I don't think any of us are in a position to judge how long this sort of upgrade should take. Remember that we're not dealing with a modern programming language or interface. SHARES technology is circa 1970's or so. Many of us who work in technology have to deal with legacy, but not that kind of legacy.

Second, CO's track record with changes is extremely poor. Because of how they've built things (with add-on on top of add-on), when they change one thing, they often break another. If they want more time to minimize some of that, I think that's a good thing.

In addition, I don't see why everyone is so down on the communication. Instead of tearing it apart, I think we should be appreciative that they're at least communicating something to us. They may not be addressing everything, but at least they're admitting something is wrong.

Remember that admitting mistakes is likely very challenging for this management team. I see this communication as a step in the right direction. While it may not stem all the bleeding, I'm glad that they are deviating from CO's previous Toyota-style "all is well" communication. That is a huge step forward for them as they begin to grow up.

Some of these changes, like upgrades inside 24 hours, have been CO system limitations for years. The fact that the needs of the business are now trumping technology limitations is a huge mindshift for them. In the past, if it were too difficult to change something in SHARES, IT would push back and that would usually be the end of it. We've seen the business needs take precedence with boarding zones, and now we're seeing it happen with upgrades. That indicates to me, at least, that there may be hope that they will, over time, begin to address some of the other limitations in SHARES that CO thought were too difficult, or never bothered to deal with, for all these years.