Originally Posted by
channa
To answer your question, those are over. Anything related to the integration has probably been cleared up. Lost segments, upgrades in the wrong class, having to reprint a BP because you checked in on an old system, etc. is all behind us now.
The "chaos" you describe is the new normal. The CO system was never intended to be used for such a large carrier with such an extensive route network. And as a result, it does not have the same level of refinement. I'm sure it will get better over time as they refine business processes and the system, but the amount of time required to perform transactions and lack of scalability can be mind-boggling if you're used to PMUA's processes and ability to handle things quickly.
So an agent called over the PA for a SHARES help person. So what? If they'd called the Helpdesk over the phone you wouldn't have heard that. Calling the Helpdesk to handle in 30 minutes what a PMUA agent with Fastair used to do in 2 minutes is normal these days.
Originally Posted by
ibuyyoufly
I am really warn out on this subject, but every time it comes up, I feel compelled to convey my opinion. Reason being is, with some broader airline IT knowledge, stronger key leadership, an honest willingness to compare and contrast each of the systems available to them and an autocratic process in making the decision, this could have all been prevented. It is now, the new UA's achilles heel.
Again I will say, the person or people behind the decision to go with SHARES, and all it's off-host programs that have years and years of patches on them to try and assimilate an airline system, are either myopic in their management approach to business, or are just outright over-employed.
I am resolved to the fact this company will either succeed or fail on this decision alone. Like most all other major businesses, the "systems" are the backbone of the operations. Systems that are not properly "sized" for the business, will force a return to quill, ink and papyrus. Oh, and throw in an Abacus.
As I said in another thread, I do not believe having a GUI will solve the many problems. The current code and how the systems function will still be in the background running the programs. A GUI, after a new learning curve for all hands-on employees, will only get them to the same answers we are getting today, but only faster (maybe).
If they are writing new code for all the systems and will be launching that with the GUI, I don't see how they could get that done in any short order. Maybe thats why UAInsider said they would let us know about the FFP by the end of the year or in 12 months, whichever she said.
You're both right, but I think the underlying, enduring problem is the management. It's not just that it did a lousy job preparing for integration or chose to stick with SHARES, as bad as those moves have proven to be. It's a real indifference to customer service and communications, including but not limited to helping its personnel do their jobs as best they can under these trying circumstances.
How else to explain, to pick just one of many examples, why people can't even get straight, consistent explanations from staff on the many problems that crop up at T-24 and how to address them (or at least making it clear if they can't be addressed)? Hence the many reports here of customers being told they must be dealt with at the airport - no, by reservations - no, by Mileage Plus - in an repetitive game of pass the buck. It could well be that SHARES is responsible for the T-24 problems. But management apparently hasn't bothered to explain to staff what is going on and what to tell the public - assuming management even understands and cares to begin with. Or maybe it's conveyed the message to simply tell passengers whatever is easiest.
Now perhaps things will slowly get better in some respects, including when the new GUI comes down the line in a year or whenever. But there inevitably will be new challenges for the airline to deal with and, more fundamentally, new management decisions that reflect it's mixture of arrogance, indifference and perhaps incompetence. The deterioration of the MP program has by no means ended, for instance.