities. If basic ACAP documents weren't on the web, the investor relations staff would have to provide them all the time.

Quoting kanban (Reply 70): I'm sure all companies (including yours) have aspects that are not for public consumption no matter how the "entitled" desire access.

Except what they are now saying isnt for the public, eg the acaps (If Karadion is correct that it will not be available in the future to the general public) , have been available for the general public for a as long as I can remember using the internet to look at such things!
Airbus has password protected area on their website for "real " customers and then they have acaps and other stuff available publicly to all the unwashed peasants.

Again I'm not an IT person but I seriously doubt its so difficult technically, time/money wise to set up links to a giga bite or less of pdf documents, some of which dont ever need changing- like all the out of production planes!

most of what enthusiasts want is available on the big web, with a little searching, which many lookie -loo "entitled" wonks can't be bothered with . Other stuff can be obtained via email to the appropriate channels.

Boeing has locked (password protected) areas for customers, leasors, vendors and repair companies..

Quoting kanban (Reply 73): most of what enthusiasts want is available on the big web, with a little searching, which many lookie -loo "entitled" wonks can't be bothered with . Other stuff can be obtained via email to the appropriate channels.

IMO if this is the sort of thinking going on inside Boeing then they have a serious problem. Every enthusiast knows they are not entitled but what some fail to see is the importance of having a core of informed people out there in the public, to steer public perception when something goes terribly wrong, socially, politically, or technically for Boeing.

I believe Boeing is well aware of this, considering their efforts to portray an environmentally friendly Company both on a local and international scale, and their support of sporting teams, disaster relief, and the needy and so on, and for the same reasons I believe Boeing will fix up their website. Apart from the above, on the "public" side of their image making, Airbus have now got it all over them in terms of goodwill generated by their web site.

Ruscoe

Quoting trex8 (Reply 72):

Not easier than you think. I deal with this all the time and there's no easy way to do it in Boeing. It's extremely expensive on a yearly basis just to host several gigabytes of data for the public.

1: You got to worry about storage on a monthly basis. In Boeing, you can't just run to the store and buy a 1TB hard drive and call it good. Because of policies, redundancy is mandatory which there must be backup and retrieval plans in place and that costs money on a monthly basis.
2: Security - self-explanatory.
3: Server hosting and what type of server it's going to be hosted on whether it's Windows or Linux. Then there's the cost of building a specific size of the server which the cost varies.
4: SLA and where the server is going to be hosted at and who is it going to be supported by ie contractors for example. I'm talking about the server itself, not the application level.
5: Who is going to manage the data and ensure that it is non-proprietary for public consumption especially ensuring that the information doesn't run afoul of EAR and ITAR?
6: Keeping the information up to date if necessary.
7: Monitoring & compliance (separate from security)
8: Access control

The cost goes into tens of thousands of dollars a year just for 1 server to manage that data. There's a reason why they wanted to trim the information from 20,000 pages down to 1,000. One, it costs a lot of money and two, trimming it down helps reduce the cost of managing including the time spent on work.

Due to "One Boeing", cost-savings has been mandatory in every department in Boeing from BCA to BDS to EOT to SSG etc etc. For example, at one point, there were many separate geographical IT divisions where they had independence from each other and came up with their own policies that were different from the other groups. As a result of this, budgets were hard to determine so Boeing about 10 years ago started to streamline everything and consolidate all the IT groups into "One" group.

Boeing's focus first and foremost is their customers whether it's commercial, defense, etc. Everything else has their place which they determine which they had to decide whether things could go or stay. The website was one of those that needed a haulover and brought under better control. It isn't something they just came up in the last year and said "Let's dump the interface". The beta page actually went live years ago behind Boeing and that's where they got their feedbacks from including all their contractors and customers that have access to the Boeing intranet.

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

Not to quibble but yes, the web interface is it's own - it's a landing space for the general public & has a unique look and feel consistent with the brand.

Quoting smokeybandit (Reply 12): Exactly. The website is all about marketing. It isn't meant for aviation geeks.

Yup, have to cater to the average not the fringe though I am a bit surprised since aviation has a fair number of folks that do appreciate the detail, i would hope that they would keep them in mind when doing a redesign.

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 74):

let's just say two things
1) Boeing is a stuffy, conservative company who, while doing much for the people of the world, doesn't believe everything is the publics business. and
2) Pandering to the enthusiast crowd doesn't sell airplanes.. at least not Boeing airplanes..Heck some of the most vocal have said they would never fly a Boeing plane. If you can show me where Airbus' pandering results in direct sales, I'll rethink my position