Some comments at the end on the botched website merger.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/technology/20web.html

I'm seriously questioning that Joe Sharkey has ever tried booking an itinerary like PHL-CDG-HAM-PHL on usairways.bomb

I say not now and certainly not a few weeks ago or he wouldn't have let them off so easily.

BTW, if ... (aka sandcastle) is reading this, try putting together the above itin on your piece or cr@p website (hint - I've been trying for three days. Oh, and it's all US and LH flights I want).

usairways.bomb: :td: :td: :td:

Joe Sharkey: :td: :td: :td:

[QUOTE=lt1GM]I'm seriously questioning that Joe Sharkey has ever tried booking an itinerary like PHL-CDG-HAM-PHL on usairways.bomb

I say not now and certainly not a few weeks ago or he wouldn't have let them off so easily.

BTW, if ... (aka sandcastle) is reading this, try putting together the above itin on your piece or cr@p website (hint - I've been trying for three days. Oh, and it's all US and LH flights I want).

Considering over the past month I've been told on the website that there is no service between BOS and the following cities...

BUF
PHX !!!
PHL !!!!!

:rolleyes:

I don't think I'd even consider trying a multi-leg (let alone international version) on the "new" website.

In fairness to Sharkey, he does address the problems of US's website conversion:

Redesigning a Web site is not without its hazards. Many business travelers were enraged last month when US Airways, which merged last year with America West, introduced a new Web site merging both airlines' sites.

With their technological tangles of fares, schedules and services that can change in an instant, major airline Web sites are complicated. Merging two of them in real time can be a nightmare — and was. US Airways had to contend with thousands of unhappy customers who complained about mangled reservations and other problems.

"Technologically, airline Web sites are as complicated a retail site as you're ever going to see," said Mr. Christ of US Airways, who added that most of the problems had been worked out.

Can someone help with this statement. I thought Mr. Parker stated this was a "LOW COST CARRIER". Mr. Christ is saying this qoute

Functionality, scheduling convenience, ease of use on the road anywhere in the world — these are all goals that will possibly increase revenue from business travelers willing to pay a little more some day for a lot more online service, Mr. Christ said


This seems like two different thoughts or maybe I am missing some thing, just like the Sandcastle Group is missing a common thread. I have learned over my years in business, it is cheaper to keep a customer than it is get a new one.

SCA

There is a difference between "low cost carrier" and "low fare carrier." Maybe US's new business model is to be the world's first "low cost, high fare carrier." :D From what I have seen, US's fares are consistently the highest!!

Actually...this is not a bad business model if you can differentiate your product in a positive way...