Originally Posted by
quantumslip
lol wut? sounds like someone is in love with the site that is known as .bomb (wonder why) and wishes for it to take over the world. it is definitely not 1996ish (do you even know how sites look like back in 1996?) and has features that UA can not match (have you seen their flight status page? If anything else THAT should be considered 1996ish). Granted there are features on .bomb that aren't on CO, but they're coming.
Not really. I may not care for either all that much, but I look at Continental and yes it looks like it was coded in 1996 and on top of it the back end system is a joke. There's some newish things like drop down menus on the home page, but not elsewhere. Everything else is pretty old style HTML. Very few context sensitive popups.
Neither is a winner, but if I can click one less place, that saves me a fair bit of time. That said the United mobile site is hopeless.
The route map can't tell the difference between multiple airports in one city. I don't think of them as in comparison with each other, since they both have weaknesses, but rather are they better than other sites or even other *G sites? They generally are not, but United's site at least lets me see fare classes in each bucket available.